Middle school magnet results?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RIP to the magnet program as we once knew it.

Yadda yadda yadda. You do realize that somebody has been saying this every year ... for years?

And now the data proves it too. Go find the students who reached the National level Mathcounts team in 2021. Traditionally, students from Takoma Park and Roberto Clemente represented in Mathcounts national team. In 2021, there were two students from Robert Frost, one from Hoover and only one from Takoma Park Middle School.
RIP magnet program!

I've never understood the argument that the Magnets Are Dead because kids who engage in competition math are now distributed among other schools. To me, that says that they are still getting a strong math education outside the magnet, and that the new system of creating "cohorts" of high achieving kids is working.

Agree to an extent. This a non-issue. The kids who take part in competitive math competitions and do well receive math enrichment outside of mcps. They wouldn't gain much from magnet math classes anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RIP to the magnet program as we once knew it.

Yadda yadda yadda. You do realize that somebody has been saying this every year ... for years?

And now the data proves it too. Go find the students who reached the National level Mathcounts team in 2021. Traditionally, students from Takoma Park and Roberto Clemente represented in Mathcounts national team. In 2021, there were two students from Robert Frost, one from Hoover and only one from Takoma Park Middle School.
RIP magnet program!

I've never understood the argument that the Magnets Are Dead because kids who engage in competition math are now distributed among other schools. To me, that says that they are still getting a strong math education outside the magnet, and that the new system of creating "cohorts" of high achieving kids is working.

You are right it does show strong cohorts. It ALSO SHOWS that magnet quality has gone down and the Curriculum is in actuality being “watered down.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Whatever happened to the MCCPTA gifted ed committee efforts?

Hard to say. Ongoing, certainly, but like everone else (MCPS included), I expect that, personnally/professionally, they have bigger fish to fry under current circumstances. In any case, and as with most things, it would take a large number of folks pushing for action/policy/legislation. Getting something specific into the MCCPTA advocacy priorities would be a start.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RIP to the magnet program as we once knew it.

Yadda yadda yadda. You do realize that somebody has been saying this every year ... for years?

And now the data proves it too. Go find the students who reached the National level Mathcounts team in 2021. Traditionally, students from Takoma Park and Roberto Clemente represented in Mathcounts national team. In 2021, there were two students from Robert Frost, one from Hoover and only one from Takoma Park Middle School.
RIP magnet program!

I've never understood the argument that the Magnets Are Dead because kids who engage in competition math are now distributed among other schools. To me, that says that they are still getting a strong math education outside the magnet, and that the new system of creating "cohorts" of high achieving kids is working.

Agree to an extent. This a non-issue. The kids who take part in competitive math competitions and do well receive math enrichment outside of mcps. They wouldn't gain much from magnet math classes anyway.

In that case, it seems a good resolution. Why should kids who already get outside math enrichment take the seats of kids who actually stand to learn and grow from magnet math classes? It'd be a waste of resources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Whatever happened to the MCCPTA gifted ed committee efforts?

Hard to say. Ongoing, certainly, but like everone else (MCPS included), I expect that, personnally/professionally, they have bigger fish to fry under current circumstances. In any case, and as with most things, it would take a large number of folks pushing for action/policy/legislation. Getting something specific into the MCCPTA advocacy priorities would be a start.

So then, how do we get MCCPTA to prioritize gifted ed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RIP to the magnet program as we once knew it.

Yadda yadda yadda. You do realize that somebody has been saying this every year ... for years?

And now the data proves it too. Go find the students who reached the National level Mathcounts team in 2021. Traditionally, students from Takoma Park and Roberto Clemente represented in Mathcounts national team. In 2021, there were two students from Robert Frost, one from Hoover and only one from Takoma Park Middle School.
RIP magnet program!

I've never understood the argument that the Magnets Are Dead because kids who engage in competition math are now distributed among other schools. To me, that says that they are still getting a strong math education outside the magnet, and that the new system of creating "cohorts" of high achieving kids is working.

You are right it does show strong cohorts. It ALSO SHOWS that magnet quality has gone down and the Curriculum is in actuality being “watered down.”

But how? Draw me a straight line between being good at competition math (where every single high ranking kid has out-of-school enrichment) and being qualified for a public school magnet program. The literal point of a public school magnet is to draw in kids who might not otherwise get a certain type of enrichment. All competition math tells you is that a kid has both aptitude and outside resources. It does not tell you that they have unmet needs.

[Anonymous]

I think that the poster was saying that one group gets a lot of attention towards their needs (even if that is difficult/burdensome to meet, being heavily, if imperfectly, addressed), while another group's needs aren't nearly as adequately addressed (even if addressing them to the same extent would be considerably less burdensome on the system). They clearly state that addressing special ed need is important ("...which is GREAT..."). Folks tend to think of GT as a privilege instead of as a need, and it tends to get shorted/left out vs. other priorities. There's a wealth of research indicating that it shouldn't be, though, despite less rigorous recent pop-sci that underpins movements against GT programming.

It really come down to money and politics.

I'm not the PP, but I think they were objecting to a framing that seemed to imply that gifted kids could not ALSO be English Language Learners or kids with special needs.

If you assume that all gifted kids are native English speaking and neurotypical, you're already missing a huge swathe of kids that would benefit from enrichment. Moreover, from a political point of view, all of us should be advocating for MORE gifted education, and MORE identification of gifted kids who are ELLs and who have special needs. If we want gifted education to continue to exist, we can't draw an arbitrary line between our English-speaking neurotypical kids and "everyone else."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Whatever happened to the MCCPTA gifted ed committee efforts?

Hard to say. Ongoing, certainly, but like everone else (MCPS included), I expect that, personnally/professionally, they have bigger fish to fry under current circumstances. In any case, and as with most things, it would take a large number of folks pushing for action/policy/legislation. Getting something specific into the MCCPTA advocacy priorities would be a start.

So then, how do we get MCCPTA to prioritize gifted ed?

Get in touch with other parents/guardians at your school and write a common letter to your PTA's MCCPTA Delegate (or PTA President, if no Delegate), copying the MCCPTA President, VP Education, VP Advocacy, Curriculum Committee, Advocacy Committee & GEC (emails at https://www.mccpta.org/mccpta-leaders.html).

You might consider copying your school's/pyramid's principal(s), the school's GT Liaison, the MCPS Interim Superintendent, the Chief of Teaching, Learning and Schools (OTLS), the Associate Superintendent of Curriculum and Instructional Programming (OCIP) and whomever is leading or can be reached at the Office of Accelerated and Enriched Instruction (AEI). (Find various emails at montgomeryschoolsmd.org website).

See if anyone on the nebulous AEI Feedback Council (they appear to be mostly MCPS-internal and not much is communicated about their activity -- go figure) can be reached for feedback to/engagement with *the community*.

Demand effective management of existing statutes, including a functioning AEI office with appropriate authorities to make things happen at schools.
Include your County Council reps and state Delegates/Senators (to push for legislation with teeth).

Repeat periodically until there is real movement. Don't accept vague promises to look into things, but deliver messages with the grace of knowing that all of these folks likely are trying to help kids, but probably have one or other alternate priority. Convince them to make *this* a priority with gentle persistence on any direct front. With enough constituents participating, pursuing MCPS action at the same time as legislative action equally can put the writing on the wall to encourage more timely remedies than any unsympathetic approach. Angry mob only works (and not well, typically) with overwhelming numbers (GT is a minority, pretty much by definition) and should only be pursued if meeting unresponsiveness; that said, it appears that GEC and others have been hitting a brick wall for some number of years...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I think that the poster was saying that one group gets a lot of attention towards their needs (even if that is difficult/burdensome to meet, being heavily, if imperfectly, addressed), while another group's needs aren't nearly as adequately addressed (even if addressing them to the same extent would be considerably less burdensome on the system). They clearly state that addressing special ed need is important ("...which is GREAT..."). Folks tend to think of GT as a privilege instead of as a need, and it tends to get shorted/left out vs. other priorities. There's a wealth of research indicating that it shouldn't be, though, despite less rigorous recent pop-sci that underpins movements against GT programming.

It really come down to money and politics.

I'm not the PP, but I think they were objecting to a framing that seemed to imply that gifted kids could not ALSO be English Language Learners or kids with special needs.

If you assume that all gifted kids are native English speaking and neurotypical, you're already missing a huge swathe of kids that would benefit from enrichment. Moreover, from a political point of view, all of us should be advocating for MORE gifted education, and MORE identification of gifted kids who are ELLs and who have special needs. If we want gifted education to continue to exist, we can't draw an arbitrary line between our English-speaking neurotypical kids and "everyone else."

Agree, but I don't think the "other end of the spectrum" PP was meaning to exclude those, just to highlight the difference in treatment of the issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Whatever happened to the MCCPTA gifted ed committee efforts?

Hard to say. Ongoing, certainly, but like everone else (MCPS included), I expect that, personnally/professionally, they have bigger fish to fry under current circumstances. In any case, and as with most things, it would take a large number of folks pushing for action/policy/legislation. Getting something specific into the MCCPTA advocacy priorities would be a start.

So then, how do we get MCCPTA to prioritize gifted ed?

Join and get active! MCCPTA doesn't exist without volunteers and the volunteers rive the bus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am actually relieved about not getting into Eastern - I had one student go through the program and would not want the stress it entails for my rising 6th grader, but disappointed they were not selected for TMPS - they are a math loving kiddo with 99th percentile MAPS since Kindergarten.

Pretty much the same exact situation! Don't know if we would have done Eastern again, but the TPMS would have been perfect for our STEM loving youngest.

Now just the question of their friends - almost all of who were in CES and 5/6 math with them and probably in both pools (and I imagine they all have a pretty good idea of each others abilities). All kinds of potential there for social issues, tears, and complaints of "how is that fair when...".

How stressed kids will be about this is family driven. We haven't even mentioned the magnet to our kid. If he gets in, then we'll discuss. Kids might talk about it in a fleeting way, but I doubt most are obsessing unless their parents are.

Simply not a universal experience. Some kids have siblings in the programs and know about them. Some kids friends actually do talk about this stuff (especially if they are in programs like CES already - they talk about it). It is not just the families that add pressure though this surely happens. We have not disucssed it here much here (especially since we knew it would be random), but these kids are all on group chats together - I can't imagine that over the weekend they won't discuss if someone gets in (and someone inevitably will).

Absolutely NOT. No "group chats" We don't give our children free access to that much internet.

Group chats did not exist when my kids were in 5th and both my kids (one at a HGC and one not) were very aware of the middle school magnet selection process and results.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My son was accepted by Easton. Currently at CES. Straight A and Straight 99% in MAP M. 90+% in MAP R.

Even so, I have to say we hate MCPS lottery system. It's difficult to explain to the kids that your lives sometimes are decided by lottery, instead of your efforts.

Good lucks to all.

Let me guess, you weren't born and raised in this country?
Good luckS to you, then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My son was accepted by Easton. Currently at CES. Straight A and Straight 99% in MAP M. 90+% in MAP R.

Even so, I have to say we hate MCPS lottery system. It's difficult to explain to the kids that your lives sometimes are decided by lottery, instead of your efforts.

Good lucks to all.

Let me guess, you weren't born and raised in this country?
Good luckS to you, then.

What's with the xenophobia? Are you the other-end-of-the-spectrum poster?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My son was accepted by Easton. Currently at CES. Straight A and Straight 99% in MAP M. 90+% in MAP R.

Even so, I have to say we hate MCPS lottery system. It's difficult to explain to the kids that your lives sometimes are decided by lottery, instead of your efforts.

Good lucks to all.

Let me guess, you weren't born and raised in this country?
Good luckS to you, then.

What's with the xenophobia? Are you the other-end-of-the-spectrum poster?

From where do you draw that inference? It appears as though there is an unnecessary ongoing intent ro mischaracterize the position of the person pointing out the difference in approach to the differnt needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My son was accepted by Easton. Currently at CES. Straight A and Straight 99% in MAP M. 90+% in MAP R.

Even so, I have to say we hate MCPS lottery system. It's difficult to explain to the kids that your lives sometimes are decided by lottery, instead of your efforts.

Good lucks to all.

Let me guess, you weren't born and raised in this country?
Good luckS to you, then.

What's with the xenophobia? Are you the other-end-of-the-spectrum poster?

From where do you draw that inference? It appears as though there is an unnecessary ongoing intent ro mischaracterize the position of the person pointing out the difference in approach to the differnt needs.

Exactly what I was thinking!