Magnet MS results - Takoma Park & Eastern - anyone heard today?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In years past, what percentage of students from Cold Spring would be admitted to Takoma or Eastern magnets?

30-50% per cent depending on the year. Now 3%.

In years past, how many MCPS students applied to Takoma or Eastern. How many applied this year?

Do you really think because mcps cast a wider net that it caught so many more qualified students that Cold Spring acceptance rate dropped that drastically? We are talking about going from anywhere 17 kids- 27 kids down to a measly couple. My kid is at Cold Spring now and he comes from a very good home elementary school. His cohorts at the CES is very strong, so it's quite shocking to me to see such a drastic and abrupt shift.

The above poster is obviously ignorant asking "how many applied this year?"

[Anonymous]

Maybe the Dr Li factor negatively affected Cold Spring acceptance?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe the Dr Li factor negatively affected Cold Spring acceptance?

Seems likely. New test, no benefit from training for the math problems on the old one?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In years past, what percentage of students from Cold Spring would be admitted to Takoma or Eastern magnets?

30-50% per cent depending on the year. Now 3%.

In years past, how many MCPS students applied to Takoma or Eastern. How many applied this year?

Do you really think because mcps cast a wider net that it caught so many more qualified students that Cold Spring acceptance rate dropped that drastically? We are talking about going from anywhere 17 kids- 27 kids down to a measly couple. My kid is at Cold Spring now and he comes from a very good home elementary school. His cohorts at the CES is very strong, so it's quite shocking to me to see such a drastic and abrupt shift.

The above poster is obviously ignorant asking "how many applied this year?"

Forgive my phrasing. Did the Cold Spring students have to compete against a larger number of other students this year? Was this year's test different from the test Cold Spring parents traditionally prepare their children for?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe the Dr Li factor negatively affected Cold Spring acceptance?

Seems likely. New test, no benefit from training for the math problems on the old one?

My Cold Spring kid was a 99%er on this test as usual, just like many of the other rejected kids listed above. 150+ Map scores in both areas, college-level lexile. Next theory?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe the Dr Li factor negatively affected Cold Spring acceptance?

Seems likely. New test, no benefit from training for the math problems on the old one?

My Cold Spring kid was a 99%er on this test as usual, just like many of the other rejected kids listed above. 150+ Map scores in both areas, college-level lexile. Next theory?

Did you use Dr. Li?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In years past, what percentage of students from Cold Spring would be admitted to Takoma or Eastern magnets?

30-50% per cent depending on the year. Now 3%.

If 50% were to get in, that would mean 25 kids (if there are two 5th grade classes at Cold Spring) or even more (if there are three sections). They only admit 100, and it is simply not accurate that a third to half of the class at TPMS came from Cold Spring. (DC finished at TPMS last year and is not at Blair).

My DD is at Takoma now & says at least 25% of her magnet class seems to be from Cold Spring. Account for a little teen exaggeration, it's still a big chunk. 2 coming from the program is unheard of.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe the Dr Li factor negatively affected Cold Spring acceptance?

Seems likely. New test, no benefit from training for the math problems on the old one?

My Cold Spring kid was a 99%er on this test as usual, just like many of the other rejected kids listed above. 150+ Map scores in both areas, college-level lexile. Next theory?

Did you use Dr. Li?

No.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe the Dr Li factor negatively affected Cold Spring acceptance?

Seems likely. New test, no benefit from training for the math problems on the old one?

My Cold Spring kid was a 99%er on this test as usual, just like many of the other rejected kids listed above. 150+ Map scores in both areas, college-level lexile. Next theory?

As a previous PP has said, 99% represents a standard age score of 135-160. You'll have to call MCPS to find out if the actual standard age score was more on the 135 end or more on the 160 end. And the MAP scores of 150+ are nothing outstanding.

I'm sorry that you're disappointed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or the teacher was genuinely angry on behalf of her kids and frustrated by the fact that she can count on very few of the kids she dedicates countless hours to getting into MS magnets from now on. She's human for heaven's sakes.

Of course, feeling that way would be completely understandable. Talking that way to students would not be appropriate. Signed, a teacher

Yup. Seriously unprofessional and inappropriate, if true. Signed, not a teacher

[Anonymous]

Another sour apple?? Dr.Li or no Dr.Li, you just don't want to believe there are kids outsmarter yours, do you?

[Anonymous]

I do not get the whole cohort thing. Cohort is something, but it is not everything & is certainly not curriculum. The curriculum at the MSMs is really different. Far more challenging and stimulating than even high performing non mag equivalents.

When my kids was at Piney Branch, there was a string cohort, but she also had kids who way underperformed as well. Teachers cannot create and manage a depth chart of curricula for such a span of learning levels. The cohort helps, but the curriculum is needed to. When she got into Pine Crest (this goes for both my kids), the curriculum made all the difference. Now both at TPMS -- cohort in mag and non mag is good and stimulating, but it's the mad curriculum that makes the difference.

I do not get this system. The MCPS study showed that test based admission was biased against minorities & FARMs, but what data do they have now besides test (& geography)? They ditched the essays, the activities, the awards, the teacher recs. The report talks about additional factors towards success, & they just dismissed all of them. My kids did well on the tests, but they worked exceptionally hard on their essays. And they were very engaged and had strong teacher recs. And, they had national level extra-curriculars (which shows dedication & passion). They are doing very well in magnet & oldest accepted to 5 HS app programs, including most competitive. Clearly study and empirical evidence shows that it needs to be more than test + geography, Why, then, would they just scale back to test? Makes no sense. So glad we got through before this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe the Dr Li factor negatively affected Cold Spring acceptance?

Seems likely. New test, no benefit from training for the math problems on the old one?

My Cold Spring kid was a 99%er on this test as usual, just like many of the other rejected kids listed above. 150+ Map scores in both areas, college-level lexile. Next theory?

Did you use Dr. Li?

No.

You should sue, like that Russian guy tried to, back in 2013. See what happens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I do not get this system. The MCPS study showed that test based admission was biased against minorities & FARMs, but what data do they have now besides test (& geography)? They ditched the essays, the activities, the awards, the teacher recs. The report talks about additional factors towards success, & they just dismissed all of them. My kids did well on the tests, but they worked exceptionally hard on their essays. And they were very engaged and had strong teacher recs. And, they had national level extra-curriculars (which shows dedication & passion). They are doing very well in magnet & oldest accepted to 5 HS app programs, including most competitive. Clearly study and empirical evidence shows that it needs to be more than test + geography, Why, then, would they just scale back to test? Makes no sense. So glad we got through before this.

They didn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I do not get the whole cohort thing. Cohort is something, but it is not everything & is certainly not curriculum. The curriculum at the MSMs is really different. Far more challenging and stimulating than even high performing non mag equivalents.

When my kids was at Piney Branch, there was a string cohort, but she also had kids who way underperformed as well. Teachers cannot create and manage a depth chart of curricula for such a span of learning levels. The cohort helps, but the curriculum is needed to. When she got into Pine Crest (this goes for both my kids), the curriculum made all the difference. Now both at TPMS -- cohort in mag and non mag is good and stimulating, but it's the mad curriculum that makes the difference.

I do not get this system. The MCPS study showed that test based admission was biased against minorities & FARMs, but what data do they have now besides test (& geography)? They ditched the essays, the activities, the awards, the teacher recs. The report talks about additional factors towards success, & they just dismissed all of them. My kids did well on the tests, but they worked exceptionally hard on their essays. And they were very engaged and had strong teacher recs. And, they had national level extra-curriculars (which shows dedication & passion). They are doing very well in magnet & oldest accepted to 5 HS app programs, including most competitive. Clearly study and empirical evidence shows that it needs to be more than test + geography, Why, then, would they just scale back to test? Makes no sense. So glad we got through before this.

+1