Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have it on good authority that the peer groups in the magnets this year are the strongest ever largely because of universal screening. In the past the only kids in the program were the ones whose parents recommended them and that bar was much lower.

Then why not release the median test scores like they used to so that those tiger parents of students who didn't make it can see that their kids weren't that smart after all?

It would certainly bolster MCPS' position on the changes, pulling in missed qualified students, and hush up the naysayers.

CogAt didn't provide numerical scores-- how can MCPS report the median? All we have is percentiles. Please explain how this would work. The media of percentile rank is statistically useless.

For HGC, they used to show the median scores of admitted students split by for verbal, nonverbal and quantitative along with your child's score in each area. DC took the test a few years ago.

Go back to some old threads. There is a thread where parents posted the median test scores in each of the HGCs.

And I don't think showing %iles is useless. It would probably show that a student with a 99%ile was rejected because of peer cohort over a student with a lower %ile.

You can't provide the median for percentiles. They could provide the percentage of students that were admitted in each percentile or provide the range accepted. As someone noted on another thread, just reporting 99% on CogAt is not useful because we don't know the range of scores that are included in 99%. We need the normalized standard scores just like MAP provides that corresponds to a percentile. 99% could be a score of 130+, but what if someone only missed 1 question and others missed 10 and still scored in the 99%? Why MCPS didn't insist that CogAt provide the normalized standard scores is the real issue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have it on good authority that the peer groups in the magnets this year are the strongest ever largely because of universal screening. In the past the only kids in the program were the ones whose parents recommended them and that bar was much lower.

Then why not release the median test scores like they used to so that those tiger parents of students who didn't make it can see that their kids weren't that smart after all?

It would certainly bolster MCPS' position on the changes, pulling in missed qualified students, and hush up the naysayers.

CogAt didn't provide numerical scores-- how can MCPS report the median? All we have is percentiles. Please explain how this would work. The media of percentile rank is statistically useless.

For HGC, they used to show the median scores of admitted students split by for verbal, nonverbal and quantitative along with your child's score in each area. DC took the test a few years ago.

Go back to some old threads. There is a thread where parents posted the median test scores in each of the HGCs.

And I don't think showing %iles is useless. It would probably show that a student with a 99%ile was rejected because of peer cohort over a student with a lower %ile.

Anonymous wrote:A few things that bother me here

1. Fox Chapel teacher says "not every child performed above grade level". How the heck can you be in a an advanced program and not at grade level?

2. "Parents can no longer submit private evaluations attesting that their children are gifted". That was never part of the application process that I was aware of.

3. I'm all for universal screening and more local programs but the instruction level needs to be similar to what was available at the magnets. I have a child in a local CES and had one at an HGC a few years ago. Believe me, it is nowhere close.

Can you say more about this third point? My child just started at a CES. Are you saying the quality of the teachers is worse or the curriculum is worse, or...? I'm bummed to hear that it's not as good as it used to be, because we are hoping for good things in comparison to the crap-show that was K-3.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have it on good authority that the peer groups in the magnets this year are the strongest ever largely because of universal screening. In the past the only kids in the program were the ones whose parents recommended them and that bar was much lower.

Then why not release the median test scores like they used to so that those tiger parents of students who didn't make it can see that their kids weren't that smart after all?

It would certainly bolster MCPS' position on the changes, pulling in missed qualified students, and hush up the naysayers.

CogAt didn't provide numerical scores-- how can MCPS report the median? All we have is percentiles. Please explain how this would work. The media of percentile rank is statistically useless.

So report the percentiles, would love to see how many admits scored 98/99 across the board. MAP scores would be immensely useful, too, but MCPS used to report the former at least. Why not this year? Let me think, let me think.

Hey tigermom, Frankly, i am more concerned about the mental health of your child than supporting the appeasement of your demands. Mcps should put more work into screening and collecting data regarding that issue.

There's no end to the wacky and baseless conspiracy theories.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have it on good authority that the peer groups in the magnets this year are the strongest ever largely because of universal screening. In the past the only kids in the program were the ones whose parents recommended them and that bar was much lower.

Then why not release the median test scores like they used to so that those tiger parents of students who didn't make it can see that their kids weren't that smart after all?

It would certainly bolster MCPS' position on the changes, pulling in missed qualified students, and hush up the naysayers.

CogAt didn't provide numerical scores-- how can MCPS report the median? All we have is percentiles. Please explain how this would work. The media of percentile rank is statistically useless.

So report the percentiles, would love to see how many admits scored 98/99 across the board. MAP scores would be immensely useful, too, but MCPS used to report the former at least. Why not this year? Let me think, let me think.

Hey tigermom, Frankly, i am more concerned about the mental health of your child than supporting the appeasement of your demands. Mcps should put more work into screening and collecting data regarding that issue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have it on good authority that the peer groups in the magnets this year are the strongest ever largely because of universal screening. In the past the only kids in the program were the ones whose parents recommended them and that bar was much lower.

Then why not release the median test scores like they used to so that those tiger parents of students who didn't make it can see that their kids weren't that smart after all?

It would certainly bolster MCPS' position on the changes, pulling in missed qualified students, and hush up the naysayers.

CogAt didn't provide numerical scores-- how can MCPS report the median? All we have is percentiles. Please explain how this would work. The media of percentile rank is statistically useless.

So report the percentiles, would love to see how many admits scored 98/99 across the board. MAP scores would be immensely useful, too, but MCPS used to report the former at least. Why not this year? Let me think, let me think.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are no "peer group" classes. The home school spreads them out just as they've always been spread out. Each class gets a few high performers, a few low performers, and the rest in the middle.

My kid is in the pilot local MS magnet classes for math and humanities and for those classes it is only peers. Because of scheduling he does have many of the same kids in Advanced English and Science.

I should clarify... no peer group classes being made in elementary school. This was confirmed at back to school night.

it appears that our ES they grouped classes by ability. I'm honestly not sure I'm okay with this.

I am. Finally. So sick of my kid getting no instruction time because the teacher has to attend to the handful of bottom performers in the class. Differentiation makes good sense, for students of any ability.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have it on good authority that the peer groups in the magnets this year are the strongest ever largely because of universal screening. In the past the only kids in the program were the ones whose parents recommended them and that bar was much lower.

Then why not release the median test scores like they used to so that those tiger parents of students who didn't make it can see that their kids weren't that smart after all?

It would certainly bolster MCPS' position on the changes, pulling in missed qualified students, and hush up the naysayers.

CogAt didn't provide numerical scores-- how can MCPS report the median? All we have is percentiles. Please explain how this would work. The media of percentile rank is statistically useless.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have it on good authority that the peer groups in the magnets this year are the strongest ever largely because of universal screening. In the past the only kids in the program were the ones whose parents recommended them and that bar was much lower.

+1

MCPS could easily confirm this by releasing admitted students' stats, no? Yet they won't. Why do you think that is?

Since the vast majority of the most competitive CES students were declined admission to the MS magnets, how could the new cohorts be as strong? They didn't have the advantage of the very advanced CES curriculum, so of course are well behind the students who did. MS magnet teachers will have to adjust accordingly.

You don’t know that “the vast majority of the most competitive CES students were declined admission.” You have no data and you’re just guessing based on your biases.

2 students were admitted to MS magnets from the most competitive CES, Cold Spring (one to TP one to Eastern). 50+ returned to the home middle schools (Hoover, Frost, Cabin John), a few went private (I know 1 declined admission who is now attending St Albans). Chevy Chase CES had similar admission rates. How do you think they reached the 20 necessary for "peer cohorts"?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A few things that bother me here

1. Fox Chapel teacher says "not every child performed above grade level". How the heck can you be in a an advanced program and not at grade level?

2. "Parents can no longer submit private evaluations attesting that their children are gifted". That was never part of the application process that I was aware of.

3. I'm all for universal screening and more local programs but the instruction level needs to be similar to what was available at the magnets. I have a child in a local CES and had one at an HGC a few years ago. Believe me, it is nowhere close.

+1

Excellent points.
#3 is consistent with what other parents with a basis for comparison have said

I really wish they would just open a third set of middle school magnets in the Bethesda/Rockville/ Potomac area. There are so many kids who live in these areas who need these programs and unfortunately having a large group of highly gifted/ able kids is what shut many of them out of the middle school magnets. It would also make their commutes easier.
I wouldn’t be surprised if most of the 151 kids who earned National merit semifinalist status this year live in these very neighborhoods. I do support the universal screening but I think the peer cohort criteria is terribly unfair

Anonymous wrote:A few things that bother me here

1. Fox Chapel teacher says "not every child performed above grade level". How the heck can you be in a an advanced program and not at grade level?

2. "Parents can no longer submit private evaluations attesting that their children are gifted". That was never part of the application process that I was aware of.

3. I'm all for universal screening and more local programs but the instruction level needs to be similar to what was available at the magnets. I have a child in a local CES and had one at an HGC a few years ago. Believe me, it is nowhere close.

+1

Anonymous wrote:I have it on good authority that the peer groups in the magnets this year are the strongest ever largely because of universal screening. In the past the only kids in the program were the ones whose parents recommended them and that bar was much lower.

Then why not release the median test scores like they used to so that those tiger parents of students who didn't make it can see that their kids weren't that smart after all?

It would certainly bolster MCPS' position on the changes, pulling in missed qualified students, and hush up the naysayers.

A few things that bother me here

1. Fox Chapel teacher says "not every child performed above grade level". How the heck can you be in a an advanced program and not at grade level?

2. "Parents can no longer submit private evaluations attesting that their children are gifted". That was never part of the application process that I was aware of.

3. I'm all for universal screening and more local programs but the instruction level needs to be similar to what was available at the magnets. I have a child in a local CES and had one at an HGC a few years ago. Believe me, it is nowhere close.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have it on good authority that the peer groups in the magnets this year are the strongest ever largely because of universal screening. In the past the only kids in the program were the ones whose parents recommended them and that bar was much lower.

+1

MCPS could easily confirm this by releasing admitted students' stats, no? Yet they won't. Why do you think that is?

Since the vast majority of the most competitive CES students were declined admission to the MS magnets, how could the new cohorts be as strong? They didn't have the advantage of the very advanced CES curriculum, so of course are well behind the students who did. MS magnet teachers will have to adjust accordingly.

You don’t know that “the vast majority of the most competitive CES students were declined admission.” You have no data and you’re just guessing based on your biases.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are no "peer group" classes. The home school spreads them out just as they've always been spread out. Each class gets a few high performers, a few low performers, and the rest in the middle.

My kid is in the pilot local MS magnet classes for math and humanities and for those classes it is only peers. Because of scheduling he does have many of the same kids in Advanced English and Science.

I should clarify... no peer group classes being made in elementary school. This was confirmed at back to school night.

it appears that our ES they grouped classes by ability. I'm honestly not sure I'm okay with this.