Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:enough with the stupid enrichment. the amount of free math resources, from kahn academy to phd level math and math olympiads, is enough for a lifetime.

the problem is not that exposure or enrichment, but that smart kids are wasting their time in school.

I don't disagree that there is a lot more that schools could be doing for smart kids. Part of that is a lack of focus on their needs when compared to the focus on needs of other groups of students. Finite resources dictate some of this, but I still find those needs underaddressed, even considering.

As far as enrichment being available, while it is much more so than in decades past, accessing and benefitting from self-directed learning is a much more difficult thing to ensure for some families than others, and a not insignificant portion of those others might be employing more effective adult-guided enrichment. Pointing a second-grader to Khan Academy is not going to result in the same adherence to a learning opportunity as dropping the same off at an after-school tutoring program.

In the end, if the main objective of these magnet programs is to meet the needs of the highly able, then a more equitable identification paradigm is required, along with expansion of magnet programming to better match the population demonstrating need. I simply would disagree with any who suggest that the greater objective, instead, and especially before high school, would be to serve those who have hit some level of learned content, though I think there should be room in the conversation for those, as well.

This is a new poster.

I, for one, have personal experience seeing Khan Academy work as a resource for second graders, since I have used it since second grade as well. Khan Academy provided advanced topics at no extra costs or prerequisites, allowing me to pursue my love for math without any restraints. If this doesn't convince you enough, I'm going to be a Poolesville SMCS freshman in the 2025-2026 school year. So, anyways, my point is not the fact that Khan Academy is an all-powerful source. My point is the fact that if you put effort into learning a topic, and set your mind to it, there is nothing that will stop you. Your source of education is immaterial in front of your motivation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:enough with the stupid enrichment. the amount of free math resources, from kahn academy to phd level math and math olympiads, is enough for a lifetime.

the problem is not that exposure or enrichment, but that smart kids are wasting their time in school.

I don't disagree that there is a lot more that schools could be doing for smart kids. Part of that is a lack of focus on their needs when compared to the focus on needs of other groups of students. Finite resources dictate some of this, but I still find those needs underaddressed, even considering.

As far as enrichment being available, while it is much more so than in decades past, accessing and benefitting from self-directed learning is a much more difficult thing to ensure for some families than others, and a not insignificant portion of those others might be employing more effective adult-guided enrichment. Pointing a second-grader to Khan Academy is not going to result in the same adherence to a learning opportunity as dropping the same off at an after-school tutoring program.

In the end, if the main objective of these magnet programs is to meet the needs of the highly able, then a more equitable identification paradigm is required, along with expansion of magnet programming to better match the population demonstrating need. I simply would disagree with any who suggest that the greater objective, instead, and especially before high school, would be to serve those who have hit some level of learned content, though I think there should be room in the conversation for those, as well.

This is a new poster.

I, for one, have personal experience seeing Khan Academy work as a resource for second graders, since I have used it since second grade as well. Khan Academy provided advanced topics at no extra costs or prerequisites, allowing me to pursue my love for math without any restraints. If this doesn't convince you enough, I'm going to be a Poolesville SMCS freshman in the 2025-2026 school year. So, anyways, my point is not the fact that Khan Academy is an all-powerful source. My point is the fact that if you put effort into learning a topic, and set your mind to it, there is nothing that will stop you. Your source of education is immaterial in front of your motivation.

Good luck with the 4hrs per night of math homework!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:enough with the stupid enrichment. the amount of free math resources, from kahn academy to phd level math and math olympiads, is enough for a lifetime.

the problem is not that exposure or enrichment, but that smart kids are wasting their time in school.

I don't disagree that there is a lot more that schools could be doing for smart kids. Part of that is a lack of focus on their needs when compared to the focus on needs of other groups of students. Finite resources dictate some of this, but I still find those needs underaddressed, even considering.

As far as enrichment being available, while it is much more so than in decades past, accessing and benefitting from self-directed learning is a much more difficult thing to ensure for some families than others, and a not insignificant portion of those others might be employing more effective adult-guided enrichment. Pointing a second-grader to Khan Academy is not going to result in the same adherence to a learning opportunity as dropping the same off at an after-school tutoring program.

In the end, if the main objective of these magnet programs is to meet the needs of the highly able, then a more equitable identification paradigm is required, along with expansion of magnet programming to better match the population demonstrating need. I simply would disagree with any who suggest that the greater objective, instead, and especially before high school, would be to serve those who have hit some level of learned content, though I think there should be room in the conversation for those, as well.

This is a new poster.

I, for one, have personal experience seeing Khan Academy work as a resource for second graders, since I have used it since second grade as well. Khan Academy provided advanced topics at no extra costs or prerequisites, allowing me to pursue my love for math without any restraints. If this doesn't convince you enough, I'm going to be a Poolesville SMCS freshman in the 2025-2026 school year. So, anyways, my point is not the fact that Khan Academy is an all-powerful source. My point is the fact that if you put effort into learning a topic, and set your mind to it, there is nothing that will stop you. Your source of education is immaterial in front of your motivation.

Good luck with the 4hrs per night of math homework!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:enough with the stupid enrichment. the amount of free math resources, from kahn academy to phd level math and math olympiads, is enough for a lifetime.

the problem is not that exposure or enrichment, but that smart kids are wasting their time in school.

I don't disagree that there is a lot more that schools could be doing for smart kids. Part of that is a lack of focus on their needs when compared to the focus on needs of other groups of students. Finite resources dictate some of this, but I still find those needs underaddressed, even considering.

As far as enrichment being available, while it is much more so than in decades past, accessing and benefitting from self-directed learning is a much more difficult thing to ensure for some families than others, and a not insignificant portion of those others might be employing more effective adult-guided enrichment. Pointing a second-grader to Khan Academy is not going to result in the same adherence to a learning opportunity as dropping the same off at an after-school tutoring program.

In the end, if the main objective of these magnet programs is to meet the needs of the highly able, then a more equitable identification paradigm is required, along with expansion of magnet programming to better match the population demonstrating need. I simply would disagree with any who suggest that the greater objective, instead, and especially before high school, would be to serve those who have hit some level of learned content, though I think there should be room in the conversation for those, as well.

This is a new poster.

I, for one, have personal experience seeing Khan Academy work as a resource for second graders, since I have used it since second grade as well. Khan Academy provided advanced topics at no extra costs or prerequisites, allowing me to pursue my love for math without any restraints. If this doesn't convince you enough, I'm going to be a Poolesville SMCS freshman in the 2025-2026 school year. So, anyways, my point is not the fact that Khan Academy is an all-powerful source. My point is the fact that if you put effort into learning a topic, and set your mind to it, there is nothing that will stop you. Your source of education is immaterial in front of your motivation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:enough with the stupid enrichment. the amount of free math resources, from kahn academy to phd level math and math olympiads, is enough for a lifetime.

the problem is not that exposure or enrichment, but that smart kids are wasting their time in school.

I don't disagree that there is a lot more that schools could be doing for smart kids. Part of that is a lack of focus on their needs when compared to the focus on needs of other groups of students. Finite resources dictate some of this, but I still find those needs underaddressed, even considering.

As far as enrichment being available, while it is much more so than in decades past, accessing and benefitting from self-directed learning is a much more difficult thing to ensure for some families than others, and a not insignificant portion of those others might be employing more effective adult-guided enrichment. Pointing a second-grader to Khan Academy is not going to result in the same adherence to a learning opportunity as dropping the same off at an after-school tutoring program.

In the end, if the main objective of these magnet programs is to meet the needs of the highly able, then a more equitable identification paradigm is required, along with expansion of magnet programming to better match the population demonstrating need. I simply would disagree with any who suggest that the greater objective, instead, and especially before high school, would be to serve those who have hit some level of learned content, though I think there should be room in the conversation for those, as well.

Anonymous wrote:When are Winter MAP scores posted?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:enough with the stupid enrichment. the amount of free math resources, from kahn academy to phd level math and math olympiads, is enough for a lifetime.

the problem is not that exposure or enrichment, but that smart kids are wasting their time in school.

I don't disagree that there is a lot more that schools could be doing for smart kids. Part of that is a lack of focus on their needs when compared to the focus on needs of other groups of students. Finite resources dictate some of this, but I still find those needs underaddressed, even considering.

As far as enrichment being available, while it is much more so than in decades past, accessing and benefitting from self-directed learning is a much more difficult thing to ensure for some families than others, and a not insignificant portion of those others might be employing more effective adult-guided enrichment. Pointing a second-grader to Khan Academy is not going to result in the same adherence to a learning opportunity as dropping the same off at an after-school tutoring program.

In the end, if the main objective of these magnet programs is to meet the needs of the highly able, then a more equitable identification paradigm is required, along with expansion of magnet programming to better match the population demonstrating need. I simply would disagree with any who suggest that the greater objective, instead, and especially before high school, would be to serve those who have hit some level of learned content, though I think there should be room in the conversation for those, as well.

Actually, it's pretty much the same level of learning, which is determined by the child and not the amount of money parent paid for class. Smart kids who are interested in math will do khan etc for fun, and look for more. Similar kids, when enrolled in enrichment programs by their parents, will listen to the teacher and engage with material. Other kids, when pushed by their parents to do either will soon stop/not listen in class. Not everyone enrolled in AoPS or RSM comes out being good at math. My kids tell me every day stuff other kids don't know in enrichment classes and also MCPS fastest tracked math classes. Those are some very basic things. Those kids don't listen, don't care and/or already way behind despite appearing advanced on paper.

A good amount might correlate to a child's interest/ability. If you are suggesting that the outcomes would be similar, statistically across reasonably sized similar-ability populations from each group (casually pointed to Khan Academy vs. enrolled in an after-school tutoring program), I would suggest you are not correct.

Perhaps, but only insofar the mix of ability of those two groups of children is different. A lot of learning that kids do is self-directed. Many parents think if they pay for tutors or expensive programs, they are set. Then they discoverer their children know very little and don't understand why little Sammy is suddenly struggling in honors precalculus or whatever. The outcome for enrichment will not be that different from regular MCPS classes although you have better teachers and curriculum and approach that is more individualized, unless you also have better students.

You can't pay for learning. There is no literally no money that can make your child, say, fluent in Spanish. You can help them get there (and again, almost all resources to get there also exist for free), but you need a child who is willing to learn. Without that, you have nothing.

Kids who are good at math (or anything else) constantly reinforce that knowledge because they care. They remember what they learned because they care. They make connections on their own, because they care. They are asking questions because they care. You can't buy that. And you don't even need to. Again, that type of kid will take advantage of whatever meager resource is available and run with it.

I think this is the kind of magical thinking that resources make no difference that routinely has some noting individual cases of success from more modest backgrounds as indicative of parity of opportunity. It simply is not the case when comparing the relative likelihood of success in an endeavor of well-resourced cohorts to that of less-well-resourced cohorts across meaningful populations of similar underlying ability.

Again, I don't disregard the significant element of individual interest, but I would dispute the assertion that related outcomes are not meaningfully different. The system should not be setting up a paradigm that significantly reinforces resource-born opportunity, just as, at the same time, it should try not to discourage pursuit of such resource-born opportunities wholly outside the construct of the system.

You know what magical thinking is - it' is assuming that, if opportunities are the same, you get equal outcomes. Also, I am not saying that there is parity of opportunity - just that parity, in this age, doesn't matter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:enough with the stupid enrichment. the amount of free math resources, from kahn academy to phd level math and math olympiads, is enough for a lifetime.

the problem is not that exposure or enrichment, but that smart kids are wasting their time in school.

I don't disagree that there is a lot more that schools could be doing for smart kids. Part of that is a lack of focus on their needs when compared to the focus on needs of other groups of students. Finite resources dictate some of this, but I still find those needs underaddressed, even considering.

As far as enrichment being available, while it is much more so than in decades past, accessing and benefitting from self-directed learning is a much more difficult thing to ensure for some families than others, and a not insignificant portion of those others might be employing more effective adult-guided enrichment. Pointing a second-grader to Khan Academy is not going to result in the same adherence to a learning opportunity as dropping the same off at an after-school tutoring program.

In the end, if the main objective of these magnet programs is to meet the needs of the highly able, then a more equitable identification paradigm is required, along with expansion of magnet programming to better match the population demonstrating need. I simply would disagree with any who suggest that the greater objective, instead, and especially before high school, would be to serve those who have hit some level of learned content, though I think there should be room in the conversation for those, as well.

Actually, it's pretty much the same level of learning, which is determined by the child and not the amount of money parent paid for class. Smart kids who are interested in math will do khan etc for fun, and look for more. Similar kids, when enrolled in enrichment programs by their parents, will listen to the teacher and engage with material. Other kids, when pushed by their parents to do either will soon stop/not listen in class. Not everyone enrolled in AoPS or RSM comes out being good at math. My kids tell me every day stuff other kids don't know in enrichment classes and also MCPS fastest tracked math classes. Those are some very basic things. Those kids don't listen, don't care and/or already way behind despite appearing advanced on paper.

A good amount might correlate to a child's interest/ability. If you are suggesting that the outcomes would be similar, statistically across reasonably sized similar-ability populations from each group (casually pointed to Khan Academy vs. enrolled in an after-school tutoring program), I would suggest you are not correct.

Perhaps, but only insofar the mix of ability of those two groups of children is different. A lot of learning that kids do is self-directed. Many parents think if they pay for tutors or expensive programs, they are set. Then they discoverer their children know very little and don't understand why little Sammy is suddenly struggling in honors precalculus or whatever. The outcome for enrichment will not be that different from regular MCPS classes although you have better teachers and curriculum and approach that is more individualized, unless you also have better students.

You can't pay for learning. There is no literally no money that can make your child, say, fluent in Spanish. You can help them get there (and again, almost all resources to get there also exist for free), but you need a child who is willing to learn. Without that, you have nothing.

Kids who are good at math (or anything else) constantly reinforce that knowledge because they care. They remember what they learned because they care. They make connections on their own, because they care. They are asking questions because they care. You can't buy that. And you don't even need to. Again, that type of kid will take advantage of whatever meager resource is available and run with it.

I think this is the kind of magical thinking that resources make no difference that routinely has some noting individual cases of success from more modest backgrounds as indicative of parity of opportunity. It simply is not the case when comparing the relative likelihood of success in an endeavor of well-resourced cohorts to that of less-well-resourced cohorts across meaningful populations of similar underlying ability.

Again, I don't disregard the significant element of individual interest, but I would dispute the assertion that related outcomes are not meaningfully different. The system should not be setting up a paradigm that significantly reinforces resource-born opportunity, just as, at the same time, it should try not to discourage pursuit of such resource-born opportunities wholly outside the construct of the system.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:enough with the stupid enrichment. the amount of free math resources, from kahn academy to phd level math and math olympiads, is enough for a lifetime.

the problem is not that exposure or enrichment, but that smart kids are wasting their time in school.

I don't disagree that there is a lot more that schools could be doing for smart kids. Part of that is a lack of focus on their needs when compared to the focus on needs of other groups of students. Finite resources dictate some of this, but I still find those needs underaddressed, even considering.

As far as enrichment being available, while it is much more so than in decades past, accessing and benefitting from self-directed learning is a much more difficult thing to ensure for some families than others, and a not insignificant portion of those others might be employing more effective adult-guided enrichment. Pointing a second-grader to Khan Academy is not going to result in the same adherence to a learning opportunity as dropping the same off at an after-school tutoring program.

In the end, if the main objective of these magnet programs is to meet the needs of the highly able, then a more equitable identification paradigm is required, along with expansion of magnet programming to better match the population demonstrating need. I simply would disagree with any who suggest that the greater objective, instead, and especially before high school, would be to serve those who have hit some level of learned content, though I think there should be room in the conversation for those, as well.

Actually, it's pretty much the same level of learning, which is determined by the child and not the amount of money parent paid for class. Smart kids who are interested in math will do khan etc for fun, and look for more. Similar kids, when enrolled in enrichment programs by their parents, will listen to the teacher and engage with material. Other kids, when pushed by their parents to do either will soon stop/not listen in class. Not everyone enrolled in AoPS or RSM comes out being good at math. My kids tell me every day stuff other kids don't know in enrichment classes and also MCPS fastest tracked math classes. Those are some very basic things. Those kids don't listen, don't care and/or already way behind despite appearing advanced on paper.

A good amount might correlate to a child's interest/ability. If you are suggesting that the outcomes would be similar, statistically across reasonably sized similar-ability populations from each group (casually pointed to Khan Academy vs. enrolled in an after-school tutoring program), I would suggest you are not correct.

Perhaps, but only insofar the mix of ability of those two groups of children is different. A lot of learning that kids do is self-directed. Many parents think if they pay for tutors or expensive programs, they are set. Then they discoverer their children know very little and don't understand why little Sammy is suddenly struggling in honors precalculus or whatever. The outcome for enrichment will not be that different from regular MCPS classes although you have better teachers and curriculum and approach that is more individualized, unless you also have better students.

You can't pay for learning. There is no literally no money that can make your child, say, fluent in Spanish. You can help them get there (and again, almost all resources to get there also exist for free), but you need a child who is willing to learn. Without that, you have nothing.

Kids who are good at math (or anything else) constantly reinforce that knowledge because they care. They remember what they learned because they care. They make connections on their own, because they care. They are asking questions because they care. You can't buy that. And you don't even need to. Again, that type of kid will take advantage of whatever meager resource is available and run with it.

There are a billion stupid Spanish speakers. All you have to do to learn Spanish is sit near Spanish speaking people for a few years. But that costs money if you don't live in a Spanish speaking country.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:enough with the stupid enrichment. the amount of free math resources, from kahn academy to phd level math and math olympiads, is enough for a lifetime.

the problem is not that exposure or enrichment, but that smart kids are wasting their time in school.

I don't disagree that there is a lot more that schools could be doing for smart kids. Part of that is a lack of focus on their needs when compared to the focus on needs of other groups of students. Finite resources dictate some of this, but I still find those needs underaddressed, even considering.

As far as enrichment being available, while it is much more so than in decades past, accessing and benefitting from self-directed learning is a much more difficult thing to ensure for some families than others, and a not insignificant portion of those others might be employing more effective adult-guided enrichment. Pointing a second-grader to Khan Academy is not going to result in the same adherence to a learning opportunity as dropping the same off at an after-school tutoring program.

In the end, if the main objective of these magnet programs is to meet the needs of the highly able, then a more equitable identification paradigm is required, along with expansion of magnet programming to better match the population demonstrating need. I simply would disagree with any who suggest that the greater objective, instead, and especially before high school, would be to serve those who have hit some level of learned content, though I think there should be room in the conversation for those, as well.

Actually, it's pretty much the same level of learning, which is determined by the child and not the amount of money parent paid for class. Smart kids who are interested in math will do khan etc for fun, and look for more. Similar kids, when enrolled in enrichment programs by their parents, will listen to the teacher and engage with material. Other kids, when pushed by their parents to do either will soon stop/not listen in class. Not everyone enrolled in AoPS or RSM comes out being good at math. My kids tell me every day stuff other kids don't know in enrichment classes and also MCPS fastest tracked math classes. Those are some very basic things. Those kids don't listen, don't care and/or already way behind despite appearing advanced on paper.

A good amount might correlate to a child's interest/ability. If you are suggesting that the outcomes would be similar, statistically across reasonably sized similar-ability populations from each group (casually pointed to Khan Academy vs. enrolled in an after-school tutoring program), I would suggest you are not correct.

Perhaps, but only insofar the mix of ability of those two groups of children is different. A lot of learning that kids do is self-directed. Many parents think if they pay for tutors or expensive programs, they are set. Then they discoverer their children know very little and don't understand why little Sammy is suddenly struggling in honors precalculus or whatever. The outcome for enrichment will not be that different from regular MCPS classes although you have better teachers and curriculum and approach that is more individualized, unless you also have better students.

You can't pay for learning. There is no literally no money that can make your child, say, fluent in Spanish. You can help them get there (and again, almost all resources to get there also exist for free), but you need a child who is willing to learn. Without that, you have nothing.

Kids who are good at math (or anything else) constantly reinforce that knowledge because they care. They remember what they learned because they care. They make connections on their own, because they care. They are asking questions because they care. You can't buy that. And you don't even need to. Again, that type of kid will take advantage of whatever meager resource is available and run with it.