Reply to Mathcounts results 2024 MoCo+PG

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "Mathcounts results 2024 MoCo+PG"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Strange how none of you who are suggesting that the sky would fall if the set aside were eliminated or modified has any explanation as to why it is OK in an equity-obsessed school system to have inequitable relative opportunity to get magnet-level enriched education.  Is equity a good thing only when getting there doesn't negatively impact [i]your[/i] neighborhood?[/quote]

No one is saying the sky would fall. People are saying it doesn't make sense to eliminate it, because it would not free up more out of bounds seats. Those 25 kids would be at TPMS no matter what.

This is also pretty normal. Potomac ES has a whole immersion program essentially to themselves. Cold Spring ES gets a whole class of AIM. Kids zoned for RM can join the IB program junior year and get an outstanding education.

There are slight variations and opportunities depending on the home school. The set-aside for TPMS is not an outlier. [/quote]

It [i]is[/i] an outlier.  So is Potomac, with its much larger set-aside as a proportion of the capacity of the Mandarin Immersion program hosted there.  So is Stonegate, with its in-bounds-only CES (a couple of others in that situation, too).  These are the [i]exceptions[/i].  There are 130-something elementaries, 40 or so middles and nearly 30 high schools.  The vast majority of these schools don't have overbooked-demand magnets, much less set-asides for them.

Is there a set-aside for Rock Creek Forest's Full Spanish Immersion program?  I don't think so.

Cold Spring (and its MS/HS pyramid) is an example of inequity for a similar, but somewhat separate reason, as it isn't a magnet that is supposed to be drawing from a whole portion of the county.  CSES administration genuflects to aggressive family push enabled by outside enrichment (not saying that enrichment is wrong, just that that's how they get scores to push a justification).  The problem is not so much that, as it is that MCPS [i]hides this fact[/i] and doesn't do what it should, given it is enabling this at CSES, to ensure equivalent identification/access for anyone outside of CSES demonstrating such capability.

Back to TPMS and its set-aside.  They got rid of or reduced some of the other set-asides (Eastern magnet or somewhere else?), didn't they?  No reason they couldn't do so for TPMS.  It [i]would[/i] free up those spots to equilibrate access across the entire magnet catchment because they'd be keeping the [i]program[/i] at 125.  Not getting rid of 25 seats, just getting rid of 25 set-aside admissions spaces (or reducing the set-aside so that the proportion of set-aside admissions slots to total admission slots was the same as the proportion of the TPMS catchment to the whole magnet catchment).[/quote]

No, it would not free up spots. The program is 100 students.  The 25 additional are pulled from students already attending as a way to expand a limited program without actually expanding it.  It has been explained many times on thus board.  Eliminating the set aside would mean that inboundary kids will compete for those 100 spots. The TPMS catchment cohort is very competitive.  I know several incredibly smart kids who did not get in. (I taught them in ES). Trying to get rid of the set aside would just reduce seats overall and would hurt everyone. [/quote]

You keep repeating yourself and this is most absurd argument I've heard about those UMC prepped Takoma kids. [/quote]

I know. They're argument makes no sense. If anything they should increase the set-aside.[/quote]

You forgot the /sarcasm to cap your trollish and unsupported comment.[/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