Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

MAP-M is an 'adaptive' test that basically gives significant score advantages to kids who were prepped on the side. Is this also the case with PARCC?

Well the JHU report pointed out that there were serious flaws in the MCPS 2.0 math curriculum leading to students not learning how to execute the skill, retaining knowledge or having large holes where MCPS failed to teach the concept or focused more on process than the actual concept or skill. Students who have been learning outside math school in on-line math programs, Kumon or Singapore etc would have an advantage.

MCPS created this gap on its own.

This isn't a reason though to keep the highest performance students out of the most advanced courses.

No, MCPS did not. Anymore than MCPS's deficient PE curriculum led to a gap between the soccer skills of students who do soccer outside of school vs. students who only do soccer at school, or MCPS's deficient music curriculum led to a gap between the skills of students who have private lessons on the violin vs. students who only do instrumental music at school.

This is an important point in this conversation. Groups of kids are represented over others in these programs because they are practicing privately -- some in formal classes and some just benefiting from parental help/guidance. TPMS magnet has a high percentage of Asian kids because they (overall, not every Asian kid) are in regular private classes for a variety of academic subjects: test prep, Mathcounts, general math/English, etc for months, even year round. We don't do that, but my kids have the benefit of academic parents who can tutor them in various topics. Is it the County's fault that some kids have advantages outside of school that affect their performance in school? I don't think so. Could the County add programs to enhance learning opportunities for kids who don't get it privately? Yes. And, I think they should, but, it is complicated. The kids who are in the constant prep classes are exhausted and don't have time to be kids. One kid complains that between magnet homework, test prep/enhancement classes, instrument practice/ensembles (2 instruments), they go to bed in the wee hours of the morning. They also have a long commute. They also excel at school/tests (and largely outscore my kid) because they/their family invests so much. But, would the County even want to match that if they could (which they couldn't)? That's one reason why I hope application programs keep personal essays, extra curriculars and teacher recs in the mix. They give more of a picture of the whole student. (Of course, there are essay writing courses out there, I'm sure). Also, to consider, these students who are prepping are working very hard and able to benefit from challenging curriculum. Should they be scrutinized more because they prep? I don't know. I think we just need more seats for these programs!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think people want easy answers, and there aren't any.

It would be EASY to just use CogAT or a similar test to "fine tune" peer groups, but that assumes CoGAT is the right tool for identifying gifted kids, and/or kids with a large amount of potential.

We all know that the smartest kids we went to school with are not necessarily the most successful today, and, as young people get older, working hard and staying focused becomes almost as important as having "gifts."

Additionally, there are multiple ways to be "gifted" and giftedness is often present in some areas and not others. This means that tests like the CogAT will be "spiky" for some kids, which makes an easy solution hard.

If you take the kid who has a 99% across the board but leave behind the kid who has a 99.99999% on one subtest but a 75% in another, does that serve the second kid?

These are HARD questions, and we haven't even touched the ways in which the tests themselves are culturally biased.

I know we all want a hard and fast rule, but that's not how life works.

I agree with a lot of what you say. I think that for the CES programs it definitely makes sense to include as many children who show "promise" even if it is just in one area. The middle and high school programs are really programs for kids who are not just gifted but also high achieving. They are very challenging academic programs with a heavy work load and high teacher expectations. A "spiky" kid or a kid who is really into one subject but is not otherwise engaged in school would have a tough time. There are some kids like this who are so exceptional that there is no other place in the school system for them and they should be in the magnet programs but this is a relatively small group of kids.
I am not sure that is what happened this year. It sounds like a lot of 99+ kids were passed over not because there were spiky kids in other schools who deserved those spots but simply because of where they lived.

To use a personal example, I have a spiky kid who is well served by the CES program because her spikes are in language-based areas. It isn't that she's "not otherwise engaged in" school. It is that she is off the charts in one area, and above average but pretty normal for DC in others. So a selection process where you would need to be at 99% in all subtests would leave her behind, but she actually desperately needs enrichment in the areas where she's really quite different than many peers.

I'm not saying that the program should be structured around kids like mine. I'm saying that I don't think kids like mine are that unusual. Sometimes it's the opposite - a kid who builds computers and codes games for fun but who is just normal in writing.

I really hope we can find a system that still "sees" kids like that. I actually think the current system does a decent job of making room for "spiky" kids in specialized programs like CAP or SMAC. I'd hate to lose that.

Anonymous wrote:I think people want easy answers, and there aren't any.

It would be EASY to just use CogAT or a similar test to "fine tune" peer groups, but that assumes CoGAT is the right tool for identifying gifted kids, and/or kids with a large amount of potential.

We all know that the smartest kids we went to school with are not necessarily the most successful today, and, as young people get older, working hard and staying focused becomes almost as important as having "gifts."

Additionally, there are multiple ways to be "gifted" and giftedness is often present in some areas and not others. This means that tests like the CogAT will be "spiky" for some kids, which makes an easy solution hard.

If you take the kid who has a 99% across the board but leave behind the kid who has a 99.99999% on one subtest but a 75% in another, does that serve the second kid?

These are HARD questions, and we haven't even touched the ways in which the tests themselves are culturally biased.

I know we all want a hard and fast rule, but that's not how life works.

I agree with a lot of what you say. I think that for the CES programs it definitely makes sense to include as many children who show "promise" even if it is just in one area. The middle and high school programs are really programs for kids who are not just gifted but also high achieving. They are very challenging academic programs with a heavy work load and high teacher expectations. A "spiky" kid or a kid who is really into one subject but is not otherwise engaged in school would have a tough time. There are some kids like this who are so exceptional that there is no other place in the school system for them and they should be in the magnet programs but this is a relatively small group of kids.
I am not sure that is what happened this year. It sounds like a lot of 99+ kids were passed over not because there were spiky kids in other schools who deserved those spots but simply because of where they lived.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Lots of parents of students in the gifted programs time and time again have stated that one of the great benefits of the program was the peer cohort factor. Lots of parents also wanted to bring gifted programs to the local schools. MCPS did just that. As a result, some students who are a good candidate for the gifted program can now be served at the local school if there is a sizable peer cohort there. Seems like a good solution to me. Not sure why there is outrage in this. MCPS parents wanted this.We got it, but now we don't want it..

Also, the posts of a few disgruntled parents aren't a means to gauge public opinion.

That is a great point - we have no way of knowing how many disgruntled parents are posting here. It may be just a few.

I think people want easy answers, and there aren't any.

It would be EASY to just use CogAT or a similar test to "fine tune" peer groups, but that assumes CoGAT is the right tool for identifying gifted kids, and/or kids with a large amount of potential.

We all know that the smartest kids we went to school with are not necessarily the most successful today, and, as young people get older, working hard and staying focused becomes almost as important as having "gifts."

Additionally, there are multiple ways to be "gifted" and giftedness is often present in some areas and not others. This means that tests like the CogAT will be "spiky" for some kids, which makes an easy solution hard.

If you take the kid who has a 99% across the board but leave behind the kid who has a 99.99999% on one subtest but a 75% in another, does that serve the second kid?

These are HARD questions, and we haven't even touched the ways in which the tests themselves are culturally biased.

I know we all want a hard and fast rule, but that's not how life works.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What makes sense in a diverse school system is indeed to have peer cohorts. This is how high schools are organized (on level, honors and AP tracks in most subjects) and parents are generally happy with MCPS high schools.
Yes many parents have been asking for MCPS to have a truly advanced track for the top 15% of students who are not currently being challenged enough in elementary and middle schools. What MCPS is doing by introducing Magnet lite humanities and mathematics classes in several middle schools is to be lauded. The problem is the way they selected kids for the Magnet programs and for these enriched classes. If you have a large group of kids who are in the 99th percentile in a middle school you send them to the most advanced and enriched program possible- the Magnet. You don’t consign them to a stand alone class which is more appropriate for the top 15-20% of kids.

The logical challenge here, though, is that the 98th and 99th percentiles nationally ARE the top 15% in MCPS. There are genuinely not enough magnet sets for the 99th percenters, given the base level of education and prepping in the region.

This is a big problem for MCPS, they are underserving this population and it is a significantly sized population. Tweaking 1 or 2 classes of their 8 daily classes is a joke. MCPS needs to comp versus other large and small, public and private school districts ASAP to see how others optimally teach their high performing students in grades 2-8. There are so many more better models than the nothing we have now, and the 1 or 2 class thing they are slowing testing out.

Based on their actions, I think it's safe to assume this will be addressed more comprehensively within the year as well as the curriculum issues.

Anonymous wrote:
Then use the raw Cogat scores to fine tune peer groups. MCPS’s intentions are being treated with scepticism in part because they have not released the raw Cogat scores of accepted kids vs rejected kids and have not released individual raw scores to parents

You keep saying that. What do you think that would accomplish?

Anonymous wrote:

What makes sense in a diverse school system is indeed to have peer cohorts. This is how high schools are organized (on level, honors and AP tracks in most subjects) and parents are generally happy with MCPS high schools.
Yes many parents have been asking for MCPS to have a truly advanced track for the top 15% of students who are not currently being challenged enough in elementary and middle schools. What MCPS is doing by introducing Magnet lite humanities and mathematics classes in several middle schools is to be lauded. The problem is the way they selected kids for the Magnet programs and for these enriched classes. If you have a large group of kids who are in the 99th percentile in a middle school you send them to the most advanced and enriched program possible- the Magnet. You don’t consign them to a stand alone class which is more appropriate for the top 15-20% of kids.

The logical challenge here, though, is that the 98th and 99th percentiles nationally ARE the top 15% in MCPS. There are genuinely not enough magnet sets for the 99th percenters, given the base level of education and prepping in the region.

This is a big problem for MCPS, they are underserving this population and it is a significantly sized population. Tweaking 1 or 2 classes of their 8 daily classes is a joke. MCPS needs to comp versus other large and small, public and private school districts ASAP to see how others optimally teach their high performing students in grades 2-8. There are so many more better models than the nothing we have now, and the 1 or 2 class thing they are slowing testing out.

Anonymous wrote:

What makes sense in a diverse school system is indeed to have peer cohorts. This is how high schools are organized (on level, honors and AP tracks in most subjects) and parents are generally happy with MCPS high schools.
Yes many parents have been asking for MCPS to have a truly advanced track for the top 15% of students who are not currently being challenged enough in elementary and middle schools. What MCPS is doing by introducing Magnet lite humanities and mathematics classes in several middle schools is to be lauded. The problem is the way they selected kids for the Magnet programs and for these enriched classes. If you have a large group of kids who are in the 99th percentile in a middle school you send them to the most advanced and enriched program possible- the Magnet. You don’t consign them to a stand alone class which is more appropriate for the top 15-20% of kids.

The logical challenge here, though, is that the 98th and 99th percentiles nationally ARE the top 15% in MCPS. There are genuinely not enough magnet sets for the 99th percenters, given the base level of education and prepping in the region.

Then use the raw Cogat scores to fine tune peer groups. MCPS’s intentions are being treated with scepticism in part because they have not released the raw Cogat scores of accepted kids vs rejected kids and have not released individual raw scores to parents

What makes sense in a diverse school system is indeed to have peer cohorts. This is how high schools are organized (on level, honors and AP tracks in most subjects) and parents are generally happy with MCPS high schools.
Yes many parents have been asking for MCPS to have a truly advanced track for the top 15% of students who are not currently being challenged enough in elementary and middle schools. What MCPS is doing by introducing Magnet lite humanities and mathematics classes in several middle schools is to be lauded. The problem is the way they selected kids for the Magnet programs and for these enriched classes. If you have a large group of kids who are in the 99th percentile in a middle school you send them to the most advanced and enriched program possible- the Magnet. You don’t consign them to a stand alone class which is more appropriate for the top 15-20% of kids.

The logical challenge here, though, is that the 98th and 99th percentiles nationally ARE the top 15% in MCPS. There are genuinely not enough magnet sets for the 99th percenters, given the base level of education and prepping in the region.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Lots of parents of students in the gifted programs time and time again have stated that one of the great benefits of the program was the peer cohort factor. Lots of parents also wanted to bring gifted programs to the local schools. MCPS did just that. As a result, some students who are a good candidate for the gifted program can now be served at the local school if there is a sizable peer cohort there. Seems like a good solution to me. Not sure why there is outrage in this. MCPS parents wanted this.We got it, but now we don't want it..

What makes sense in a diverse school system is indeed to have peer cohorts. This is how high schools are organized (on level, honors and AP tracks in most subjects) and parents are generally happy with MCPS high schools.
Yes many parents have been asking for MCPS to have a truly advanced track for the top 15% of students who are not currently being challenged enough in elementary and middle schools. What MCPS is doing by introducing Magnet lite humanities and mathematics classes in several middle schools is to be lauded. The problem is the way they selected kids for the Magnet programs and for these enriched classes. If you have a large group of kids who are in the 99th percentile in a middle school you send them to the most advanced and enriched program possible- the Magnet. You don’t consign them to a stand alone class which is more appropriate for the top 15-20% of kids.

*upper performers

Is someone in dcum saying that a home school new semi-changed math or ela class in homeschool 4th or 5th grade yet still based in defunct c2.0 is the same quality and caliber of a handpicked HGC/CES program and specialized teachers and curriculum?

Is that the outrage? Change the selection criteria based on where you live and then tweak some crumbs at some homeschools?

MCPS should be fixing (yes fixing not improving we need fixing) ES and MS curriculum and tracking high caliber students. All a school has is its Curriculum, Teachers and Student Base and right now the only curriculum that is effective is the ces/magnet one. C2.0 is failing farms and esol, c2.0 is failing the upper class third of students as well and given the disjointedness, errors and holes it is failing the average third too.

The district drastically and rapidly needs to repair its curriculum, structure and approach to all three groups of students. The only ppl who should be rejoicing and thanking their lucky stars is CES and magnet ppl. Rest is just homeschooling on the side constantly and telling our children, every year, that next year will be better.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Lots of parents of students in the gifted programs time and time again have stated that one of the great benefits of the program was the peer cohort factor. Lots of parents also wanted to bring gifted programs to the local schools. MCPS did just that. As a result, some students who are a good candidate for the gifted program can now be served at the local school if there is a sizable peer cohort there. Seems like a good solution to me. Not sure why there is outrage in this. MCPS parents wanted this.We got it, but now we don't want it..

Also, the posts of a few disgruntled parents aren't a means to gauge public opinion.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Lots of parents of students in the gifted programs time and time again have stated that one of the great benefits of the program was the peer cohort factor. Lots of parents also wanted to bring gifted programs to the local schools. MCPS did just that. As a result, some students who are a good candidate for the gifted program can now be served at the local school if there is a sizable peer cohort there. Seems like a good solution to me. Not sure why there is outrage in this. MCPS parents wanted this.We got it, but now we don't want it..

Simply because no matter what they do some people will be unhappy, but overall these changes are a positive step in the right direction for everyone even if some are incapable of understanding this.