Did the Takoma MS magnet got MORE white this year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So does MCPS educate children from educated families well or not?

Sure. The schools in the western/wealthy/white clusters are great schools. Just ask DCUM.

It's hard to make a data-driven argument here. There's no data on outcomes for kids from "educated families." The best we have is racial demographics, so people use performance by white and Asian kids as a proxy for affluence and parent education levels. Going by that, the data look good -- white and Asian kids do relatively well on state tests and AP exams. Of course, we know the reality is more complicated than that, but the numbers look fine.

standardized test scores does not equate to being educated well nor to potential in class.

OK. Then how do you know that Orinda public schools educate children from educated families well? Or any other school/school district?

Also, did you really just post that on a thread that's going on at great length about standardized test scores as the only proper and just way to determine who is smart enough to deserve admission to magnet schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any other U.S. public school systems doing better than MCPS that we can study and suggest improvements to Central Office?

MA.

Another example of town-based districts that amplify the impact of essentially segregated towns. Show me a MA school district with the demographics of MCPS that is performing better than MCPS.

I'm not saying MCPS isn't at fault -- they NEVER should have tried to implement their own curriculum -- but you can't compare the district's performance to a state that has town-based districts.

What does having a good challenging curriculum have to do with race? Are you saying that MCPS can't have a good curriculum that challenges all of its students because of the poor brown/black kids?

There is no place in the US that doesn't have an achievement gap. A curriculum is not going to change that, and neither is throwing more money at the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So does MCPS educate children from educated families well or not?

Sure. The schools in the western/wealthy/white clusters are great schools. Just ask DCUM.

It's hard to make a data-driven argument here. There's no data on outcomes for kids from "educated families." The best we have is racial demographics, so people use performance by white and Asian kids as a proxy for affluence and parent education levels. Going by that, the data look good -- white and Asian kids do relatively well on state tests and AP exams. Of course, we know the reality is more complicated than that, but the numbers look fine.

standardized test scores does not equate to being educated well nor to potential in class.

OK. Then how do you know that Orinda public schools educate children from educated families well? Or any other school/school district?

Also, did you really just post that on a thread that's going on at great length about standardized test scores as the only proper and just way to determine who is smart enough to deserve admission to magnet schools?

This.

Also, to the person who posted about Massachusetts: Let's take Wellesley School District, the purported #1 district in MA on Niche. It has about 5,000 kids (7 ES's, 1 MS, and 1 HS) and a 0% FARMS rate. That's right -- 0%. I don't doubt it's a good school district, but you can't possibly compare a tiny district with zero poverty to an enormous, hugely diverse district.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any other U.S. public school systems doing better than MCPS that we can study and suggest improvements to Central Office?

MA.

Another example of town-based districts that amplify the impact of essentially segregated towns. Show me a MA school district with the demographics of MCPS that is performing better than MCPS.

I'm not saying MCPS isn't at fault -- they NEVER should have tried to implement their own curriculum -- but you can't compare the district's performance to a state that has town-based districts.

What does having a good challenging curriculum have to do with race? Are you saying that MCPS can't have a good curriculum that challenges all of its students because of the poor brown/black kids?

There is no place in the US that doesn't have an achievement gap. A curriculum is not going to change that, and neither is throwing more money at the problem.

Of course it can. My point is that you can't look at Massachusetts and say that what works there will work here. They have tiny, town-based districts that often have very little diversity. They just don't have most of the problems MCPS has. It's a lot easier to get good outcomes when you have 0% FARMS and 5,000 kids in the whole district (like Wellesley School District).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any other U.S. public school systems doing better than MCPS that we can study and suggest improvements to Central Office?

MA.

Another example of town-based districts that amplify the impact of essentially segregated towns. Show me a MA school district with the demographics of MCPS that is performing better than MCPS.

I'm not saying MCPS isn't at fault -- they NEVER should have tried to implement their own curriculum -- but you can't compare the district's performance to a state that has town-based districts.

What does having a good challenging curriculum have to do with race? Are you saying that MCPS can't have a good curriculum that challenges all of its students because of the poor brown/black kids?

There is no place in the US that doesn't have an achievement gap. A curriculum is not going to change that, and neither is throwing more money at the problem.

What you consider "throwing money at the problem", I consider "funding public schools that educate all children".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
what? no. Students who are very high achievers need the magnet programs. They are the ones who need the challenge more.

Many MSers are languishing in non magnets all over the county due to unchallenging curriculum. My 7th grader complains about how slow the classes are.

No they are thriving. Their peers are thriving. If they really are all bored at school they should participate in class. Your 7th grader is complaining, because that's what they do. They already have all the pieces in place and this is why the new classes are being piloted at the home schools.

This has to be a MCPS administrator posting!

Nope, just an MS parent who finds your reasoning repugnant. I'm unsympathetic to your whining because I've got my own kids and adding enrichment classes to local schools is more likely to serve both our needs and I have an older child so I do see this as an improvement even if it's partly too late for my family. I think spreading the admissions more evenly through the county is more equitable. It makes no sense to take a large cohort from one school, when clearly something is already going well at that school.

when a 7th grader says a class is moving too slowly, there is something wrong with that class. DC is not saying the subject is boring. DC is saying it's too slow (and easy). Again, we are not at a w cluster.

My 7th grader's Algebra teacher apologized to her and the other bright kids in the class about how slow the class was moving. The teacher said she wishes she could more quicker. Unfortunately, the advanced 7th graders were put in an Algebra class with 8th graders who could care less about school.

That's how it was back in the day! The 7th graders got A's and 8th braders didn't...

But back in the day teachers weren't told they must slow down until everyone understands the topic.

They gave out D's and F's.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any other U.S. public school systems doing better than MCPS that we can study and suggest improvements to Central Office?

MA.

Another example of town-based districts that amplify the impact of essentially segregated towns. Show me a MA school district with the demographics of MCPS that is performing better than MCPS.

I'm not saying MCPS isn't at fault -- they NEVER should have tried to implement their own curriculum -- but you can't compare the district's performance to a state that has town-based districts.

What does having a good challenging curriculum have to do with race? Are you saying that MCPS can't have a good curriculum that challenges all of its students because of the poor brown/black kids?

There is no place in the US that doesn't have an achievement gap. A curriculum is not going to change that, and neither is throwing more money at the problem.

Of course it can. My point is that you can't look at Massachusetts and say that what works there will work here. They have tiny, town-based districts that often have very little diversity. They just don't have most of the problems MCPS has. It's a lot easier to get good outcomes when you have 0% FARMS and 5,000 kids in the whole district (like Wellesley School District).

I understand that. My point was about "a good curriculum" not about outcome. That's why I said no amount of money thrown at the problem will close the achievement gap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So does MCPS educate children from educated families well or not?

Sure. The schools in the western/wealthy/white clusters are great schools. Just ask DCUM.

It's hard to make a data-driven argument here. There's no data on outcomes for kids from "educated families." The best we have is racial demographics, so people use performance by white and Asian kids as a proxy for affluence and parent education levels. Going by that, the data look good -- white and Asian kids do relatively well on state tests and AP exams. Of course, we know the reality is more complicated than that, but the numbers look fine.

standardized test scores does not equate to being educated well nor to potential in class.

So, does MCPS have an achievement gap or not? Maybe the groups who do poorly in tests are actually educated equally well? Where is the gap exactly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So does MCPS educate children from educated families well or not?

Sure. The schools in the western/wealthy/white clusters are great schools. Just ask DCUM.

It's hard to make a data-driven argument here. There's no data on outcomes for kids from "educated families." The best we have is racial demographics, so people use performance by white and Asian kids as a proxy for affluence and parent education levels. Going by that, the data look good -- white and Asian kids do relatively well on state tests and AP exams. Of course, we know the reality is more complicated than that, but the numbers look fine.

standardized test scores does not equate to being educated well nor to potential in class.

So, does MCPS have an achievement gap or not? Maybe the groups who do poorly in tests are actually educated equally well? Where is the gap exactly?

Donald doesn't believe in closing the achievement gap so this is all slowly going away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So does MCPS educate children from educated families well or not?

Sure. The schools in the western/wealthy/white clusters are great schools. Just ask DCUM.

It's hard to make a data-driven argument here. There's no data on outcomes for kids from "educated families." The best we have is racial demographics, so people use performance by white and Asian kids as a proxy for affluence and parent education levels. Going by that, the data look good -- white and Asian kids do relatively well on state tests and AP exams. Of course, we know the reality is more complicated than that, but the numbers look fine.

standardized test scores does not equate to being educated well nor to potential in class.

OK. Then how do you know that Orinda public schools educate children from educated families well? Or any other school/school district?

Also, did you really just post that on a thread that's going on at great length about standardized test scores as the only proper and just way to determine who is smart enough to deserve admission to magnet schools?

A couple people actually defined “top schools” or “top education” as the below:
"Top public schools" means educating ALL students to potential with high quality teachers, curricula, EC programs, and ability tracking.
"Providing an effective, challenging, and engaging education for every one of our students"


By this definition and standard, NO, MCPS is not educating its top students well. Especially if all these stay-at-home parents are home-schooling and supplementing on the side. The more MCPS lacks, the more parents who notice turn to supplementing and more ECs. At upper levels, the honor role is half the school and they can cram well for tests that really count (ACT/SAT, AP tests), experienced teachers are good. At lower K-8 levels there are some real issues.

We also moved here from another top district. There, the ES curriculum was cohesive and challenging, students were engaged, there were textbooks for math, science, social studies, little reading books for reading, gym or art on alternating days and it was Common Core. ACT test-based, not parcc. NO ONE was concerned about their bright child’s education in the classroom, no one was supplementing to fill in holes or correct bad materials or new teachers. The teachers weren’t unhappy with the system either.

Next time someone flippantly says “great schools”, ask them why or how they are defining great. I like the above definition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

A couple people actually defined “top schools” or “top education” as the below:
"Top public schools" means educating ALL students to potential with high quality teachers, curricula, EC programs, and ability tracking.
"Providing an effective, challenging, and engaging education for every one of our students"


By this definition and standard, NO, MCPS is not educating its top students well. Especially if all these stay-at-home parents are home-schooling and supplementing on the side. The more MCPS lacks, the more parents who notice turn to supplementing and more ECs. At upper levels, the honor role is half the school and they can cram well for tests that really count (ACT/SAT, AP tests), experienced teachers are good. At lower K-8 levels there are some real issues.

We also moved here from another top district. There, the ES curriculum was cohesive and challenging, students were engaged, there were textbooks for math, science, social studies, little reading books for reading, gym or art on alternating days and it was Common Core. ACT test-based, not parcc. NO ONE was concerned about their bright child’s education in the classroom, no one was supplementing to fill in holes or correct bad materials or new teachers. The teachers weren’t unhappy with the system either.

Next time someone flippantly says “great schools”, ask them why or how they are defining great. I like the above definition.

How big was the district, and what were the demographics of the students in the district?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So does MCPS educate children from educated families well or not?

Sure. The schools in the western/wealthy/white clusters are great schools. Just ask DCUM.

It's hard to make a data-driven argument here. There's no data on outcomes for kids from "educated families." The best we have is racial demographics, so people use performance by white and Asian kids as a proxy for affluence and parent education levels. Going by that, the data look good -- white and Asian kids do relatively well on state tests and AP exams. Of course, we know the reality is more complicated than that, but the numbers look fine.

standardized test scores does not equate to being educated well nor to potential in class.

OK. Then how do you know that Orinda public schools educate children from educated families well? Or any other school/school district?

Also, did you really just post that on a thread that's going on at great length about standardized test scores as the only proper and just way to determine who is smart enough to deserve admission to magnet schools?

A couple people actually defined “top schools” or “top education” as the below:
"Top public schools" means educating ALL students to potential with high quality teachers, curricula, EC programs, and ability tracking.
"Providing an effective, challenging, and engaging education for every one of our students"


By this definition and standard, NO, MCPS is not educating its top students well. Especially if all these stay-at-home parents are home-schooling and supplementing on the side. The more MCPS lacks, the more parents who notice turn to supplementing and more ECs. At upper levels, the honor role is half the school and they can cram well for tests that really count (ACT/SAT, AP tests), experienced teachers are good. At lower K-8 levels there are some real issues.

We also moved here from another top district. There, the ES curriculum was cohesive and challenging, students were engaged, there were textbooks for math, science, social studies, little reading books for reading, gym or art on alternating days and it was Common Core. ACT test-based, not parcc. NO ONE was concerned about their bright child’s education in the classroom, no one was supplementing to fill in holes or correct bad materials or new teachers. The teachers weren’t unhappy with the system either.

Next time someone flippantly says “great schools”, ask them why or how they are defining great. I like the above definition.

You need to keep up. Top Schools means closing the achievement gap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

A couple people actually defined “top schools” or “top education” as the below:
"Top public schools" means educating ALL students to potential with high quality teachers, curricula, EC programs, and ability tracking.
"Providing an effective, challenging, and engaging education for every one of our students"


By this definition and standard, NO, MCPS is not educating its top students well. Especially if all these stay-at-home parents are home-schooling and supplementing on the side. The more MCPS lacks, the more parents who notice turn to supplementing and more ECs. At upper levels, the honor role is half the school and they can cram well for tests that really count (ACT/SAT, AP tests), experienced teachers are good. At lower K-8 levels there are some real issues.

We also moved here from another top district. There, the ES curriculum was cohesive and challenging, students were engaged, there were textbooks for math, science, social studies, little reading books for reading, gym or art on alternating days and it was Common Core. ACT test-based, not parcc. NO ONE was concerned about their bright child’s education in the classroom, no one was supplementing to fill in holes or correct bad materials or new teachers. The teachers weren’t unhappy with the system either.

Next time someone flippantly says “great schools”, ask them why or how they are defining great. I like the above definition.

How big was the district, and what were the demographics of the students in the district?

They're talking a district of 5k kids with 1 high-school which is 95% white.

[Anonymous]

NP. It is obvious that comparing MCPS to a tiny, homogeneous, city-based district is inane.

Which raises the question - is there a district similar to MCPS that is doing better?

For the sake of comparing apples to apples, let's define "similar to MCPS" to mean:

150K or more kids

30% or more FARMS

60 % or more non-white

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP. It is obvious that comparing MCPS to a tiny, homogeneous, city-based district is inane.

Which raises the question - is there a district similar to MCPS that is doing better?

For the sake of comparing apples to apples, let's define "similar to MCPS" to mean:

150K or more kids

30% or more FARMS

60 % or more non-white

People are surely now going to post that this is proof that MCPS is too big.

So another question should be: list some small town/city-based districts that do badly. This shouldn't be hard, since most districts in the US are small and town/city-based. And for every "top" exclusive small town/city-based district, there must be one or more districts for the kids who are excluded from the "top" districts..