Middle school magnet lottery cutoffs finally revealed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can I enroll my kid in a high-farms MS and then test in to magnet?

You can move in bounds for a high FARMS ES and take your chances with the lottery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this is equity sh*t right?

Absolutely, but even worse, it makes students with the highest scores, who DO NOT win the lottery, feel really terrible about themselves. This was my daughter's situation a couple of years ago.
I am against the lottery, even if the cut-off was similar at all schools, just because it's not a fair system. You can't have a large range of scores that are entered into a hat, then pick a lower scorer over a higher scorer. You could possibly do this if the hat was all 99% and above, maaaybe? But it's really frustrating when a 90th percentile gets in, and the 99th percentile doesn't. There is a big difference in critical thinking between those two scores. DD has always had scores within the 99th percentile. Kids like her are why magnets were created. And yet she has to go to her home school, where I had to fight to get her into an advanced math class, because we're in a cluster that doesn't like accelerating students, even though she did well on her placement test and found the class really easy.

In general, we are happy with MCPS, but this particular part of it really maddening.

Look, I'm in the same boat as you with a rising sixth grader who has consistently scored in the 99th percentile, went to CES, and didn't get selected from the lottery. And yes, it sucks, but it's definitely not any less fair than our kids getting in because they happen to have been born into families with the resources to support them.

And the fact that she has someone in her life who 1) knows how to and 2) is willing to fight to get her into advanced math is a pretty good indicator that she will be OK in her home school. Not all students have that.

My 5th grader who scored in 280s on their MAPs which is 30 points over the 99th percentile wasn't selected, but several kids from the CES with much lower stats were.

I'm not into turning this into a hunger games competition or making it a windfall for the prep industry either.

They just need to increase the number of seats so kids who score in the top 2% who are interested in these programs can participate.

Yes, that's going to happen, because test scores aren't a gold standard indicator of which kids most need those seats. They definitely need to increase the number of seats, but not just for the top 2%. They need to have enough seats for all kids who can do the work. That's a huge lift, but it should be the goal.

I don't understand why the "pie" can't be bigger either. Despite an increase in school age population they have not added MS magnet seats downcountry. I assume part of the problem is space. Maybe it is optics too.

I think the reality is that these exclusive programs have run their course. The original purpose was to stop white flight in east county. Then the Asians took them over. They should get rid of the programs and focus gifted resources at the individual school level. After the pilot in 2017ish data was released that showed most middle schools had enough kids to have a gifted cohort. For the small percentage of kids who can not served at their home school, they can bus those kids to other schools where a cohort does exist. We already have a significant amount of bussing in the DCC. What is a little bit more?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Those are really low MAP scores even in the lowest FARMS group. When the lottery was first used I remember so many posters claiming there's very little difference in performance between high FARMS and low FARMS schools. They literally said it can't be more than a few percentages despite all the evidence to the contrary.

People get so stuck on this idea that they don't want to offend anyone by claiming there are differences in achievement but now you have it. There are huge differences.

People have realized that the only way to attain “equity” is by holding high-performing students back. This policy attains that outcome precisely. Talented students from low FARMS schools are excluded from the program, and including less-prepared students from high FARMS schools will dilute and slow down the magnet program for all. This will reduce the population-level gap, and thus improves equity, which is the overwhelming priority for educators.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this is equity sh*t right?

Absolutely, but even worse, it makes students with the highest scores, who DO NOT win the lottery, feel really terrible about themselves. This was my daughter's situation a couple of years ago.
I am against the lottery, even if the cut-off was similar at all schools, just because it's not a fair system. You can't have a large range of scores that are entered into a hat, then pick a lower scorer over a higher scorer. You could possibly do this if the hat was all 99% and above, maaaybe? But it's really frustrating when a 90th percentile gets in, and the 99th percentile doesn't. There is a big difference in critical thinking between those two scores. DD has always had scores within the 99th percentile. Kids like her are why magnets were created. And yet she has to go to her home school, where I had to fight to get her into an advanced math class, because we're in a cluster that doesn't like accelerating students, even though she did well on her placement test and found the class really easy.

In general, we are happy with MCPS, but this particular part of it really maddening.

Look, I'm in the same boat as you with a rising sixth grader who has consistently scored in the 99th percentile, went to CES, and didn't get selected from the lottery. And yes, it sucks, but it's definitely not any less fair than our kids getting in because they happen to have been born into families with the resources to support them.

And the fact that she has someone in her life who 1) knows how to and 2) is willing to fight to get her into advanced math is a pretty good indicator that she will be OK in her home school. Not all students have that.

My 5th grader who scored in 280s on their MAPs which is 30 points over the 99th percentile wasn't selected, but several kids from the CES with much lower stats were.

I'm not into turning this into a hunger games competition or making it a windfall for the prep industry either.

They just need to increase the number of seats so kids who score in the top 2% who are interested in these programs can participate.

Yes, that's going to happen, because test scores aren't a gold standard indicator of which kids most need those seats. They definitely need to increase the number of seats, but not just for the top 2%. They need to have enough seats for all kids who can do the work. That's a huge lift, but it should be the goal.

I don't understand why the "pie" can't be bigger either. Despite an increase in school age population they have not added MS magnet seats downcountry. I assume part of the problem is space. Maybe it is optics too.

I think the reality is that these exclusive programs have run their course. The original purpose was to stop white flight in east county. Then the Asians took them over. They should get rid of the programs and focus gifted resources at the individual school level. After the pilot in 2017ish data was released that showed most middle schools had enough kids to have a gifted cohort. For the small percentage of kids who can not served at their home school, they can bus those kids to other schools where a cohort does exist. We already have a significant amount of bussing in the DCC. What is a little bit more?

The schools don’t want gifted cohorts. Mixed-ability classrooms are the rage. Magnets are an unprincipled exception to this trend, and while they can’t be eliminated for optical reasons, they can be diluted into irrelevance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this is equity sh*t right?

Absolutely, but even worse, it makes students with the highest scores, who DO NOT win the lottery, feel really terrible about themselves. This was my daughter's situation a couple of years ago.
I am against the lottery, even if the cut-off was similar at all schools, just because it's not a fair system. You can't have a large range of scores that are entered into a hat, then pick a lower scorer over a higher scorer. You could possibly do this if the hat was all 99% and above, maaaybe? But it's really frustrating when a 90th percentile gets in, and the 99th percentile doesn't. There is a big difference in critical thinking between those two scores. DD has always had scores within the 99th percentile. Kids like her are why magnets were created. And yet she has to go to her home school, where I had to fight to get her into an advanced math class, because we're in a cluster that doesn't like accelerating students, even though she did well on her placement test and found the class really easy.

In general, we are happy with MCPS, but this particular part of it really maddening.

Look, I'm in the same boat as you with a rising sixth grader who has consistently scored in the 99th percentile, went to CES, and didn't get selected from the lottery. And yes, it sucks, but it's definitely not any less fair than our kids getting in because they happen to have been born into families with the resources to support them.

And the fact that she has someone in her life who 1) knows how to and 2) is willing to fight to get her into advanced math is a pretty good indicator that she will be OK in her home school. Not all students have that.

My 5th grader who scored in 280s on their MAPs which is 30 points over the 99th percentile wasn't selected, but several kids from the CES with much lower stats were.

I'm not into turning this into a hunger games competition or making it a windfall for the prep industry either.

They just need to increase the number of seats so kids who score in the top 2% who are interested in these programs can participate.

Yes, that's going to happen, because test scores aren't a gold standard indicator of which kids most need those seats. They definitely need to increase the number of seats, but not just for the top 2%. They need to have enough seats for all kids who can do the work. That's a huge lift, but it should be the goal.

I don't understand why the "pie" can't be bigger either. Despite an increase in school age population they have not added MS magnet seats downcountry. I assume part of the problem is space. Maybe it is optics too.

I think the reality is that these exclusive programs have run their course. The original purpose was to stop white flight in east county. Then the Asians took them over. They should get rid of the programs and focus gifted resources at the individual school level. After the pilot in 2017ish data was released that showed most middle schools had enough kids to have a gifted cohort. For the small percentage of kids who can not served at their home school, they can bus those kids to other schools where a cohort does exist. We already have a significant amount of bussing in the DCC. What is a little bit more?

The schools don’t want gifted cohorts. Mixed-ability classrooms are the rage. Magnets are an unprincipled exception to this trend, and while they can’t be eliminated for optical reasons, they can be diluted into irrelevance.

These programs aren’t about making Harper the best antitrust attorney or cardiologist she can be when she’s already doing really well. They’re about expanding opportunities for kids, including poor black and brown ones, who wouldn’t otherwise have them at their home schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those are really low MAP scores even in the lowest FARMS group. When the lottery was first used I remember so many posters claiming there's very little difference in performance between high FARMS and low FARMS schools. They literally said it can't be more than a few percentages despite all the evidence to the contrary.

People get so stuck on this idea that they don't want to offend anyone by claiming there are differences in achievement but now you have it. There are huge differences.

People have realized that the only way to attain “equity” is by holding high-performing students back. This policy attains that outcome precisely. Talented students from low FARMS schools are excluded from the program, and including less-prepared students from high FARMS schools will dilute and slow down the magnet program for all. This will reduce the population-level gap, and thus improves equity, which is the overwhelming priority for educators.

If and when talented kids from high FARMS schools get left out it is precisely because there is a lottery and their name was not drawn.
If and when talented kids from low FARMS schools get left out it is precisely because there is a lottery and their name was not drawn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those are really low MAP scores even in the lowest FARMS group. When the lottery was first used I remember so many posters claiming there's very little difference in performance between high FARMS and low FARMS schools. They literally said it can't be more than a few percentages despite all the evidence to the contrary.

People get so stuck on this idea that they don't want to offend anyone by claiming there are differences in achievement but now you have it. There are huge differences.

People have realized that the only way to attain “equity” is by holding high-performing students back. This policy attains that outcome precisely. Talented students from low FARMS schools are excluded from the program, and including less-prepared students from high FARMS schools will dilute and slow down the magnet program for all. This will reduce the population-level gap, and thus improves equity, which is the overwhelming priority for educators.

I don’t know whether or how much it will dilute the program. Hard to quantify. But the bigger issue is that MCPS has lost sight of the actual educational priority: meeting students where they are with appropriate challenge and rigor. The agenda to increase SES and other types of diversity, which I believe is important, is not more important than the very basic goal of educating the actual students. This treats them first and foremost as a member of a SES bucket rather than an individual whole child who should have the opportunity to access appropriate levels of enrichment and acceleration curriculum regardless of what neighborhood they happen to live in. There is no reason this needs to be rationed so tightly unless you are trying to make it appear that the achievement gap doesn’t exist…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can I enroll my kid in a high-farms MS and then test in to magnet?

You can move in bounds for a high FARMS ES and take your chances with the lottery.

Well, if you have an average kid this might be your best and only option, but if you have a 99% kid you'd be better off at a low-farms school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those are really low MAP scores even in the lowest FARMS group. When the lottery was first used I remember so many posters claiming there's very little difference in performance between high FARMS and low FARMS schools. They literally said it can't be more than a few percentages despite all the evidence to the contrary.

People get so stuck on this idea that they don't want to offend anyone by claiming there are differences in achievement but now you have it. There are huge differences.

People have realized that the only way to attain “equity” is by holding high-performing students back. This policy attains that outcome precisely. Talented students from low FARMS schools are excluded from the program, and including less-prepared students from high FARMS schools will dilute and slow down the magnet program for all. This will reduce the population-level gap, and thus improves equity, which is the overwhelming priority for educators.

I don’t know whether or how much it will dilute the program. Hard to quantify. But the bigger issue is that MCPS has lost sight of the actual educational priority: meeting students where they are with appropriate challenge and rigor. The agenda to increase SES and other types of diversity, which I believe is important, is not more important than the very basic goal of educating the actual students. This treats them first and foremost as a member of a SES bucket rather than an individual whole child who should have the opportunity to access appropriate levels of enrichment and acceleration curriculum regardless of what neighborhood they happen to live in. There is no reason this needs to be rationed so tightly unless you are trying to make it appear that the achievement gap doesn’t exist…

I don't think the PP was correct. Sure, it may be more equitable in some ways, but the problem is even at a high-farms school, the kid who would benefit most is unlikely to be selected. A lottery isn't ideal. I believe in local norms, but I'd just take the top kids from each school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those are really low MAP scores even in the lowest FARMS group. When the lottery was first used I remember so many posters claiming there's very little difference in performance between high FARMS and low FARMS schools. They literally said it can't be more than a few percentages despite all the evidence to the contrary.

People get so stuck on this idea that they don't want to offend anyone by claiming there are differences in achievement but now you have it. There are huge differences.

People have realized that the only way to attain “equity” is by holding high-performing students back. This policy attains that outcome precisely. Talented students from low FARMS schools are excluded from the program, and including less-prepared students from high FARMS schools will dilute and slow down the magnet program for all. This will reduce the population-level gap, and thus improves equity, which is the overwhelming priority for educators.

If and when talented kids from high FARMS schools get left out it is precisely because there is a lottery and their name was not drawn.
If and when talented kids from low FARMS schools get left out it is precisely because there is a lottery and their name was not drawn.

Yes, it does a crummy job of selecting the students who need these programs most. A top kid from a high-farms school likely doesn't even have a solid cohort. This fails them. The top kids from a low-farms school at least have a decent cohort and will likely be okay but again these programs need to focus on students and their needs instead of political trends.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this is equity sh*t right?

Absolutely, but even worse, it makes students with the highest scores, who DO NOT win the lottery, feel really terrible about themselves. This was my daughter's situation a couple of years ago.
I am against the lottery, even if the cut-off was similar at all schools, just because it's not a fair system. You can't have a large range of scores that are entered into a hat, then pick a lower scorer over a higher scorer. You could possibly do this if the hat was all 99% and above, maaaybe? But it's really frustrating when a 90th percentile gets in, and the 99th percentile doesn't. There is a big difference in critical thinking between those two scores. DD has always had scores within the 99th percentile. Kids like her are why magnets were created. And yet she has to go to her home school, where I had to fight to get her into an advanced math class, because we're in a cluster that doesn't like accelerating students, even though she did well on her placement test and found the class really easy.

In general, we are happy with MCPS, but this particular part of it really maddening.

Look, I'm in the same boat as you with a rising sixth grader who has consistently scored in the 99th percentile, went to CES, and didn't get selected from the lottery. And yes, it sucks, but it's definitely not any less fair than our kids getting in because they happen to have been born into families with the resources to support them.

And the fact that she has someone in her life who 1) knows how to and 2) is willing to fight to get her into advanced math is a pretty good indicator that she will be OK in her home school. Not all students have that.

My 5th grader who scored in 280s on their MAPs which is 30 points over the 99th percentile wasn't selected, but several kids from the CES with much lower stats were.

I'm not into turning this into a hunger games competition or making it a windfall for the prep industry either.

They just need to increase the number of seats so kids who score in the top 2% who are interested in these programs can participate.

Yes, that's going to happen, because test scores aren't a gold standard indicator of which kids most need those seats. They definitely need to increase the number of seats, but not just for the top 2%. They need to have enough seats for all kids who can do the work. That's a huge lift, but it should be the goal.

I don't understand why the "pie" can't be bigger either. Despite an increase in school age population they have not added MS magnet seats downcountry. I assume part of the problem is space. Maybe it is optics too.

I think the reality is that these exclusive programs have run their course. The original purpose was to stop white flight in east county. Then the Asians took them over. They should get rid of the programs and focus gifted resources at the individual school level. After the pilot in 2017ish data was released that showed most middle schools had enough kids to have a gifted cohort. For the small percentage of kids who can not served at their home school, they can bus those kids to other schools where a cohort does exist. We already have a significant amount of bussing in the DCC. What is a little bit more?

The schools don’t want gifted cohorts. Mixed-ability classrooms are the rage. Magnets are an unprincipled exception to this trend, and while they can’t be eliminated for optical reasons, they can be diluted into irrelevance.

These programs aren’t about making Harper the best antitrust attorney or cardiologist she can be when she’s already doing really well. They’re about expanding opportunities for kids, including poor black and brown ones, who wouldn’t otherwise have them at their home schools.

Except is that what they are doing? I think what is actually happening is that equity advocates are lazily latching on to the magnets to try to show they are “expanding opportunities.” What would actually expand opportunities would be to improve the FARMS schools and ensure that all the kids there can read and do math, and provide appropriate challenge and support to the on grade-level kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those are really low MAP scores even in the lowest FARMS group. When the lottery was first used I remember so many posters claiming there's very little difference in performance between high FARMS and low FARMS schools. They literally said it can't be more than a few percentages despite all the evidence to the contrary.

People get so stuck on this idea that they don't want to offend anyone by claiming there are differences in achievement but now you have it. There are huge differences.

People have realized that the only way to attain “equity” is by holding high-performing students back. This policy attains that outcome precisely. Talented students from low FARMS schools are excluded from the program, and including less-prepared students from high FARMS schools will dilute and slow down the magnet program for all. This will reduce the population-level gap, and thus improves equity, which is the overwhelming priority for educators.

If and when talented kids from high FARMS schools get left out it is precisely because there is a lottery and their name was not drawn.
If and when talented kids from low FARMS schools get left out it is precisely because there is a lottery and their name was not drawn.

Yes, it does a crummy job of selecting the students who need these programs most. A top kid from a high-farms school likely doesn't even have a solid cohort. This fails them. The top kids from a low-farms school at least have a decent cohort and will likely be okay but again these programs need to focus on students and their needs instead of political trends.

Excellent point. Not only does the lottery get rid of an actual gifted program, but it also diminishes the opportunities for actually gifted kids of color. Meanwhile the equity advocates get to pat themselves on the back, which is all they care about.

[Anonymous]

Double the size of these programs. Adding more seats will all students. Creating more centers will also reduce transportation costs to where it's a wash. Also, if you want to ensure the best students from each school are selected, ditch the lottery and pick the best students from each school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those are really low MAP scores even in the lowest FARMS group. When the lottery was first used I remember so many posters claiming there's very little difference in performance between high FARMS and low FARMS schools. They literally said it can't be more than a few percentages despite all the evidence to the contrary.

People get so stuck on this idea that they don't want to offend anyone by claiming there are differences in achievement but now you have it. There are huge differences.

People have realized that the only way to attain “equity” is by holding high-performing students back. This policy attains that outcome precisely. Talented students from low FARMS schools are excluded from the program, and including less-prepared students from high FARMS schools will dilute and slow down the magnet program for all. This will reduce the population-level gap, and thus improves equity, which is the overwhelming priority for educators.

If and when talented kids from high FARMS schools get left out it is precisely because there is a lottery and their name was not drawn.
If and when talented kids from low FARMS schools get left out it is precisely because there is a lottery and their name was not drawn.

Yes, it does a crummy job of selecting the students who need these programs most. A top kid from a high-farms school likely doesn't even have a solid cohort. This fails them. The top kids from a low-farms school at least have a decent cohort and will likely be okay but again these programs need to focus on students and their needs instead of political trends.

Excellent point. Not only does the lottery get rid of an actual gifted program, but it also diminishes the opportunities for actually gifted kids of color. Meanwhile the equity advocates get to pat themselves on the back, which is all they care about.

I mean, it's not like the previous system was serving poor/working class kids or kids of color all that well, either. Arguably, a process that gives gifted kids from high FARMS schools any chance of admission is better than the previous process that all but shut them out with gatekeeping measures like Saturday testing, at-home essays, and points for extracurricular activities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this is equity sh*t right?

Absolutely, but even worse, it makes students with the highest scores, who DO NOT win the lottery, feel really terrible about themselves. This was my daughter's situation a couple of years ago.
I am against the lottery, even if the cut-off was similar at all schools, just because it's not a fair system. You can't have a large range of scores that are entered into a hat, then pick a lower scorer over a higher scorer. You could possibly do this if the hat was all 99% and above, maaaybe? But it's really frustrating when a 90th percentile gets in, and the 99th percentile doesn't. There is a big difference in critical thinking between those two scores. DD has always had scores within the 99th percentile. Kids like her are why magnets were created. And yet she has to go to her home school, where I had to fight to get her into an advanced math class, because we're in a cluster that doesn't like accelerating students, even though she did well on her placement test and found the class really easy.

In general, we are happy with MCPS, but this particular part of it really maddening.

Look, I'm in the same boat as you with a rising sixth grader who has consistently scored in the 99th percentile, went to CES, and didn't get selected from the lottery. And yes, it sucks, but it's definitely not any less fair than our kids getting in because they happen to have been born into families with the resources to support them.

And the fact that she has someone in her life who 1) knows how to and 2) is willing to fight to get her into advanced math is a pretty good indicator that she will be OK in her home school. Not all students have that.

My 5th grader who scored in 280s on their MAPs which is 30 points over the 99th percentile wasn't selected, but several kids from the CES with much lower stats were.

I'm not into turning this into a hunger games competition or making it a windfall for the prep industry either.

They just need to increase the number of seats so kids who score in the top 2% who are interested in these programs can participate.

Yes, that's going to happen, because test scores aren't a gold standard indicator of which kids most need those seats. They definitely need to increase the number of seats, but not just for the top 2%. They need to have enough seats for all kids who can do the work. That's a huge lift, but it should be the goal.

I don't understand why the "pie" can't be bigger either. Despite an increase in school age population they have not added MS magnet seats downcountry. I assume part of the problem is space. Maybe it is optics too.

I think the reality is that these exclusive programs have run their course. The original purpose was to stop white flight in east county. Then the Asians took them over. They should get rid of the programs and focus gifted resources at the individual school level. After the pilot in 2017ish data was released that showed most middle schools had enough kids to have a gifted cohort. For the small percentage of kids who can not served at their home school, they can bus those kids to other schools where a cohort does exist. We already have a significant amount of bussing in the DCC. What is a little bit more?

The schools don’t want gifted cohorts. Mixed-ability classrooms are the rage. Magnets are an unprincipled exception to this trend, and while they can’t be eliminated for optical reasons, they can be diluted into irrelevance.

These programs aren’t about making Harper the best antitrust attorney or cardiologist she can be when she’s already doing really well. They’re about expanding opportunities for kids, including poor black and brown ones, who wouldn’t otherwise have them at their home schools.

Except is that what they are doing? I think what is actually happening is that equity advocates are lazily latching on to the magnets to try to show they are “expanding opportunities.” What would actually expand opportunities would be to improve the FARMS schools and ensure that all the kids there can read and do math, and provide appropriate challenge and support to the on grade-level kids.

Your agenda is pretty clear here. You COULD have made your points without resorting to name calling, but you lose me when your real gripe is with people who are working to expand opportunities rather than restrict them.