Leaving Clemente/TPMS STEM Magnet for Robert Frost - would you do it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For tests like map that result in higher scores for outside enrichment they are not necessarily enrolling smarter kids or those with more aptitude. This would reward parents for pushing their kids ahead ...

Have 50% more students like Pyle also impacts the number of highly able students at a school.

Absolutely! It is interesting though looking at Pyle to see that they seemed to have a larger percentage of students doing well on the state assessments relative to their "highly able" MAP and Cogat numbers of students.

Who cares? The state assessments (PARCC) are the least interesting and least important of those numbers, especially for purposes of determining giftedness and magnet admissions.

So you say but they continue to use them as a factor for some reason. I don't think the review group was giving any priority to the factors in the chart, they looked at them all together. Usually that favors anyone who can stand out on any single of the metrics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For tests like map that result in higher scores for outside enrichment they are not necessarily enrolling smarter kids or those with more aptitude. This would reward parents for pushing their kids ahead ...

Have 50% more students like Pyle also impacts the number of highly able students at a school.

Absolutely! It is interesting though looking at Pyle to see that they seemed to have a larger percentage of students doing well on the state assessments relative to their "highly able" MAP and Cogat numbers of students.

Who cares? The state assessments (PARCC) are the least interesting and least important of those numbers, especially for purposes of determining giftedness and magnet admissions.

So you say but they continue to use them as a factor for some reason. I don't think the review group was giving any priority to the factors in the chart, they looked at them all together. Usually that favors anyone who can stand out on any single of the metrics.

They don't use it as a factor of any importance. It's just state required. I wouldn't give it more than a passing thought unless they started using PARCC scores along with grades and MAP scores for any of the three magnets: CES, MS and HS. Here's a hint ... they won't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For tests like map that result in higher scores for outside enrichment they are not necessarily enrolling smarter kids or those with more aptitude. This would reward parents for pushing their kids ahead ...

Have 50% more students like Pyle also impacts the number of highly able students at a school.

Absolutely! It is interesting though looking at Pyle to see that they seemed to have a larger percentage of students doing well on the state assessments relative to their "highly able" MAP and Cogat numbers of students.

Yes Pyle had 60 something of their 1500 students whereas Frost had 70 of their 1100 students.

[Anonymous]

+1 for frost. Their math team is one of the strongest in this area. They have enough advanced students and faculty to run high school math course on-site.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For tests like map that result in higher scores for outside enrichment they are not necessarily enrolling smarter kids or those with more aptitude. This would reward parents for pushing their kids ahead ...

Have 50% more students like Pyle also impacts the number of highly able students at a school.

Absolutely! It is interesting though looking at Pyle to see that they seemed to have a larger percentage of students doing well on the state assessments relative to their "highly able" MAP and Cogat numbers of students.

Yes Pyle had 60 something of their 1500 students whereas Frost had 70 of their 1100 students.

I was looking at Cogat vs PARCC numbers. At most middle schools they were quite similar. Not so at a couple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For tests like map that result in higher scores for outside enrichment they are not necessarily enrolling smarter kids or those with more aptitude. This would reward parents for pushing their kids ahead ...

Have 50% more students like Pyle also impacts the number of highly able students at a school.

Absolutely! It is interesting though looking at Pyle to see that they seemed to have a larger percentage of students doing well on the state assessments relative to their "highly able" MAP and Cogat numbers of students.

Yes Pyle had 60 something of their 1500 students whereas Frost had 70 of their 1100 students.

I was looking at Cogat vs PARCC numbers. At most middle schools they were quite similar. Not so at a couple.

They're all pretty similar but a few may be a few percent higher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For tests like map that result in higher scores for outside enrichment they are not necessarily enrolling smarter kids or those with more aptitude. This would reward parents for pushing their kids ahead ...

Have 50% more students like Pyle also impacts the number of highly able students at a school.

Absolutely! It is interesting though looking at Pyle to see that they seemed to have a larger percentage of students doing well on the state assessments relative to their "highly able" MAP and Cogat numbers of students.

Yes Pyle had 60 something of their 1500 students whereas Frost had 70 of their 1100 students.

I was looking at Cogat vs PARCC numbers. At most middle schools they were quite similar. Not so at a couple.

They're all pretty similar but a few may be a few percent higher.

co

I'm not articulating this well, let me try again. From the chart showing "highly able" students by MS posted earlier in this thread, Pyle has almost twice as many students meeting the "highly able" PARCC standard as it does meeting the "highly able" MAP or CoGAT standard. Almost all the other MS have about the same number of highly ables in the MAP, and especially, the CoGAT columns as they do in the PARCC columns. I know Pyle is a much bigger school - but am stumped why the proportions don't track there. Some magic teaching to the PARCC tests?

[Anonymous]

Definitely teaching to the PARCC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For tests like map that result in higher scores for outside enrichment they are not necessarily enrolling smarter kids or those with more aptitude. This would reward parents for pushing their kids ahead ...

Have 50% more students like Pyle also impacts the number of highly able students at a school.

Absolutely! It is interesting though looking at Pyle to see that they seemed to have a larger percentage of students doing well on the state assessments relative to their "highly able" MAP and Cogat numbers of students.

Yes Pyle had 60 something of their 1500 students whereas Frost had 70 of their 1100 students.

I was looking at Cogat vs PARCC numbers. At most middle schools they were quite similar. Not so at a couple.

They're all pretty similar but a few may be a few percent higher.

co

I'm not articulating this well, let me try again. From the chart showing "highly able" students by MS posted earlier in this thread, Pyle has almost twice as many students meeting the "highly able" PARCC standard as it does meeting the "highly able" MAP or CoGAT standard. Almost all the other MS have about the same number of highly ables in the MAP, and especially, the CoGAT columns as they do in the PARCC columns. I know Pyle is a much bigger school - but am stumped why the proportions don't track there. Some magic teaching to the PARCC tests?

Yes, Pyle has a high number by virtue of the fact the school is twice has 50% more students than most other schools, but as a percentage is noticeably lower than many other schools.

[Anonymous]

Percentage wise Westland is much worse and many others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Percentage wise Westland is much worse and many others.

I don't mean to disrespect Pyle or anything I'm just saying their numbers are a little misleading because of the unusually large size of the school compared to others.

[Anonymous]

Only the raw numbers are important for your own child's purposes. Most schools have enough kids in each subject to group them together and make at least one class. Some of them you can have 2-3 classes!

The big exceptions are White Oak, Farquhar, Westland where there are not enough to even make one class for one or more subjects.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Only the raw numbers are important for your own child's purposes. Most schools have enough kids in each subject to group them together and make at least one class. Some of them you can have 2-3 classes!

The big exceptions are White Oak, Farquhar, Westland where there are not enough to even make one class for one or more subjects.

Are you saying schools group kids into classes for the exact same subject by ability - ie, the 10:00 am global humanities class has the super smart kids but the 1:00 pm class has the mediocre kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only the raw numbers are important for your own child's purposes. Most schools have enough kids in each subject to group them together and make at least one class. Some of them you can have 2-3 classes!

The big exceptions are White Oak, Farquhar, Westland where there are not enough to even make one class for one or more subjects.

Are you saying schools group kids into classes for the exact same subject by ability - ie, the 10:00 am global humanities class has the super smart kids but the 1:00 pm class has the mediocre kids?

Agree. I wanted to debunk this earlier. I've heard in previous threads that at certain schools like Pyle almost everyone is in enriched English and social studies classes. If that's true, there's no real grouping by ability and you can expect whatever cohorts exist to be diluted by the rest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only the raw numbers are important for your own child's purposes. Most schools have enough kids in each subject to group them together and make at least one class. Some of them you can have 2-3 classes!

The big exceptions are White Oak, Farquhar, Westland where there are not enough to even make one class for one or more subjects.

Are you saying schools group kids into classes for the exact same subject by ability - ie, the 10:00 am global humanities class has the super smart kids but the 1:00 pm class has the mediocre kids?

I don't think that's what they were saying. I took it to mean the school had the ability to create a high-functioning cohort where they could teach magnet-level classes. They currently don't do this.