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 "Please sign this petition to continue countywide magnets"
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][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I will not sign, and my kids have both been in a magnet. One graduated in 2025, and the other is in HS. It's been a good experience for them, but there's far too much talent in the county to limit the participation to a few hundred students per grade level per year.[/quote] This. Regional magnet programs are a good idea. [/quote] +1 The "I got mine" posters are out in force, including hijacking parent chat groups at TPMS. No. More opportunity is good and if we have to "dilute" classes that only 10 kids per year take in MCPS, so be it.[/quote] Those classes that only 10 kids take won’t be diluted; they’ll be eliminated because those 10 kids will be distributed among many schools, none of which will have the talent pool to field enough students for these classes. That’s how these STEM programs will be diluted. We’ll have many good programs and no exceptional ones.[/quote] If the very good programs provide access to 3x the number of students, as long as the delta between exceptional and very good isn't too large, then that is a win from the perspective of maximizing educational benefit across the county.[/quote] I trust the SMCS teachers to know how big the delta is between very good STEM cohorting and exceptional STEM cohorting. When we were in a race to develop the atomic bomb first or put a man on the moon first, we needed lots of very smart people to work together and a handful of geniuses to get us across the finish line. It seems like it would be beneficial to cater our educational system to both.[/quote] Why limit it to Montgomery County then? Why not one magnet for the best and the brightest across the state of Maryland?[/quote] NC has a fantastic HS residential magnet, but only for 11th and 12th grade. Logistically, and some point the commute is impossible, or it has to be residential, which is a huge life disruption. Anyway, the obvious answer is that the right geo scope is whatever can fill classes. [/quote] Virginia has this. It’s called the Governor’s School. Kids are only there half a day and the other half at their home school. “The Virginia Governor's School Program has been designed to assist divisions as they meet the needs of a small population of students whose learning levels are remarkably different from their age-level peers. The foundation of the Virginia Governor's School Program centers on best practices in the field of gifted education and the presentation of advanced content to able learners.“ https://www.doe.virginia.gov/teaching-learning-assessment/specialized-instruction/governor-s-schools[/quote] I did that when I was a kid in VA and thought it was so disruptive. I was missing everything at the home school.[/quote] Yes, what so many people are missing is that kids, even super genius ones, are still kids, who are social beings and part of a community. Their academic needs can be met without taking them out of their normal school community, and it won’t make them dumber or “water down” their academic experience if they’re made to mix with kids who only test at the 95% on a MAP test. I really think most of what MCPS does regarding magnet/gifted programming is about responding to squeaky wheel parents who (a) seem to need a rarefied experience for their kids and (b) can’t handle change. [/quote] What you’re failing to grasp is that we’re not talking about adding 95th% and 96th% students to programs that are already chock full of 98th% and 99th% students; what is being proposed is spreading out the 98th% and 99th% students among 6 programs instead of 2, while also admitting more students overall. The problem isn’t adding more students; it’s lowering the concentration of the most advanced students in any program. 99th% students will know significantly fewer other 99th% students going forward. Putting these kids together is valuable.[b] Adding 95th% students isn’t harmful, but splitting up the 99th% is.[/b][/quote] DP - how is the bolded harmful? Be specific, please. What research has been done showing that splitting up the 99th percentile kids is harmful? Showing that it's worth the substantial cost to the rest of the students? Showing that the excessive focus on academic achievement from a young age benefits these kids in the long run? I agree with the PP who referenced the breathtaking entitlement of parents who want these programs to continue. Public education is about meeting the needs of as many kids as possible as well as possible. Someone who wants something different needs to look elsewhere.[/quote] Then we shouldn’t have any accelerated programs at all. We shouldn’t be devising regional programs that still include a limit on seats or have any minimum criteria. If there’s no good reason to put 99th% students together, there’s no good reason to put 95th% or 90th% students together either. What’s the benefit of any differentiation?[/quote] How do you know those kids are even the 99th % kids? Most of the Blair SMCS kids come from 2 high school clusters. HS Magnet selection is based on a single MAP-M or MAP-R data point--there's no COGAT or other test of cognitive ability involved. The audacity of parents to claim that their kids are the smartest in the county astounds me--the selection criteria are narrow and not indicative of ability, and the geographic range of students opting into these programs is so narrow . I doubt there's a shred of evidence that a 95% MAP kid is performing far below the level of a 99% MAP kid--please enlighten us to explain your evidence if you have it. [/quote] Does winning state and national academic competitions count as evidence?[/quote] No. I'm sorry you're having problems with the concept of evidence, but all you have is a theory, and a wrong one at that. I hypothesize (without evidence) that if more students from more geographic areas were given the opportunity for advanced coursework that MCPS would win more state and national academic competitions. I do not believe that Blair SMCS is capturing the most talented students in the county when 40% of its students are coming from 2 high school areas. [/quote] We tried that with TPMS. Guess what happened? The lower-performing kids who won the lottery to get the "advanced coursework" in the lottery lost STEM competitions to the kids who lost the lottery and were stuck with "non-advanced coursework" at their home schools. Then those kids who lost the lottery went to Blair and continued winning STEM competitions. But as you said, you prefer to argue "without evidence", so none of this matters. [/quote] No, some didn't get into Blair and were waitlisted and now don't get to do STEM or Stem competitions which puts them at a disadvantage for college. We have zero stem clubs and only the basics.[/quote] Then ask your high schooler to start a STEM club at their school.[/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
