Is Cold Spring HGC the only HGC targeted by MCPS for denying entrance to MS magnet programs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think most of the HGCs were targeted. If a kid came to HGC from a good home school unless they were an outlier in their HGC they did not get in the MS magnet.

On the other hand, slightly above average URM students from any school and HGC students from poor performing home schools were invited to magnet MS.

We are assigned to a low performing ES, MS and HS. My children have always been in magnet programs and are outliers within the magnet program as well. Still, if the magnet programs are so diluted that any bright kid (but not exceptional child) can be included, I do not want to trek to a magnet program. The value of the magnet program is the peer group first, the parents second, the curriculum third and if we are lucky we get qualified teachers, dedicated coordinator and not hostile administration.

I wonder since when doing well became such a bad thing in American society?

There is absolutely no way you could have the data to support the assertions in bold, so this is just inflammatory.

I don't know if the second point is true, but the first absolutely is. Availability of peer cohort is listed as one of the criteria, and Cold Spring, with historically the highest admission stats across the board, arguably in itself yields three sizeable MS peer cohorts assigned to MSs with enriched (ha!) instruction. Those kids have learned the rudiments of Latin and are reading Shakespeare, and are now accustomed to doing up to 3 hours of homework per day. Many of them scored 99s in 3 or 4 categories, have straight As, very high MAP scores and were rejected. The drop from 25 to 2 admitted suggests only a CS CES child who got perfect scores, or close to it, had a chance. The remaining 97% would like to see the raw data. If the raw data supports admission based on merit, great. If not, the parents have the right to know. That data is also necessary to make a case for comparable instructions tracks at the home school, which the parents were told to advocate for. Knowing if your kid got a 155 vs. a 135 is helpful and important information! Be transparent, MCPS!

PP, you are the first poster who has concretely said many of the CS rejected students had 99s in 3 or 4 categories. I am not doubting it, but what do you actually know? Do you know three or four people’s scores and are assuming the rest? Have many of you shared scores with each other? Because on DCUM, some people have the impression that a lot of kids had such scores, but there is very little proof as few people have posted their scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think most of the HGCs were targeted. If a kid came to HGC from a good home school unless they were an outlier in their HGC they did not get in the MS magnet.

On the other hand, slightly above average URM students from any school and HGC students from poor performing home schools were invited to magnet MS.

We are assigned to a low performing ES, MS and HS. My children have always been in magnet programs and are outliers within the magnet program as well. Still, if the magnet programs are so diluted that any bright kid (but not exceptional child) can be included, I do not want to trek to a magnet program. The value of the magnet program is the peer group first, the parents second, the curriculum third and if we are lucky we get qualified teachers, dedicated coordinator and not hostile administration.

I wonder since when doing well became such a bad thing in American society?

There is absolutely no way you could have the data to support the assertions in bold, so this is just inflammatory.

I don't know if the second point is true, but the first absolutely is. Availability of peer cohort is listed as one of the criteria, and Cold Spring, with historically the highest admission stats across the board, arguably in itself yields three sizeable MS peer cohorts assigned to MSs with enriched (ha!) instruction. Those kids have learned the rudiments of Latin and are reading Shakespeare, and are now accustomed to doing up to 3 hours of homework per day. Many of them scored 99s in 3 or 4 categories, have straight As, very high MAP scores and were rejected. The drop from 25 to 2 admitted suggests only a CS CES child who got perfect scores, or close to it, had a chance. The remaining 97% would like to see the raw data. If the raw data supports admission based on merit, great. If not, the parents have the right to know. That data is also necessary to make a case for comparable instructions tracks at the home school, which the parents were told to advocate for. Knowing if your kid got a 155 vs. a 135 is helpful and important information! Be transparent, MCPS!

PP, you are the first poster who has concretely said many of the CS rejected students had 99s in 3 or 4 categories. I am not doubting it, but what do you actually know? Do you know three or four people’s scores and are assuming the rest? Have many of you shared scores with each other? Because on DCUM, some people have the impression that a lot of kids had such scores, but there is very little proof as few people have posted their scores.

Cold Spring parents are circulating a petition to obtain the raw scores data. At least six CS parents have stated their child received 99s in all 4 categories, and were rejected. Mine received three 99s and a 98. This more concrete information is just beginning to circulate, so I'm pretty sure there will be more. I'm actually fine with DC going to the home MS due to concern about the commute, but do think MCPS should release the raw data to allow parents to advocate for peer cohort grouping and critical thinking-based enriched instruction at the home schools. I also have no problem with strategies to counter the inequities in instructions at MCPS schools, and to address the achievement gap (if that's what this is), but believe MCPS needs to be absolutely transparent about admissions criteria and objectives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:are now accustomed to doing up to 3 hours of homework per day

Jeez... why are these kids doing 3 hours of homework a night in 5th grade? That's way too much. There should be a place for gifted students that doesn't involve entering a rat race at age 10 for no good reason - that's just a recipe for burnout.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:are now accustomed to doing up to 3 hours of homework per day

Jeez... why are these kids doing 3 hours of homework a night in 5th grade? That's way too much. There should be a place for gifted students that doesn't involve entering a rat race at age 10 for no good reason - that's just a recipe for burnout.

3 hours typically includes kids just reading for fun. There are kids in sports, other activities. There are a handful of us who do playdates too! I don't think you should imagine a child hanging over the desk, half asleep and with pencil and paper in hand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think most of the HGCs were targeted. If a kid came to HGC from a good home school unless they were an outlier in their HGC they did not get in the MS magnet.

On the other hand, slightly above average URM students from any school and HGC students from poor performing home schools were invited to magnet MS.

We are assigned to a low performing ES, MS and HS. My children have always been in magnet programs and are outliers within the magnet program as well. Still, if the magnet programs are so diluted that any bright kid (but not exceptional child) can be included, I do not want to trek to a magnet program. The value of the magnet program is the peer group first, the parents second, the curriculum third and if we are lucky we get qualified teachers, dedicated coordinator and not hostile administration.

I wonder since when doing well became such a bad thing in American society?

There is absolutely no way you could have the data to support the assertions in bold, so this is just inflammatory.

I don't know if the second point is true, but the first absolutely is. Availability of peer cohort is listed as one of the criteria, and Cold Spring, with historically the highest admission stats across the board, arguably in itself yields three sizeable MS peer cohorts assigned to MSs with enriched (ha!) instruction. Those kids have learned the rudiments of Latin and are reading Shakespeare, and are now accustomed to doing up to 3 hours of homework per day. Many of them scored 99s in 3 or 4 categories, have straight As, very high MAP scores and were rejected. The drop from 25 to 2 admitted suggests only a CS CES child who got perfect scores, or close to it, had a chance. The remaining 97% would like to see the raw data. If the raw data supports admission based on merit, great. If not, the parents have the right to know. That data is also necessary to make a case for comparable instructions tracks at the home school, which the parents were told to advocate for. Knowing if your kid got a 155 vs. a 135 is helpful and important information! Be transparent, MCPS!

PP, you are the first poster who has concretely said many of the CS rejected students had 99s in 3 or 4 categories. I am not doubting it, but what do you actually know? Do you know three or four people’s scores and are assuming the rest? Have many of you shared scores with each other? Because on DCUM, some people have the impression that a lot of kids had such scores, but there is very little proof as few people have posted their scores.

Cold Spring parents are circulating a petition to obtain the raw scores data. At least six CS parents have stated their child received 99s in all 4 categories, and were rejected. Mine received three 99s and a 98. This more concrete information is just beginning to circulate, so I'm pretty sure there will be more. I'm actually fine with DC going to the home MS due to concern about the commute, but do think MCPS should release the raw data to allow parents to advocate for peer cohort grouping and critical thinking-based enriched instruction at the home schools. I also have no problem with strategies to counter the inequities in instructions at MCPS schools, and to address the achievement gap (if that's what this is), but believe MCPS needs to be absolutely transparent about admissions criteria and objectives.

You have a right to this sata under MPIA. Don't just circulate a petition, ask for it under MPIA, or make sure your petition references MPIA. You can ask both for CS sata and for the data of admitted students as well as the entire applicant group.

They will try to blind the data to skew it, so be aware what you're getting. Means and medians can be deceptive. You should know ranges. Plus info for applicant pool, admitted pool, waitlisted pool and CS pool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think most of the HGCs were targeted. If a kid came to HGC from a good home school unless they were an outlier in their HGC they did not get in the MS magnet.

On the other hand, slightly above average URM students from any school and HGC students from poor performing home schools were invited to magnet MS.

We are assigned to a low performing ES, MS and HS. My children have always been in magnet programs and are outliers within the magnet program as well. Still, if the magnet programs are so diluted that any bright kid (but not exceptional child) can be included, I do not want to trek to a magnet program. The value of the magnet program is the peer group first, the parents second, the curriculum third and if we are lucky we get qualified teachers, dedicated coordinator and not hostile administration.

I wonder since when doing well became such a bad thing in American society?

There is absolutely no way you could have the data to support the assertions in bold, so this is just inflammatory.

I don't know if the second point is true, but the first absolutely is. Availability of peer cohort is listed as one of the criteria, and Cold Spring, with historically the highest admission stats across the board, arguably in itself yields three sizeable MS peer cohorts assigned to MSs with enriched (ha!) instruction. Those kids have learned the rudiments of Latin and are reading Shakespeare, and are now accustomed to doing up to 3 hours of homework per day. Many of them scored 99s in 3 or 4 categories, have straight As, very high MAP scores and were rejected. The drop from 25 to 2 admitted suggests only a CS CES child who got perfect scores, or close to it, had a chance. The remaining 97% would like to see the raw data. If the raw data supports admission based on merit, great. If not, the parents have the right to know. That data is also necessary to make a case for comparable instructions tracks at the home school, which the parents were told to advocate for. Knowing if your kid got a 155 vs. a 135 is helpful and important information! Be transparent, MCPS!

PP, you are the first poster who has concretely said many of the CS rejected students had 99s in 3 or 4 categories. I am not doubting it, but what do you actually know? Do you know three or four people’s scores and are assuming the rest? Have many of you shared scores with each other? Because on DCUM, some people have the impression that a lot of kids had such scores, but there is very little proof as few people have posted their scores.

Cold Spring parents are circulating a petition to obtain the raw scores data. At least six CS parents have stated their child received 99s in all 4 categories, and were rejected. Mine received three 99s and a 98. This more concrete information is just beginning to circulate, so I'm pretty sure there will be more. I'm actually fine with DC going to the home MS due to concern about the commute, but do think MCPS should release the raw data to allow parents to advocate for peer cohort grouping and critical thinking-based enriched instruction at the home schools. I also have no problem with strategies to counter the inequities in instructions at MCPS schools, and to address the achievement gap (if that's what this is), but believe MCPS needs to be absolutely transparent about admissions criteria and objectives.

You have a right to this sata under MPIA. Don't just circulate a petition, ask for it under MPIA, or make sure your petition references MPIA. You can ask both for CS sata and for the data of admitted students as well as the entire applicant group.

They will try to blind the data to skew it, so be aware what you're getting. Means and medians can be deceptive. You should know ranges. Plus info for applicant pool, admitted pool, waitlisted pool and CS pool.

Thank you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think most of the HGCs were targeted. If a kid came to HGC from a good home school unless they were an outlier in their HGC they did not get in the MS magnet.

On the other hand, slightly above average URM students from any school and HGC students from poor performing home schools were invited to magnet MS.

We are assigned to a low performing ES, MS and HS. My children have always been in magnet programs and are outliers within the magnet program as well. Still, if the magnet programs are so diluted that any bright kid (but not exceptional child) can be included, I do not want to trek to a magnet program. The value of the magnet program is the peer group first, the parents second, the curriculum third and if we are lucky we get qualified teachers, dedicated coordinator and not hostile administration.

I wonder since when doing well became such a bad thing in American society?

There is absolutely no way you could have the data to support the assertions in bold, so this is just inflammatory.

I don't know if the second point is true, but the first absolutely is. Availability of peer cohort is listed as one of the criteria, and Cold Spring, with historically the highest admission stats across the board, arguably in itself yields three sizeable MS peer cohorts assigned to MSs with enriched (ha!) instruction. Those kids have learned the rudiments of Latin and are reading Shakespeare, and are now accustomed to doing up to 3 hours of homework per day. Many of them scored 99s in 3 or 4 categories, have straight As, very high MAP scores and were rejected. The drop from 25 to 2 admitted suggests only a CS CES child who got perfect scores, or close to it, had a chance. The remaining 97% would like to see the raw data. If the raw data supports admission based on merit, great. If not, the parents have the right to know. That data is also necessary to make a case for comparable instructions tracks at the home school, which the parents were told to advocate for. Knowing if your kid got a 155 vs. a 135 is helpful and important information! Be transparent, MCPS!

PP, you are the first poster who has concretely said many of the CS rejected students had 99s in 3 or 4 categories. I am not doubting it, but what do you actually know? Do you know three or four people’s scores and are assuming the rest? Have many of you shared scores with each other? Because on DCUM, some people have the impression that a lot of kids had such scores, but there is very little proof as few people have posted their scores.

Cold Spring parents are circulating a petition to obtain the raw scores data. At least six CS parents have stated their child received 99s in all 4 categories, and were rejected. Mine received three 99s and a 98. This more concrete information is just beginning to circulate, so I'm pretty sure there will be more. I'm actually fine with DC going to the home MS due to concern about the commute, but do think MCPS should release the raw data to allow parents to advocate for peer cohort grouping and critical thinking-based enriched instruction at the home schools. I also have no problem with strategies to counter the inequities in instructions at MCPS schools, and to address the achievement gap (if that's what this is), but believe MCPS needs to be absolutely transparent about admissions criteria and objectives.

You have a right to this sata under MPIA. Don't just circulate a petition, ask for it under MPIA, or make sure your petition references MPIA. You can ask both for CS sata and for the data of admitted students as well as the entire applicant group.

They will try to blind the data to skew it, so be aware what you're getting. Means and medians can be deceptive. You should know ranges. Plus info for applicant pool, admitted pool, waitlisted pool and CS pool.

Not a CS parent, but we are at Barnsley. This is a great idea! I hope someone does get the CS data and please come back and post it here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think most of the HGCs were targeted. If a kid came to HGC from a good home school unless they were an outlier in their HGC they did not get in the MS magnet.

On the other hand, slightly above average URM students from any school and HGC students from poor performing home schools were invited to magnet MS.

We are assigned to a low performing ES, MS and HS. My children have always been in magnet programs and are outliers within the magnet program as well. Still, if the magnet programs are so diluted that any bright kid (but not exceptional child) can be included, I do not want to trek to a magnet program. The value of the magnet program is the peer group first, the parents second, the curriculum third and if we are lucky we get qualified teachers, dedicated coordinator and not hostile administration.

I wonder since when doing well became such a bad thing in American society?

There is absolutely no way you could have the data to support the assertions in bold, so this is just inflammatory.

I don't know if the second point is true, but the first absolutely is. Availability of peer cohort is listed as one of the criteria, and Cold Spring, with historically the highest admission stats across the board, arguably in itself yields three sizeable MS peer cohorts assigned to MSs with enriched (ha!) instruction. Those kids have learned the rudiments of Latin and are reading Shakespeare, and are now accustomed to doing up to 3 hours of homework per day. Many of them scored 99s in 3 or 4 categories, have straight As, very high MAP scores and were rejected. The drop from 25 to 2 admitted suggests only a CS CES child who got perfect scores, or close to it, had a chance. The remaining 97% would like to see the raw data. If the raw data supports admission based on merit, great. If not, the parents have the right to know. That data is also necessary to make a case for comparable instructions tracks at the home school, which the parents were told to advocate for. Knowing if your kid got a 155 vs. a 135 is helpful and important information! Be transparent, MCPS!

PP, you are the first poster who has concretely said many of the CS rejected students had 99s in 3 or 4 categories. I am not doubting it, but what do you actually know? Do you know three or four people’s scores and are assuming the rest? Have many of you shared scores with each other? Because on DCUM, some people have the impression that a lot of kids had such scores, but there is very little proof as few people have posted their scores.

Cold Spring parents are circulating a petition to obtain the raw scores data. At least six CS parents have stated their child received 99s in all 4 categories, and were rejected. Mine received three 99s and a 98. This more concrete information is just beginning to circulate, so I'm pretty sure there will be more. I'm actually fine with DC going to the home MS due to concern about the commute, but do think MCPS should release the raw data to allow parents to advocate for peer cohort grouping and critical thinking-based enriched instruction at the home schools. I also have no problem with strategies to counter the inequities in instructions at MCPS schools, and to address the achievement gap (if that's what this is), but believe MCPS needs to be absolutely transparent about admissions criteria and objectives.

You have a right to this sata under MPIA. Don't just circulate a petition, ask for it under MPIA, or make sure your petition references MPIA. You can ask both for CS sata and for the data of admitted students as well as the entire applicant group.

They will try to blind the data to skew it, so be aware what you're getting. Means and medians can be deceptive. You should know ranges. Plus info for applicant pool, admitted pool, waitlisted pool and CS pool.

Not a CS parent, but we are at Barnsley. This is a great idea! I hope someone does get the CS data and please come back and post it here.

This is DCUM at its best! Perhaps the Barnsley parents might want to join forces with the CS parents to get MCPS to give you the raw data. Also contact MCCPTA to see if their GT liaisons can help

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Np. The COGAT was never intended for distinguishing above 99%. It’s a group administered ability test for the purposes of screening. It does not identify “exceptional” children apart from 99% kids. You all are putting way too much stock in this test.

I lived in a school district which did a very similar thing with their gifted magnet schools. 95% was the threshold. Kids who scored above that were eligible for a lottery and the school district played with demographics as they saw fit. The only difference was all kids were screened and those who did well were given a real IQ test by one school psych, and that was the only score that mattered. (No appeals or outside testing)

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think most of the HGCs were targeted. If a kid came to HGC from a good home school unless they were an outlier in their HGC they did not get in the MS magnet.

On the other hand, slightly above average URM students from any school and HGC students from poor performing home schools were invited to magnet MS.

We are assigned to a low performing ES, MS and HS. My children have always been in magnet programs and are outliers within the magnet program as well. Still, if the magnet programs are so diluted that any bright kid (but not exceptional child) can be included, I do not want to trek to a magnet program. The value of the magnet program is the peer group first, the parents second, the curriculum third and if we are lucky we get qualified teachers, dedicated coordinator and not hostile administration.

I wonder since when doing well became such a bad thing in American society?

There is absolutely no way you could have the data to support the assertions in bold, so this is just inflammatory.

I don't know if the second point is true, but the first absolutely is. Availability of peer cohort is listed as one of the criteria, and Cold Spring, with historically the highest admission stats across the board, arguably in itself yields three sizeable MS peer cohorts assigned to MSs with enriched (ha!) instruction. Those kids have learned the rudiments of Latin and are reading Shakespeare, and are now accustomed to doing up to 3 hours of homework per day. Many of them scored 99s in 3 or 4 categories, have straight As, very high MAP scores and were rejected. The drop from 25 to 2 admitted suggests only a CS CES child who got perfect scores, or close to it, had a chance. The remaining 97% would like to see the raw data. If the raw data supports admission based on merit, great. If not, the parents have the right to know. That data is also necessary to make a case for comparable instructions tracks at the home school, which the parents were told to advocate for. Knowing if your kid got a 155 vs. a 135 is helpful and important information! Be transparent, MCPS!

PP, you are the first poster who has concretely said many of the CS rejected students had 99s in 3 or 4 categories. I am not doubting it, but what do you actually know? Do you know three or four people’s scores and are assuming the rest? Have many of you shared scores with each other? Because on DCUM, some people have the impression that a lot of kids had such scores, but there is very little proof as few people have posted their scores.

Cold Spring parents are circulating a petition to obtain the raw scores data. At least six CS parents have stated their child received 99s in all 4 categories, and were rejected. Mine received three 99s and a 98. This more concrete information is just beginning to circulate, so I'm pretty sure there will be more. I'm actually fine with DC going to the home MS due to concern about the commute, but do think MCPS should release the raw data to allow parents to advocate for peer cohort grouping and critical thinking-based enriched instruction at the home schools. I also have no problem with strategies to counter the inequities in instructions at MCPS schools, and to address the achievement gap (if that's what this is), but believe MCPS needs to be absolutely transparent about admissions criteria and objectives.

You have a right to this sata under MPIA. Don't just circulate a petition, ask for it under MPIA, or make sure your petition references MPIA. You can ask both for CS sata and for the data of admitted students as well as the entire applicant group.

They will try to blind the data to skew it, so be aware what you're getting. Means and medians can be deceptive. You should know ranges. Plus info for applicant pool, admitted pool, waitlisted pool and CS pool.

Agree, you have a right to the data because it is a government agency. You should ask for ALL the raw data of applicants, anonymized, with certain fields: school, race, admissions status (admitted, waitlisted, rejected), average grades, map scores, in electronic form so you don't have to retype. You should have someone in your group who is familiar with data analysis to calculate the means/medians. Call the education reporters at Bethesda Magazine or The Washington Post and the Montgomery County GT people and have them submit something, too. The news organizations can file an expedited request saying the information is in the public interest and it's urgent because it will give families information they need for an appeal.

[Anonymous]

You may also want to ask for information about "peer group" and how it's calculated. I thought I read somewhere that they use a "composite" of MAP and grades plus the admissions test to look at students.

Public agencies are more likely to turn data over if you can reference the name of the data set you want or the title of the report rather than a general request. Try to find an insider who can give you that kind of information.

[Anonymous]

Are people looking for this data as the basis for a lawsuit or something? Because it seems that MCPS can create whatever criteria it wants for admission to schools that it administers, as long as they are legal (not gender or race-based).

As an analogy, in Texas all students in the top 10% of their high school graduating classes are guaranteed admission to the University of Texas. So of course that means that many kids at lower performing schools are technically taking the place of students with higher scores and grades from more competitive high schools who didn't place in the top 10% of their classes. But Texas is allowed to do this because they're their schools and it helps provide opportunity to kids outside the usual wealthy suburbs.

[Anonymous]

Another direction the school system could consider going (what districts in other large cities do) it to have a first cut for these schools done by exam, and then students who pass a certain threshold on that exam are entered into a lottery. So if they could fill the school 5x over with kids who get all 99s, then they pick one fifth of those kids at random.

No one is entitled to these schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are people looking for this data as the basis for a lawsuit or something? Because it seems that MCPS can create whatever criteria it wants for admission to schools that it administers, as long as they are legal (not gender or race-based).

As an analogy, in Texas all students in the top 10% of their high school graduating classes are guaranteed admission to the University of Texas. So of course that means that many kids at lower performing schools are technically taking the place of students with higher scores and grades from more competitive high schools who didn't place in the top 10% of their classes. But Texas is allowed to do this because they're their schools and it helps provide opportunity to kids outside the usual wealthy suburbs.

It is hard for some CS parents to grasp that admission is not solely based on the raw score of the test, despite descriptions on the MCPS website.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are people looking for this data as the basis for a lawsuit or something? Because it seems that MCPS can create whatever criteria it wants for admission to schools that it administers, as long as they are legal (not gender or race-based).

As an analogy, in Texas all students in the top 10% of their high school graduating classes are guaranteed admission to the University of Texas. So of course that means that many kids at lower performing schools are technically taking the place of students with higher scores and grades from more competitive high schools who didn't place in the top 10% of their classes. But Texas is allowed to do this because they're their schools and it helps provide opportunity to kids outside the usual wealthy suburbs.

It is hard for some CS parents to grasp that admission is not solely based on the raw score of the test, despite descriptions on the MCPS website.

Seriously, no one reads these days.

5. My child scores for the various criteria are in the 90+ percentiles, why did my child not get
selected?
This year, the process looked at all fifth grade elementary students in 80 elementary schools. This
changed our examination of student need for magnet programs to considering over 4,000 Grade 5
students – a sharp increase to the previous traditional parent application process which yielded a look
at fewer students, 700 to 800 applicants total.
This year’s process included looking at the Grade 5 report card, reading level, math enrichment access,
MAP-R and MAP-M, PARCC performance in reading and math, student questionnaire, student voice
and the outside assessment. An additional variable of looking at students through the lens of comparable
academic peer group within a school accessing enriched and acceleration instruction in core content
areas, was part of the process.
Your child, while high performing, has an academic peer group within her local school and doesn’t
present as an outlier within that group. We encourage you to work with your local middle school
principal for programming and grouping practices