Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The biggest problem with the inbound seats is that they almost all go to UMC white kids which are already a small portion of TPMS. The inbound seats should be going to far more AA and hispanic students.


30% is a small portion?

Yeah it is and often its not even that high. The numbers should be flipped or better yet the inbound seats should be reserved for URM students. UMC white kids do not need a leg up. Let them compete with everyone else but give the poor AA and hispanic kids special consideration for the challenges that they have and will face.

Anonymous wrote:
The biggest problem with the inbound seats is that they almost all go to UMC white kids which are already a small portion of TPMS. The inbound seats should be going to far more AA and hispanic students.


30% is a small portion?

Anonymous wrote:The biggest problem with the inbound seats is that they almost all go to UMC white kids which are already a small portion of TPMS. The inbound seats should be going to far more AA and hispanic students.

Anonymous wrote:The top scoring kids in the county do live in Frost/Cabin John (Cold Spring). This is supported by every data point out there. Its not unique for people to cluster by ability. It seems that somebody in TP wants to believe that they are a cluster of smart people but the data doesn't really support this one. Sorry.

This is irrelevant to the argument that the in bound seats should be available throughout the DCC. Cold Spring isn't part of the DCC.

Anonymous wrote:Come on, statistically speaking, how could 20% of the top gifted students in MCPS happen to live in Takoma Park??

Could "creepy smart" equal "forced into regimented learning at a young age?" Because, I don't think your "creepy smart" kid crawled (oops, sorry, I'm sure they were walking at 6 months) over to the book shelf, pulled down a volume of Shakespeare and taught himself iambic pentameter. A parent pushed early reading. Nothing rong w/ that. My preschooler was reading too. I worked with her. But, that doesn't mean she was "creepy smart." Yes, our kids are bright and receptive, but the early reading is because we taught them early, not because they are "creepy baby genuises.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the middle school magnet program is for high achievers and not a gifted program per se (like the old elementary gifted program). Does it say it’s a gifted program?

The middle school magnet program has fewer seats than the old HGC program and far fewer than the new CESs. However, the new cohort system changes the selection dynamic. I believe it is still harder to get a seat than on the elementary level (especially if school has a local class or two) but there are very bright kids who do not get a MS spot because they have a cohort at their home school. Basically it is not solely merit based.

Before the magnet process changed, there were very bright kids who did not get a middle-school magnet spot.

Whereas now, in contrast, there are very bright kids who did not get a middle-school magnet spot.

Actually, the old process favored kids with the most prep whereas the new process that screens 10X as many kids favors intelligence.

Anonymous wrote:Come on, statistically speaking, how could 20% of the top gifted students in MCPS happen to live in Takoma Park??

Anonymous wrote:150 posts in response to 1 parent's frustration that their "gifted" prepared DC who lives out of boundary did not get into TPMS. One parent who thinks that their kid is better than all the TKPK kids who did make it into TPMS.

We TKPK parents really need to stop feeding the troll. It would be great if for the next "My kid is smarter than the TKPK kids" post, we all ignore the OP and let the thread die. Why should we defend ourselves against every troll?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way I see it is that 100 out-of-boundary kids get accepted and the majority of the 25 TPMS in-boundary slots are actually kids who would have otherwise been "wait-listed." Does that mean they are less qualified? Yes and no. They probably wouldn't have been first choice form an anonymous pool of applicants, but all the wait-listed students are supposedly potentially qualified. Therefore, that LOOOONG wait-list just goes to the 25 in-boundary TP students. They are qualified but most are not the top of the top in term of ability.

I am a parent of a TPMS magnet out-of-boundary kid and this is my theory. The TPMS in-boundary kids seem qualified but some are not the top of their peer group (for example may not make the varsity Mathcounts Team, etc.). I know a bunch of the out-of-boundary TPMS parents (of the old system - 7th and 8th graders) and our kids are the "creepy smart" kids who learned to read when they were two and have crazy high IQs--some of them came from private schools or homeschooling because what MCPS could offer was just not sufficient. I don't think the majority of the in-boundary kids are THAT smart (nor do I think many of the Asians who study at those prep schools are THAT smart either, just high achievers). So who is this program for anyway? I think it should be for the true outliers who NEED academic peers; the kids who are bullied at their home schools because they are seen as "weird" and not fitting in because their interests are just so different and their asynchronous development is so profound.

Can you explain why the half the in-boundary kids at TPMS somehow manage to make it into Blair SMCS? They end up doing as well or better than the out of boundary kids.

If admission to Blair SMCS is a metric of how well these groups perform, the in-boundary group does as well as the out of boundary so the PP's assertion appears to be fiction.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way I see it is that 100 out-of-boundary kids get accepted and the majority of the 25 TPMS in-boundary slots are actually kids who would have otherwise been "wait-listed." Does that mean they are less qualified? Yes and no. They probably wouldn't have been first choice form an anonymous pool of applicants, but all the wait-listed students are supposedly potentially qualified. Therefore, that LOOOONG wait-list just goes to the 25 in-boundary TP students. They are qualified but most are not the top of the top in term of ability.

I am a parent of a TPMS magnet out-of-boundary kid and this is my theory. The TPMS in-boundary kids seem qualified but some are not the top of their peer group (for example may not make the varsity Mathcounts Team, etc.). I know a bunch of the out-of-boundary TPMS parents (of the old system - 7th and 8th graders) and our kids are the "creepy smart" kids who learned to read when they were two and have crazy high IQs--some of them came from private schools or homeschooling because what MCPS could offer was just not sufficient. I don't think the majority of the in-boundary kids are THAT smart (nor do I think many of the Asians who study at those prep schools are THAT smart either, just high achievers). So who is this program for anyway? I think it should be for the true outliers who NEED academic peers; the kids who are bullied at their home schools because they are seen as "weird" and not fitting in because their interests are just so different and their asynchronous development is so profound.

Could "creepy smart" equal "forced into regimented learning at a young age?" Because, I don't think your "creepy smart" kid crawled (oops, sorry, I'm sure they were walking at 6 months) over to the book shelf, pulled down a volume of Shakespeare and taught himself iambic pentameter. A parent pushed early reading. Nothing rong w/ that. My preschooler was reading too. I worked with her. But, that doesn't mean she was "creepy smart." Yes, our kids are bright and receptive, but the early reading is because we taught them early, not because they are "creepy baby genuises."

The majority of the in-bound kids might be "that smart," but they are not forced into the immense amounts of enrichment -- Saturday school, A++, AOPS, Hopkins CTY, Suzuki institutes, multiple instrument lessons/practice &/or Dr. Li since they could toddle. Don't mistake smart for educated. Many of the kids you think are "creepy smart" have had a whole additional set of schooling. That's more about investment than ability.