Anonymous wrote:I think people’s concern is that it feels reactionary as opposed to well thought out. Once it’s tested and proven, I’m sure many many people will prefer it to bussing to a center. It’s a great approach in theory and hopefully the county will be able to execute in practice. There’s a lack of trust at the moment, however (exhibit A, curriculum 2.0), and there’s not much time to prep teachers, so I think some parents are dubious, Personally, I’d take a risk on the local option if my kid were qualified for the center or the home courses. He won’t be doing either, but I’ll be happy in general if neighborhood kids stick around. It’s better for neighborhood cohesiveness, not to mention the environment etc. if people aren’t traveling extra miles for school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of people agree universal testing and doing away with teacher recs. People are objecting to the peer cohorts criteria.

Some people are. Other people aren't. I'm not, for example.

Me either, and I do believe this has always been a part of the criteria to some degree.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of people agree universal testing and doing away with teacher recs. People are objecting to the peer cohorts criteria.

Some people are. Other people aren't. I'm not, for example.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The outliers may not be the those who have potential and may not be reaching it. The outliers might have reached their max capacity since the parents supplement them at home.
In this sense, the CES should recruit those have high IQs but low test scores.

That's an appalling ignorant statement. We only use 10% of our brain power and to suggest that outliers have reached their max capacity is ludicrous.

Any IQ testing currently will continue to favor Asians and Whites, since we see that same pattern of achievement gap when we look at IQ test results of RAVEN in 2nd grade for all MCPS students. We can certainly try to use IQ test as a measure, but I am afraid that demonstrated achievement gap will then be used to suggest that there is a genetic component of low IQ in certain races.

I fail to understand how MCPS proposes to bridge the gap by making changes at the magnet level, when the reality is that the gap is present even before the kids come to Kindergarten. The average White/ Asian child has a vocabulary far superior to that of the average Black/Latino child because of parent education level, SES and being read to regularly. The cure is more and more intervention in early childhood much before these students come to school, followed by year round schooling and education, especially through the summer months.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of people agree universal testing and doing away with teacher recs. People are objecting to the peer cohorts criteria.

Some people are. Other people aren't. I'm not, for example.

Anonymous wrote:Lots of people agree universal testing and doing away with teacher recs. People are objecting to the peer cohorts criteria.

Anonymous wrote:Lots of people agree universal testing and doing away with teacher recs. People are objecting to the peer cohorts criteria.

Anonymous wrote:

The outliers may not be the those who have potential and may not be reaching it. The outliers might have reached their max capacity since the parents supplement them at home.
In this sense, the CES should recruit those have high IQs but low test scores.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:choice study showed that there weren't many blacks and hispanics in HGC or magnet programs.

Among the findings of the Choice study: While these programs were initially designed to promote voluntary racial integration within MCPS, the 14.5 percent of the county school population currently participating in them is disproportionately white and Asian-American. The study has produced a divide, to a significant degree along racial lines, between those who benefit from the status quo and those who want to see it changed. Says the Board of Education’s O’Neill: “People feel very passionately in Montgomery County, and if it’s going to gore your ox, or, as you perceive it, take something away, it’s a very difficult situation.”

So they went and gored to the ox to racially diversify the CES and Magnet programs. Smith furthermore said he doesn't care about highly performing students, since the're not the ones getting incarcerated. Would rather focus on kids not performing.

I think you are confusing two issues, and it is hard to not think you are doing it intentionally. Smith (and MCPS, and lots of other folks) care about serving at risk kids, but expanding the pool for CES and middle school magnet screenings is not actually about serving low performers.

It is about serving high performers who may not have tested, or may not have had parent letters of recommendation, or impressive extracurricular, under the old system.

I speak as someone whose proverbial ox is going to be gored by this move, in that my kids would have compelling essays and impressive extracurriculars, as I have the time and resources to support them. Those things don't make them "gifted," though, and doing away with those elements of the screening was the correct choice.

I honestly don't think the magnets and particularly the CES are about high performers, it's also about developing talent, finding the students who are outliers, who could become high performers in the right environment, students who have the potential and may not be reaching it. MCPS is a large PUBLIC school system that needs to meet the needs of all students and help to move all students, from all backgrounds forward.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:choice study showed that there weren't many blacks and hispanics in HGC or magnet programs.

Among the findings of the Choice study: While these programs were initially designed to promote voluntary racial integration within MCPS, the 14.5 percent of the county school population currently participating in them is disproportionately white and Asian-American. The study has produced a divide, to a significant degree along racial lines, between those who benefit from the status quo and those who want to see it changed. Says the Board of Education’s O’Neill: “People feel very passionately in Montgomery County, and if it’s going to gore your ox, or, as you perceive it, take something away, it’s a very difficult situation.”

So they went and gored to the ox to racially diversify the CES and Magnet programs. Smith furthermore said he doesn't care about highly performing students, since the're not the ones getting incarcerated. Would rather focus on kids not performing.

I think you are confusing two issues, and it is hard to not think you are doing it intentionally. Smith (and MCPS, and lots of other folks) care about serving at risk kids, but expanding the pool for CES and middle school magnet screenings is not actually about serving low performers.

It is about serving high performers who may not have tested, or may not have had parent letters of recommendation, or impressive extracurricular, under the old system.

I speak as someone whose proverbial ox is going to be gored by this move, in that my kids would have compelling essays and impressive extracurriculars, as I have the time and resources to support them. Those things don't make them "gifted," though, and doing away with those elements of the screening was the correct choice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:choice study showed that there weren't many blacks and hispanics in HGC or magnet programs.

Among the findings of the Choice study: While these programs were initially designed to promote voluntary racial integration within MCPS, the 14.5 percent of the county school population currently participating in them is disproportionately white and Asian-American. The study has produced a divide, to a significant degree along racial lines, between those who benefit from the status quo and those who want to see it changed. Says the Board of Education’s O’Neill: “People feel very passionately in Montgomery County, and if it’s going to gore your ox, or, as you perceive it, take something away, it’s a very difficult situation.”

So they went and gored to the ox to racially diversify the CES and Magnet programs. Smith furthermore said he doesn't care about highly performing students, since the're not the ones getting incarcerated. Would rather focus on kids not performing.

I think you are confusing two issues, and it is hard to not think you are doing it intentionally. Smith (and MCPS, and lots of other folks) care about serving at risk kids, but expanding the pool for CES and middle school magnet screenings is not actually about serving low performers.

It is about serving high performers who may not have tested, or may not have had parent letters of recommendation, or impressive extracurricular, under the old system.

I speak as someone whose proverbial ox is going to be gored by this move, in that my kids would have compelling essays and impressive extracurriculars, as I have the time and resources to support them. Those things don't make them "gifted," though, and doing away with those elements of the screening was the correct choice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of people agree universal testing and doing away with teacher recs. People are objecting to the peer cohorts criteria.

This. I cannot recall even one parent who was against expanded testing and doing away with rec letters and extracurriculas.

Anonymous wrote:Lots of people agree universal testing and doing away with teacher recs. People are objecting to the peer cohorts criteria.