Brookings Institution article about the new MCPS middle school magnet selection process

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it possible that mcps is finally moving towards a magnet program for the best and brightest per test scores rather than skewing heavily towards privileged kids with parents equipped to advocate?

And, is there anything wrong with that?

Is this failed sarcasm? Did you actually read the *****g article?

You must be one of the "parents equipped to advocate."

Anyone who has been following this knows the county moved to universal merit-based selection and away from the older system where students were nominated by their parents. Some people don't like this because admissions are more competitive.

+1

I don't understand why you keep saying this. I think there is a consensus by many of us that universal testing is good. What ISN'T good is selecting by peer groups. What is wrong with selecting the best and brightest student?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not the PP but I would be fine giving a bump to truly low SES kids. A poor kid scoring 92% that is willing to do the work and ride the bus for 2-3 hours can get in. However a kid who is MC and white who gets a 95% should not be bumping out a kid who is asian and gets a 99%.

The way you would do it would be to give extra % points for being poor and then choose the top students.

maybe.. but is that what happened? Do they know which child is on FARMs? Hard to tell without seeing the numbers. What we do know is that they used "peer cohort". So say that a low income student from a W cluster (yes, they do have a few) got a 93% but had a peer group at the W school. Based on MCPS admission criteria, that low income child would've been denied.

Well....no, because peer cohort was not the only factor. Other factors, including FARMS status, MAP scores, etc. went into the mix per the guidance at the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I stopped caring when I got to the statistic that the middle school magnets used to be 45% Asian and have now dropped 8%. This, in a county that is 15% Asian. First world problems.

I care. Mainly because the number of Asian kids who could benefit from magnet education and have all the academic record to prove this are not being given the chance.

Yes, it is great that the few AA and HI kids who have academic credentials are picked up for the program - as they should. But there are hundreds of Asian kids with the exact same credentials that are not being picked.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste - regardless of race.

For every Asian magnet student who is selected for the program there are many more who are not. Just because they are Asians.

My only hope is that these Asian students will remember this injustice when they graduate from their academic career and move on to their professional lives. They will all be in a position to influence lives, careers and employment. Remember what it feels like when merit is disregarded for race. Remember and use your position and influence.

I agree with your point, but what should MCPS do? What is the solution to the problem?

Pick the most qualified kids and don't worry about demographics.

The article implied that there are more qualified kids than spots. There are only 400 spots. Are you saying that there are only 400 most qualified kids in the entire county for the MS magnets? MCPS has a resource issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it possible that mcps is finally moving towards a magnet program for the best and brightest per test scores rather than skewing heavily towards privileged kids with parents equipped to advocate?

And, is there anything wrong with that?

Is this failed sarcasm? Did you actually read the *****g article?

You must be one of the "parents equipped to advocate."

Anyone who has been following this knows the county moved to universal merit-based selection and away from the older system where students were nominated by their parents. Some people don't like this because admissions are more competitive.

+1

I don't understand why you keep saying this. I think there is a consensus by many of us that universal testing is good. What ISN'T good is selecting by peer groups. What is wrong with selecting the best and brightest student?

Um, well, because all the research shows that the highly gifted need peers to enhance/sustain their mental health. It's the peers that make the difference, not the buildings or the teachers. In any case, we simply don't know how many more 99% qualified students were found by the universal screening. Is your position that no additional students were found at the highest measurable levels?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I stopped caring when I got to the statistic that the middle school magnets used to be 45% Asian and have now dropped 8%. This, in a county that is 15% Asian. First world problems.

I care. Mainly because the number of Asian kids who could benefit from magnet education and have all the academic record to prove this are not being given the chance.

Yes, it is great that the few AA and HI kids who have academic credentials are picked up for the program - as they should. But there are hundreds of Asian kids with the exact same credentials that are not being picked.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste - regardless of race.

For every Asian magnet student who is selected for the program there are many more who are not. Just because they are Asians.

My only hope is that these Asian students will remember this injustice when they graduate from their academic career and move on to their professional lives. They will all be in a position to influence lives, careers and employment. Remember what it feels like when merit is disregarded for race. Remember and use your position and influence.

I agree with your point, but what should MCPS do? What is the solution to the problem?

Pick the most qualified kids and don't worry about demographics.

This but also do everything possible to improve preschool and K-2 education for kids in low performing schools so they are better able to qualify for middle and high school magnet spots. I like the idea of the CES application being more inclusive but I really think the middle and high school programs will get diluted if they are not accepting the top performing students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not the PP but I would be fine giving a bump to truly low SES kids. A poor kid scoring 92% that is willing to do the work and ride the bus for 2-3 hours can get in. However a kid who is MC and white who gets a 95% should not be bumping out a kid who is asian and gets a 99%.

The way you would do it would be to give extra % points for being poor and then choose the top students.

maybe.. but is that what happened? Do they know which child is on FARMs? Hard to tell without seeing the numbers. What we do know is that they used "peer cohort". So say that a low income student from a W cluster (yes, they do have a few) got a 93% but had a peer group at the W school. Based on MCPS admission criteria, that low income child would've been denied.

Well....no, because peer cohort was not the only factor. Other factors, including FARMS status, MAP scores, etc. went into the mix per the guidance at the time.

Per MCPS, if there was a peer cohort, they were denied, irrespective of test scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not the PP but I would be fine giving a bump to truly low SES kids. A poor kid scoring 92% that is willing to do the work and ride the bus for 2-3 hours can get in. However a kid who is MC and white who gets a 95% should not be bumping out a kid who is asian and gets a 99%.

The way you would do it would be to give extra % points for being poor and then choose the top students.

maybe.. but is that what happened? Do they know which child is on FARMs? Hard to tell without seeing the numbers. What we do know is that they used "peer cohort". So say that a low income student from a W cluster (yes, they do have a few) got a 93% but had a peer group at the W school. Based on MCPS admission criteria, that low income child would've been denied.

Well....no, because peer cohort was not the only factor. Other factors, including FARMS status, MAP scores, etc. went into the mix per the guidance at the time.

Per MCPS, if there was a peer cohort, they were denied, irrespective of test scores.

We know that's not true because there are kids from schools WITH cohorts at TPMS and Eastern. The bar may have been higher, but it isn't as if there are zero kids at Eastern who would otherwise be at Pyle or Westland.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not the PP but I would be fine giving a bump to truly low SES kids. A poor kid scoring 92% that is willing to do the work and ride the bus for 2-3 hours can get in. However a kid who is MC and white who gets a 95% should not be bumping out a kid who is asian and gets a 99%.

The way you would do it would be to give extra % points for being poor and then choose the top students.

maybe.. but is that what happened? Do they know which child is on FARMs? Hard to tell without seeing the numbers. What we do know is that they used "peer cohort". So say that a low income student from a W cluster (yes, they do have a few) got a 93% but had a peer group at the W school. Based on MCPS admission criteria, that low income child would've been denied.

Well....no, because peer cohort was not the only factor. Other factors, including FARMS status, MAP scores, etc. went into the mix per the guidance at the time.

Per MCPS, if there was a peer cohort, they were denied, irrespective of test scores.

We know that's not true because there are kids from schools WITH cohorts at TPMS and Eastern. The bar may have been higher, but it isn't as if there are zero kids at Eastern who would otherwise be at Pyle or Westland.

+1 also not true at TPMS. There are kids from Pyle, Cabin John and Hoover in the 6th grade cohort.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not the PP but I would be fine giving a bump to truly low SES kids. A poor kid scoring 92% that is willing to do the work and ride the bus for 2-3 hours can get in. However a kid who is MC and white who gets a 95% should not be bumping out a kid who is asian and gets a 99%.

The way you would do it would be to give extra % points for being poor and then choose the top students.

maybe.. but is that what happened? Do they know which child is on FARMs? Hard to tell without seeing the numbers. What we do know is that they used "peer cohort". So say that a low income student from a W cluster (yes, they do have a few) got a 93% but had a peer group at the W school. Based on MCPS admission criteria, that low income child would've been denied.

Well....no, because peer cohort was not the only factor. Other factors, including FARMS status, MAP scores, etc. went into the mix per the guidance at the time.

Per MCPS, if there was a peer cohort, they were denied, irrespective of test scores.

We know that's not true because there are kids from schools WITH cohorts at TPMS and Eastern. The bar may have been higher, but it isn't as if there are zero kids at Eastern who would otherwise be at Pyle or Westland.

+1 also not true at TPMS. There are kids from Pyle, Cabin John and Hoover in the 6th grade cohort.

I should add that those kids may be extreme outliers within an already strong peer group for the OP's statement about MCPS's selection process this year to be true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it possible that mcps is finally moving towards a magnet program for the best and brightest per test scores rather than skewing heavily towards privileged kids with parents equipped to advocate?

And, is there anything wrong with that?

Is this failed sarcasm? Did you actually read the *****g article?

You must be one of the "parents equipped to advocate."

Anyone who has been following this knows the county moved to universal merit-based selection and away from the older system where students were nominated by their parents. Some people don't like this because admissions are more competitive.

+1

I don't understand why you keep saying this. I think there is a consensus by many of us that universal testing is good. What ISN'T good is selecting by peer groups. What is wrong with selecting the best and brightest student?

Um, well, because all the research shows that the highly gifted need peers to enhance/sustain their mental health. It's the peers that make the difference, not the buildings or the teachers. In any case, we simply don't know how many more 99% qualified students were found by the universal screening. Is your position that no additional students were found at the highest measurable levels?

No, I am not saying that no additional students were found at the highest measurable levels. The truth is: I do not know the quality of the students at the magnets this year. They could be more qualified, just as qualified or less qualified. What I do is that cohorts was used as part of the selection process, which basically opens up the possibility of admission for a student who is an outlier at a lower performing school but might not have as high of a merit as one of the "cohort" peers. That is all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it possible that mcps is finally moving towards a magnet program for the best and brightest per test scores rather than skewing heavily towards privileged kids with parents equipped to advocate?

And, is there anything wrong with that?

Is this failed sarcasm? Did you actually read the *****g article?

You must be one of the "parents equipped to advocate."

Anyone who has been following this knows the county moved to universal merit-based selection and away from the older system where students were nominated by their parents. Some people don't like this because admissions are more competitive.

You should read this article to see the data pattern in the selection outcome of a policy change only involves the universal screening. MCPS’s selection outcome doesn’t fit with the data pattern. Don’t automatically attribute everything to universal screening. It’s too far to make the logic jump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I don't understand why you keep saying this. I think there is a consensus by many of us that universal testing is good. What ISN'T good is selecting by peer groups. What is wrong with selecting the best and brightest student?

When you say "best and brightest student", what do you mean, exactly? How would you go about identifying the "best and brightest" students?

And then, of course, there's the fact that the original "best and brightest" are the people who got the US into the Vietnam War because they were convinced that they were right and everyone else was wrong. After all, why listen to the worse and dimmer, when you're the best and brightest?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Best_and_the_Brightest

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don't understand why you keep saying this. I think there is a consensus by many of us that universal testing is good. What ISN'T good is selecting by peer groups. What is wrong with selecting the best and brightest student?

When you say "best and brightest student", what do you mean, exactly? How would you go about identifying the "best and brightest" students?

And then, of course, there's the fact that the original "best and brightest" are the people who got the US into the Vietnam War because they were convinced that they were right and everyone else was wrong. After all, why listen to the worse and dimmer, when you're the best and brightest?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Best_and_the_Brightest

I think using wikipedia for this stuff is quite a stretch. It's not even a legitimate source of reference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don't understand why you keep saying this. I think there is a consensus by many of us that universal testing is good. What ISN'T good is selecting by peer groups. What is wrong with selecting the best and brightest student?

When you say "best and brightest student", what do you mean, exactly? How would you go about identifying the "best and brightest" students?

And then, of course, there's the fact that the original "best and brightest" are the people who got the US into the Vietnam War because they were convinced that they were right and everyone else was wrong. After all, why listen to the worse and dimmer, when you're the best and brightest?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Best_and_the_Brightest

I think using wikipedia for this stuff is quite a stretch. It's not even a legitimate source of reference.

It's the Wikipedia entry for David Halberstam's book The Best And The Brightest. If you don't like Wikipedia, read the book yourself. Or how about Victor Navasky's review of the book in the New York Times in November 1972?

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/98/03/15/home/halberstam-best.html?mcubz=0

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not the PP but I would be fine giving a bump to truly low SES kids. A poor kid scoring 92% that is willing to do the work and ride the bus for 2-3 hours can get in. However a kid who is MC and white who gets a 95% should not be bumping out a kid who is asian and gets a 99%.

The way you would do it would be to give extra % points for being poor and then choose the top students.

maybe.. but is that what happened? Do they know which child is on FARMs? Hard to tell without seeing the numbers. What we do know is that they used "peer cohort". So say that a low income student from a W cluster (yes, they do have a few) got a 93% but had a peer group at the W school. Based on MCPS admission criteria, that low income child would've been denied.

Well....no, because peer cohort was not the only factor. Other factors, including FARMS status, MAP scores, etc. went into the mix per the guidance at the time.

Per MCPS, if there was a peer cohort, they were denied, irrespective of test scores.

We know that's not true because there are kids from schools WITH cohorts at TPMS and Eastern. The bar may have been higher, but it isn't as if there are zero kids at Eastern who would otherwise be at Pyle or Westland.

+1 also not true at TPMS. There are kids from Pyle, Cabin John and Hoover in the 6th grade cohort.

Correct. I agree with another PP that those kids were likely outliers at their own schools. So, now the magnet program is for outliers. Which is GREAT. That's exactly what I would hope and want for a magnet program, to pull out the outliers from each of the schools and educate them together.