Magnet high schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have no problem with MCPS paying for tutoring and prep classes for under privileged children. I grew up lower income to uneducated immigrant parents who don't speak English.

But lowering the threshold doesn't serve the program, or the kids. Provide the support, but don't lower the expectations. All that does is provide a crutch for the kid. Life doesn't provide a crutch forever.

Yeah I agree with you and PP. Because there are more 99 percentile kids than spots in programs. Don’t lower standards. Provide opportunities to meet that standard, from the earliest possible age. So many non-profits and businesses have diversity initiatives that are reasonably effective. MCPS can too, but needs to be smart about it. Enfranchise kids early rather than waiting until double digits, when it’s much tougher to do.

I don't think anybody here has talked about lowering standards they talked about creating a level playing field so that all children could access these opportunities not just those wealthy enough to afford expensive prep classes.

Clearly you did not read the previous posts then.

I did and they only suggested leveling the playing field, but I understand that's confusing to someone who is privileged.

Please describe what level is to you. Is it just getting rid of all prep classes? No differentiation in school?

I'm the first PP up thread.. I think some think that "leveling the playing field" is looking at which zip code you live in and setting the threshold based on that because they think anyone from a certain zip code who scores above a certain point must have been tutored. But, that is not the case. There are many students from all walks of life who are "outliers" and need more challenging academics. It is not and should not be based on skin color or your zip code or your parent's income level.

Then there are those who think if you were lucky enough to be born to certain parents then you don't need another yet another "privilege" like the magnet program. You would do fine without it.

But the problem with this way of thinking is:

1. public schools shouldn't be picking and choosing "winners" and "losers". That's not the job of a public school. As I said, I have no issues with public schools paying for additional tutoring and even after school care, but it should not be setting criteria based on who your parents are. That's what racists did not that long ago.
2. the whole point of a magnet is to draw in higher income students to a lower performing area. If you do away with that, it will cause even more segregation, though it would certainly reduce transportation costs.
I have no problem with set aside seats for in bound students. I think that's a great way to admit more students from the less affluent areas.

3. If MCPS disregards the higher performing, high income families, such families will no longer want to be part of MCPS. The scores will start to drop quickly.

MCPS likes to tout AP exam participation rate and scores, but at the same time look down at those who prep to get those high scores. You can't have it both ways.

I bought my kid a cogat book from amazon. It was like $40 or something. That's the only prep my kid did. MCPS could certainly buy one for low income students who are interested. They could even offer weekend prep classes to low income students.

But setting the threshold by zip code and income level doesn't serve the mission of the magnet program, or at the end of the day, the students in the program. Life is tough, and when you constantly rely on a crutch, when reality hits, you won't be able to stand on your own. When that kid leaves HS, do you imagine that kid will continue to have MCPS level the playing field for that kid for life?

Very well articulated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have no problem with MCPS paying for tutoring and prep classes for under privileged children. I grew up lower income to uneducated immigrant parents who don't speak English.

But lowering the threshold doesn't serve the program, or the kids. Provide the support, but don't lower the expectations. All that does is provide a crutch for the kid. Life doesn't provide a crutch forever.

Yeah I agree with you and PP. Because there are more 99 percentile kids than spots in programs. Don’t lower standards. Provide opportunities to meet that standard, from the earliest possible age. So many non-profits and businesses have diversity initiatives that are reasonably effective. MCPS can too, but needs to be smart about it. Enfranchise kids early rather than waiting until double digits, when it’s much tougher to do.

I don't think anybody here has talked about lowering standards they talked about creating a level playing field so that all children could access these opportunities not just those wealthy enough to afford expensive prep classes.

Clearly you did not read the previous posts then.

I did and they only suggested leveling the playing field, but I understand that's confusing to someone who is privileged.

Please describe what level is to you. Is it just getting rid of all prep classes? No differentiation in school?

I'm the first PP up thread.. I think some think that "leveling the playing field" is looking at which zip code you live in and setting the threshold based on that because they think anyone from a certain zip code who scores above a certain point must have been tutored. But, that is not the case. There are many students from all walks of life who are "outliers" and need more challenging academics. It is not and should not be based on skin color or your zip code or your parent's income level.

Then there are those who think if you were lucky enough to be born to certain parents then you don't need another yet another "privilege" like the magnet program. You would do fine without it.

But the problem with this way of thinking is:

1. public schools shouldn't be picking and choosing "winners" and "losers". That's not the job of a public school. As I said, I have no issues with public schools paying for additional tutoring and even after school care, but it should not be setting criteria based on who your parents are. That's what racists did not that long ago.
2. the whole point of a magnet is to draw in higher income students to a lower performing area. If you do away with that, it will cause even more segregation, though it would certainly reduce transportation costs.
I have no problem with set aside seats for in bound students. I think that's a great way to admit more students from the less affluent areas.

3. If MCPS disregards the higher performing, high income families, such families will no longer want to be part of MCPS. The scores will start to drop quickly.

MCPS likes to tout AP exam participation rate and scores, but at the same time look down at those who prep to get those high scores. You can't have it both ways.

I bought my kid a cogat book from amazon. It was like $40 or something. That's the only prep my kid did. MCPS could certainly buy one for low income students who are interested. They could even offer weekend prep classes to low income students.

But setting the threshold by zip code and income level doesn't serve the mission of the magnet program, or at the end of the day, the students in the program. Life is tough, and when you constantly rely on a crutch, when reality hits, you won't be able to stand on your own. When that kid leaves HS, do you imagine that kid will continue to have MCPS level the playing field for that kid for life?

Very well articulated.

I think that #2 is an intended benefit of the program and not “the whole point.”

You simply cannot ignore the impact that zip code and cohort have on opportunities for highly able kids. I think it is easy to dismiss if you haven’t been in a school with almost zero activities or cohort. You don’t see it and just don’t understand. It is appalling what some kids go without in MCPS while at other schools they have a rich choice of clubs and in-school enrichment. It might not be quite as wonderful as the magnet experience, but for a child who is isolated in a school without any cohort or culture of academic achievement at all, it is a far more difficult experience.

Giving kids with less enrichment opportunities at their home school priority for MCPS enrichment at a magnet is not a crutch, it is fair. It absolutely does serve the mission of the magnet program and HELPS kids stand on their own as they grow up and head off to adult opportunities.

The main problem is that MCPS population has grown at a much faster rate than the enrichment opportunities it provides, so people feel they must fight over a scarce resource. I do agree with you, PP, that children in every school, no matter what their income or zip code, should have learning opportunities that take them to their full potential.

[Anonymous]

But setting the threshold by zip code and income level doesn't serve the mission of the magnet program, or at the end of the day, the students in the program. Life is tough, and when you constantly rely on a crutch, when reality hits, you won't be able to stand on your own. When that kid leaves HS, do you imagine that kid will continue to have MCPS level the playing field for that kid for life?

I think folks on this thread are conflating the three levels of "magnets" and it muddies the waters.

This thread is about magnet High Schools, which have not adopted any sort of local norming or zip code-based criteria. I think that is the correct choice, even as someone who is a big proponent of leveling the playing field in the earlier grades.

If we assume that giftedness is not perfectly correlated with parental income, we have to accept the idea that there are gifted kids (and bright hard workers) distributed throughout the county. Maybe not perfectly randomly distributed, but distributed enough that it makes sense to try to identify them. So, it makes a lot of sense to have regional CES programs and local norming to find kids who would not otherwise have access to either acceleration or enrichment. It also makes sense to continue Saturday School, ELO, and other enrichment opportunities in high needs schools/communities.

I'd say the same for middle school, although I think there is a strong argument for expanding the number of magnets.

Then, by high school, I think MCPS is correct to get rid of local norming. By this point, the opportunities provided in earlier grades should have helped to identify talent and there are no high schools in MCPS where a smart and motivated kid can't find a peer cohort.

[Anonymous]

I think many people here are correlating low test scores with parental income and applauding that MCPS has tried to figure out a way to control for that.

While I personally think that makes sense in general I'm sure many of you are following what is happening in NY where people are making up different things to justify how they want the gifted programs to look in terms of racial make up. In NY most of the students in the gifted programs are FARMS but they are Asian-American. Then they make up other reasons why the demographics are slanted.

You can't have it both ways. It's like administrators everywhere are making up whatever reason suits them to try to reduce the number of Asian-Americans in the magnet systems. This is really wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think many people here are correlating low test scores with parental income and applauding that MCPS has tried to figure out a way to control for that.

While I personally think that makes sense in general I'm sure many of you are following what is happening in NY where people are making up different things to justify how they want the gifted programs to look in terms of racial make up. In NY most of the students in the gifted programs are FARMS but they are Asian-American. Then they make up other reasons why the demographics are slanted.

You can't have it both ways. It's like administrators everywhere are making up whatever reason suits them to try to reduce the number of Asian-Americans in the magnet systems. This is really wrong.

This isn't exactly right. Most students in gifted programs in New York are elementary-aged, and up until this year were admitted based on a test administered at 4 years old. That process was absolutely dominated by UMC families from a very small handful of neighborhoods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think many people here are correlating low test scores with parental income and applauding that MCPS has tried to figure out a way to control for that.

While I personally think that makes sense in general I'm sure many of you are following what is happening in NY where people are making up different things to justify how they want the gifted programs to look in terms of racial make up. In NY most of the students in the gifted programs are FARMS but they are Asian-American. Then they make up other reasons why the demographics are slanted.

You can't have it both ways. It's like administrators everywhere are making up whatever reason suits them to try to reduce the number of Asian-Americans in the magnet systems. This is really wrong.

I don't think that's it at all. I think it's artificially inflated test scores due to the prep arms race that is the problem. There are plenty of hardworking gifted kids in every zip code but the prevalence of prep has obscured this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please- if MC offered vouchers to these cram classes very few would take advantage of the opportunities.

That sounds like a terrible solution. A simpler option might be to simply apply things like local norms.

Yes! Exactly! Why even spend more dollars on these prep programs. It just escalates the prep arms race. The real answer is to devise a system that marginalizes them. Sure, some areas will prep that's fine and the best peppers will make the cut but in areas where prep isn't common the most gifted will. This seems to be a better solution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have no problem with MCPS paying for tutoring and prep classes for under privileged children. I grew up lower income to uneducated immigrant parents who don't speak English.

But lowering the threshold doesn't serve the program, or the kids. Provide the support, but don't lower the expectations. All that does is provide a crutch for the kid. Life doesn't provide a crutch forever.

Yeah I agree with you and PP. Because there are more 99 percentile kids than spots in programs. Don’t lower standards. Provide opportunities to meet that standard, from the earliest possible age. So many non-profits and businesses have diversity initiatives that are reasonably effective. MCPS can too, but needs to be smart about it. Enfranchise kids early rather than waiting until double digits, when it’s much tougher to do.

I don't think anybody here has talked about lowering standards they talked about creating a level playing field so that all children could access these opportunities not just those wealthy enough to afford expensive prep classes.

Clearly you did not read the previous posts then.

I did and they only suggested leveling the playing field, but I understand that's confusing to someone who is privileged.

Please describe what level is to you. Is it just getting rid of all prep classes? No differentiation in school?

I'm the first PP up thread.. I think some think that "leveling the playing field" is looking at which zip code you live in and setting the threshold based on that because they think anyone from a certain zip code who scores above a certain point must have been tutored. But, that is not the case. There are many students from all walks of life who are "outliers" and need more challenging academics. It is not and should not be based on skin color or your zip code or your parent's income level.

Then there are those who think if you were lucky enough to be born to certain parents then you don't need another yet another "privilege" like the magnet program. You would do fine without it.

But the problem with this way of thinking is:

1. public schools shouldn't be picking and choosing "winners" and "losers". That's not the job of a public school. As I said, I have no issues with public schools paying for additional tutoring and even after school care, but it should not be setting criteria based on who your parents are. That's what racists did not that long ago.
2. the whole point of a magnet is to draw in higher income students to a lower performing area. If you do away with that, it will cause even more segregation, though it would certainly reduce transportation costs.
I have no problem with set aside seats for in bound students. I think that's a great way to admit more students from the less affluent areas.

3. If MCPS disregards the higher performing, high income families, such families will no longer want to be part of MCPS. The scores will start to drop quickly.

MCPS likes to tout AP exam participation rate and scores, but at the same time look down at those who prep to get those high scores. You can't have it both ways.

I bought my kid a cogat book from amazon. It was like $40 or something. That's the only prep my kid did. MCPS could certainly buy one for low income students who are interested. They could even offer weekend prep classes to low income students.

But setting the threshold by zip code and income level doesn't serve the mission of the magnet program, or at the end of the day, the students in the program. Life is tough, and when you constantly rely on a crutch, when reality hits, you won't be able to stand on your own. When that kid leaves HS, do you imagine that kid will continue to have MCPS level the playing field for that kid for life?

Very well articulated.

+1

All good points.

My kid is a 4th grader at a Regional CES. His older sister was also in the same CES a few years ago.

This year, the caliber of kids is SO different. One-third of the class is in ‘remedial math’. How is that even possible? His older sister’s class was almost all Compacted Math, with just a handful of kids who were on-level. None of the kids were ‘remedial math. The kids post things on the Google discussion boards and some of the kids really need help with grammar and composition.

The racial make-up of the class has also changed dramatically.

The level of discussion and the level of ability is nowhere near what it used to be.

It will be interesting to see how things pan out this year. My guess is that the level of instruction will have to be adjusted to meet the kids where they are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please- if MC offered vouchers to these cram classes very few would take advantage of the opportunities.

That sounds like a terrible solution. A simpler option might be to simply apply things like local norms.

Yes! Exactly! Why even spend more dollars on these prep programs. It just escalates the prep arms race. The real answer is to devise a system that marginalizes them. Sure, some areas will prep that's fine and the best peppers will make the cut but in areas where prep isn't common the most gifted will. This seems to be a better solution.

To me it sounds like people who want to cut in line.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

All good points.

My kid is a 4th grader at a Regional CES. His older sister was also in the same CES a few years ago.

This year, the caliber of kids is SO different. One-third of the class is in ‘remedial math’. How is that even possible? His older sister’s class was almost all Compacted Math, with just a handful of kids who were on-level. None of the kids were ‘remedial math. The kids post things on the Google discussion boards and some of the kids really need help with grammar and composition.

The racial make-up of the class has also changed dramatically.

The level of discussion and the level of ability is nowhere near what they used to be.

It will be interesting to see how things pan out this year. My guess is that the level of instruction will have to be adjusted to meet the kids where they are.

I wouldn't dispute this but this is mostly because this past year they used a random lottery combined with a low-bar. Few will agree this is a good process who aren't employed by MCPS.

That being said I felt that they did a great job using local norms. This had little impact on most CES programs because they're already local but seemed to help ensure that MS selection was more fair. Fruther, all the evidence showed that the classes that were selected using the cohort criteria were as strong as any in prior years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please- if MC offered vouchers to these cram classes very few would take advantage of the opportunities.

That sounds like a terrible solution. A simpler option might be to simply apply things like local norms.

Yes! Exactly! Why even spend more dollars on these prep programs. It just escalates the prep arms race. The real answer is to devise a system that marginalizes them. Sure, some areas will prep that's fine and the best peppers will make the cut but in areas where prep isn't common the most gifted will. This seems to be a better solution.

To me it sounds like people who want to cut in line.

Agree those advocating the advantage conferred by prep which their wealth affords them are exactly like people cutting in line.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

All good points.

My kid is a 4th grader at a Regional CES. His older sister was also in the same CES a few years ago.

This year, the caliber of kids is SO different. One-third of the class is in ‘remedial math’. How is that even possible? His older sister’s class was almost all Compacted Math, with just a handful of kids who were on-level. None of the kids were ‘remedial math. The kids post things on the Google discussion boards and some of the kids really need help with grammar and composition.

The racial make-up of the class has also changed dramatically.

The level of discussion and the level of ability is nowhere near what they used to be.

It will be interesting to see how things pan out this year. My guess is that the level of instruction will have to be adjusted to meet the kids where they are.

I wouldn't dispute this but this is mostly because this past year they used a random lottery combined with a low-bar. Few will agree this is a good process who aren't employed by MCPS.

That being said I felt that they did a great job using local norms. This had little impact on most CES programs because they're already local but seemed to help ensure that MS selection was more fair. Fruther, all the evidence showed that the classes that were selected using the cohort criteria were as strong as any in prior years.

The one thing I would dispute is this claim that 1/3 of the kids are in "remedial" math. I'd warrant a guess that 1/3 are in grade-level, but not remedial. For MCPS to take a kid off the grade-level track is quite a feat and I just cannot believe 1/3 of the CES class is on that track.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A coworker told me that no one gets in without prep. Well my kid did. From his circle of Blair friends, there was one child who was prepped. While there are families who prep, I also think people use that idea to justify why their kid did not get in. In reality it is like very competitive colleges. Lots of very talented kids just don't get in.

I don't think it is appropriate to use the cohort method for HS students since in HS there are many levels of classes available. In middle school there is much less differentiation (or none).

Agree 1000 percent. If your kid did not get in don’t use it as an excuse. It’s so much easier to blame others.. Do things and try to have your kid challenge themselves wherever they are.

Disagree 10,000%. Why should wealthy areas that invest in prep be given an edge over everyone else? Level the playing field and give all kids a fair chance at this opportunity not just those who attend the best schools and take outside enrichment.

Why there is always the generalized conclusion that wealthy families invest in prep? For many families that really value education, they are willing to spend the money and resource on their children's education instead of any personal and/or household extra or luxury items. How do you level the playing field when different families have different priorities and values?

This.

I live in a high FARMS/high ESOL cluster. My kids attend a Focus school.

Plenty of the families we know value sports and spend big money on sports (usually volleyball and soccer). That’s their choice. None of the kids we are friendly with attend Saturday School or get tutoring. That’s their choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

All good points.

My kid is a 4th grader at a Regional CES. His older sister was also in the same CES a few years ago.

This year, the caliber of kids is SO different. One-third of the class is in ‘remedial math’. How is that even possible? His older sister’s class was almost all Compacted Math, with just a handful of kids who were on-level. None of the kids were ‘remedial math. The kids post things on the Google discussion boards and some of the kids really need help with grammar and composition.

The racial make-up of the class has also changed dramatically.

The level of discussion and the level of ability is nowhere near what they used to be.

It will be interesting to see how things pan out this year. My guess is that the level of instruction will have to be adjusted to meet the kids where they are.

I wouldn't dispute this but this is mostly because this past year they used a random lottery combined with a low-bar. Few will agree this is a good process who aren't employed by MCPS.

That being said I felt that they did a great job using local norms. This had little impact on most CES programs because they're already local but seemed to help ensure that MS selection was more fair. Fruther, all the evidence showed that the classes that were selected using the cohort criteria were as strong as any in prior years.

The one thing I would dispute is this claim that 1/3 of the kids are in "remedial" math. I'd warrant a guess that 1/3 are in grade-level, but not remedial. For MCPS to take a kid off the grade-level track is quite a feat and I just cannot believe 1/3 of the CES class is on that track.

I’m the poster who posted this.

There are three Math classes at our Regional CES this year.

The kids mix in with kids from the neighborhood for Math. I can’t say for sure doe the other CES classes, but in my DS’ class, they are divided into three groups.

Maybe you are right that it’s not ‘remedial’. It’s more that one group is Compacted Math 4/5, one is on-level and one is a ‘slower’ class. They are all using the same Eureka Math book, but the last class definitely moves more slowly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

All good points.

My kid is a 4th grader at a Regional CES. His older sister was also in the same CES a few years ago.

This year, the caliber of kids is SO different. One-third of the class is in ‘remedial math’. How is that even possible? His older sister’s class was almost all Compacted Math, with just a handful of kids who were on-level. None of the kids were ‘remedial math. The kids post things on the Google discussion boards and some of the kids really need help with grammar and composition.

The racial make-up of the class has also changed dramatically.

The level of discussion and the level of ability is nowhere near what they used to be.

It will be interesting to see how things pan out this year. My guess is that the level of instruction will have to be adjusted to meet the kids where they are.

I wouldn't dispute this but this is mostly because this past year they used a random lottery combined with a low-bar. Few will agree this is a good process who aren't employed by MCPS.

That being said I felt that they did a great job using local norms. This had little impact on most CES programs because they're already local but seemed to help ensure that MS selection was more fair. Fruther, all the evidence showed that the classes that were selected using the cohort criteria were as strong as any in prior years.

The one thing I would dispute is this claim that 1/3 of the kids are in "remedial" math. I'd warrant a guess that 1/3 are in grade-level, but not remedial. For MCPS to take a kid off the grade-level track is quite a feat and I just cannot believe 1/3 of the CES class is on that track.

Many posters are unaware of the dramatic changes that MCPS implemented for selecting kids to be in compacted math this year. It is much, much less available than previous years.