mcps. sounds about right. (GT admissions changes)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We'll see how much better the magnet programs get in a few years.

I think they will get better. They'll be picking the best kids from a much larger pool, rather than the ones with the most motivated parents.

How do we know they're picking the best students? They are only looking at test scores and location. This does not seem an effective recipe. But, there are many students that can work at this level if chosen for the program. We need a variety of admissions criteria and more seats.

Well, MCPS has decided they can't add enough seats to meet demand. Take it up with your Councilperson. Standards are higher because now they're screening everyone instead of a select few.

Standards aren't higher. Using location/peer group is different, not higher.

+1 And furthermore there is no transparency for the peer group parameters, such as the mean MAP and COGAT scores for this group of 20 kids. Possible that they are all tippy-top scorers, but who knows since we were given no data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do they take socioeconomic status into account? What does MCPS know of socioeconomic status besides FARMs or not?

They don't. They can't. All they know is

-do you qualify for free or reduced meals
-what home schools are you zoned for

DCUM likes to refer to SES, but it's really just plain ES.

well, your apartment or home address is an obvious proxy for SES or income. I'd bet the correlation to education level is high 90s% to high SES as well.

It's absolutely not a proxy for socioeconomic status under any circumstances. And it's only a proxy for income in areas that are economically segregated (and even then, it's not all that great - what if you live in an MPDU zoned for B-CC, for example?). In less economically segregated parts of the county, it's a lousy proxy for income.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the PP who said CES kids are "often" 99th percentile at 2-4 grades ahead:

1. There's no way the established evaluation criteria can capture that. The most you can see is that a kid is at the 99th percentile among kids his/her age. You can also see that the kid is reading ahead of grade level, but that doesn't firmly establish that the kid is 99th percentile at 2-4 grades ahead.

2. You don't understand exactly how rare it is for a kid to be performing at the top of the curve 2-4 grades ahead. That would mean a 4th grader would be able to test ahead of nearly all 8th graders. While such people exist, to say that's how to "often" describe CES kids falls into the typical DCUM trap of thinking gifted kids in this area are somehow lightyears ahead of anyone else. It's simply not true.

Anecdata: Among the cohort selected from my child's ES this year, the lowest bar appears to be for white boys. The highest bar seems to be for white and Asian girls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm fine with universal screening, but using the cohort criteria really does exclude the brighter kids.

But don’t they get the advanced classes at their home school? I thought they send the kids who are advanced but there’s not enough (20?) other advanced kids at their school, and where there are enough kids to form a class they keep them at their home school? I’d prefer my kid be at the home school, unless the magnet is close.

No. If it was the exact same curriculum, then yes, but it's not the same curriculum, so no.. those one or two classes does not make a magnet program.

It does give them a peer group.

Yes, it is only part of the curriculum. My child's teachers did note that the magnet classes are the exact same math and social studies classes at the magnets.

Highly doubt it is exactly the same. -- mom of 2 kids who went through TPMS magnet

It's not, not even close. I know this for a fact, since my DC's enriched/"magnet level" IM math class is using exactly the same worksheets the regular IM class used last year. Perhaps enrichment is coming, but I am very skeptical. Furthermore, the teacher did not mention any curricular distinctions at BTSN either. This is at a top-ranked MS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It's not, not even close. I know this for a fact, since my DC's enriched/"magnet level" IM math class is using exactly the same worksheets the regular IM class used last year. Perhaps enrichment is coming, but I am very skeptical. Furthermore, the teacher did not mention any curricular distinctions at BTSN either. This is at a top-ranked MS.

But if it's a top-ranked MS, it's already all at a higher level anyway, right? Because otherwise it wouldn't be a top-ranked MS, it would be just a regular MS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's not, not even close. I know this for a fact, since my DC's enriched/"magnet level" IM math class is using exactly the same worksheets the regular IM class used last year. Perhaps enrichment is coming, but I am very skeptical. Furthermore, the teacher did not mention any curricular distinctions at BTSN either. This is at a top-ranked MS.

But if it's a top-ranked MS, it's already all at a higher level anyway, right? Because otherwise it wouldn't be a top-ranked MS, it would be just a regular MS.

It's a top-ranked MS because of the students and their parents. They still get the same curriculum with the bottom-ranked MS from the county, which cannot meet the need of the majority of the students in the former MS. Now with adding two ad-hoc magnet classes, it will improve a little bit hopefully.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the PP who said CES kids are "often" 99th percentile at 2-4 grades ahead:

1. There's no way the established evaluation criteria can capture that. The most you can see is that a kid is at the 99th percentile among kids his/her age. You can also see that the kid is reading ahead of grade level, but that doesn't firmly establish that the kid is 99th percentile at 2-4 grades ahead.

2. You don't understand exactly how rare it is for a kid to be performing at the top of the curve 2-4 grades ahead. That would mean a 4th grader would be able to test ahead of nearly all 8th graders. While such people exist, to say that's how to "often" describe CES kids falls into the typical DCUM trap of thinking gifted kids in this area are somehow lightyears ahead of anyone else. It's simply not true.

Anecdata: Among the cohort selected from my child's ES this year, the lowest bar appears to be for white boys. The highest bar seems to be for white and Asian girls.

More anecdata: 1 year ago my white boy was the highest-testing kid in his ES grade (per his teacher when I privately expressed surprise he was admitted, knowing how tough the competition was). It is true no girls were admitted that year. Just 3 boys. His CES is roughly 60/40 boys/girls. But unless you know the admitted kids' scores, I wonder how you know what the bar was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's not, not even close. I know this for a fact, since my DC's enriched/"magnet level" IM math class is using exactly the same worksheets the regular IM class used last year. Perhaps enrichment is coming, but I am very skeptical. Furthermore, the teacher did not mention any curricular distinctions at BTSN either. This is at a top-ranked MS.

But if it's a top-ranked MS, it's already all at a higher level anyway, right? Because otherwise it wouldn't be a top-ranked MS, it would be just a regular MS.

It's a top-ranked MS because of the students and their parents. They still get the same curriculum with the bottom-ranked MS from the county, which cannot meet the need of the majority of the students in the former MS. Now with adding two ad-hoc magnet classes, it will improve a little bit hopefully.

The point is that the "ad hoc magnet class" doesn't seem to be happening, since thus far the worksheets are the same as last year's IM class. We'll see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The CES rejection letter emphasizes that needs can be met at the home school with presence of a peer group, but quite a few kids from our home school (10+) went to the CES and more seem to be coming off the waitlist. There honestly doesn't seem to be a peer group left. DC was 99th percentile all around. Some of the kids pulled from the waitlist had lower scores. I realize there are other factors at play but it is frustrating. Our principal has emphasized that high achievers get split into different classrooms to achieve balance in each room.

Coming off the waitlist now? Isn't that too late?

FWIW, PP, I can relate. My child was also 99 percent all around and wasn't even waitlisted. I don't know what 'other factors' are in play here but it sure is not fair.

Didn’t the article mention they de-emphasized the standardized testing and emphasized student’s grades instead. It’s not unfair if other kids had higher grades than your kid.

Grades, like teacher recs, can be subjective, especially in non math subjects.

And standardized testing can be prepped for and capture one date in time, rather than a student's progression as grades do. There are no perfect metrics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do they take socioeconomic status into account? What does MCPS know of socioeconomic status besides FARMs or not?

They don't. They can't. All they know is

-do you qualify for free or reduced meals
-what home schools are you zoned for

DCUM likes to refer to SES, but it's really just plain ES.

well, your apartment or home address is an obvious proxy for SES or income. I'd bet the correlation to education level is high 90s% to high SES as well.

It's absolutely not a proxy for socioeconomic status under any circumstances. And it's only a proxy for income in areas that are economically segregated (and even then, it's not all that great - what if you live in an MPDU zoned for B-CC, for example?). In less economically segregated parts of the county, it's a lousy proxy for income.

and what part of the world is housing not economically segregated? Maybe like 2%? Downtown Philly is a good example: Rittenhouse $2M walk ups next to Penn student rental housing next to dilapidated walkups next to downtown offices next to homeless shelters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do they take socioeconomic status into account? What does MCPS know of socioeconomic status besides FARMs or not?

They don't. They can't. All they know is

-do you qualify for free or reduced meals
-what home schools are you zoned for

DCUM likes to refer to SES, but it's really just plain ES.

well, your apartment or home address is an obvious proxy for SES or income. I'd bet the correlation to education level is high 90s% to high SES as well.

It's absolutely not a proxy for socioeconomic status under any circumstances. And it's only a proxy for income in areas that are economically segregated (and even then, it's not all that great - what if you live in an MPDU zoned for B-CC, for example?). In less economically segregated parts of the county, it's a lousy proxy for income.

the rent for a MPDU is still $2-4k a month in BCC area.

And even if gramps paid your downpayment and a trust fund pays your mortgage and you work part-time, your SES is still greater than an unskilled, uneducated single mom with no child support and multiple kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do they take socioeconomic status into account? What does MCPS know of socioeconomic status besides FARMs or not?

They don't. They can't. All they know is

-do you qualify for free or reduced meals
-what home schools are you zoned for

DCUM likes to refer to SES, but it's really just plain ES.

well, your apartment or home address is an obvious proxy for SES or income. I'd bet the correlation to education level is high 90s% to high SES as well.

It's absolutely not a proxy for socioeconomic status under any circumstances. And it's only a proxy for income in areas that are economically segregated (and even then, it's not all that great - what if you live in an MPDU zoned for B-CC, for example?). In less economically segregated parts of the county, it's a lousy proxy for income.

and what part of the world is housing not economically segregated? Maybe like 2%? Downtown Philly is a good example: Rittenhouse $2M walk ups next to Penn student rental housing next to dilapidated walkups next to downtown offices next to homeless shelters.

Some people rent small places in strong school neighborhoods...in MoCo and all over the country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

and what part of the world is housing not economically segregated? Maybe like 2%? Downtown Philly is a good example: Rittenhouse $2M walk ups next to Penn student rental housing next to dilapidated walkups next to downtown offices next to homeless shelters.

Economic segregation doesn't happen by accident, or as part of the forces of nature. It's the deliberate result of government policy. Some areas in Montgomery County are more economically segregated, some areas are more economically integrated. That is well-known.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And what is this all about?

SILVER SPRING, Md. — It was a searing summer day before the start of the school year, but Julianni and Giselle Wyche, 10-year-old twins, were in a classroom, engineering mini rockets, writing in journals and learning words like “fluctuate” and “cognizant.”

Do they now have remedial 'gifted' education? Why were these kids even in school?

I am wondering the same thing... is that a MCPS sponsored 'GT" prep program?

[Anonymous]

I think its pretty bad when the school system is quoted that it intentionally did not admit the brightest students into the program but chose to only admit the outliers within school districts. It also revealed that the admissions committee knew the home cluster/school of the applicants and the demographics of that school. MCPS is on record in the past saying that Asian Americans were over represented in the programs and guess what once they threw out merit and scores as the deciding factor in favor of geographic location which historically was very clear where the most Asian applicants came from - guess what? MCPS solved its Asian problem and reduced their presence.

This is pretty clear cut racial modeling and no different than what the Republicans pull to suppress minority voters. Shameful MCPS! Shameful!