Takoma park magnet worth it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm 15:11. I graduated in the late 90s. Many of us went onto selective colleges then, and many got full rides. I'd guess 40% of our class was Asian, and 60-70% were boys (hope that's been fixed now). Regardless, I stand by my basic point - most of us would have turned out similarly regardless of TPMS/Blair. The things that pushed us (educated, supportive parents, stable home life, middle to upper middle class SES) would have remained the same. Our parents would have pushed us to take a heavy AP load, get very good grades, and had us prep for the SATs all the same.

I think most schools in the Moco can offer challenging coursework to most kids, and places like TPMS/Blair really make a difference for people who are insanely brilliant OR people who *don't* have a good support system. So I'm actually all for introducing equity systems into the selection process like doing a lottery at 85%. Even back then, the selection sometimes chose a person from an atypical background like a friend of mine - poor, kid of a single mom, black - and what it can do for those kids is invaluable. My friend is now a hotshot academic at a very well known Ivy and I'm not sure it would have gone the same way without Blair because the staff gave the student a lot of encouragement and support.

I agree with you BUT I still would like to see the size of this program expanded since it's popular and more would benefit from it. I also kind of feel bad for the kids like mine who typically score 20-30 points over the 99% on these metrics they use for selection but weren't selected but overall I can see the value in a lottery. Nevertheless, I know they'll be fine in the long run and can see how this opportunity might be life-changing for others.

It should be expanded. Of course. But there was always a lot of pushback to that because some people liked the exclusive factor. Same thing in NYC, where they'd have 20k kids applying for 200 spots. It doesn't actually take more resources to make harder classes. A lot of it is branding.

The rise of public education in this country originally followed a more egalitarian model, one that optimistically believed in exposing the everyman to the finer things, one that assumed plumbers and farmers should at least have a passing knowledge of the classics. My grandmother grew up picking fruit in the San Joaquin Valley. Her shelves were also lined with books. She was the first woman in her family to go to college... Although admittedly several before her had been teachers.

But now we live in an artificial meritocracy, where the *deserving* must have every advantage and everyone below them has to claw themselves out of a Darwinian muck. If they can. And if they can't... They never mattered anyway.

It's possible this is toxic and unsustainable.

Every kid should have the right to be taught to the level of their ability. Full stop. Magnet programs should exist because there's only five kids who really *need* algebra in 5th grade at one school and 5 at another and it's more efficient to teach them together. But there should never be an artificial limit set on those resources. If 2000 kids pass a certain baseline, those 2000 kids should be given the education they need. If 2000 kids had IEPs and were not given services, there would be a problem. Those of us with 2E kids may see there's not much difference.

An accelerated education also shouldn't be split into a math vs humanities choice. Among other things, we need people who like math to also read books and learn write. And vice versa. I could be wrong, but I don't think most gifted programs in the country make 11 year olds pick a side. I know Philadelphia doesn't... Nor NYC. And their programs are rated much higher than Mocos, even if their general education programs are not.

Pooling cohorts on a smaller scale would make more sense. So would abandoning the math/humanities split. But so much in this area is tied up in the perceived idea that some are more equal than others... It's not likely to happen.

Ever seen the DC boards? They operate on a straight lottery and will still fall over backwards to explain why the kids are Latin are superior to the kids at Kipp. Or YuYing are superior to Breakthrough. Etc.

[Anonymous]

Back to the original question. Yes, it is worth it. Many people go without knowing others who are going. It is a great program and a good school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Back to the original question. Yes, it is worth it. Many people go without knowing others who are going. It is a great program and a good school.

Alum back, 30 years out - it's worth it if you live close by.

If you don't, ask yourself the following? a) is your kid is so off the charts smart that they need such rigor and a 45-60 min daily bus-ride or b) Are you not able/willing to support your child academically at their home school?
If the answer to either is yes, then by all means, TPMS/Eastern/Blair are probably worth it.
But if not, please don't kid yourself that it's as important as people make it out to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Back to the original question. Yes, it is worth it. Many people go without knowing others who are going. It is a great program and a good school.

Alum back, 30 years out - it's worth it if you live close by.

If you don't, ask yourself the following? a) is your kid is so off the charts smart that they need such rigor and a 45-60 min daily bus-ride or b) Are you not able/willing to support your child academically at their home school?
If the answer to either is yes, then by all means, TPMS/Eastern/Blair are probably worth it.
But if not, please don't kid yourself that it's as important as people make it out to be.

Agree! It's a wonderful program that many would benefit from; however, some will be fine regardless and if it involves long commutes and your home school is decent you may want to think long and hard. For others, who may not get outside enrichment, this program can be life-changing.

[Anonymous]

I really don't get the whole "high flier" cohort obsession with some people. The quality of the magnets is and always has been the teaching and content. Teachers are excellent at TPMS. And PP is right about great magnet, foreign language and music teachers at TPMS. There were some dead weight Eng & SS teachers when my oldest was there, but many retired and were replaced w/ better teachers, so lots of great options there too.

I find the whole "high fliers" thing annoying. Many of the "high fliers" when my kid was there were more advanced in some areas strictly because of outside enrichment. They had been in AOPS and CTY and extra math & Comp Sci classes. And, some were arrogant jerks who tried to intimidate my kid. I suppose if just test/MAP scores and quality of work is considered, I guess my kid was a "high flier" even though she didn't do all the enrichment stuff and didn't have the test prep that some did for the entrance exam back then (A++ or Dr. Li anyone?). How does one define this exactly anyway? Honestly, there are many kids who would excel in this program, and I think the program benefits from more diversity. My kid won an Exploravision competition because of her diverse perspective. If a kid is already highly enriched, they don't need the program.
Really, MCPS just needs more programs or more spots or both.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I really don't get the whole "high flier" cohort obsession with some people. The quality of the magnets is and always has been the teaching and content. Teachers are excellent at TPMS. And PP is right about great magnet, foreign language and music teachers at TPMS. There were some dead weight Eng & SS teachers when my oldest was there, but many retired and were replaced w/ better teachers, so lots of great options there too.

I find the whole "high fliers" thing annoying. Many of the "high fliers" when my kid was there were more advanced in some areas strictly because of outside enrichment. They had been in AOPS and CTY and extra math & Comp Sci classes. And, some were arrogant jerks who tried to intimidate my kid. I suppose if just test/MAP scores and quality of work is considered, I guess my kid was a "high flier" even though she didn't do all the enrichment stuff and didn't have the test prep that some did for the entrance exam back then (A++ or Dr. Li anyone?). How does one define this exactly anyway? Honestly, there are many kids who would excel in this program, and I think the program benefits from more diversity. My kid won an Exploravision competition because of her diverse perspective. If a kid is already highly enriched, they don't need the program.
Really, MCPS just needs more programs or more spots or both.

+1 It really is all about the teaching and content.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm 15:11. I graduated in the late 90s. Many of us went onto selective colleges then, and many got full rides. I'd guess 40% of our class was Asian, and 60-70% were boys (hope that's been fixed now). Regardless, I stand by my basic point - most of us would have turned out similarly regardless of TPMS/Blair. The things that pushed us (educated, supportive parents, stable home life, middle to upper middle class SES) would have remained the same. Our parents would have pushed us to take a heavy AP load, get very good grades, and had us prep for the SATs all the same.

I think most schools in the Moco can offer challenging coursework to most kids, and places like TPMS/Blair really make a difference for people who are insanely brilliant OR people who *don't* have a good support system. So I'm actually all for introducing equity systems into the selection process like doing a lottery at 85%. Even back then, the selection sometimes chose a person from an atypical background like a friend of mine - poor, kid of a single mom, black - and what it can do for those kids is invaluable. My friend is now a hotshot academic at a very well known Ivy and I'm not sure it would have gone the same way without Blair because the staff gave the student a lot of encouragement and support.

I agree with you BUT I still would like to see the size of this program expanded since it's popular and more would benefit from it. I also kind of feel bad for the kids like mine who typically score 20-30 points over the 99% on these metrics they use for selection but weren't selected but overall I can see the value in a lottery. Nevertheless, I know they'll be fine in the long run and can see how this opportunity might be life-changing for others.

It should be expanded. Of course. But there was always a lot of pushback to that because some people liked the exclusive factor. Same thing in NYC, where they'd have 20k kids applying for 200 spots. It doesn't actually take more resources to make harder classes. A lot of it is branding.

The rise of public education in this country originally followed a more egalitarian model, one that optimistically believed in exposing the everyman to the finer things, one that assumed plumbers and farmers should at least have a passing knowledge of the classics. My grandmother grew up picking fruit in the San Joaquin Valley. Her shelves were also lined with books. She was the first woman in her family to go to college... Although admittedly several before her had been teachers.

But now we live in an artificial meritocracy, where the *deserving* must have every advantage and everyone below them has to claw themselves out of a Darwinian muck. If they can. And if they can't... They never mattered anyway.

It's possible this is toxic and unsustainable.

Every kid should have the right to be taught to the level of their ability. Full stop. Magnet programs should exist because there's only five kids who really *need* algebra in 5th grade at one school and 5 at another and it's more efficient to teach them together. But there should never be an artificial limit set on those resources. If 2000 kids pass a certain baseline, those 2000 kids should be given the education they need. If 2000 kids had IEPs and were not given services, there would be a problem. Those of us with 2E kids may see there's not much difference.

An accelerated education also shouldn't be split into a math vs humanities choice. Among other things, we need people who like math to also read books and learn write. And vice versa. I could be wrong, but I don't think most gifted programs in the country make 11 year olds pick a side. I know Philadelphia doesn't... Nor NYC. And their programs are rated much higher than Mocos, even if their general education programs are not.

Pooling cohorts on a smaller scale would make more sense. So would abandoning the math/humanities split. But so much in this area is tied up in the perceived idea that some are more equal than others... It's not likely to happen.

Ever seen the DC boards? They operate on a straight lottery and will still fall over backwards to explain why the kids are Latin are superior to the kids at Kipp. Or YuYing are superior to Breakthrough. Etc.

What are you talking about? I doubt that there is any other country spending as much trying to educate kids with every type of disability, intelligence level, parent participation and income. In fact, if there is a beef with our education system, it is because we focus so much on maxing the min, that we forget to max the max. I agree with you, though, that we should be pushing all of our top kids as well as those who are years behind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm 15:11. I graduated in the late 90s. Many of us went onto selective colleges then, and many got full rides. I'd guess 40% of our class was Asian, and 60-70% were boys (hope that's been fixed now). Regardless, I stand by my basic point - most of us would have turned out similarly regardless of TPMS/Blair. The things that pushed us (educated, supportive parents, stable home life, middle to upper middle class SES) would have remained the same. Our parents would have pushed us to take a heavy AP load, get very good grades, and had us prep for the SATs all the same.

I think most schools in the Moco can offer challenging coursework to most kids, and places like TPMS/Blair really make a difference for people who are insanely brilliant OR people who *don't* have a good support system. So I'm actually all for introducing equity systems into the selection process like doing a lottery at 85%. Even back then, the selection sometimes chose a person from an atypical background like a friend of mine - poor, kid of a single mom, black - and what it can do for those kids is invaluable. My friend is now a hotshot academic at a very well known Ivy and I'm not sure it would have gone the same way without Blair because the staff gave the student a lot of encouragement and support.

I agree with you BUT I still would like to see the size of this program expanded since it's popular and more would benefit from it. I also kind of feel bad for the kids like mine who typically score 20-30 points over the 99% on these metrics they use for selection but weren't selected but overall I can see the value in a lottery. Nevertheless, I know they'll be fine in the long run and can see how this opportunity might be life-changing for others.

It should be expanded. Of course. But there was always a lot of pushback to that because some people liked the exclusive factor. Same thing in NYC, where they'd have 20k kids applying for 200 spots. It doesn't actually take more resources to make harder classes. A lot of it is branding.

The rise of public education in this country originally followed a more egalitarian model, one that optimistically believed in exposing the everyman to the finer things, one that assumed plumbers and farmers should at least have a passing knowledge of the classics. My grandmother grew up picking fruit in the San Joaquin Valley. Her shelves were also lined with books. She was the first woman in her family to go to college... Although admittedly several before her had been teachers.

But now we live in an artificial meritocracy, where the *deserving* must have every advantage and everyone below them has to claw themselves out of a Darwinian muck. If they can. And if they can't... They never mattered anyway.

It's possible this is toxic and unsustainable.

Every kid should have the right to be taught to the level of their ability. Full stop. Magnet programs should exist because there's only five kids who really *need* algebra in 5th grade at one school and 5 at another and it's more efficient to teach them together. But there should never be an artificial limit set on those resources. If 2000 kids pass a certain baseline, those 2000 kids should be given the education they need. If 2000 kids had IEPs and were not given services, there would be a problem. Those of us with 2E kids may see there's not much difference.

An accelerated education also shouldn't be split into a math vs humanities choice. Among other things, we need people who like math to also read books and learn write. And vice versa. I could be wrong, but I don't think most gifted programs in the country make 11 year olds pick a side. I know Philadelphia doesn't... Nor NYC. And their programs are rated much higher than Mocos, even if their general education programs are not.

Pooling cohorts on a smaller scale would make more sense. So would abandoning the math/humanities split. But so much in this area is tied up in the perceived idea that some are more equal than others... It's not likely to happen.

Ever seen the DC boards? They operate on a straight lottery and will still fall over backwards to explain why the kids are Latin are superior to the kids at Kipp. Or YuYing are superior to Breakthrough. Etc.

What are you talking about? I doubt that there is any other country spending as much trying to educate kids with every type of disability, intelligence level, parent participation and income. In fact, if there is a beef with our education system, it is because we focus so much on maxing the min, that we forget to max the max. I agree with you, though, that we should be pushing all of our top kids as well as those who are years behind.

It sounds like you didn't read what I'm talking about.

I love the way how before your posts there were five more posts explaining why their kids were extra, even if they hated the term "high flier. "

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm 15:11. I graduated in the late 90s. Many of us went onto selective colleges then, and many got full rides. I'd guess 40% of our class was Asian, and 60-70% were boys (hope that's been fixed now). Regardless, I stand by my basic point - most of us would have turned out similarly regardless of TPMS/Blair. The things that pushed us (educated, supportive parents, stable home life, middle to upper middle class SES) would have remained the same. Our parents would have pushed us to take a heavy AP load, get very good grades, and had us prep for the SATs all the same.

I think most schools in the Moco can offer challenging coursework to most kids, and places like TPMS/Blair really make a difference for people who are insanely brilliant OR people who *don't* have a good support system. So I'm actually all for introducing equity systems into the selection process like doing a lottery at 85%. Even back then, the selection sometimes chose a person from an atypical background like a friend of mine - poor, kid of a single mom, black - and what it can do for those kids is invaluable. My friend is now a hotshot academic at a very well known Ivy and I'm not sure it would have gone the same way without Blair because the staff gave the student a lot of encouragement and support.

I agree with you BUT I still would like to see the size of this program expanded since it's popular and more would benefit from it. I also kind of feel bad for the kids like mine who typically score 20-30 points over the 99% on these metrics they use for selection but weren't selected but overall I can see the value in a lottery. Nevertheless, I know they'll be fine in the long run and can see how this opportunity might be life-changing for others.

It should be expanded. Of course. But there was always a lot of pushback to that because some people liked the exclusive factor. Same thing in NYC, where they'd have 20k kids applying for 200 spots. It doesn't actually take more resources to make harder classes. A lot of it is branding.

The rise of public education in this country originally followed a more egalitarian model, one that optimistically believed in exposing the everyman to the finer things, one that assumed plumbers and farmers should at least have a passing knowledge of the classics. My grandmother grew up picking fruit in the San Joaquin Valley. Her shelves were also lined with books. She was the first woman in her family to go to college... Although admittedly several before her had been teachers.

But now we live in an artificial meritocracy, where the *deserving* must have every advantage and everyone below them has to claw themselves out of a Darwinian muck. If they can. And if they can't... They never mattered anyway.

It's possible this is toxic and unsustainable.

Every kid should have the right to be taught to the level of their ability. Full stop. Magnet programs should exist because there's only five kids who really *need* algebra in 5th grade at one school and 5 at another and it's more efficient to teach them together. But there should never be an artificial limit set on those resources. If 2000 kids pass a certain baseline, those 2000 kids should be given the education they need. If 2000 kids had IEPs and were not given services, there would be a problem. Those of us with 2E kids may see there's not much difference.

An accelerated education also shouldn't be split into a math vs humanities choice. Among other things, we need people who like math to also read books and learn write. And vice versa. I could be wrong, but I don't think most gifted programs in the country make 11 year olds pick a side. I know Philadelphia doesn't... Nor NYC. And their programs are rated much higher than Mocos, even if their general education programs are not.

Pooling cohorts on a smaller scale would make more sense. So would abandoning the math/humanities split. But so much in this area is tied up in the perceived idea that some are more equal than others... It's not likely to happen.

Ever seen the DC boards? They operate on a straight lottery and will still fall over backwards to explain why the kids are Latin are superior to the kids at Kipp. Or YuYing are superior to Breakthrough. Etc.

What are you talking about? I doubt that there is any other country spending as much trying to educate kids with every type of disability, intelligence level, parent participation and income. In fact, if there is a beef with our education system, it is because we focus so much on maxing the min, that we forget to max the max. I agree with you, though, that we should be pushing all of our top kids as well as those who are years behind.

It sounds like you didn't read what I'm talking about.

I love the way how before your posts there were five more posts explaining why their kids were extra, even if they hated the term "high flier. "

FWIW I think your post was spot on. With regard to the other poster's point, my main concern is the number of kid's claiming a disability has tripled over the past decade at most UMC schools and that has overly stressed limited resources.

[Anonymous]

People seem to like it! My kid was in the pool last year but didn’t get a spot. If we’d been offered a spot, we would’ve taken it. But we’re also happy with home middle school, so either way, it’s all good!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm 15:11. I graduated in the late 90s. Many of us went onto selective colleges then, and many got full rides. I'd guess 40% of our class was Asian, and 60-70% were boys (hope that's been fixed now). Regardless, I stand by my basic point - most of us would have turned out similarly regardless of TPMS/Blair. The things that pushed us (educated, supportive parents, stable home life, middle to upper middle class SES) would have remained the same. Our parents would have pushed us to take a heavy AP load, get very good grades, and had us prep for the SATs all the same.

I think most schools in the Moco can offer challenging coursework to most kids, and places like TPMS/Blair really make a difference for people who are insanely brilliant OR people who *don't* have a good support system. So I'm actually all for introducing equity systems into the selection process like doing a lottery at 85%. Even back then, the selection sometimes chose a person from an atypical background like a friend of mine - poor, kid of a single mom, black - and what it can do for those kids is invaluable. My friend is now a hotshot academic at a very well known Ivy and I'm not sure it would have gone the same way without Blair because the staff gave the student a lot of encouragement and support.

I agree with you BUT I still would like to see the size of this program expanded since it's popular and more would benefit from it. I also kind of feel bad for the kids like mine who typically score 20-30 points over the 99% on these metrics they use for selection but weren't selected but overall I can see the value in a lottery. Nevertheless, I know they'll be fine in the long run and can see how this opportunity might be life-changing for others.

It should be expanded. Of course. But there was always a lot of pushback to that because some people liked the exclusive factor. Same thing in NYC, where they'd have 20k kids applying for 200 spots. It doesn't actually take more resources to make harder classes. A lot of it is branding.

The rise of public education in this country originally followed a more egalitarian model, one that optimistically believed in exposing the everyman to the finer things, one that assumed plumbers and farmers should at least have a passing knowledge of the classics. My grandmother grew up picking fruit in the San Joaquin Valley. Her shelves were also lined with books. She was the first woman in her family to go to college... Although admittedly several before her had been teachers.

But now we live in an artificial meritocracy, where the *deserving* must have every advantage and everyone below them has to claw themselves out of a Darwinian muck. If they can. And if they can't... They never mattered anyway.

It's possible this is toxic and unsustainable.

Every kid should have the right to be taught to the level of their ability. Full stop. Magnet programs should exist because there's only five kids who really *need* algebra in 5th grade at one school and 5 at another and it's more efficient to teach them together. But there should never be an artificial limit set on those resources. If 2000 kids pass a certain baseline, those 2000 kids should be given the education they need. If 2000 kids had IEPs and were not given services, there would be a problem. Those of us with 2E kids may see there's not much difference.

An accelerated education also shouldn't be split into a math vs humanities choice. Among other things, we need people who like math to also read books and learn write. And vice versa. I could be wrong, but I don't think most gifted programs in the country make 11 year olds pick a side. I know Philadelphia doesn't... Nor NYC. And their programs are rated much higher than Mocos, even if their general education programs are not.

Pooling cohorts on a smaller scale would make more sense. So would abandoning the math/humanities split. But so much in this area is tied up in the perceived idea that some are more equal than others... It's not likely to happen.

Ever seen the DC boards? They operate on a straight lottery and will still fall over backwards to explain why the kids are Latin are superior to the kids at Kipp. Or YuYing are superior to Breakthrough. Etc.

What are you talking about? I doubt that there is any other country spending as much trying to educate kids with every type of disability, intelligence level, parent participation and income. In fact, if there is a beef with our education system, it is because we focus so much on maxing the min, that we forget to max the max. I agree with you, though, that we should be pushing all of our top kids as well as those who are years behind.

It sounds like you didn't read what I'm talking about.

I love the way how before your posts there were five more posts explaining why their kids were extra, even if they hated the term "high flier. "

FWIW I think your post was spot on. With regard to the other poster's point, my main concern is the number of kid's claiming a disability has tripled over the past decade at most UMC schools and that has overly stressed limited resources.

That's a problem, I agree. On a personal level, I think we held off longer than we should have seeking an evaluation for our DC because I'd convinced myself SN services misallocated resources that mostly advantaged UMC kids. And had we not coughed up the cash for our own evaluation, nothing would have been done.

There are a lot of systems in place to keep the UMC from failing. One only has to read these boards to hear account after account insist that poorer schools and poorrer children are less capable and less deserving.

But that's another reason why meeting a simple baseline and then providing accelerated classes above it is a better choice than having artificial choice and an artificial "competition" for spots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm 15:11. I graduated in the late 90s. Many of us went onto selective colleges then, and many got full rides. I'd guess 40% of our class was Asian, and 60-70% were boys (hope that's been fixed now). Regardless, I stand by my basic point - most of us would have turned out similarly regardless of TPMS/Blair. The things that pushed us (educated, supportive parents, stable home life, middle to upper middle class SES) would have remained the same. Our parents would have pushed us to take a heavy AP load, get very good grades, and had us prep for the SATs all the same.

I think most schools in the Moco can offer challenging coursework to most kids, and places like TPMS/Blair really make a difference for people who are insanely brilliant OR people who *don't* have a good support system. So I'm actually all for introducing equity systems into the selection process like doing a lottery at 85%. Even back then, the selection sometimes chose a person from an atypical background like a friend of mine - poor, kid of a single mom, black - and what it can do for those kids is invaluable. My friend is now a hotshot academic at a very well known Ivy and I'm not sure it would have gone the same way without Blair because the staff gave the student a lot of encouragement and support.

I agree with you BUT I still would like to see the size of this program expanded since it's popular and more would benefit from it. I also kind of feel bad for the kids like mine who typically score 20-30 points over the 99% on these metrics they use for selection but weren't selected but overall I can see the value in a lottery. Nevertheless, I know they'll be fine in the long run and can see how this opportunity might be life-changing for others.

It should be expanded. Of course. But there was always a lot of pushback to that because some people liked the exclusive factor. Same thing in NYC, where they'd have 20k kids applying for 200 spots. It doesn't actually take more resources to make harder classes. A lot of it is branding.

The rise of public education in this country originally followed a more egalitarian model, one that optimistically believed in exposing the everyman to the finer things, one that assumed plumbers and farmers should at least have a passing knowledge of the classics. My grandmother grew up picking fruit in the San Joaquin Valley. Her shelves were also lined with books. She was the first woman in her family to go to college... Although admittedly several before her had been teachers.

But now we live in an artificial meritocracy, where the *deserving* must have every advantage and everyone below them has to claw themselves out of a Darwinian muck. If they can. And if they can't... They never mattered anyway.

It's possible this is toxic and unsustainable.

Every kid should have the right to be taught to the level of their ability. Full stop. Magnet programs should exist because there's only five kids who really *need* algebra in 5th grade at one school and 5 at another and it's more efficient to teach them together. But there should never be an artificial limit set on those resources. If 2000 kids pass a certain baseline, those 2000 kids should be given the education they need. If 2000 kids had IEPs and were not given services, there would be a problem. Those of us with 2E kids may see there's not much difference.

An accelerated education also shouldn't be split into a math vs humanities choice. Among other things, we need people who like math to also read books and learn write. And vice versa. I could be wrong, but I don't think most gifted programs in the country make 11 year olds pick a side. I know Philadelphia doesn't... Nor NYC. And their programs are rated much higher than Mocos, even if their general education programs are not.

Pooling cohorts on a smaller scale would make more sense. So would abandoning the math/humanities split. But so much in this area is tied up in the perceived idea that some are more equal than others... It's not likely to happen.

Ever seen the DC boards? They operate on a straight lottery and will still fall over backwards to explain why the kids are Latin are superior to the kids at Kipp. Or YuYing are superior to Breakthrough. Etc.

What are you talking about? I doubt that there is any other country spending as much trying to educate kids with every type of disability, intelligence level, parent participation and income. In fact, if there is a beef with our education system, it is because we focus so much on maxing the min, that we forget to max the max. I agree with you, though, that we should be pushing all of our top kids as well as those who are years behind.

It sounds like you didn't read what I'm talking about.

I love the way how before your posts there were five more posts explaining why their kids were extra, even if they hated the term "high flier. "

FWIW I think your post was spot on. With regard to the other poster's point, my main concern is the number of kid's claiming a disability has tripled over the past decade at most UMC schools and that has overly stressed limited resources.

That's a problem, I agree. On a personal level, I think we held off longer than we should have seeking an evaluation for our DC because I'd convinced myself SN services misallocated resources that mostly advantaged UMC kids. And had we not coughed up the cash for our own evaluation, nothing would have been done.

There are a lot of systems in place to keep the UMC from failing. One only has to read these boards to hear account after account insist that poorer schools and poorrer children are less capable and less deserving.

But that's another reason why meeting a simple baseline and then providing accelerated classes above it is a better choice than having artificial choice and an artificial "competition" for spots.

Completely agree

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don't get the whole "high flier" cohort obsession with some people. The quality of the magnets is and always has been the teaching and content. Teachers are excellent at TPMS. And PP is right about great magnet, foreign language and music teachers at TPMS. There were some dead weight Eng & SS teachers when my oldest was there, but many retired and were replaced w/ better teachers, so lots of great options there too.

I find the whole "high fliers" thing annoying. Many of the "high fliers" when my kid was there were more advanced in some areas strictly because of outside enrichment. They had been in AOPS and CTY and extra math & Comp Sci classes. And, some were arrogant jerks who tried to intimidate my kid. I suppose if just test/MAP scores and quality of work is considered, I guess my kid was a "high flier" even though she didn't do all the enrichment stuff and didn't have the test prep that some did for the entrance exam back then (A++ or Dr. Li anyone?). How does one define this exactly anyway? Honestly, there are many kids who would excel in this program, and I think the program benefits from more diversity. My kid won an Exploravision competition because of her diverse perspective. If a kid is already highly enriched, they don't need the program.
Really, MCPS just needs more programs or more spots or both.

+1 It really is all about the teaching and content.

Good teaching and content is necessary but definitely not sufficient. Not sure about this high flier stuff but a motivated student cohort is critical. This goes for almost every top notch program.

[Anonymous]

The point isn't that every kid who wants something gets it, it specifically is to put a concentrated high achievers into a environment where there wouldn't be enough to prevent a schools reputation form slipping to the point where middle class flight occurs. Bair and Takoma where chosen because they where the first areas in MoCo to see demographic influxes of poorer minorities into the school system and the white flight era of DC was still fresh on everybody's mind and signs of it happening in Silver Spring/Takoma were present. There simply was no other politically viable way to get richer west county all-stars to self integrate into eastern schools. It was a carrot based based bussing program for the weakest schools and not some showcase for a intellectual nurturing enclave put in the best schools. There is a reason one of the strongest Magnet programs / schools nationally is in the worst school district in NoVa. They took the the school by school approach of MoCo and made it a whole county/whole school strat to give parents hope for all of Alexandria. That enables them to do their cute close in elementary schools and have hope for the later grades even though many go private. But talk to any parent of a young kid in Alexandra or the DCC and the magnet will assuredly come up soon, and that is the whole point.

The plan worked and now middle class take pride in their pocket programs that most will never utilize, the schools test scores are good enough to be middle of the pack and the county has moved on and applied the lessons learned in other areas and to lower grade schools. Integration in DC metro area means sending rich kids to poor schools and typically not vise versa

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The point isn't that every kid who wants something gets it, it specifically is to put a concentrated high achievers into a environment where there wouldn't be enough to prevent a schools reputation form slipping to the point where middle class flight occurs. Bair and Takoma where chosen because they where the first areas in MoCo to see demographic influxes of poorer minorities into the school system and the white flight era of DC was still fresh on everybody's mind and signs of it happening in Silver Spring/Takoma were present. There simply was no other politically viable way to get richer west county all-stars to self integrate into eastern schools. It was a carrot based based bussing program for the weakest schools and not some showcase for a intellectual nurturing enclave put in the best schools. There is a reason one of the strongest Magnet programs / schools nationally is in the worst school district in NoVa. They took the the school by school approach of MoCo and made it a whole county/whole school strat to give parents hope for all of Alexandria. That enables them to do their cute close in elementary schools and have hope for the later grades even though many go private. But talk to any parent of a young kid in Alexandra or the DCC and the magnet will assuredly come up soon, and that is the whole point.

The plan worked and now middle class take pride in their pocket programs that most will never utilize, the schools test scores are good enough to be middle of the pack and the county has moved on and applied the lessons learned in other areas and to lower grade schools. Integration in DC metro area means sending rich kids to poor schools and typically not vise versa

There are people up in arms over these programs that don't seem to understand this... at all