Another article about the magnet programs in Washington Post

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What should it be based on then no snark intended

Not PP, but if they were to factor in any demographics it should be strictly FARMs so that "disadvantaged" kids from all groups can benefit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What should it be based on then no snark intended

Not PP, but if they were to factor in any demographics it should be strictly FARMs so that "disadvantaged" kids from all groups can benefit.

I would agree with that. However, I don't agree that they should lower the bar for FARMS kids. They need extra support, yes, but they need to be measured with the same yard stick as everyone else. Otherwise, to the child, you are telling them that they aren't as smart as the other kids, so they don't need to do as well. Not a good message.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What should it be based on then no snark intended

Not PP, but if they were to factor in any demographics it should be strictly FARMs so that "disadvantaged" kids from all groups can benefit.

I would agree with that. However, I don't agree that they should lower the bar for FARMS kids. They need extra support, yes, but they need to be measured with the same yard stick as everyone else. Otherwise, to the child, you are telling them that they aren't as smart as the other kids, so they don't need to do as well. Not a good message.

I agree but if it does get pushed then I would hold my nose support the above...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What should it be based on then no snark intended

Not PP, but if they were to factor in any demographics it should be strictly FARMs so that "disadvantaged" kids from all groups can benefit.

I would agree with that. However, I don't agree that they should lower the bar for FARMS kids. They need extra support, yes, but they need to be measured with the same yard stick as everyone else. Otherwise, to the child, you are telling them that they aren't as smart as the other kids, so they don't need to do as well. Not a good message.

I agree but if it does get pushed then I would hold my nose support the above...

Except some who are less prepared are going to struggle and that is not good for their self esteem either. There is some recent research on the downside of affirmative action admits to elite schools, basically they drop out hard class and get degrees that are not as in demand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What should it be based on then no snark intended

Not PP, but if they were to factor in any demographics it should be strictly FARMs so that "disadvantaged" kids from all groups can benefit.

I would agree with that. However, I don't agree that they should lower the bar for FARMS kids. They need extra support, yes, but they need to be measured with the same yard stick as everyone else. Otherwise, to the child, you are telling them that they aren't as smart as the other kids, so they don't need to do as well. Not a good message.

I agree but if it does get pushed then I would hold my nose support the above...

Except some who are less prepared are going to struggle and that is not good for their self esteem either. There is some recent research on the downside of affirmative action admits to elite schools, basically they drop out hard class and get degrees that are not as in demand.

The newest research suggests that this "mismatch theory" is a myth. You can read more here: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/06/26/new-research-mismatch-released-day-after-justice-thomas-cites-theory-criticize

But on Tuesday, two researchers released a new study on mismatch that offered a very different take from that of Justice Thomas and other critics of affirmative action. These researchers -- using an unusual study pool of University of California students -- argue that mismatch is real, but that the supposedly mismatched students do quite well (and benefit from being at more competitive institutions). Further they argue that most of those who could be said to be mismatch students aren't black and Latino students, but white and Asian students -- and that the generally positive impacts of being mismatched apply to those of all racial and ethnic groups.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What should it be based on then no snark intended

Not PP, but if they were to factor in any demographics it should be strictly FARMs so that "disadvantaged" kids from all groups can benefit.

I would agree with that. However, I don't agree that they should lower the bar for FARMS kids. They need extra support, yes, but they need to be measured with the same yard stick as everyone else. Otherwise, to the child, you are telling them that they aren't as smart as the other kids, so they don't need to do as well. Not a good message.

I agree but if it does get pushed then I would hold my nose support the above...

Except some who are less prepared are going to struggle and that is not good for their self esteem either. There is some recent research on the downside of affirmative action admits to elite schools, basically they drop out hard class and get degrees that are not as in demand.

I think you got lost... The "above" that I would support is FARMS not AA based on group affiliation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Except some who are less prepared are going to struggle and that is not good for their self esteem either. There is some recent research on the downside of affirmative action admits to elite schools, basically they drop out hard class and get degrees that are not as in demand.

More on the extreme dubiousness of so-called mismatch theory research:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/12/10/where-justice-scalias-got-the-idea-that-african-americans-might-be-better-off-at-slower-track-universities/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I would agree with that. However, I don't agree that they should lower the bar for FARMS kids. They need extra support, yes, but they need to be measured with the same yard stick as everyone else. Otherwise, to the child, you are telling them that they aren't as smart as the other kids, so they don't need to do as well. Not a good message.

Sure, but which yard stick are we going to use?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not trying to be difficult

The privates and charters that can handle low SES kids do several things

1. Pay teachers much less while having greater demands on teachers (home visits, office hours etc)
2. Have the students in class and in certain subjects for longer periods of time (support this)
3. Are able to get rid of highly problematic children from a discipline and special education lens
4.

Fact is there isn't a model that can take this many kids and be successful

KIPP and other charters are barely making a dent in this population and there aren't enough teachers who are willing to work so hard for so little pay

You think teacher turnover is bad in public schools

My personal solution is some form of busing. All studies show that once your cross around 40% high needs/farms/etc the whole school suffers.

Ironically the magnets are doing the exact opposite. Taking the best and brightest out of their neighborhood schools leaves a terrible school environment for the kids still there.

This is an exaggeration, but be that as it may, are you suggesting that parents of highly gifted students sacrifice their kids' educational and emotional well-being for the good of the local school community?

This is not just an exaggeration, it's incorrect. The report studied this and found the effect on home schools to be insignificant. But don't let the facts get in the way....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What should it be based on then no snark intended

Not PP, but if they were to factor in any demographics it should be strictly FARMs so that "disadvantaged" kids from all groups can benefit.

I would agree with that. However, I don't agree that they should lower the bar for FARMS kids. They need extra support, yes, but they need to be measured with the same yard stick as everyone else. Otherwise, to the child, you are telling them that they aren't as smart as the other kids, so they don't need to do as well. Not a good message.

I agree but if it does get pushed then I would hold my nose support the above...

Except some who are less prepared are going to struggle and that is not good for their self esteem either. There is some recent research on the downside of affirmative action admits to elite schools, basically they drop out hard class and get degrees that are not as in demand.

The newest research suggests that this "mismatch theory" is a myth. You can read more here: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/06/26/new-research-mismatch-released-day-after-justice-thomas-cites-theory-criticize

But on Tuesday, two researchers released a new study on mismatch that offered a very different take from that of Justice Thomas and other critics of affirmative action. These researchers -- using an unusual study pool of University of California students -- argue that mismatch is real, but that the supposedly mismatched students do quite well (and benefit from being at more competitive institutions). Further they argue that most of those who could be said to be mismatch students aren't black and Latino students, but white and Asian students -- and that the generally positive impacts of being mismatched apply to those of all racial and ethnic groups.

That's not a very convincing study. The kids they turned away were borderline students; many affirmative action students wouldn't be close to borderline w/o the boost. I've read the miss-match paper and looked at the data; it's very, very convincing. There are going to be people out there that will try to chip away at it, but I've yet to read any counter evidence that come anywhere close to being as convincing as the original evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I would agree with that. However, I don't agree that they should lower the bar for FARMS kids. They need extra support, yes, but they need to be measured with the same yard stick as everyone else. Otherwise, to the child, you are telling them that they aren't as smart as the other kids, so they don't need to do as well. Not a good message.

Sure, but which yard stick are we going to use?

Doesn't matter. Just use the same one for *all* kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

That's not a very convincing study. The kids they turned away were borderline students; many affirmative action students wouldn't be close to borderline w/o the boost. I've read the miss-match paper and looked at the data; it's very, very convincing. There are going to be people out there that will try to chip away at it, but I've yet to read any counter evidence that come anywhere close to being as convincing as the original evidence.

Well, yes, if you believe that all of the counter evidence is unconvincing, then of course you won't find any of the counter evidence as convincing as the original evidence.

Nonetheless, the counter evidence exists, and there is plenty of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I would agree with that. However, I don't agree that they should lower the bar for FARMS kids. They need extra support, yes, but they need to be measured with the same yard stick as everyone else. Otherwise, to the child, you are telling them that they aren't as smart as the other kids, so they don't need to do as well. Not a good message.

Sure, but which yard stick are we going to use?

Doesn't matter. Just use the same one for *all* kids.

Of course it matters. If it didn't matter, we could use time and date of birth as a yardstick (for example, admit everybody who was born between 6 am and 11:59 am on May 23), or BMI (for example, admit everybody with a certain BMI calculated to 3 decimal places). The results you get depend on the yardstick you use.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/maryland-school-district-examines-racial-disparities-in-its-gifted-programs/2016/03/21/1caacdf6-eb88-11e5-b0fd-073d5930a7b7_story.html

How is it that people don't know about these programs? I got something in the mail and ConnectEd multiple calls / emails.

I had a child at an HGC several years back. I would have heard about the process through ConnectEd, etc, but the real reason we applied was we knew a neighbor who's kid had attended. Similarly I know people who've applied since in no small part because they spoke with us. The process is bizarre and it's hard to navigate without some first hand experience for encouragement. ConnectEd is over used and half of it sounds like spam, it's not surprising that families don't change the course of their kid's education based on a robo call. I don't have any suggestions for improving the system, but I have no trouble believing there's inertia that keeps the same groups of people applying/not applying.

DC does an excellent job of informing residents of the DC lottery. I have seen bus advertisements, television ads, heard radio ads, community events, as well as online ads. Why does Moco rely one a robo call to alert residents of the presence of the HGC application process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/maryland-school-district-examines-racial-disparities-in-its-gifted-programs/2016/03/21/1caacdf6-eb88-11e5-b0fd-073d5930a7b7_story.html

How is it that people don't know about these programs? I got something in the mail and ConnectEd multiple calls / emails.

I had a child at an HGC several years back. I would have heard about the process through ConnectEd, etc, but the real reason we applied was we knew a neighbor who's kid had attended. Similarly I know people who've applied since in no small part because they spoke with us. The process is bizarre and it's hard to navigate without some first hand experience for encouragement. ConnectEd is over used and half of it sounds like spam, it's not surprising that families don't change the course of their kid's education based on a robo call. I don't have any suggestions for improving the system, but I have no trouble believing there's inertia that keeps the same groups of people applying/not applying.

DC does an excellent job of informing residents of the DC lottery. I have seen bus advertisements, television ads, heard radio ads, community events, as well as online ads. Why does Moco rely one a robo call to alert residents of the presence of the HGC application process.

I think the people who are overlooking the FARMS program and the ESOL program should be in charge of telling the population they serve about the magnet opportunities, the application process, the tutoring services (George B Thomas Saturday School), and provide guidance to them. MCPS should also advertize often through multiple channels. This should be part of the BTSN for the prospective parents.