Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)
Reply to "Takoma Park MS Magnet - 25 inbound seats?"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The way I see it is that 100 out-of-boundary kids get accepted and the majority of the 25 TPMS in-boundary slots are actually kids who would have otherwise been "wait-listed." Does that mean they are less qualified? Yes and no. They probably wouldn't have been first choice form an anonymous pool of applicants, but all the wait-listed students are supposedly potentially qualified. Therefore, that LOOOONG wait-list just goes to the 25 in-boundary TP students. They are qualified but most are not the top of the top in term of ability. I am a parent of a TPMS magnet out-of-boundary kid and this is my theory. The TPMS in-boundary kids seem qualified but some are not the top of their peer group (for example may not make the varsity Mathcounts Team, etc.). I know a bunch of the out-of-boundary TPMS parents (of the old system - 7th and 8th graders) and our kids are the "creepy smart" kids who learned to read when they were two and have crazy high IQs--some of them came from private schools or homeschooling because what MCPS could offer was just not sufficient. I don't think the majority of the in-boundary kids are THAT smart (nor do I think many of the Asians who study at those prep schools are THAT smart either, just high achievers). So who is this program for anyway? I think it should be for the true outliers who NEED academic peers; the kids who are bullied at their home schools because they are seen as "weird" and not fitting in because their interests are just so different and their asynchronous development is so profound. [/quote] Could "creepy smart" equal "forced into regimented learning at a young age?" Because, I don't think your "creepy smart" kid crawled (oops, sorry, I'm sure they were walking at 6 months) over to the book shelf, pulled down a volume of Shakespeare and taught himself iambic pentameter. A parent pushed early reading. Nothing rong w/ that. My preschooler was reading too. I worked with her. But, that doesn't mean she was "creepy smart." Yes, our kids are bright and receptive, but the early reading is because we taught them early, not because they are "creepy baby genuises." The majority of the in-bound kids might be "that smart," but they are not forced into the immense amounts of enrichment -- Saturday school, A++, AOPS, Hopkins CTY, Suzuki institutes, multiple instrument lessons/practice &/or Dr. Li since they could toddle. Don't mistake smart for educated. Many of the kids you think are "creepy smart" have had a whole additional set of schooling. That's more about investment than ability.[/quote] This particular strain of "Blair envy" stems from out of boundary parents inability to game the system with prep to the extent they did in years past. It seems like the in-boundary students are a just a convenient scapegoat for these frustrations. [/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics