Reply to DEI and magnet schools

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "DEI and magnet schools "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]let's say a (supposedly) very smart 8th grader scored 250 on MAP-M. why do they need more math opportunities? they haven't even availed themselves of opportunities they were given. you want to rush them to MV calculus - why? why do they need this?

compare this to your villain - a "heavily exposed" child who scored 300 on the same test. regardless of how they got there - they actually need more advanced material. [/quote]

A very slanted take, there.

"Supposedly?"  "Villain?"  An argument that can't be made without unnecessary charged words is not much of an argument.

Why would the former need more than standard curriculum?  [b]Because they can absorb more.  Because it is easy for them to catch up on content due to that ability.  [/b]Because standard pace does not meet their learning need and more likely leads to their disinterest in academics, which becomes a tragedy.  Why are they at 250?  Not because they haven't "availed themselves."  Because the circumstances haven't afforded them reliable exposure due to any of the several reasons previously mentioned.

Of course not everyone at 250, using this scenario, should be definitively in the mix -- that's where an ability-related metric becomes important as a principal identifier, to go along with any heuristic that might employ exposure-related metrics on a locally normed basis.  We shouldn't be relying purely on that local norming of exposure-related scores either.

These are real kids, not some unicorn.  I don't expect their numbers to be overwhelming, but they deserve both identification and program access, and there is significant research providing bases for better identification paradigms than those afforded by principal reliance on MAP.

Would the 300-scorer in the proffered scenario not be able to demonstrate ability outside of the exposure-based metric?  Bacause "regardless of how they got there" patently sets up a strawman argument in this regard.

Separately, and, once again, repeating where it clearly has been ignored, I would not begrudge a student with high exposure-related scores access to magnet programming, [i]except[/i] that I would [i]first[/i] address the needs associated with ability.  That advanced learning also demonstrates a need, albeit one that inherits from a different cause.

There is considerable experience at programs like SMCS of students coming in with high exposure-based scores struggling more than might be expected, however.  With respect to math, in this case, neither group might need to rush to MVC, but we should be affording each a supported path, with off-ramps, if needed.

And, while not unimportant, the HS magnet selection paradigm at least incorporates more elements for program review.  The magnet programs where central identification applies are for elementary and middle, with the latest tests considered coming at the beginning of 5th grade.  Much more than enough time to allow a student of high ability the chance to catch up, if needed.  That is part of the magnet intent and implementation paradigm.

From before:

"Support all kids. Support talented kids with paradigms that do the best job of identifying that talent, curricula that best meet the associated educational need, enforced policy that ensures those curricula are employed with fidelity across the system and funding to make that happen with reasonable equivalence for all so identified."

Identify well and make enough room. I don't see where this causes the objection, especially when making room to include access to advanced courses for those having mastered precedent material from additional exposure, alone.  Unless there is a desire to keep funding low, seats few and access most dependent on the privileges of family circumstance.  :roll:[/quote]

if they could absorb more, the would have absorbed more. these are 13-14 olds, not 5-6 year olds. they don't need to "catch up" - they need to shore up their shaky foundations. life is long, they can catch up later.

meanwhile, magnets should be for those who are already well ahead of others. [/quote]

This ignoring of points provided is foolish.

[b]Absorption happens with exposure. [/b] Real opportunity for exposure is not uniformly distributed in society.

Much of magnet programming is designed to incorporate the necessary foundational ramp-up for those able/attuned to the subject matter but needing the exposure.  The ability to absorb quickly, without significant repetition and with leaps in understanding that allow skipping of intermediate concepts is what allows this to occur with minimal drag on the experience of others.

Those entering HS magnets may be 13- to 14-year-olds, but this life stage is far from beyond that catch-up.  When considering the ES and MS magnets, entering as 8- to 9- & 10- to 11-year olds, respectively, the notion of its not being possible for highly able students to catch up is laughable.  Catching up later actually is harder, with less cognitive plasticity, especially given the differential exigencies of life during higher education and afterwards.

Once more, I'd like to see enough magnet seating or local true equivalents to accommodate the needs of those having learned content from additional/external exposure, even if not identified as highly able.  The "well ahead of others" that makes magnets effective, both for the individual and for society, has much more to do with domain ability, however, and it is considerably more difficult to have [i]those[/i] needs met in an alternative manner than the opposite, should a choice between the two groups be necessary due to lack of funding or the like.

Based on a presumption that this is the same poster continuing the argument, I don't expect, at this point, a change of heart based on these thoughts.  It appears that we will have to agree to disagree.[/quote]

no, it doesn't. learning is active. people are not sponges. that absorb e.g. math knowledge by sitting in a room where someone is talking about higher level math. they direct their own attention. the very same kids who you claim did not have enough exposure to high level math (laughable) know 50x or 100x more about makeup or sneaker brands etc than kids who had roughly similar level of exposure but paid attention to it.

what kids want to learn matters too. it is also highly related to their innate strengths to the point where the whole discussion of IQ vs. content meaningless. call it smart kids or call it kids with a lot of exposure. the point is, some kids are ready and eager to jump on highly enriched and accelerated content and some aren't. the should all be provided with what meets their needs.[/quote]

This reaponse interprets the prior post incorrectly as it continues to ignore the perspective offered.

Taking "absorption happens with exposure" as automatic/passive ignores the entire context of the various posts offered, which clearly discuss this in relation to the opportunity that those highly able students might or might not have to learn.  Of course absorption from exposure is vastly greater with active attention.  The point is that it requires the exposure in the first place, and not all students have that opportunity in a fashion reasonably equivalent enough to rely on exposure-driven metrics to assess ability.

The folllowing paragraph begins with a non sequitor.  Of course interest and ability ("innate strengths") are huge factors.  This does not make discussion of ability ("IQ" [sic]) vs. content/exposure meaningless.  Instead, it informs that discussion and highlights the importance of that ability.

[b]That some kids are ready for enriched/accelerated learning while some are not is abundantly clear.[/b]  However, it appears that there is disagreement about that which constitutes that readiness.  I have pointed out that magnet programming not only is intended principally to meet the learning needs of those highly able but also is designed to enable the very catch-up that tends to rectify exposure discrepancies.  Likewise, and by and large, that readiness is indicated by their relative ability at the various ages at which magnet program selection occurs.

[i]Once again[/i], I'll point out that the needs of those having mastered content via additional exposure are relevant and should be met, as well.  Indeed, I completely agree with the statement that they "should all be provided with what meets their needs," and that seems to be among the positions I've repeatedly laid out only to be ignored in the various responses.  MCPS should be providing enough magnet seats and/or truly equivalent local programming to cover those needs for [i]anyone[/i] identified.  If, instead, MCPS operates there with scarcity, be it from resource constraint or from a more artificial source (e.g., some misguided policy position), forcing a choice between offering magnet programming to the highly able (but not as exposed) vs. the highly exposed (but not as able), the better path is to offer it to the former, noting that those students both highly able [i]and[/i] highly exposed would be served under the aegis of "highly able."[/quote]

a lot of kids have enrichment, yes, but [i]it doesn't really help them[/I]. RSM and AOPS are full of kids who glaze over teacher's lectures. they get extremely poor scores on tests they take there. they are bored. they will continue to attend those place, probably, and you will continue to complain of the injustice, but actually, it doest'n really matter all that much.

you can't make your kid be what they aren't - not at 14. [/quote]

The logic, here, is sparse, or, perhaps, the language is imprecise.  Are you saying enrichment does nothing?  I don't think so, but it would help if you phrased it so that the statement applied only to those intended in the remark.

Presuming that you are saying that many (not all) who engage in outside enrichment don't get much out of it, I would nuance that considerably by saying that not all who so engage reap vast learning.  I would agree, to an extent, but I would also suggest that even those who participate but with less enthusiasm tend to reap some benefit, and that that does get reflected by increased exposure-related test scores to one extent or another.

As further clarification, I do not wish to dissuade any family's pursuit of outside enrichment, unless there is over-focus on that to the deteiment of their child's emotional well-being or of their long-term interest in academics.  While it might be "just" to have truly equivalent options available to all, regardless of family condition, there are limits on that which can or even should be provided by society towards that end.  That said, I don't think MCPS (or American education writ large) really approaches those limits consistently, and Montgomery County, though certainly not among the worst, does not offer MCPS the funding that consistently would allow a close approach.  The facilitation of learning outside of the school day offers the possibility of improved life experience, and those with means

As for that outside enrichment not mattering, I would disagree.  As above, I think that almost all who engage in it reap at least some benefit, but, more importantly, it matters so long as there is gatekeeping to programs meant to address ability-related needs that relies principally on exposure-related metrics.

To be sure, cognitive capability change can be engendered to some degree by exposure, as well -- it is part of how the brain develops, so it is not as though outside enrichment should be seen as all for naught with respect to accessing magnet programming for those so inclinedt.  However, any such ability increase would be discerned far better by ability-related testing than by tests such as MAP.

People develop new interests and competencies throughout life, even if neuroplasticity slows with age.  The idea that the abilities are set by the age of 14, that pathways & ceilings should similarly be set then, or that opportunities to address related need should be limited at that age by the effects of differential past exposure is simply ridiculous.[/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