Robert Frost beats Takoma Park in Mathcounts

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, this the predictable outcome of no longer admitting the best and brightest into the magnets. I don't think having OOB magnet students winning math competitions ever helped the low income and poor performing students at TPMS anyway so the loss of rank and prestige at TPMS in favor of a school in the western side of the county shouldn't matter to MCPS either.

What is ridiculous though is that MCPS offers a more rigorous STEM curriculum at TPMS then the other schools who now have higher performing students. They really should swap out the curriculums. Schools like Frost, Pyle and wherever the real highest performing cohort is now located at should have the more difficult curriculum and TPMS should have the enriched curriculum which would better serve its new cohort with a larger range of academic abilities.

Agreed, and I actually stated this very thing earlier on. Provide the "enriched" curriculum to the high performing students without a peer cohort. It's about economies of scale. There are more higher performing students on the western side than on the eastern side. Also saves on transport costs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, this the predictable outcome of no longer admitting the best and brightest into the magnets. I don't think having OOB magnet students winning math competitions ever helped the low income and poor performing students at TPMS anyway so the loss of rank and prestige at TPMS in favor of a school in the western side of the county shouldn't matter to MCPS either.

What is ridiculous though is that MCPS offers a more rigorous STEM curriculum at TPMS then the other schools who now have higher performing students. They really should swap out the curriculums. Schools like Frost, Pyle and wherever the real highest performing cohort is now located at should have the more difficult curriculum and TPMS should have the enriched curriculum which would better serve its new cohort with a larger range of academic abilities.

Clueless

says you. MCPS's own stats show where the highest performers are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, this the predictable outcome of no longer admitting the best and brightest into the magnets. I don't think having OOB magnet students winning math competitions ever helped the low income and poor performing students at TPMS anyway so the loss of rank and prestige at TPMS in favor of a school in the western side of the county shouldn't matter to MCPS either.

What is ridiculous though is that MCPS offers a more rigorous STEM curriculum at TPMS then the other schools who now have higher performing students. They really should swap out the curriculums. Schools like Frost, Pyle and wherever the real highest performing cohort is now located at should have the more difficult curriculum and TPMS should have the enriched curriculum which would better serve its new cohort with a larger range of academic abilities.

Clueless

says you. MCPS's own stats show where the highest performers are.

FYI https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/schools/msmagnet/about/MS%20Magnet%20Field%20Test%20Data%20by%20Sending%20MS.pdf

[Anonymous]

I knew that the Blair /TPMS envy was a thing, but damn, it's worse than I thought.
Wow!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I knew that the Blair /TPMS envy was a thing, but damn, it's worse than I thought.
Wow!!!!

We knew that the new peer cohort criteria was going to end up with not the highest performers in the magnet, and we were right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Well, this the predictable outcome of no longer admitting the best and brightest into the magnets. I don't think having OOB magnet students winning math competitions ever helped the low income and poor performing students at TPMS anyway so the loss of rank and prestige at TPMS in favor of a school in the western side of the county shouldn't matter to MCPS either.

What is ridiculous though is that MCPS offers a more rigorous STEM curriculum at TPMS then the other schools who now have higher performing students. They really should swap out the curriculums. Schools like Frost, Pyle and wherever the real highest performing cohort is now located at should have the more difficult curriculum and TPMS should have the enriched curriculum which would better serve its new cohort with a larger range of academic abilities.

Agreed, and I actually stated this very thing earlier on. Provide the "enriched" curriculum to the high performing students without a peer cohort. It's about economies of scale. There are more higher performing students on the western side than on the eastern side. Also saves on transport costs.

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, this the predictable outcome of no longer admitting the best and brightest into the magnets. I don't think having OOB magnet students winning math competitions ever helped the low income and poor performing students at TPMS anyway so the loss of rank and prestige at TPMS in favor of a school in the western side of the county shouldn't matter to MCPS either.

What is ridiculous though is that MCPS offers a more rigorous STEM curriculum at TPMS then the other schools who now have higher performing students. They really should swap out the curriculums. Schools like Frost, Pyle and wherever the real highest performing cohort is now located at should have the more difficult curriculum and TPMS should have the enriched curriculum which would better serve its new cohort with a larger range of academic abilities.

Clueless

says you. MCPS's own stats show where the highest performers are.

FYI https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/schools/msmagnet/about/MS%20Magnet%20Field%20Test%20Data%20by%20Sending%20MS.pdf

I've seen this chart before, and it is incredibly interesting because there's a huge swing between different metrics and I'm not sure what it means. So, look at MAP-M vs. PARCC ML. For MAP-M, which you would assume to be a better metric for "kids who will excel at math competitions," the numbers are pretty consistent between schools. So, a school like SSIMS has 50-something and Pyle has 40-something kids who pass whatever threshold MCPS has identified. Ditto the COGAT Q. The numbers are not that disparate between various schools.

But then when you look at PARCC (an easier test), Pyle blows every other school out of the water.

I genuinely don't know what this tells us, objectively, about where the talent is. If you go by MAP-M and COGAT Quantitative, talent seems pretty evenly distributed. But if you go by PARCC, it's not. Which test is right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, this the predictable outcome of no longer admitting the best and brightest into the magnets. I don't think having OOB magnet students winning math competitions ever helped the low income and poor performing students at TPMS anyway so the loss of rank and prestige at TPMS in favor of a school in the western side of the county shouldn't matter to MCPS either.

What is ridiculous though is that MCPS offers a more rigorous STEM curriculum at TPMS then the other schools who now have higher performing students. They really should swap out the curriculums. Schools like Frost, Pyle and wherever the real highest performing cohort is now located at should have the more difficult curriculum and TPMS should have the enriched curriculum which would better serve its new cohort with a larger range of academic abilities.

Clueless

says you. MCPS's own stats show where the highest performers are.

FYI https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/schools/msmagnet/about/MS%20Magnet%20Field%20Test%20Data%20by%20Sending%20MS.pdf

I've seen this chart before, and it is incredibly interesting because there's a huge swing between different metrics and I'm not sure what it means. So, look at MAP-M vs. PARCC ML. For MAP-M, which you would assume to be a better metric for "kids who will excel at math competitions," the numbers are pretty consistent between schools. So, a school like SSIMS has 50-something and Pyle has 40-something kids who pass whatever threshold MCPS has identified. Ditto the COGAT Q. The numbers are not that disparate between various schools.

But then when you look at PARCC (an easier test), Pyle blows every other school out of the water.

I genuinely don't know what this tells us, objectively, about where the talent is. If you go by MAP-M and COGAT Quantitative, talent seems pretty evenly distributed. But if you go by PARCC, it's not. Which test is right?

The simple answer may well be there are many students at Pyle who do not enter the application process for TPMS and Eastern but would qualify as highly able had they chosen to take the relevant tests. So they only show up in the PARC columns. Because of commute time and perceived quality of home school it seems reasonable to think some highly able students there do not enter the magnet race.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, this the predictable outcome of no longer admitting the best and brightest into the magnets. I don't think having OOB magnet students winning math competitions ever helped the low income and poor performing students at TPMS anyway so the loss of rank and prestige at TPMS in favor of a school in the western side of the county shouldn't matter to MCPS either.

What is ridiculous though is that MCPS offers a more rigorous STEM curriculum at TPMS then the other schools who now have higher performing students. They really should swap out the curriculums. Schools like Frost, Pyle and wherever the real highest performing cohort is now located at should have the more difficult curriculum and TPMS should have the enriched curriculum which would better serve its new cohort with a larger range of academic abilities.

Clueless

says you. MCPS's own stats show where the highest performers are.

FYI https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/schools/msmagnet/about/MS%20Magnet%20Field%20Test%20Data%20by%20Sending%20MS.pdf

I've seen this chart before, and it is incredibly interesting because there's a huge swing between different metrics and I'm not sure what it means. So, look at MAP-M vs. PARCC ML. For MAP-M, which you would assume to be a better metric for "kids who will excel at math competitions," the numbers are pretty consistent between schools. So, a school like SSIMS has 50-something and Pyle has 40-something kids who pass whatever threshold MCPS has identified. Ditto the COGAT Q. The numbers are not that disparate between various schools.

But then when you look at PARCC (an easier test), Pyle blows every other school out of the water.

I genuinely don't know what this tells us, objectively, about where the talent is. If you go by MAP-M and COGAT Quantitative, talent seems pretty evenly distributed. But if you go by PARCC, it's not. Which test is right?

The simple answer may well be there are many students at Pyle who do not enter the application process for TPMS and Eastern but would qualify as highly able had they chosen to take the relevant tests. So they only show up in the PARC columns. Because of commute time and perceived quality of home school it seems reasonable to think some highly able students there do not enter the magnet race.

Those kids would also turn up in the MAP columns, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, this the predictable outcome of no longer admitting the best and brightest into the magnets. I don't think having OOB magnet students winning math competitions ever helped the low income and poor performing students at TPMS anyway so the loss of rank and prestige at TPMS in favor of a school in the western side of the county shouldn't matter to MCPS either.

What is ridiculous though is that MCPS offers a more rigorous STEM curriculum at TPMS then the other schools who now have higher performing students. They really should swap out the curriculums. Schools like Frost, Pyle and wherever the real highest performing cohort is now located at should have the more difficult curriculum and TPMS should have the enriched curriculum which would better serve its new cohort with a larger range of academic abilities.

Clueless

says you. MCPS's own stats show where the highest performers are.

FYI https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/schools/msmagnet/about/MS%20Magnet%20Field%20Test%20Data%20by%20Sending%20MS.pdf

I've seen this chart before, and it is incredibly interesting because there's a huge swing between different metrics and I'm not sure what it means. So, look at MAP-M vs. PARCC ML. For MAP-M, which you would assume to be a better metric for "kids who will excel at math competitions," the numbers are pretty consistent between schools. So, a school like SSIMS has 50-something and Pyle has 40-something kids who pass whatever threshold MCPS has identified. Ditto the COGAT Q. The numbers are not that disparate between various schools.

But then when you look at PARCC (an easier test), Pyle blows every other school out of the water.

I genuinely don't know what this tells us, objectively, about where the talent is. If you go by MAP-M and COGAT Quantitative, talent seems pretty evenly distributed. But if you go by PARCC, it's not. Which test is right?

Well, PARCC measures learned skills and like MAP-M, is a better indicator of students being exposed to advanced curriculum. MAP-M is also considered a better-written test and normative data compared to PARCC by most education professionals, especially in academia. Cogat measures cognitive ability. If I was measure raw ability, i.e., talent, I would go with MAP-M and Cogat over PARCC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, this the predictable outcome of no longer admitting the best and brightest into the magnets. I don't think having OOB magnet students winning math competitions ever helped the low income and poor performing students at TPMS anyway so the loss of rank and prestige at TPMS in favor of a school in the western side of the county shouldn't matter to MCPS either.

What is ridiculous though is that MCPS offers a more rigorous STEM curriculum at TPMS then the other schools who now have higher performing students. They really should swap out the curriculums. Schools like Frost, Pyle and wherever the real highest performing cohort is now located at should have the more difficult curriculum and TPMS should have the enriched curriculum which would better serve its new cohort with a larger range of academic abilities.

Keep in mind, the TPMS MathCounts Team consists of 8th graders, who were admitted before the "Cohort" method. The only conclusion is that Frost and other schools always had and will have more kids (after the "cohort") who will benefit from the difficult curriculum..

[Anonymous]

We shall request rigorous enriched math for all competent kids as they are now scattered in many schools. BTW, all 10 TP contestants qualified for state , 9 Roberto Clemente kids qualified while 6 hoover 5 Frost 5 cabin john, and 1 Pyle kids qualified individually. You can still see the magnet effect. If you relax that each school can only send 10 kids, you May see more magnet effect. Again, congratulations to Frost team! Well done!

[Anonymous]

I've seen this chart before, and it is incredibly interesting because there's a huge swing between different metrics and I'm not sure what it means. So, look at MAP-M vs. PARCC ML. For MAP-M, which you would assume to be a better metric for "kids who will excel at math competitions," the numbers are pretty consistent between schools. So, a school like SSIMS has 50-something and Pyle has 40-something kids who pass whatever threshold MCPS has identified. Ditto the COGAT Q. The numbers are not that disparate between various schools.

But then when you look at PARCC (an easier test), Pyle blows every other school out of the water.

I genuinely don't know what this tells us, objectively, about where the talent is. If you go by MAP-M and COGAT Quantitative, talent seems pretty evenly distributed. But if you go by PARCC, it's not. Which test is right?

The chart that MCPS published "normed" performance so the threshold that you are seeing are different depending on the school. You would need to score much higher coming from Pyle than you would being in boundary for TPMS or SSIMS to be counted. This is why there is a weird disconnect between areas looking like the number of high performers is similar and then seeing how a big drop in PARCC or other tests for the lower performing school.

Ironically by doing this norming (penalizing students at high performing schools and rewarding students at low performing school), MCPS basically put out data that showed every school has a co host so there really should be no cohort penalty by their "new" data. Even crazier is that the students that this whole fiasco helped were white UMC kids in lower performing schools at the expense of asian American kids -a minority group.

So basically, the more rigorous curriculum is not available to the best and brightest instead it is given to a bunch of kids who were admitted under what became a white affirmative action disguised as diversity. FTR -I don't believe that MCPS intended on this being the outcome but they are so inept and get so wrapped around the axle trying to find ways to racially balance programs and then hide that they are trying to racially balance programs that it all ends up being a mess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, this the predictable outcome of no longer admitting the best and brightest into the magnets. I don't think having OOB magnet students winning math competitions ever helped the low income and poor performing students at TPMS anyway so the loss of rank and prestige at TPMS in favor of a school in the western side of the county shouldn't matter to MCPS either.

What is ridiculous though is that MCPS offers a more rigorous STEM curriculum at TPMS then the other schools who now have higher performing students. They really should swap out the curriculums. Schools like Frost, Pyle and wherever the real highest performing cohort is now located at should have the more difficult curriculum and TPMS should have the enriched curriculum which would better serve its new cohort with a larger range of academic abilities.

Clueless

says you. MCPS's own stats show where the highest performers are.

FYI https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/schools/msmagnet/about/MS%20Magnet%20Field%20Test%20Data%20by%20Sending%20MS.pdf

Every time someone posts this, I wonder anew what the heck is wrong with Westland. It makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, here it is math madness -- it is a virtual math competition

https://www.aretelabs.com/math_madness/44/rankings

i think any school can sign up there three levels
elementary, middle and high --- TPMS participated high school

Thanks for sharing. TP ranks higher than RM once you calculate top 10 scorers. It really has a magnet effect.

For the 8th graders, I guess. TP 7th graders’ performance in math contests has been consistently poorer than the “cohorts”. Next year is going to be more revealing when the current 8th graders have graduated.