DEI and magnet schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:let's say a (supposedly) very smart 8th grader scored 250 on MAP-M. why do they need more math opportunities? they haven't even availed themselves of opportunities they were given. you want to rush them to MV calculus - why? why do they need this?

compare this to your villain - a "heavily exposed" child who scored 300 on the same test. regardless of how they got there - they actually need more advanced material.

A very slanted take, there.

"Supposedly?" "Villain?" An argument that can't be made without unnecessary charged words is not much of an argument.

Why would the former need more than standard curriculum? Because they can absorb more. Because it is easy for them to catch up on content due to that ability. Because standard pace does not meet their learning need and more likely leads to their disinterest in academics, which becomes a tragedy. Why are they at 250? Not because they haven't "availed themselves." Because the circumstances haven't afforded them reliable exposure due to any of the several reasons previously mentioned.

Of course not everyone at 250, using this scenario, should be definitively in the mix -- that's where an ability-related metric becomes important as a principal identifier, to go along with any heuristic that might employ exposure-related metrics on a locally normed basis. We shouldn't be relying purely on that local norming of exposure-related scores either.

These are real kids, not some unicorn. I don't expect their numbers to be overwhelming, but they deserve both identification and program access, and there is significant research providing bases for better identification paradigms than those afforded by principal reliance on MAP.

Would the 300-scorer in the proffered scenario not be able to demonstrate ability outside of the exposure-based metric? Bacause "regardless of how they got there" patently sets up a strawman argument in this regard.

Separately, and, once again, repeating where it clearly has been ignored, I would not begrudge a student with high exposure-related scores access to magnet programming, except that I would first address the needs associated with ability. That advanced learning also demonstrates a need, albeit one that inherits from a different cause.

There is considerable experience at programs like SMCS of students coming in with high exposure-based scores struggling more than might be expected, however. With respect to math, in this case, neither group might need to rush to MVC, but we should be affording each a supported path, with off-ramps, if needed.

And, while not unimportant, the HS magnet selection paradigm at least incorporates more elements for program review. The magnet programs where central identification applies are for elementary and middle, with the latest tests considered coming at the beginning of 5th grade. Much more than enough time to allow a student of high ability the chance to catch up, if needed. That is part of the magnet intent and implementation paradigm.

From before:

"Support all kids. Support talented kids with paradigms that do the best job of identifying that talent, curricula that best meet the associated educational need, enforced policy that ensures those curricula are employed with fidelity across the system and funding to make that happen with reasonable equivalence for all so identified."

Identify well and make enough room. I don't see where this causes the objection, especially when making room to include access to advanced courses for those having mastered precedent material from additional exposure, alone. Unless there is a desire to keep funding low, seats few and access most dependent on the privileges of family circumstance.

if they could absorb more, the would have absorbed more. these are 13-14 olds, not 5-6 year olds. they don't need to "catch up" - they need to shore up their shaky foundations. life is long, they can catch up later.

meanwhile, magnets should be for those who are already well ahead of others.

This ignoring of points provided is foolish.

Absorption happens with exposure. Real opportunity for exposure is not uniformly distributed in society.

Much of magnet programming is designed to incorporate the necessary foundational ramp-up for those able/attuned to the subject matter but needing the exposure. The ability to absorb quickly, without significant repetition and with leaps in understanding that allow skipping of intermediate concepts is what allows this to occur with minimal drag on the experience of others.

Those entering HS magnets may be 13- to 14-year-olds, but this life stage is far from beyond that catch-up. When considering the ES and MS magnets, entering as 8- to 9- & 10- to 11-year olds, respectively, the notion of its not being possible for highly able students to catch up is laughable. Catching up later actually is harder, with less cognitive plasticity, especially given the differential exigencies of life during higher education and afterwards.

Once more, I'd like to see enough magnet seating or local true equivalents to accommodate the needs of those having learned content from additional/external exposure, even if not identified as highly able. The "well ahead of others" that makes magnets effective, both for the individual and for society, has much more to do with domain ability, however, and it is considerably more difficult to have those needs met in an alternative manner than the opposite, should a choice between the two groups be necessary due to lack of funding or the like.

Based on a presumption that this is the same poster continuing the argument, I don't expect, at this point, a change of heart based on these thoughts. It appears that we will have to agree to disagree.

no, it doesn't. learning is active. people are not sponges. that absorb e.g. math knowledge by sitting in a room where someone is talking about higher level math. they direct their own attention. the very same kids who you claim did not have enough exposure to high level math (laughable) know 50x or 100x more about makeup or sneaker brands etc than kids who had roughly similar level of exposure but paid attention to it.

what kids want to learn matters too. it is also highly related to their innate strengths to the point where the whole discussion of IQ vs. content meaningless. call it smart kids or call it kids with a lot of exposure. the point is, some kids are ready and eager to jump on highly enriched and accelerated content and some aren't. the should all be provided with what meets their needs.

This reaponse interprets the prior post incorrectly as it continues to ignore the perspective offered.

Taking "absorption happens with exposure" as automatic/passive ignores the entire context of the various posts offered, which clearly discuss this in relation to the opportunity that those highly able students might or might not have to learn. Of course absorption from exposure is vastly greater with active attention. The point is that it requires the exposure in the first place, and not all students have that opportunity in a fashion reasonably equivalent enough to rely on exposure-driven metrics to assess ability.

The folllowing paragraph begins with a non sequitor. Of course interest and ability ("innate strengths") are huge factors. This does not make discussion of ability ("IQ" [sic]) vs. content/exposure meaningless. Instead, it informs that discussion and highlights the importance of that ability.

That some kids are ready for enriched/accelerated learning while some are not is abundantly clear. However, it appears that there is disagreement about that which constitutes that readiness. I have pointed out that magnet programming not only is intended principally to meet the learning needs of those highly able but also is designed to enable the very catch-up that tends to rectify exposure discrepancies. Likewise, and by and large, that readiness is indicated by their relative ability at the various ages at which magnet program selection occurs.

Once again, I'll point out that the needs of those having mastered content via additional exposure are relevant and should be met, as well. Indeed, I completely agree with the statement that they "should all be provided with what meets their needs," and that seems to be among the positions I've repeatedly laid out only to be ignored in the various responses. MCPS should be providing enough magnet seats and/or truly equivalent local programming to cover those needs for anyone identified. If, instead, MCPS operates there with scarcity, be it from resource constraint or from a more artificial source (e.g., some misguided policy position), forcing a choice between offering magnet programming to the highly able (but not as exposed) vs. the highly exposed (but not as able), the better path is to offer it to the former, noting that those students both highly able and highly exposed would be served under the aegis of "highly able."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine if they just made enough real magnet-level education available locally to everyone with a big enough local peer cohort and centrally to everyone without. Too bad that the old paradigm was so demagogued by ongoing anti-GT elements that that approach, when introduced, didn't come with either the organization or funding to support that local equivalent well enough, and was then the subject of threatened lawsuits such that it lasted a single year and we've ended up with the lottery, instead.

My daughter has been a beneficiary of the CES/magnet lottery preference for high FARMS area kids. And thank goodness. It was awful for her to be told she had to limit raising her hand to answer questions to twice per week in her math classes so other kids could have a chance to answer. Some of you complaining have no idea what it's like for your kid to be one of only a handful of high-performing kids. I only wish her cohort at her home school was full of high performers so we didn't have to make the ridiculous trek to TPMS and back twice every day.

there are only a handful of highly performing kids at magnets and W schools also. it's just a different standard.

so yes, a lot of people are familiar with what your talking about even if they are not necessarily at high FARMS school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:let's say a (supposedly) very smart 8th grader scored 250 on MAP-M. why do they need more math opportunities? they haven't even availed themselves of opportunities they were given. you want to rush them to MV calculus - why? why do they need this?

compare this to your villain - a "heavily exposed" child who scored 300 on the same test. regardless of how they got there - they actually need more advanced material.

A very slanted take, there.

"Supposedly?" "Villain?" An argument that can't be made without unnecessary charged words is not much of an argument.

Why would the former need more than standard curriculum? Because they can absorb more. Because it is easy for them to catch up on content due to that ability. Because standard pace does not meet their learning need and more likely leads to their disinterest in academics, which becomes a tragedy. Why are they at 250? Not because they haven't "availed themselves." Because the circumstances haven't afforded them reliable exposure due to any of the several reasons previously mentioned.

Of course not everyone at 250, using this scenario, should be definitively in the mix -- that's where an ability-related metric becomes important as a principal identifier, to go along with any heuristic that might employ exposure-related metrics on a locally normed basis. We shouldn't be relying purely on that local norming of exposure-related scores either.

These are real kids, not some unicorn. I don't expect their numbers to be overwhelming, but they deserve both identification and program access, and there is significant research providing bases for better identification paradigms than those afforded by principal reliance on MAP.

Would the 300-scorer in the proffered scenario not be able to demonstrate ability outside of the exposure-based metric? Bacause "regardless of how they got there" patently sets up a strawman argument in this regard.

Separately, and, once again, repeating where it clearly has been ignored, I would not begrudge a student with high exposure-related scores access to magnet programming, except that I would first address the needs associated with ability. That advanced learning also demonstrates a need, albeit one that inherits from a different cause.

There is considerable experience at programs like SMCS of students coming in with high exposure-based scores struggling more than might be expected, however. With respect to math, in this case, neither group might need to rush to MVC, but we should be affording each a supported path, with off-ramps, if needed.

And, while not unimportant, the HS magnet selection paradigm at least incorporates more elements for program review. The magnet programs where central identification applies are for elementary and middle, with the latest tests considered coming at the beginning of 5th grade. Much more than enough time to allow a student of high ability the chance to catch up, if needed. That is part of the magnet intent and implementation paradigm.

From before:

"Support all kids. Support talented kids with paradigms that do the best job of identifying that talent, curricula that best meet the associated educational need, enforced policy that ensures those curricula are employed with fidelity across the system and funding to make that happen with reasonable equivalence for all so identified."

Identify well and make enough room. I don't see where this causes the objection, especially when making room to include access to advanced courses for those having mastered precedent material from additional exposure, alone. Unless there is a desire to keep funding low, seats few and access most dependent on the privileges of family circumstance.

if they could absorb more, the would have absorbed more. these are 13-14 olds, not 5-6 year olds. they don't need to "catch up" - they need to shore up their shaky foundations. life is long, they can catch up later.

meanwhile, magnets should be for those who are already well ahead of others.

This ignoring of points provided is foolish.

Absorption happens with exposure. Real opportunity for exposure is not uniformly distributed in society.

Much of magnet programming is designed to incorporate the necessary foundational ramp-up for those able/attuned to the subject matter but needing the exposure. The ability to absorb quickly, without significant repetition and with leaps in understanding that allow skipping of intermediate concepts is what allows this to occur with minimal drag on the experience of others.

Those entering HS magnets may be 13- to 14-year-olds, but this life stage is far from beyond that catch-up. When considering the ES and MS magnets, entering as 8- to 9- & 10- to 11-year olds, respectively, the notion of its not being possible for highly able students to catch up is laughable. Catching up later actually is harder, with less cognitive plasticity, especially given the differential exigencies of life during higher education and afterwards.

Once more, I'd like to see enough magnet seating or local true equivalents to accommodate the needs of those having learned content from additional/external exposure, even if not identified as highly able. The "well ahead of others" that makes magnets effective, both for the individual and for society, has much more to do with domain ability, however, and it is considerably more difficult to have those needs met in an alternative manner than the opposite, should a choice between the two groups be necessary due to lack of funding or the like.

Based on a presumption that this is the same poster continuing the argument, I don't expect, at this point, a change of heart based on these thoughts. It appears that we will have to agree to disagree.

no, it doesn't. learning is active. people are not sponges. that absorb e.g. math knowledge by sitting in a room where someone is talking about higher level math. they direct their own attention. the very same kids who you claim did not have enough exposure to high level math (laughable) know 50x or 100x more about makeup or sneaker brands etc than kids who had roughly similar level of exposure but paid attention to it.

what kids want to learn matters too. it is also highly related to their innate strengths to the point where the whole discussion of IQ vs. content meaningless. call it smart kids or call it kids with a lot of exposure. the point is, some kids are ready and eager to jump on highly enriched and accelerated content and some aren't. the should all be provided with what meets their needs.

This reaponse interprets the prior post incorrectly as it continues to ignore the perspective offered.

Taking "absorption happens with exposure" as automatic/passive ignores the entire context of the various posts offered, which clearly discuss this in relation to the opportunity that those highly able students might or might not have to learn. Of course absorption from exposure is vastly greater with active attention. The point is that it requires the exposure in the first place, and not all students have that opportunity in a fashion reasonably equivalent enough to rely on exposure-driven metrics to assess ability.

The folllowing paragraph begins with a non sequitor. Of course interest and ability ("innate strengths") are huge factors. This does not make discussion of ability ("IQ" [sic]) vs. content/exposure meaningless. Instead, it informs that discussion and highlights the importance of that ability.

That some kids are ready for enriched/accelerated learning while some are not is abundantly clear. However, it appears that there is disagreement about that which constitutes that readiness. I have pointed out that magnet programming not only is intended principally to meet the learning needs of those highly able but also is designed to enable the very catch-up that tends to rectify exposure discrepancies. Likewise, and by and large, that readiness is indicated by their relative ability at the various ages at which magnet program selection occurs.

Once again, I'll point out that the needs of those having mastered content via additional exposure are relevant and should be met, as well. Indeed, I completely agree with the statement that they "should all be provided with what meets their needs," and that seems to be among the positions I've repeatedly laid out only to be ignored in the various responses. MCPS should be providing enough magnet seats and/or truly equivalent local programming to cover those needs for anyone identified. If, instead, MCPS operates there with scarcity, be it from resource constraint or from a more artificial source (e.g., some misguided policy position), forcing a choice between offering magnet programming to the highly able (but not as exposed) vs. the highly exposed (but not as able), the better path is to offer it to the former, noting that those students both highly able and highly exposed would be served under the aegis of "highly able."

a lot of kids have enrichment, yes, but it doesn't really help them. RSM and AOPS are full of kids who glaze over teacher's lectures. they get extremely poor scores on tests they take there. they are bored. they will continue to attend those place, probably, and you will continue to complain of the injustice, but actually, it doest'n really matter all that much.

you can't make your kid be what they aren't - not at 14.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:let's say a (supposedly) very smart 8th grader scored 250 on MAP-M. why do they need more math opportunities? they haven't even availed themselves of opportunities they were given. you want to rush them to MV calculus - why? why do they need this?

compare this to your villain - a "heavily exposed" child who scored 300 on the same test. regardless of how they got there - they actually need more advanced material.

A very slanted take, there.

"Supposedly?" "Villain?" An argument that can't be made without unnecessary charged words is not much of an argument.

Why would the former need more than standard curriculum? Because they can absorb more. Because it is easy for them to catch up on content due to that ability. Because standard pace does not meet their learning need and more likely leads to their disinterest in academics, which becomes a tragedy. Why are they at 250? Not because they haven't "availed themselves." Because the circumstances haven't afforded them reliable exposure due to any of the several reasons previously mentioned.

Of course not everyone at 250, using this scenario, should be definitively in the mix -- that's where an ability-related metric becomes important as a principal identifier, to go along with any heuristic that might employ exposure-related metrics on a locally normed basis. We shouldn't be relying purely on that local norming of exposure-related scores either.

These are real kids, not some unicorn. I don't expect their numbers to be overwhelming, but they deserve both identification and program access, and there is significant research providing bases for better identification paradigms than those afforded by principal reliance on MAP.

Would the 300-scorer in the proffered scenario not be able to demonstrate ability outside of the exposure-based metric? Bacause "regardless of how they got there" patently sets up a strawman argument in this regard.

Separately, and, once again, repeating where it clearly has been ignored, I would not begrudge a student with high exposure-related scores access to magnet programming, except that I would first address the needs associated with ability. That advanced learning also demonstrates a need, albeit one that inherits from a different cause.

There is considerable experience at programs like SMCS of students coming in with high exposure-based scores struggling more than might be expected, however. With respect to math, in this case, neither group might need to rush to MVC, but we should be affording each a supported path, with off-ramps, if needed.

And, while not unimportant, the HS magnet selection paradigm at least incorporates more elements for program review. The magnet programs where central identification applies are for elementary and middle, with the latest tests considered coming at the beginning of 5th grade. Much more than enough time to allow a student of high ability the chance to catch up, if needed. That is part of the magnet intent and implementation paradigm.

From before:

"Support all kids. Support talented kids with paradigms that do the best job of identifying that talent, curricula that best meet the associated educational need, enforced policy that ensures those curricula are employed with fidelity across the system and funding to make that happen with reasonable equivalence for all so identified."

Identify well and make enough room. I don't see where this causes the objection, especially when making room to include access to advanced courses for those having mastered precedent material from additional exposure, alone. Unless there is a desire to keep funding low, seats few and access most dependent on the privileges of family circumstance.

if they could absorb more, the would have absorbed more. these are 13-14 olds, not 5-6 year olds. they don't need to "catch up" - they need to shore up their shaky foundations. life is long, they can catch up later.

meanwhile, magnets should be for those who are already well ahead of others.

This ignoring of points provided is foolish.

Absorption happens with exposure. Real opportunity for exposure is not uniformly distributed in society.

Much of magnet programming is designed to incorporate the necessary foundational ramp-up for those able/attuned to the subject matter but needing the exposure. The ability to absorb quickly, without significant repetition and with leaps in understanding that allow skipping of intermediate concepts is what allows this to occur with minimal drag on the experience of others.

Those entering HS magnets may be 13- to 14-year-olds, but this life stage is far from beyond that catch-up. When considering the ES and MS magnets, entering as 8- to 9- & 10- to 11-year olds, respectively, the notion of its not being possible for highly able students to catch up is laughable. Catching up later actually is harder, with less cognitive plasticity, especially given the differential exigencies of life during higher education and afterwards.

Once more, I'd like to see enough magnet seating or local true equivalents to accommodate the needs of those having learned content from additional/external exposure, even if not identified as highly able. The "well ahead of others" that makes magnets effective, both for the individual and for society, has much more to do with domain ability, however, and it is considerably more difficult to have those needs met in an alternative manner than the opposite, should a choice between the two groups be necessary due to lack of funding or the like.

Based on a presumption that this is the same poster continuing the argument, I don't expect, at this point, a change of heart based on these thoughts. It appears that we will have to agree to disagree.

no, it doesn't. learning is active. people are not sponges. that absorb e.g. math knowledge by sitting in a room where someone is talking about higher level math. they direct their own attention. the very same kids who you claim did not have enough exposure to high level math (laughable) know 50x or 100x more about makeup or sneaker brands etc than kids who had roughly similar level of exposure but paid attention to it.

what kids want to learn matters too. it is also highly related to their innate strengths to the point where the whole discussion of IQ vs. content meaningless. call it smart kids or call it kids with a lot of exposure. the point is, some kids are ready and eager to jump on highly enriched and accelerated content and some aren't. the should all be provided with what meets their needs.

This reaponse interprets the prior post incorrectly as it continues to ignore the perspective offered.

Taking "absorption happens with exposure" as automatic/passive ignores the entire context of the various posts offered, which clearly discuss this in relation to the opportunity that those highly able students might or might not have to learn. Of course absorption from exposure is vastly greater with active attention. The point is that it requires the exposure in the first place, and not all students have that opportunity in a fashion reasonably equivalent enough to rely on exposure-driven metrics to assess ability.

The folllowing paragraph begins with a non sequitor. Of course interest and ability ("innate strengths") are huge factors. This does not make discussion of ability ("IQ" [sic]) vs. content/exposure meaningless. Instead, it informs that discussion and highlights the importance of that ability.

That some kids are ready for enriched/accelerated learning while some are not is abundantly clear. However, it appears that there is disagreement about that which constitutes that readiness. I have pointed out that magnet programming not only is intended principally to meet the learning needs of those highly able but also is designed to enable the very catch-up that tends to rectify exposure discrepancies. Likewise, and by and large, that readiness is indicated by their relative ability at the various ages at which magnet program selection occurs.

Once again, I'll point out that the needs of those having mastered content via additional exposure are relevant and should be met, as well. Indeed, I completely agree with the statement that they "should all be provided with what meets their needs," and that seems to be among the positions I've repeatedly laid out only to be ignored in the various responses. MCPS should be providing enough magnet seats and/or truly equivalent local programming to cover those needs for anyone identified. If, instead, MCPS operates there with scarcity, be it from resource constraint or from a more artificial source (e.g., some misguided policy position), forcing a choice between offering magnet programming to the highly able (but not as exposed) vs. the highly exposed (but not as able), the better path is to offer it to the former, noting that those students both highly able and highly exposed would be served under the aegis of "highly able."

a lot of kids have enrichment, yes, but it doesn't really help them. RSM and AOPS are full of kids who glaze over teacher's lectures. they get extremely poor scores on tests they take there. they are bored. they will continue to attend those place, probably, and you will continue to complain of the injustice, but actually, it doest'n really matter all that much.

you can't make your kid be what they aren't - not at 14.

The logic, here, is sparse, or, perhaps, the language is imprecise. Are you saying enrichment does nothing? I don't think so, but it would help if you phrased it so that the statement applied only to those intended in the remark.

Presuming that you are saying that many (not all) who engage in outside enrichment don't get much out of it, I would nuance that considerably by saying that not all who so engage reap vast learning. I would agree, to an extent, but I would also suggest that even those who participate but with less enthusiasm tend to reap some benefit, and that that does get reflected by increased exposure-related test scores to one extent or another.

As further clarification, I do not wish to dissuade any family's pursuit of outside enrichment, unless there is over-focus on that to the deteiment of their child's emotional well-being or of their long-term interest in academics. While it might be "just" to have truly equivalent options available to all, regardless of family condition, there are limits on that which can or even should be provided by society towards that end. That said, I don't think MCPS (or American education writ large) really approaches those limits consistently, and Montgomery County, though certainly not among the worst, does not offer MCPS the funding that consistently would allow a close approach. The facilitation of learning outside of the school day offers the possibility of improved life experience, and those with means

As for that outside enrichment not mattering, I would disagree. As above, I think that almost all who engage in it reap at least some benefit, but, more importantly, it matters so long as there is gatekeeping to programs meant to address ability-related needs that relies principally on exposure-related metrics.

To be sure, cognitive capability change can be engendered to some degree by exposure, as well -- it is part of how the brain develops, so it is not as though outside enrichment should be seen as all for naught with respect to accessing magnet programming for those so inclinedt. However, any such ability increase would be discerned far better by ability-related testing than by tests such as MAP.

People develop new interests and competencies throughout life, even if neuroplasticity slows with age. The idea that the abilities are set by the age of 14, that pathways & ceilings should similarly be set then, or that opportunities to address related need should be limited at that age by the effects of differential past exposure is simply ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Edit error. Third paragraph should have ended with, "...and those with means, of whichever sort, to access such should not be discouraged, much less disallowed, from doing so. Recognition that those means are not afforded with reasonable equivalence to all students is important, however."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine if they just made enough real magnet-level education available locally to everyone with a big enough local peer cohort and centrally to everyone without. Too bad that the old paradigm was so demagogued by ongoing anti-GT elements that that approach, when introduced, didn't come with either the organization or funding to support that local equivalent well enough, and was then the subject of threatened lawsuits such that it lasted a single year and we've ended up with the lottery, instead.

My daughter has been a beneficiary of the CES/magnet lottery preference for high FARMS area kids. And thank goodness. It was awful for her to be told she had to limit raising her hand to answer questions to twice per week in her math classes so other kids could have a chance to answer. Some of you complaining have no idea what it's like for your kid to be one of only a handful of high-performing kids. I only wish her cohort at her home school was full of high performers so we didn't have to make the ridiculous trek to TPMS and back twice every day.

there are only a handful of highly performing kids at magnets and W schools also. it's just a different standard.

so yes, a lot of people are familiar with what your talking about even if they are not necessarily at high FARMS school.

No there are not only a handful of high performing kids at magnets. What are you on? I can tell you're probably the poster who said functions is really easy and all the other kids are dumb. Not all the kids have the opportunity for enrichment since age 6 and not all of them like math as much as your kid likes math. That's no reason to look down on other kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What makes me crazy about this conversation (other than the casual racism) is that MCPS used to be better at this than they are now!

I thought I was the only one that see the casual racism in some of these comments. I am here like uh so much.

[Anonymous]

no i didn't say anything about functions, but it's an interesting perspective.

i am not looking down on kids who are not very advanced academically. i am frustrated that they are shepherded into advanced classes which they don't want (not really) or need based on some bogus idea of exposure. if only, at 14 yo, after after spending 8 years in MCPS doing math every day of the week, they knew what math is like... oh, they would love it so much and beg for the worksheets and dig into competition archives every day of the week...

please. they know what math is and they know it's not their thing. there are other things in life beside academics. it's ok to be interested in makeup or sneakers. really. with AI it's not even clear what our kids are "supposed" to be interested in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When a kid who has 85% gets into a magnet at the expense of a kid who got a 99%, it is because of DEI.

There is an element of that that encouraged the lottery approach, but there is much more to the picture.

First, the largest underlying problem is the lack of adequate seating for the magnet programs when compared to the size of the student population that would benefit.

Second, the use of exposure-related metrics such as MAP encourages prepping, resulting in higher scores by those less highly able but exposed via tutoring than by the more highly able but not exposed, when the object is more about meeting the need/capacity of those more highly able than meeting the current learning level of those who have been pushed -- not that some of those might also be highly able.

Third, when a highly able kid with no family resources to facilitate outside exposure (or sometimes even be aware of that opportunity) and no local peer cohort to facilitate in-class enrichment/acceleration scores at the 85th percentile, but where that is locally normed to the 99th, considering relative achievement vs. similarly situated peers, but is denied in favor of a less highly able kid who got a 98th percentile (nobody at national 99th is left out of the lottery) due to family- and peer-cohort-enabled additional exposure, it is because of wealth.

Isn't this just an overly complicated way to say that MCPS fails to produce opportunities for kids to excel. I mean how hard is it to provide enrichment to fifth graders, do you have to hire a PhD with some advanced training? I don't think so. Most teachers should be able to provide an advanced curriculum. This system of elitism and stratification that MCPS has created is totally gross. We should get rid of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:no i didn't say anything about functions, but it's an interesting perspective.

i am not looking down on kids who are not very advanced academically. i am frustrated that they are shepherded into advanced classes which they don't want (not really) or need based on some bogus idea of exposure. if only, at 14 yo, after after spending 8 years in MCPS doing math every day of the week, they knew what math is like... oh, they would love it so much and beg for the worksheets and dig into competition archives every day of the week...

please. they know what math is and they know it's not their thing. there are other things in life beside academics. it's ok to be interested in makeup or sneakers. really. with AI it's not even clear what our kids are "supposed" to be interested in.

Identifying ability and meeting the associated need at the choice of the student/family offered the program, should they want it, is a far cry from placing students in a class or program that they neither want nor need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What makes me crazy about this conversation (other than the casual racism) is that MCPS used to be better at this than they are now!

That was before slippery Pete Moran conned his way into central office in 2018. It’s been a rocket ship to the basement since then.

Or maybe it’s just a wild, random coincidence that anyone who was here before then was ran out of town, and Slippery Pete is here to drag our children out from the rubble?

[Anonymous]

What "end of DEI" are people talking about? Just because Trump and his people want to be racist doesn't mean MCPS has to or should..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What "end of DEI" are people talking about? Just because Trump and his people want to be racist doesn't mean MCPS has to or should..

I think many blue Marylanders think that DEI policies have gone too far and need to be reconsidered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What "end of DEI" are people talking about? Just because Trump and his people want to be racist doesn't mean MCPS has to or should..

I think many blue Marylanders think that DEI policies have gone too far and need to be reconsidered.

I don't think any BOE or county council members would agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What "end of DEI" are people talking about? Just because Trump and his people want to be racist doesn't mean MCPS has to or should..

I think many blue Marylanders think that DEI policies have gone too far and need to be reconsidered.

I don't think any BOE or county council members would agree.

Which is why we need new BOE and city council members.