Anonymous wrote: I see a letter from Poolesville today in my informed delivery. Hoping it is an accept letter after being waitpooled.

Anonymous wrote:Are the students that are getting into these magnets just as smart or are the magnets being watered-down?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is EXACTLY what MCPS wanted to achieve by creating percentiles within SES bands. The average person is now totally confused about the fact that a child can score "99%" in a low SES band, but really have a score in the 80s when compared to the entire district. Now we have all of the "high performers" that we could possibly want!

There's no evidence of this happening, by the way. I have a kid admitted to TPMS with a 99% in a low SES band. They are also 99% nationally, and within their SAS. Now, MCPS doesn't actually show "compared to the entire district" but it stands to reason that a kid who is at 99% nationally is definitely not "in the 80s" when compared to the entire district.

I think you're confused PP. This is the way it's supposed to work. Your child has an advantage and more likely to score 99th percentile in the lower SES band. Likely his scores would be lower in a high SES band.
I know of kids who scored 99th percentile nationally in a subtest and that matched up to 80 something in their high SES band.

Oh, that may be true but that's not what PP said. PP said that a 99th percentile in a low SES band would be "in the 80s" county-wide. But that's not the case, assuming the national percentiles are more or less a decent proxy for county-wide percentiles. We don't know how MCPS county-wide percentiles line up with national percentiles for Cogat, but we do know they more or less line up for MAP.

But, yes, if the question is whether my 99th percentile nationally kid would be lower if he was at Pyle rather than his home school? Almost certainly, but again that wasn't the assertion above.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So? I thought MCPS stated that other schools were as equally good, but even if they aren't, that doesn't mean MCPS should be favoring one side over the other for a county wide program.

It's not a county-wide program. There are the middle-school magnet programs at Clemente/MLK, and there are the middle-school magnet programs at Takoma Park/Eastern.

Also, MCPS isn't favoring one side over the other. MCPS is saying that the outliers at each school get admitted to the middle-school magnet programs.

It's county wide for the southern part of the county. Clemente is for the northern side of the county. People who live in the W clusters are zoned for TP/Eastern magnet, not Clemente, which serves the northern portions of the county.

When MCPS uses peer cohort criteria, it does favor one side of the other because one side has waaay more higher performers than the other side, but they are effective giving the other side a bump up because of where they live.

And to PP's question of "how is it penalizing w clusters".. it does so because a student who happens to live in that cluster who scores higher than another student in another cluster but doesn't get in because of "peer cohort" basically is penalized because of where that student lives. If you pluck that student out of a W cluster, and put them in a school out east, then that student would probably get in. And no... families shouldn't have to move just so their kids don't get penalized for where they live. That would be gaming the system.

I think this generalization isn't truthful. Both sides of the county have similar numbers of high-performers. The difference is one side has higher ranked schools and parents who invest in prep. The cohort criteria levels this playing field so equally high-performing students in less affluent areas get the same opportunities.

This is not supported by facts. If you look at high performers by school there are many more at places like Hoover, Cabin John, Pyle. These are Cogat scores, which you cannot really prep for. I don't disagree with the idea of leveling the playing field but I think the cohort system is wrong and it ends up benefitting those middle class, white families that happen to live in areas with mediocre to bad schools because they care less about education than the size of their house (one version) or they value diversity (other version)

I beg to differ since the facts which are plain as day are clear cut and support their argument. Further, the "good" schools confer an advantage fortunate enough to live within their boundaries. The cohort criteria simply levels the playing field.

This is EXACTLY what MCPS wanted to achieve by creating percentiles within SES bands. The average person is now totally confused about the fact that a child can score "99%" in a low SES band, but really have a score in the 80s when compared to the entire district. Now we have all of the "high performers" that we could possibly want!

So PP, do you really believe that only rich white or Asian kids can be smart?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So? I thought MCPS stated that other schools were as equally good, but even if they aren't, that doesn't mean MCPS should be favoring one side over the other for a county wide program.

It's not a county-wide program. There are the middle-school magnet programs at Clemente/MLK, and there are the middle-school magnet programs at Takoma Park/Eastern.

Also, MCPS isn't favoring one side over the other. MCPS is saying that the outliers at each school get admitted to the middle-school magnet programs.

It's county wide for the southern part of the county. Clemente is for the northern side of the county. People who live in the W clusters are zoned for TP/Eastern magnet, not Clemente, which serves the northern portions of the county.

When MCPS uses peer cohort criteria, it does favor one side of the other because one side has waaay more higher performers than the other side, but they are effective giving the other side a bump up because of where they live.

And to PP's question of "how is it penalizing w clusters".. it does so because a student who happens to live in that cluster who scores higher than another student in another cluster but doesn't get in because of "peer cohort" basically is penalized because of where that student lives. If you pluck that student out of a W cluster, and put them in a school out east, then that student would probably get in. And no... families shouldn't have to move just so their kids don't get penalized for where they live. That would be gaming the system.

I think this generalization isn't truthful. Both sides of the county have similar numbers of high-performers. The difference is one side has higher ranked schools and parents who invest in prep. The cohort criteria levels this playing field so equally high-performing students in less affluent areas get the same opportunities.

This is not supported by facts. If you look at high performers by school there are many more at places like Hoover, Cabin John, Pyle. These are Cogat scores, which you cannot really prep for. I don't disagree with the idea of leveling the playing field but I think the cohort system is wrong and it ends up benefitting those middle class, white families that happen to live in areas with mediocre to bad schools because they care less about education than the size of their house (one version) or they value diversity (other version)

I beg to differ since the facts which are plain as day are clear cut and support their argument. Further, the "good" schools confer an advantage fortunate enough to live within their boundaries. The cohort criteria simply levels the playing field.

This is EXACTLY what MCPS wanted to achieve by creating percentiles within SES bands. The average person is now totally confused about the fact that a child can score "99%" in a low SES band, but really have a score in the 80s when compared to the entire district. Now we have all of the "high performers" that we could possibly want!

So PP, do you really believe that only rich white or Asian kids can be smart?

I believe in the advantage one gets by living in the boundary for one of the affluent schools. Cohort nonsense erodes this advantage, but seriously if parents cared about education, they'd live in bounds for a good school.

Not everyone can afford to live in Chevy Chase, but everyone is entitled to a first-rate public education.

Not everyone WANTS to live in Chevy Chase.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So? I thought MCPS stated that other schools were as equally good, but even if they aren't, that doesn't mean MCPS should be favoring one side over the other for a county wide program.

It's not a county-wide program. There are the middle-school magnet programs at Clemente/MLK, and there are the middle-school magnet programs at Takoma Park/Eastern.

Also, MCPS isn't favoring one side over the other. MCPS is saying that the outliers at each school get admitted to the middle-school magnet programs.

It's county wide for the southern part of the county. Clemente is for the northern side of the county. People who live in the W clusters are zoned for TP/Eastern magnet, not Clemente, which serves the northern portions of the county.

When MCPS uses peer cohort criteria, it does favor one side of the other because one side has waaay more higher performers than the other side, but they are effective giving the other side a bump up because of where they live.

And to PP's question of "how is it penalizing w clusters".. it does so because a student who happens to live in that cluster who scores higher than another student in another cluster but doesn't get in because of "peer cohort" basically is penalized because of where that student lives. If you pluck that student out of a W cluster, and put them in a school out east, then that student would probably get in. And no... families shouldn't have to move just so their kids don't get penalized for where they live. That would be gaming the system.

I think this generalization isn't truthful. Both sides of the county have similar numbers of high-performers. The difference is one side has higher ranked schools and parents who invest in prep. The cohort criteria levels this playing field so equally high-performing students in less affluent areas get the same opportunities.

This is not supported by facts. If you look at high performers by school there are many more at places like Hoover, Cabin John, Pyle. These are Cogat scores, which you cannot really prep for. I don't disagree with the idea of leveling the playing field but I think the cohort system is wrong and it ends up benefitting those middle class, white families that happen to live in areas with mediocre to bad schools because they care less about education than the size of their house (one version) or they value diversity (other version)

I beg to differ since the facts which are plain as day are clear cut and support their argument. Further, the "good" schools confer an advantage fortunate enough to live within their boundaries. The cohort criteria simply levels the playing field.

This is EXACTLY what MCPS wanted to achieve by creating percentiles within SES bands. The average person is now totally confused about the fact that a child can score "99%" in a low SES band, but really have a score in the 80s when compared to the entire district. Now we have all of the "high performers" that we could possibly want!

So PP, do you really believe that only rich white or Asian kids can be smart?

I believe in the advantage one gets by living in the boundary for one of the affluent schools. Cohort nonsense erodes this advantage, but seriously if parents cared about education, they'd live in bounds for a good school.

Not everyone can afford to live in Chevy Chase, but everyone is entitled to a first-rate public education.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is EXACTLY what MCPS wanted to achieve by creating percentiles within SES bands. The average person is now totally confused about the fact that a child can score "99%" in a low SES band, but really have a score in the 80s when compared to the entire district. Now we have all of the "high performers" that we could possibly want!

There's no evidence of this happening, by the way. I have a kid admitted to TPMS with a 99% in a low SES band. They are also 99% nationally, and within their SAS. Now, MCPS doesn't actually show "compared to the entire district" but it stands to reason that a kid who is at 99% nationally is definitely not "in the 80s" when compared to the entire district.

I think you're confused PP. This is the way it's supposed to work. Your child has an advantage and more likely to score 99th percentile in the lower SES band. Likely his scores would be lower in a high SES band.
I know of kids who scored 99th percentile nationally in a subtest and that matched up to 80 something in their high SES band.

Anonymous wrote:

This is EXACTLY what MCPS wanted to achieve by creating percentiles within SES bands. The average person is now totally confused about the fact that a child can score "99%" in a low SES band, but really have a score in the 80s when compared to the entire district. Now we have all of the "high performers" that we could possibly want!

There's no evidence of this happening, by the way. I have a kid admitted to TPMS with a 99% in a low SES band. They are also 99% nationally, and within their SAS. Now, MCPS doesn't actually show "compared to the entire district" but it stands to reason that a kid who is at 99% nationally is definitely not "in the 80s" when compared to the entire district.

This is EXACTLY what MCPS wanted to achieve by creating percentiles within SES bands. The average person is now totally confused about the fact that a child can score "99%" in a low SES band, but really have a score in the 80s when compared to the entire district. Now we have all of the "high performers" that we could possibly want!