Robert Frost beats Takoma Park in Mathcounts

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BOOO FROST GOOOOO TAKOMA

Seriously?

c'mon PP.. you realize there are trolls on this thread who are just bored with their lives and want to stir the pot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I will never understand why people think kids are smarter just because they are from wealthier areas. Obviously prep and opportunities play a huge role. Certain kids from the the west side may have better scores at this snapshot in time, but that does not mean they are more intelligent. And certainly a math competition doesn't tell the whole story.

That's the fundamental flaw here. Reality is by every possible metric TPMS admissions are substantially more rigorous since the advent of universal screening. There are 10x the number of applicants nowadays, and not just a few kids whose parents nominated them for the program. Nevertheless, some bitter parents want to disparage these kids largely because admissions no longer favors their offspring. It's really that simple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will never understand why people think kids are smarter just because they are from wealthier areas. Obviously prep and opportunities play a huge role. Certain kids from the the west side may have better scores at this snapshot in time, but that does not mean they are more intelligent. And certainly a math competition doesn't tell the whole story.

That's the fundamental flaw here. Reality is by every possible metric TPMS admissions are substantially more rigorous since the advent of universal screening. There are 10x the number of applicants nowadays, and not just a few kids whose parents nominated them for the program. Nevertheless, some bitter parents want to disparage these kids largely because admissions no longer favors their offspring. It's really that simple.

Why did MCPS decide to use "peer cohort"? The reality is that without the peer cohort criteria, the needle would not have moved much. Absolutely NO ONE opposes universal screening. No one. So, let's put that one to rest, shall we?

Now answer why MCPS used peer cohort for admissions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will never understand why people think kids are smarter just because they are from wealthier areas. Obviously prep and opportunities play a huge role. Certain kids from the the west side may have better scores at this snapshot in time, but that does not mean they are more intelligent. And certainly a math competition doesn't tell the whole story.

That's the fundamental flaw here. Reality is by every possible metric TPMS admissions are substantially more rigorous since the advent of universal screening. There are 10x the number of applicants nowadays, and not just a few kids whose parents nominated them for the program. Nevertheless, some bitter parents want to disparage these kids largely because admissions no longer favors their offspring. It's really that simple.

You nailed it. They scream bloody murder about peer cohort criteria too even though that only compensates for the "good" and "bad" schools which they'll normally be the first to tell you about too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will never understand why people think kids are smarter just because they are from wealthier areas. Obviously prep and opportunities play a huge role. Certain kids from the the west side may have better scores at this snapshot in time, but that does not mean they are more intelligent. And certainly a math competition doesn't tell the whole story.

That's the fundamental flaw here. Reality is by every possible metric TPMS admissions are substantially more rigorous since the advent of universal screening. There are 10x the number of applicants nowadays, and not just a few kids whose parents nominated them for the program. Nevertheless, some bitter parents want to disparage these kids largely because admissions no longer favors their offspring. It's really that simple.

Why did MCPS decide to use "peer cohort"? The reality is that without the peer cohort criteria, the needle would not have moved much. Absolutely NO ONE opposes universal screening. No one. So, let's put that one to rest, shall we?

Now answer why MCPS used peer cohort for admissions?

As you know, there are "good" schools and "bad" schools. The cohort criteria is one way to compensate for this. Another is updating the school boundaries to be less segregated, but I'm pretty sure you're against that too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will never understand why people think kids are smarter just because they are from wealthier areas. Obviously prep and opportunities play a huge role. Certain kids from the the west side may have better scores at this snapshot in time, but that does not mean they are more intelligent. And certainly a math competition doesn't tell the whole story.

That's the fundamental flaw here. Reality is by every possible metric TPMS admissions are substantially more rigorous since the advent of universal screening. There are 10x the number of applicants nowadays, and not just a few kids whose parents nominated them for the program. Nevertheless, some bitter parents want to disparage these kids largely because admissions no longer favors their offspring. It's really that simple.

Yes, Universal screening changed everything. They went from 800 applicants which were students whose parents knew to apply to the program to screening over 5000 promising students for the program. As a result admissions are far more competitive and this upsets a lot of people who were used to getting in easily.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will never understand why people think kids are smarter just because they are from wealthier areas. Obviously prep and opportunities play a huge role. Certain kids from the the west side may have better scores at this snapshot in time, but that does not mean they are more intelligent. And certainly a math competition doesn't tell the whole story.

That's the fundamental flaw here. Reality is by every possible metric TPMS admissions are substantially more rigorous since the advent of universal screening. There are 10x the number of applicants nowadays, and not just a few kids whose parents nominated them for the program. Nevertheless, some bitter parents want to disparage these kids largely because admissions no longer favors their offspring. It's really that simple.

Yes, Universal screening changed everything. They went from 800 applicants which were students whose parents knew to apply to the program to screening over 5000 promising students for the program. As a result admissions are far more competitive and this upsets a lot of people who were used to getting in easily.

omg... yes, let's completely ignore the "peer cohort" criteria. That's what people are upset about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will never understand why people think kids are smarter just because they are from wealthier areas. Obviously prep and opportunities play a huge role. Certain kids from the the west side may have better scores at this snapshot in time, but that does not mean they are more intelligent. And certainly a math competition doesn't tell the whole story.

That's the fundamental flaw here. Reality is by every possible metric TPMS admissions are substantially more rigorous since the advent of universal screening. There are 10x the number of applicants nowadays, and not just a few kids whose parents nominated them for the program. Nevertheless, some bitter parents want to disparage these kids largely because admissions no longer favors their offspring. It's really that simple.

Yes, Universal screening changed everything. They went from 800 applicants which were students whose parents knew to apply to the program to screening over 5000 promising students for the program. As a result admissions are far more competitive and this upsets a lot of people who were used to getting in easily.

Exactly!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will never understand why people think kids are smarter just because they are from wealthier areas. Obviously prep and opportunities play a huge role. Certain kids from the the west side may have better scores at this snapshot in time, but that does not mean they are more intelligent. And certainly a math competition doesn't tell the whole story.

That's the fundamental flaw here. Reality is by every possible metric TPMS admissions are substantially more rigorous since the advent of universal screening. There are 10x the number of applicants nowadays, and not just a few kids whose parents nominated them for the program. Nevertheless, some bitter parents want to disparage these kids largely because admissions no longer favors their offspring. It's really that simple.

Why did MCPS decide to use "peer cohort"? The reality is that without the peer cohort criteria, the needle would not have moved much. Absolutely NO ONE opposes universal screening. No one. So, let's put that one to rest, shall we?

Now answer why MCPS used peer cohort for admissions?

Do you truly not understand? The greatest predictor of a child's academic success/achievement is family wealth and parental education level, which are closely intertwined today. It's not a shock that the western part of the county has a lot of wealth and high-achieving students with highly educated parents. And that in the eastern part of the county, often the opposite is true. (I'll leave out the northern part of the county because this thread apparently is focused on Frost v. TPMS.) But that doesn't mean that the children and their parents in less affluent areas of the county don't value education, aren't as bright or don't have as much potential, and I'm fine with the county using the cohort criteria to find the most promising of those students even if - by test scores - they may not be as "qualified" if that's the criteria you want to use. Otherwise, you have a program that benefits primarily the well-off, well-educated and well-informed. Making this whole situation more unfortunate is that in MoCo at least, different levels of SES correlate with different racial backgrounds. As the Frost Mathcounts result show, kids from strong home schools have, if they aren't at a magnet program, strong home schools to go back to. That's not the case everywhere. I understand the "only the highest scorers should get in" perspective, but anyone who believes that's the best/only way because it finds the smartest kids (v. the smartest kids who have benefited the most from their family background) is kidding themselves. And I say that as a parent of a kid who would do great under that approach.

I do wish the county had some way of being more transparent about who was selected for the program or, more pertinent, who actually ends up attending. My guess is that the make-up is far less different than what the detractors would argue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will never understand why people think kids are smarter just because they are from wealthier areas. Obviously prep and opportunities play a huge role. Certain kids from the the west side may have better scores at this snapshot in time, but that does not mean they are more intelligent. And certainly a math competition doesn't tell the whole story.

That's the fundamental flaw here. Reality is by every possible metric TPMS admissions are substantially more rigorous since the advent of universal screening. There are 10x the number of applicants nowadays, and not just a few kids whose parents nominated them for the program. Nevertheless, some bitter parents want to disparage these kids largely because admissions no longer favors their offspring. It's really that simple.

Yes, Universal screening changed everything. They went from 800 applicants which were students whose parents knew to apply to the program to screening over 5000 promising students for the program. As a result admissions are far more competitive and this upsets a lot of people who were used to getting in easily.

omg... yes, let's completely ignore the "peer cohort" criteria. That's what people are upset about.

Why the "peer cohort criteria"? Because it is a PUBLIC school system that is supposed to benefit ALL students, so when the system looks at ALL students and finds that some do not have peer cohort, they group those students together in a magnet program. The students who already have a peer cohort do not have to travel to get this advantage and can be grouped in their local school.

The bigger problem is getting the local schools (and maybe parents) in some parts of the county to recognize who really is part of that peer cohort. If the school decides to implement the enriched courses with all, they take away the peer cohort. If parents don't accept that there may be kids who are stronger in some areas than their special snowflakes and fight to have them be a part of a group, even if their scores don't meet the criteria, that changes the peer cohort.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will never understand why people think kids are smarter just because they are from wealthier areas. Obviously prep and opportunities play a huge role. Certain kids from the the west side may have better scores at this snapshot in time, but that does not mean they are more intelligent. And certainly a math competition doesn't tell the whole story.

That's the fundamental flaw here. Reality is by every possible metric TPMS admissions are substantially more rigorous since the advent of universal screening. There are 10x the number of applicants nowadays, and not just a few kids whose parents nominated them for the program. Nevertheless, some bitter parents want to disparage these kids largely because admissions no longer favors their offspring. It's really that simple.

Yes, Universal screening changed everything. They went from 800 applicants which were students whose parents knew to apply to the program to screening over 5000 promising students for the program. As a result admissions are far more competitive and this upsets a lot of people who were used to getting in easily.

omg... yes, let's completely ignore the "peer cohort" criteria. That's what people are upset about.

Why the "peer cohort criteria"? Because it is a PUBLIC school system that is supposed to benefit ALL students, so when the system looks at ALL students and finds that some do not have peer cohort, they group those students together in a magnet program. The students who already have a peer cohort do not have to travel to get this advantage and can be grouped in their local school.

The bigger problem is getting the local schools (and maybe parents) in some parts of the county to recognize who really is part of that peer cohort. If the school decides to implement the enriched courses with all, they take away the peer cohort. If parents don't accept that there may be kids who are stronger in some areas than their special snowflakes and fight to have them be a part of a group, even if their scores don't meet the criteria, that changes the peer cohort.

Indeed.. how is it benefiting ALL students when they select one kid over another simply because of the home school they go to?

And if the peer cohort criteria is so great, why have they not implemented it for HS magnets?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will never understand why people think kids are smarter just because they are from wealthier areas. Obviously prep and opportunities play a huge role. Certain kids from the the west side may have better scores at this snapshot in time, but that does not mean they are more intelligent. And certainly a math competition doesn't tell the whole story.

That's the fundamental flaw here. Reality is by every possible metric TPMS admissions are substantially more rigorous since the advent of universal screening. There are 10x the number of applicants nowadays, and not just a few kids whose parents nominated them for the program. Nevertheless, some bitter parents want to disparage these kids largely because admissions no longer favors their offspring. It's really that simple.

Why did MCPS decide to use "peer cohort"? The reality is that without the peer cohort criteria, the needle would not have moved much. Absolutely NO ONE opposes universal screening. No one. So, let's put that one to rest, shall we?

Now answer why MCPS used peer cohort for admissions?

Do you truly not understand? The greatest predictor of a child's academic success/achievement is family wealth and parental education level, which are closely intertwined today. It's not a shock that the western part of the county has a lot of wealth and high-achieving students with highly educated parents. And that in the eastern part of the county, often the opposite is true. (I'll leave out the northern part of the county because this thread apparently is focused on Frost v. TPMS.) But that doesn't mean that the children and their parents in less affluent areas of the county don't value education, aren't as bright or don't have as much potential, and I'm fine with the county using the cohort criteria to find the most promising of those students even if - by test scores - they may not be as "qualified" if that's the criteria you want to use. Otherwise, you have a program that benefits primarily the well-off, well-educated and well-informed. Making this whole situation more unfortunate is that in MoCo at least, different levels of SES correlate with different racial backgrounds. As the Frost Mathcounts result show, kids from strong home schools have, if they aren't at a magnet program, strong home schools to go back to. That's not the case everywhere. I understand the "only the highest scorers should get in" perspective, but anyone who believes that's the best/only way because it finds the smartest kids (v. the smartest kids who have benefited the most from their family background) is kidding themselves. And I say that as a parent of a kid who would do great under that approach.

I do wish the county had some way of being more transparent about who was selected for the program or, more pertinent, who actually ends up attending. My guess is that the make-up is far less different than what the detractors would argue.

I probably understand what it means to grow up in poverty with parents who can't even speak English and the challenges faced by someone like this more than you.. because that was me.

Do you not understand that not everyone who lives in the western part of the county are super educated parents with money, but parents who scrimp and save to hire tutors and what not so that their kids can get into magnets? That's not us, but I know people do that.

Sure, use peer cohort criteria, but the people who are pretending that using this criteria opened the door to more high caliber students are deluding themselves, and it's bringing the magnet programs down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will never understand why people think kids are smarter just because they are from wealthier areas. Obviously prep and opportunities play a huge role. Certain kids from the the west side may have better scores at this snapshot in time, but that does not mean they are more intelligent. And certainly a math competition doesn't tell the whole story.

That's the fundamental flaw here. Reality is by every possible metric TPMS admissions are substantially more rigorous since the advent of universal screening. There are 10x the number of applicants nowadays, and not just a few kids whose parents nominated them for the program. Nevertheless, some bitter parents want to disparage these kids largely because admissions no longer favors their offspring. It's really that simple.

Why did MCPS decide to use "peer cohort"? The reality is that without the peer cohort criteria, the needle would not have moved much. Absolutely NO ONE opposes universal screening. No one. So, let's put that one to rest, shall we?

Now answer why MCPS used peer cohort for admissions?

Do you truly not understand? The greatest predictor of a child's academic success/achievement is family wealth and parental education level, which are closely intertwined today. It's not a shock that the western part of the county has a lot of wealth and high-achieving students with highly educated parents. And that in the eastern part of the county, often the opposite is true. (I'll leave out the northern part of the county because this thread apparently is focused on Frost v. TPMS.) But that doesn't mean that the children and their parents in less affluent areas of the county don't value education, aren't as bright or don't have as much potential, and I'm fine with the county using the cohort criteria to find the most promising of those students even if - by test scores - they may not be as "qualified" if that's the criteria you want to use. Otherwise, you have a program that benefits primarily the well-off, well-educated and well-informed. Making this whole situation more unfortunate is that in MoCo at least, different levels of SES correlate with different racial backgrounds. As the Frost Mathcounts result show, kids from strong home schools have, if they aren't at a magnet program, strong home schools to go back to. That's not the case everywhere. I understand the "only the highest scorers should get in" perspective, but anyone who believes that's the best/only way because it finds the smartest kids (v. the smartest kids who have benefited the most from their family background) is kidding themselves. And I say that as a parent of a kid who would do great under that approach.

I do wish the county had some way of being more transparent about who was selected for the program or, more pertinent, who actually ends up attending. My guess is that the make-up is far less different than what the detractors would argue.

I probably understand what it means to grow up in poverty with parents who can't even speak English and the challenges faced by someone like this more than you.. because that was me.

Do you not understand that not everyone who lives in the western part of the county are super educated parents with money, but parents who scrimp and save to hire tutors and what not so that their kids can get into magnets? That's not us, but I know people do that.

Sure, use peer cohort criteria, but the people who are pretending that using this criteria opened the door to more high caliber students are deluding themselves, and it's bringing the magnet programs down.

You are proving my point. It's not a high caliber student, it's a well prepped student. I get it; it's a zero-sum game, and some can't stand that they are on the losing end of the criteria. See NYC selective high schools.

[Anonymous]

Another Frost parent here. I think instead of spending our energy in this kind of somewhat narrow-minded discussions, we should look at the bigger picture. We should brainstorm how to make US primary education system competitive internationally. To maintain our global economic leadership, we should definitely nurture our "superstars" while lifting the standard of "general" education. These can be achieved simultaneously, we don't have to sacrifice one for the other. Despite its very big size, MCPS is still doing very well. We should discuss how to make it even better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will never understand why people think kids are smarter just because they are from wealthier areas. Obviously prep and opportunities play a huge role. Certain kids from the the west side may have better scores at this snapshot in time, but that does not mean they are more intelligent. And certainly a math competition doesn't tell the whole story.

That's the fundamental flaw here. Reality is by every possible metric TPMS admissions are substantially more rigorous since the advent of universal screening. There are 10x the number of applicants nowadays, and not just a few kids whose parents nominated them for the program. Nevertheless, some bitter parents want to disparage these kids largely because admissions no longer favors their offspring. It's really that simple.

Yes, Universal screening changed everything. They went from 800 applicants which were students whose parents knew to apply to the program to screening over 5000 promising students for the program. As a result admissions are far more competitive and this upsets a lot of people who were used to getting in easily.

omg... yes, let's completely ignore the "peer cohort" criteria. That's what people are upset about.

NP with a basic question: How does the "peer cohort" work for the kids in the W school districts? All of them have a strong peer cohort, and yet some of them were admitted to the magnets. Is there are percentage system, so that 1/3 of the admitted students come from high FARMS schools, 1/3 from mid, and 1/3 from low FARMS? I'd also be curious to know what percentage of the kids admitted from the wealthy schools end up accepting the offer. I'd guess that fewer of the kids from those areas prep for the test because fewer of their families even knew you could get into a magnet MS without applying, though whether that means they are more qualified than the kids who prepped under the old system I have no clue.