Another article about the magnet programs in Washington Post

[Anonymous]

"Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

So you think the guy is just making it up about lots of families not knowing the programs exist?


Not the PP but I think the problem goes deeper and sending out more emails or calls will not fix it.



OK, if more e-mails and calls won't fix the problem of families that don't know the programs exist, what will fix the problem? What can MCPS do to make sure that everybody knows about these programs and understands whether and how to apply to them?"

1) For lottery programs just enter everyone or make them opt out. If you "win" the lottery you need to affirmatively claim your seat by x date to keep it. Most importantly do not have a lottery that many people do not know about since they are not yet receiving MCPS info (immersion program).

2) For selective programs do not put the onus on parents to apply unless they are trying to override an initial decision. In FCPS I think the first AAP cuts are just based on test scores of a test they give ALL kids and teacher scores of all kids above a certain point. A parent can do extra steps in an application but I do not think they are required. Basically shift the primary screening onus to the schoola not the parents. This would be a good first step to at least improve more equal shots at the slots.

[Anonymous]

The magnet application rates look to me to roughly match the achievement levels by race on PARCC that MCPS recently published. So makes sense that there are less minorities applying, because less minorities are doing well in school. Lets try to fix that first and leave the magnets alone.

[Anonymous]

... Yet, the lack of diversity and underrepresentation of some student subgroups in these programs suggests that the process may rely too heavily on one or more indicators or may need to consider additional measures of student ability.

These indicators may include broadening the definition of gifted to include -
-- noncognitive measures such as motivation and persistence,
-- using group-specific norms that benchmark student performance against school peers with comparable backgrounds,
-- offering automatic admissions for students in the top 5-10% of sending elementary or middle schools in the district,
-- or using other methods that are outlined in the report and utilized in other districts across the country.

Furthermore, these data also suggest that the district should use additional programs or tools, such as expanding the existing MCPS’s Young Scholars Program to identify students from underrepresented groups in early grade levels for academically selective programs. These programs would serve to increase the applicant pool of underrepresented students and encourage greater levels of participation...."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"... Yet, the lack of diversity and underrepresentation of some student subgroups in these programs suggests that the process may rely too heavily on one or more indicators or may need to consider additional measures of student ability.

These indicators may include broadening the definition of gifted to include -
-- noncognitive measures such as motivation and persistence,
-- using group-specific norms that benchmark student performance against school peers with comparable backgrounds,
-- offering automatic admissions for students in the top 5-10% of sending elementary or middle schools in the district,
-- or using other methods that are outlined in the report and utilized in other districts across the country.

Furthermore, these data also suggest that the district should use additional programs or tools, such as expanding the existing MCPS’s Young Scholars Program to identify students from underrepresented groups in early grade levels for academically selective programs. These programs would serve to increase the applicant pool of underrepresented students and encourage greater levels of participation...."

So, use different criteria for different groups of people for admissions?

[Anonymous]

Throughout the country, this is the primary purpose of magnet programs. They are not meant to serve the children with resources. They are meant to pull bright, hard-working kids out of problematic schools. Look at the racial breakdown of magnets in other districts the size of MOCO. They are generally over 70% minority.

I haven't checked the truth behind the post. But didn't someone post last week that half of Blair magnet kids end up at UMD? Why pay all this money for kids that would have ended up at UMD anyway had they stayed at their home schools? I can't believe the money isn't better spent. As a county, what are we actually getting out of these magnet programs? Is there research that magnt students have gone on to better and brighter things than the AP/IB kids in the home schools?

Magnets should be used to help students who are motivated and intelligent - but not so lucky in the birth lottery. Plus, keeping the bulk of magnet kids in their home schools will make all of the schools stronger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"... Yet, the lack of diversity and underrepresentation of some student subgroups in these programs suggests that the process may rely too heavily on one or more indicators or may need to consider additional measures of student ability.

These indicators may include broadening the definition of gifted to include -
-- noncognitive measures such as motivation and persistence,
-- using group-specific norms that benchmark student performance against school peers with comparable backgrounds,
-- offering automatic admissions for students in the top 5-10% of sending elementary or middle schools in the district,
-- or using other methods that are outlined in the report and utilized in other districts across the country.

Furthermore, these data also suggest that the district should use additional programs or tools, such as expanding the existing MCPS’s Young Scholars Program to identify students from underrepresented groups in early grade levels for academically selective programs. These programs would serve to increase the applicant pool of underrepresented students and encourage greater levels of participation...."

So, use different criteria for different groups of people for admissions?

By group they don't mean a race they mean a school. And there's some sense in that, if there's a standout math student at a MS with lower scores that may say more about the student than being fifth best at a school where outside tutoring is the norm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Throughout the country, this is the primary purpose of magnet programs. They are not meant to serve the children with resources. They are meant to pull bright, hard-working kids out of problematic schools. Look at the racial breakdown of magnets in other districts the size of MOCO. They are generally over 70% minority.

I haven't checked the truth behind the post. But didn't someone post last week that half of Blair magnet kids end up at UMD? Why pay all this money for kids that would have ended up at UMD anyway had they stayed at their home schools? I can't believe the money isn't better spent. As a county, what are we actually getting out of these magnet programs? Is there research that magnt students have gone on to better and brighter things than the AP/IB kids in the home schools?

Magnets should be used to help students who are motivated and intelligent - but not so lucky in the birth lottery. Plus, keeping the bulk of magnet kids in their home schools will make all of the schools stronger.

Don't denigrate UMD at College Park. There are some great programs there.

[Anonymous]

So the fact that 40% of the program are National Merit Scholars and the average SAT score of the program is 2250 means nothing if kids choose to go to UMD because it has the program they want or is most financially manageable to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The magnet application rates look to me to roughly match the achievement levels by race on PARCC that MCPS recently published. So makes sense that there are less minorities applying, because less minorities are doing well in school. Lets try to fix that first and leave the magnets alone.

well, you are clearly a literate genius

[Anonymous]

Hi, newsflash everyone. The "disparate impact" theory of civil rights law was just recently upheld again by the Supreme Court last year. While the use of race in admissions is still controversial (and will be reviewed again) it is clear that public officials have a duty to closely examine policies that show a big race imbalance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

So you think the guy is just making it up about lots of families not knowing the programs exist?


Not the PP but I think the problem goes deeper and sending out more emails or calls will not fix it.



OK, if more e-mails and calls won't fix the problem of families that don't know the programs exist, what will fix the problem? What can MCPS do to make sure that everybody knows about these programs and understands whether and how to apply to them?"

1) For lottery programs just enter everyone or make them opt out. If you "win" the lottery you need to affirmatively claim your seat by x date to keep it. Most importantly do not have a lottery that many people do not know about since they are not yet receiving MCPS info (immersion program).

2) For selective programs do not put the onus on parents to apply unless they are trying to override an initial decision. In FCPS I think the first AAP cuts are just based on test scores of a test they give ALL kids and teacher scores of all kids above a certain point. A parent can do extra steps in an application but I do not think they are required. Basically shift the primary screening onus to the schoola not the parents. This would be a good first step to at least improve more equal shots at the slots.

This isn't feasible because waiting for the entire K cohorts parents to respond (many who could care less) during the summer will not give enough time to fill the slots by the beginning of school. They barely can do it now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Throughout the country, this is the primary purpose of magnet programs. They are not meant to serve the children with resources. They are meant to pull bright, hard-working kids out of problematic schools. Look at the racial breakdown of magnets in other districts the size of MOCO. They are generally over 70% minority.

I haven't checked the truth behind the post. But didn't someone post last week that half of Blair magnet kids end up at UMD? Why pay all this money for kids that would have ended up at UMD anyway had they stayed at their home schools? I can't believe the money isn't better spent. As a county, what are we actually getting out of these magnet programs? Is there research that magnt students have gone on to better and brighter things than the AP/IB kids in the home schools?

Magnets should be used to help students who are motivated and intelligent - but not so lucky in the birth lottery. Plus, keeping the bulk of magnet kids in their home schools will make all of the schools stronger.

The type of student who is currently at Blair is just as much in need of support and special programs as is the student who needs remedial help.

It is not equitable to shortchange the high achievers in the process of helping those who struggle. Both groups need help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

So you think the guy is just making it up about lots of families not knowing the programs exist?


Not the PP but I think the problem goes deeper and sending out more emails or calls will not fix it.



OK, if more e-mails and calls won't fix the problem of families that don't know the programs exist, what will fix the problem? What can MCPS do to make sure that everybody knows about these programs and understands whether and how to apply to them?"

1) For lottery programs just enter everyone or make them opt out. If you "win" the lottery you need to affirmatively claim your seat by x date to keep it. Most importantly do not have a lottery that many people do not know about since they are not yet receiving MCPS info (immersion program).

2) For selective programs do not put the onus on parents to apply unless they are trying to override an initial decision. In FCPS I think the first AAP cuts are just based on test scores of a test they give ALL kids and teacher scores of all kids above a certain point. A parent can do extra steps in an application but I do not think they are required. Basically shift the primary screening onus to the schoola not the parents. This would be a good first step to at least improve more equal shots at the slots.

This isn't feasible because waiting for the entire K cohorts parents to respond (many who could care less) during the summer will not give enough time to fill the slots by the beginning of school. They barely can do it now.

And it seems like any type of response required is a barrier to entry..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Makes me angry that they would even remotely consider getting rid of these programs or changing them to admit a less qualified but more racially diverse set of students.

There seems to be an implication that the current system is racist. So if I support the current system I am racist.

There are many reasons these programs are not racially diverse. Nothing will be solved by gutting these programs. Kids that truly need these programs and are thriving in them will be the ones hurt in the process.

Who in MCPS is saying anything about getting rid of the programs or admitting less-qualified students? Nobody. Not in the consultants' report, not in the Washington Post article. What the consultants are saying is that participation in the application magnets is unequal in terms of race. That is nothing to dispute; it is a fact.

So then the questions are

a. is this a problem?
b. if so, should somebody do something about it?
c. if so, what?

The consultants are saying: yes, this is a problem; yes, MCPS should do something about it; what MCPS should do about it is increase the numbers of black, Hispanic, and poor students who apply to the application magnets and the numbers of black, Hispanic, and poor students who are qualified to be there.

Do you find this problematic?

NP here. I find it problematic because the implication is that race should be considered for admissions in the magnet program. It seems that this is the only way to close the achievement gap, because nothing else seems to be working. Any genuine attempt to actually make the kids who are lagging behind, catch up academically and become academically high performing and competitive is not being attempted here. Why not suggest intensive coaching, tutoring, mentoring to these kids from the early years?

Nobody is implying this. You are inferring it. Why? How did you get from "We'd like more black/poor/Hispanic kids to apply" to "We're going to admit unqualified black/poor/Hispanic kids because they're black/poor/Hispanic"?

Not PP, but I think there is a strong implementation here. When you emphasize certain groups in this discussion without any explanation its just fuel to the fire. I think it hurts the argument to say, "we need more of this demographic in the magnet" as opposed to saying "we have more qualified applicants than are accepted so lets expand the magnet". The reason this is a hot button item is poor communication. At the end of the day, what we want is the needs met for all kids so why can't we say that instead of having this divisive discussion by separating us out into various groups.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Makes me angry that they would even remotely consider getting rid of these programs or changing them to admit a less qualified but more racially diverse set of students.

There seems to be an implication that the current system is racist. So if I support the current system I am racist.

There are many reasons these programs are not racially diverse. Nothing will be solved by gutting these programs. Kids that truly need these programs and are thriving in them will be the ones hurt in the process.

Who in MCPS is saying anything about getting rid of the programs or admitting less-qualified students? Nobody. Not in the consultants' report, not in the Washington Post article. What the consultants are saying is that participation in the application magnets is unequal in terms of race. That is nothing to dispute; it is a fact.

So then the questions are

a. is this a problem?
b. if so, should somebody do something about it?
c. if so, what?

The consultants are saying: yes, this is a problem; yes, MCPS should do something about it; what MCPS should do about it is increase the numbers of black, Hispanic, and poor students who apply to the application magnets and the numbers of black, Hispanic, and poor students who are qualified to be there.

Do you find this problematic?

NP here. I find it problematic because the implication is that race should be considered for admissions in the magnet program. It seems that this is the only way to close the achievement gap, because nothing else seems to be working. Any genuine attempt to actually make the kids who are lagging behind, catch up academically and become academically high performing and competitive is not being attempted here. Why not suggest intensive coaching, tutoring, mentoring to these kids from the early years?

Nobody is implying this. You are inferring it. Why? How did you get from "We'd like more black/poor/Hispanic kids to apply" to "We're going to admit unqualified black/poor/Hispanic kids because they're black/poor/Hispanic"?

Not PP, but I think there is a strong implementation here. When you emphasize certain groups in this discussion without any explanation its just fuel to the fire. I think it hurts the argument to say, "we need more of this demographic in the magnet" as opposed to saying "we have more qualified applicants than are accepted so lets expand the magnet". The reason this is a hot button item is poor communication. At the end of the day, what we want is the needs met for all kids so why can't we say that instead of having this divisive discussion by separating us out into various groups.

er implementation = implication