Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The point is to give highly able kids the opportunity for enrichment. Many of the highest performing kids already had that, which is why they were high in performance. But, what if the kids who didn't have A++ and Dr. Li and parents who were in academia, kids who demonstrated they were gifted and highly able but who didn't have the enrichment that some kids already had, what if these kids were able to get in? Frankly, this county needs more seats. But, parents who enrich have got to stop assuming their kid "deserves" a magnet space more than a kid who scored a few points below. Lottery + threshold is not ideal but the best way to accomplish that I suppose.

Why does a kid who didn't try hard to get in deserve to get in anymore than a kid who did try hard to get in? Also, not every kid who got in went to Dr Li's. Should they be penalized because of their skin color being associated with "prepping"?

The PP made a valid point. I don't know why you're bringing up "skin color."

You are being disingenuous when you claim it's not about "skin color" when the majority of people on here who are fine with discriminatory practices claim that Asian Americans students get in because they "prep" and go to Dr Li's classes.

So, answer the question: Why does a kid who didn't try hard to get in deserve to get in anymore than a kid who did try hard to get in?

A student who not only shows academic talent but who tries hard should actually be more challenged than a kid who doesn't want to try hard.

My kid is in a team sport, but isn't good at it, but doesn't want to practice to get better. Yesterday, my kid didn't get to play a whole lot and complained about it. I told DC that if they wanted more playing time they need to show that they are trying hard and need to practice more. Silence. Why should my DC get more playing time if DC isn't wiling to put in the effort?

I apply that to all areas in life. Why should you get anything if you aren't willing to work for it? I grew up lower income to immigrant parents and had to work for everything I have.

Sure, it would be awesome if MCPS could open more seats to magnets, but MCPS isn't doing that. What they are doing, and what many so-called progressive liberals are supporting, is using a policy that disadvantages one group over another.

And frankly, the same groups that MCPS and uber liberals are trying to push into magnets have a large achievement gap. No amount of pushing the kids to magents is going to close that gap. MCPS and uber liberals should focus on closing the achievement gap rather than raising URM representation in magnets by a couple of percentage points.

And if you say, "These kids aren't a monolith, they should be treated as individuals".. blah blah blah, well then you're a hypocrite because you seem to have no problem treating all Asian Americans as a monolith.

Your assumption that you know which kids "try hard" and which kids do not is ridiculous.

+1 How do you know which kids are trying hard? And just because you value hard work does not mean it should be or will be part of the criteria for determining enrichment/acceleration. I would personally argue if a kid has to work super hard, maybe he or she is inherently less gifted than the child who understands concepts with ease.

100

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The point is to give highly able kids the opportunity for enrichment. Many of the highest performing kids already had that, which is why they were high in performance. But, what if the kids who didn't have A++ and Dr. Li and parents who were in academia, kids who demonstrated they were gifted and highly able but who didn't have the enrichment that some kids already had, what if these kids were able to get in? Frankly, this county needs more seats. But, parents who enrich have got to stop assuming their kid "deserves" a magnet space more than a kid who scored a few points below. Lottery + threshold is not ideal but the best way to accomplish that I suppose.

Why does a kid who didn't try hard to get in deserve to get in anymore than a kid who did try hard to get in? Also, not every kid who got in went to Dr Li's. Should they be penalized because of their skin color being associated with "prepping"?

The PP made a valid point. I don't know why you're bringing up "skin color."

You are being disingenuous when you claim it's not about "skin color" when the majority of people on here who are fine with discriminatory practices claim that Asian Americans students get in because they "prep" and go to Dr Li's classes.

So, answer the question: Why does a kid who didn't try hard to get in deserve to get in anymore than a kid who did try hard to get in?

A student who not only shows academic talent but who tries hard should actually be more challenged than a kid who doesn't want to try hard.

My kid is in a team sport, but isn't good at it, but doesn't want to practice to get better. Yesterday, my kid didn't get to play a whole lot and complained about it. I told DC that if they wanted more playing time they need to show that they are trying hard and need to practice more. Silence. Why should my DC get more playing time if DC isn't wiling to put in the effort?

I apply that to all areas in life. Why should you get anything if you aren't willing to work for it? I grew up lower income to immigrant parents and had to work for everything I have.

Sure, it would be awesome if MCPS could open more seats to magnets, but MCPS isn't doing that. What they are doing, and what many so-called progressive liberals are supporting, is using a policy that disadvantages one group over another.

And frankly, the same groups that MCPS and uber liberals are trying to push into magnets have a large achievement gap. No amount of pushing the kids to magents is going to close that gap. MCPS and uber liberals should focus on closing the achievement gap rather than raising URM representation in magnets by a couple of percentage points.

And if you say, "These kids aren't a monolith, they should be treated as individuals".. blah blah blah, well then you're a hypocrite because you seem to have no problem treating all Asian Americans as a monolith.

Your assumption that you know which kids "try hard" and which kids do not is ridiculous.

+1 How do you know which kids are trying hard? And just because you value hard work does not mean it should be or will be part of the criteria for determining enrichment/acceleration. I would personally argue if a kid has to work super hard, maybe he or she is inherently less gifted than the child who understands concepts with ease.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The point is to give highly able kids the opportunity for enrichment. Many of the highest performing kids already had that, which is why they were high in performance. But, what if the kids who didn't have A++ and Dr. Li and parents who were in academia, kids who demonstrated they were gifted and highly able but who didn't have the enrichment that some kids already had, what if these kids were able to get in? Frankly, this county needs more seats. But, parents who enrich have got to stop assuming their kid "deserves" a magnet space more than a kid who scored a few points below. Lottery + threshold is not ideal but the best way to accomplish that I suppose.

Why does a kid who didn't try hard to get in deserve to get in anymore than a kid who did try hard to get in? Also, not every kid who got in went to Dr Li's. Should they be penalized because of their skin color being associated with "prepping"?

The PP made a valid point. I don't know why you're bringing up "skin color."

You are being disingenuous when you claim it's not about "skin color" when the majority of people on here who are fine with discriminatory practices claim that Asian Americans students get in because they "prep" and go to Dr Li's classes.

So, answer the question: Why does a kid who didn't try hard to get in deserve to get in anymore than a kid who did try hard to get in?

A student who not only shows academic talent but who tries hard should actually be more challenged than a kid who doesn't want to try hard.

My kid is in a team sport, but isn't good at it, but doesn't want to practice to get better. Yesterday, my kid didn't get to play a whole lot and complained about it. I told DC that if they wanted more playing time they need to show that they are trying hard and need to practice more. Silence. Why should my DC get more playing time if DC isn't wiling to put in the effort?

I apply that to all areas in life. Why should you get anything if you aren't willing to work for it? I grew up lower income to immigrant parents and had to work for everything I have.

Sure, it would be awesome if MCPS could open more seats to magnets, but MCPS isn't doing that. What they are doing, and what many so-called progressive liberals are supporting, is using a policy that disadvantages one group over another.

And frankly, the same groups that MCPS and uber liberals are trying to push into magnets have a large achievement gap. No amount of pushing the kids to magents is going to close that gap. MCPS and uber liberals should focus on closing the achievement gap rather than raising URM representation in magnets by a couple of percentage points.

And if you say, "These kids aren't a monolith, they should be treated as individuals".. blah blah blah, well then you're a hypocrite because you seem to have no problem treating all Asian Americans as a monolith.

Your assumption that you know which kids "try hard" and which kids do not is ridiculous.

+1. The PP is assuming that students who aren’t in the 99 percentile didn’t try hard to get in. It’s likely they tried hard but didn’t have the resources (parents, tutoring money, etc) or guidance to know how to get those few extra percentile points. Or maybe the students are not even aware that such a magnet program exists and what the admission criteria are. Obviously students who receive skilled coaching are at an advantage.

To the poster who said that the Asian kids weren’t in a prep class - prepping does not only occur in a paid prep class: prepping can occur at home. IMO most of these 99 percentile kids receive enrichment outside of school … something 3rd and 5th graders would unlikely know to do on their own.

A lottery for the 80 percentile and above does not assume that Asians are a monolith.

The PP is also making a false dichotomy assumption that MCPS cannot both work on closing the achievement gap while also making sure magnet opportunities are not limited to those with the resources to enable their children to reach a certain percentile to get into magnet programs.

Again my kids are 99 percentile students. If I was only thinking about my own children, I might want to advocate for the lottery to be only for the 99 percentile, but I do think the solution MCPS has come up with for limited spaces seems reasonable.

And many people's assumption that Asian American students prep and go to Dr Li's tutoring is also ridiculous, and frankly, racist. But, I'm sure you think it's ok to make those assumptions because they are the wrong skin color to be treated with kid gloves.

Even if they don't go to "prep" classes, you say that they are still receiving "enrichment". By that do you mean parents who take their kids to the library, which is free? We used to go to the public library A LOT when my kids were younger, and most of the time, the majority of kids in there were Asian Americans. Last I checked, the public library was open to anyone.

MCPS can't seem to walk and chew gum at the same time, and the wide achievement gap is more of a stain and shame on MCPS than the low % of URM students in magnets. So, they really ought to spend their money and energy closing that gap, which is widening, rather than spending that effort, time, money or increasing that URM participation by single digit % point.

The false dichotomy is when MCPS lauds the overall high SAT scores and participation of the student body, then tries to punish the students who "prep" and "tutor" to get high test scores.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The point is to give highly able kids the opportunity for enrichment. Many of the highest performing kids already had that, which is why they were high in performance. But, what if the kids who didn't have A++ and Dr. Li and parents who were in academia, kids who demonstrated they were gifted and highly able but who didn't have the enrichment that some kids already had, what if these kids were able to get in? Frankly, this county needs more seats. But, parents who enrich have got to stop assuming their kid "deserves" a magnet space more than a kid who scored a few points below. Lottery + threshold is not ideal but the best way to accomplish that I suppose.

Why does a kid who didn't try hard to get in deserve to get in anymore than a kid who did try hard to get in? Also, not every kid who got in went to Dr Li's. Should they be penalized because of their skin color being associated with "prepping"?

The PP made a valid point. I don't know why you're bringing up "skin color."

You are being disingenuous when you claim it's not about "skin color" when the majority of people on here who are fine with discriminatory practices claim that Asian Americans students get in because they "prep" and go to Dr Li's classes.

So, answer the question: Why does a kid who didn't try hard to get in deserve to get in anymore than a kid who did try hard to get in?

A student who not only shows academic talent but who tries hard should actually be more challenged than a kid who doesn't want to try hard.

My kid is in a team sport, but isn't good at it, but doesn't want to practice to get better. Yesterday, my kid didn't get to play a whole lot and complained about it. I told DC that if they wanted more playing time they need to show that they are trying hard and need to practice more. Silence. Why should my DC get more playing time if DC isn't wiling to put in the effort?

I apply that to all areas in life. Why should you get anything if you aren't willing to work for it? I grew up lower income to immigrant parents and had to work for everything I have.

Sure, it would be awesome if MCPS could open more seats to magnets, but MCPS isn't doing that. What they are doing, and what many so-called progressive liberals are supporting, is using a policy that disadvantages one group over another.

And frankly, the same groups that MCPS and uber liberals are trying to push into magnets have a large achievement gap. No amount of pushing the kids to magents is going to close that gap. MCPS and uber liberals should focus on closing the achievement gap rather than raising URM representation in magnets by a couple of percentage points.

And if you say, "These kids aren't a monolith, they should be treated as individuals".. blah blah blah, well then you're a hypocrite because you seem to have no problem treating all Asian Americans as a monolith.

Your assumption that you know which kids "try hard" and which kids do not is ridiculous.

+1 How do you know which kids are trying hard? And just because you value hard work does not mean it should be or will be part of the criteria for determining enrichment/acceleration. I would personally argue if a kid has to work super hard, maybe he or she is inherently less gifted than the child who understands concepts with ease.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The point is to give highly able kids the opportunity for enrichment. Many of the highest performing kids already had that, which is why they were high in performance. But, what if the kids who didn't have A++ and Dr. Li and parents who were in academia, kids who demonstrated they were gifted and highly able but who didn't have the enrichment that some kids already had, what if these kids were able to get in? Frankly, this county needs more seats. But, parents who enrich have got to stop assuming their kid "deserves" a magnet space more than a kid who scored a few points below. Lottery + threshold is not ideal but the best way to accomplish that I suppose.

Why does a kid who didn't try hard to get in deserve to get in anymore than a kid who did try hard to get in? Also, not every kid who got in went to Dr Li's. Should they be penalized because of their skin color being associated with "prepping"?

The PP made a valid point. I don't know why you're bringing up "skin color."

You are being disingenuous when you claim it's not about "skin color" when the majority of people on here who are fine with discriminatory practices claim that Asian Americans students get in because they "prep" and go to Dr Li's classes.

So, answer the question: Why does a kid who didn't try hard to get in deserve to get in anymore than a kid who did try hard to get in?

A student who not only shows academic talent but who tries hard should actually be more challenged than a kid who doesn't want to try hard.

My kid is in a team sport, but isn't good at it, but doesn't want to practice to get better. Yesterday, my kid didn't get to play a whole lot and complained about it. I told DC that if they wanted more playing time they need to show that they are trying hard and need to practice more. Silence. Why should my DC get more playing time if DC isn't wiling to put in the effort?

I apply that to all areas in life. Why should you get anything if you aren't willing to work for it? I grew up lower income to immigrant parents and had to work for everything I have.

Sure, it would be awesome if MCPS could open more seats to magnets, but MCPS isn't doing that. What they are doing, and what many so-called progressive liberals are supporting, is using a policy that disadvantages one group over another.

And frankly, the same groups that MCPS and uber liberals are trying to push into magnets have a large achievement gap. No amount of pushing the kids to magents is going to close that gap. MCPS and uber liberals should focus on closing the achievement gap rather than raising URM representation in magnets by a couple of percentage points.

And if you say, "These kids aren't a monolith, they should be treated as individuals".. blah blah blah, well then you're a hypocrite because you seem to have no problem treating all Asian Americans as a monolith.

Your assumption that you know which kids "try hard" and which kids do not is ridiculous.

+1. The PP is assuming that students who aren’t in the 99 percentile didn’t try hard to get in. It’s likely they tried hard but didn’t have the resources (parents, tutoring money, etc) or guidance to know how to get those few extra percentile points. Or maybe the students are not even aware that such a magnet program exists and what the admission criteria are. Obviously students who receive skilled coaching are at an advantage.

To the poster who said that the Asian kids weren’t in a prep class - prepping does not only occur in a paid prep class: prepping can occur at home. IMO most of these 99 percentile kids receive enrichment outside of school … something 3rd and 5th graders would unlikely know to do on their own.

A lottery for the 80 percentile and above does not assume that Asians are a monolith.

The PP is also making a false dichotomy assumption that MCPS cannot both work on closing the achievement gap while also making sure magnet opportunities are not limited to those with the resources to enable their children to reach a certain percentile to get into magnet programs.

Again my kids are 99 percentile students. If I was only thinking about my own children, I might want to advocate for the lottery to be only for the 99 percentile, but I do think the solution MCPS has come up with for limited spaces seems reasonable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The point is to give highly able kids the opportunity for enrichment. Many of the highest performing kids already had that, which is why they were high in performance. But, what if the kids who didn't have A++ and Dr. Li and parents who were in academia, kids who demonstrated they were gifted and highly able but who didn't have the enrichment that some kids already had, what if these kids were able to get in? Frankly, this county needs more seats. But, parents who enrich have got to stop assuming their kid "deserves" a magnet space more than a kid who scored a few points below. Lottery + threshold is not ideal but the best way to accomplish that I suppose.

Why does a kid who didn't try hard to get in deserve to get in anymore than a kid who did try hard to get in? Also, not every kid who got in went to Dr Li's. Should they be penalized because of their skin color being associated with "prepping"?

The PP made a valid point. I don't know why you're bringing up "skin color."

You are being disingenuous when you claim it's not about "skin color" when the majority of people on here who are fine with discriminatory practices claim that Asian Americans students get in because they "prep" and go to Dr Li's classes.

So, answer the question: Why does a kid who didn't try hard to get in deserve to get in anymore than a kid who did try hard to get in?

A student who not only shows academic talent but who tries hard should actually be more challenged than a kid who doesn't want to try hard.

My kid is in a team sport, but isn't good at it, but doesn't want to practice to get better. Yesterday, my kid didn't get to play a whole lot and complained about it. I told DC that if they wanted more playing time they need to show that they are trying hard and need to practice more. Silence. Why should my DC get more playing time if DC isn't wiling to put in the effort?

I apply that to all areas in life. Why should you get anything if you aren't willing to work for it? I grew up lower income to immigrant parents and had to work for everything I have.

Sure, it would be awesome if MCPS could open more seats to magnets, but MCPS isn't doing that. What they are doing, and what many so-called progressive liberals are supporting, is using a policy that disadvantages one group over another.

And frankly, the same groups that MCPS and uber liberals are trying to push into magnets have a large achievement gap. No amount of pushing the kids to magents is going to close that gap. MCPS and uber liberals should focus on closing the achievement gap rather than raising URM representation in magnets by a couple of percentage points.

And if you say, "These kids aren't a monolith, they should be treated as individuals".. blah blah blah, well then you're a hypocrite because you seem to have no problem treating all Asian Americans as a monolith.

Your assumption that you know which kids "try hard" and which kids do not is ridiculous.

+1. The PP is assuming that students who aren’t in the 99 percentile didn’t try hard to get in. It’s likely they tried hard but didn’t have the resources (parents, tutoring money, etc) or guidance to know how to get those few extra percentile points. Or maybe the students are not even aware that such a magnet program exists and what the admission criteria are. Obviously students who receive skilled coaching are at an advantage.

To the poster who said that the Asian kids weren’t in a prep class - prepping does not only occur in a paid prep class: prepping can occur at home. IMO most of these 99 percentile kids receive enrichment outside of school … something 3rd and 5th graders would unlikely know to do on their own.

A lottery for the 80 percentile and above does not assume that Asians are a monolith.

The PP is also making a false dichotomy assumption that MCPS cannot both work on closing the achievement gap while also making sure magnet opportunities are not limited to those with the resources to enable their children to reach a certain percentile to get into magnet programs.

Again my kids are 99 percentile students. If I was only thinking about my own children, I might want to advocate for the lottery to be only for the 99 percentile, but I do think the solution MCPS has come up with for limited spaces seems reasonable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The point is to give highly able kids the opportunity for enrichment. Many of the highest performing kids already had that, which is why they were high in performance. But, what if the kids who didn't have A++ and Dr. Li and parents who were in academia, kids who demonstrated they were gifted and highly able but who didn't have the enrichment that some kids already had, what if these kids were able to get in? Frankly, this county needs more seats. But, parents who enrich have got to stop assuming their kid "deserves" a magnet space more than a kid who scored a few points below. Lottery + threshold is not ideal but the best way to accomplish that I suppose.

Why does a kid who didn't try hard to get in deserve to get in anymore than a kid who did try hard to get in? Also, not every kid who got in went to Dr Li's. Should they be penalized because of their skin color being associated with "prepping"?

The PP made a valid point. I don't know why you're bringing up "skin color."

You are being disingenuous when you claim it's not about "skin color" when the majority of people on here who are fine with discriminatory practices claim that Asian Americans students get in because they "prep" and go to Dr Li's classes.

So, answer the question: Why does a kid who didn't try hard to get in deserve to get in anymore than a kid who did try hard to get in?

A student who not only shows academic talent but who tries hard should actually be more challenged than a kid who doesn't want to try hard.

My kid is in a team sport, but isn't good at it, but doesn't want to practice to get better. Yesterday, my kid didn't get to play a whole lot and complained about it. I told DC that if they wanted more playing time they need to show that they are trying hard and need to practice more. Silence. Why should my DC get more playing time if DC isn't wiling to put in the effort?

I apply that to all areas in life. Why should you get anything if you aren't willing to work for it? I grew up lower income to immigrant parents and had to work for everything I have.

Sure, it would be awesome if MCPS could open more seats to magnets, but MCPS isn't doing that. What they are doing, and what many so-called progressive liberals are supporting, is using a policy that disadvantages one group over another.

And frankly, the same groups that MCPS and uber liberals are trying to push into magnets have a large achievement gap. No amount of pushing the kids to magents is going to close that gap. MCPS and uber liberals should focus on closing the achievement gap rather than raising URM representation in magnets by a couple of percentage points.

And if you say, "These kids aren't a monolith, they should be treated as individuals".. blah blah blah, well then you're a hypocrite because you seem to have no problem treating all Asian Americans as a monolith.

Your assumption that you know which kids "try hard" and which kids do not is ridiculous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The point is to give highly able kids the opportunity for enrichment. Many of the highest performing kids already had that, which is why they were high in performance. But, what if the kids who didn't have A++ and Dr. Li and parents who were in academia, kids who demonstrated they were gifted and highly able but who didn't have the enrichment that some kids already had, what if these kids were able to get in? Frankly, this county needs more seats. But, parents who enrich have got to stop assuming their kid "deserves" a magnet space more than a kid who scored a few points below. Lottery + threshold is not ideal but the best way to accomplish that I suppose.

Why does a kid who didn't try hard to get in deserve to get in anymore than a kid who did try hard to get in? Also, not every kid who got in went to Dr Li's. Should they be penalized because of their skin color being associated with "prepping"?

The PP made a valid point. I don't know why you're bringing up "skin color."

You are being disingenuous when you claim it's not about "skin color" when the majority of people on here who are fine with discriminatory practices claim that Asian Americans students get in because they "prep" and go to Dr Li's classes.

So, answer the question: Why does a kid who didn't try hard to get in deserve to get in anymore than a kid who did try hard to get in?

A student who not only shows academic talent but who tries hard should actually be more challenged than a kid who doesn't want to try hard.

My kid is in a team sport, but isn't good at it, but doesn't want to practice to get better. Yesterday, my kid didn't get to play a whole lot and complained about it. I told DC that if they wanted more playing time they need to show that they are trying hard and need to practice more. Silence. Why should my DC get more playing time if DC isn't wiling to put in the effort?

I apply that to all areas in life. Why should you get anything if you aren't willing to work for it? I grew up lower income to immigrant parents and had to work for everything I have.

Sure, it would be awesome if MCPS could open more seats to magnets, but MCPS isn't doing that. What they are doing, and what many so-called progressive liberals are supporting, is using a policy that disadvantages one group over another.

And frankly, the same groups that MCPS and uber liberals are trying to push into magnets have a large achievement gap. No amount of pushing the kids to magents is going to close that gap. MCPS and uber liberals should focus on closing the achievement gap rather than raising URM representation in magnets by a couple of percentage points.

And if you say, "These kids aren't a monolith, they should be treated as individuals".. blah blah blah, well then you're a hypocrite because you seem to have no problem treating all Asian Americans as a monolith.

Your assumption that you know which kids "try hard" and which kids do not is ridiculous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't a group already sue MCPS because of the MS magnet changes? MCPS didn't change the HS process.

Yes there is a law suit pending in the federal district court. https://casetext.com/case/assn-for-educ-fairness-v-montgomery-cnty-bd-of-educ

This case refers to middle school magnet admissions, correct? I thought it was dismissed because Moco switched to a lottery during the pandemic.

Read the first paragraph of the linked opinion. It was not dismissed.

The lawsuit is still pending but there are some open questions that would need to be adjudicated.

MCPS will probably file to dismiss and claim that it’s moot and that the claimants no longer have an injury for which there is a remedy.

In that scenario, the judge could agree with MCPS or allow discovery to proceed and a hearing in order to confirm those claims.

I for one hope that it gets at least that far such that there will be further public disclosure about this lottery process that they have been pointedly secretive about.

The next state of the litigation is likely going to be a motion for summary judgment after more discovery. The standard for summary judgement is that there is no reasonable interpretation of facts such that the other side could prevail at trial. If MCPS does not change its position that it is not sure whether or not it will return to the "old" pre-lottery system after the pandemic (maybe as early as next year), the case will proceed to trial. There are enough facts to support a race-based decision making process already on the record. Likelihood of proceeding to trial heightened depending on outcome of Supreme Court Harvard case.

I personally refuse to actually find out the litigation status because I have better things to do, but I would presume that it has already survived the 12(b)(6) dismissal motion? Motion for summary judgment would come after iirc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The point is to give highly able kids the opportunity for enrichment. Many of the highest performing kids already had that, which is why they were high in performance. But, what if the kids who didn't have A++ and Dr. Li and parents who were in academia, kids who demonstrated they were gifted and highly able but who didn't have the enrichment that some kids already had, what if these kids were able to get in? Frankly, this county needs more seats. But, parents who enrich have got to stop assuming their kid "deserves" a magnet space more than a kid who scored a few points below. Lottery + threshold is not ideal but the best way to accomplish that I suppose.

Why does a kid who didn't try hard to get in deserve to get in anymore than a kid who did try hard to get in? Also, not every kid who got in went to Dr Li's. Should they be penalized because of their skin color being associated with "prepping"?

The PP made a valid point. I don't know why you're bringing up "skin color."

You are being disingenuous when you claim it's not about "skin color" when the majority of people on here who are fine with discriminatory practices claim that Asian Americans students get in because they "prep" and go to Dr Li's classes.

So, answer the question: Why does a kid who didn't try hard to get in deserve to get in anymore than a kid who did try hard to get in?

A student who not only shows academic talent but who tries hard should actually be more challenged than a kid who doesn't want to try hard.

My kid is in a team sport, but isn't good at it, but doesn't want to practice to get better. Yesterday, my kid didn't get to play a whole lot and complained about it. I told DC that if they wanted more playing time they need to show that they are trying hard and need to practice more. Silence. Why should my DC get more playing time if DC isn't wiling to put in the effort?

I apply that to all areas in life. Why should you get anything if you aren't willing to work for it? I grew up lower income to immigrant parents and had to work for everything I have.

Sure, it would be awesome if MCPS could open more seats to magnets, but MCPS isn't doing that. What they are doing, and what many so-called progressive liberals are supporting, is using a policy that disadvantages one group over another.

And frankly, the same groups that MCPS and uber liberals are trying to push into magnets have a large achievement gap. No amount of pushing the kids to magents is going to close that gap. MCPS and uber liberals should focus on closing the achievement gap rather than raising URM representation in magnets by a couple of percentage points.

And if you say, "These kids aren't a monolith, they should be treated as individuals".. blah blah blah, well then you're a hypocrite because you seem to have no problem treating all Asian Americans as a monolith.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't a group already sue MCPS because of the MS magnet changes? MCPS didn't change the HS process.

Yes there is a law suit pending in the federal district court. https://casetext.com/case/assn-for-educ-fairness-v-montgomery-cnty-bd-of-educ

This case refers to middle school magnet admissions, correct? I thought it was dismissed because Moco switched to a lottery during the pandemic.

Read the first paragraph of the linked opinion. It was not dismissed.

The lawsuit is still pending but there are some open questions that would need to be adjudicated.

MCPS will probably file to dismiss and claim that it’s moot and that the claimants no longer have an injury for which there is a remedy.

In that scenario, the judge could agree with MCPS or allow discovery to proceed and a hearing in order to confirm those claims.

I for one hope that it gets at least that far such that there will be further public disclosure about this lottery process that they have been pointedly secretive about.

The next state of the litigation is likely going to be a motion for summary judgment after more discovery. The standard for summary judgement is that there is no reasonable interpretation of facts such that the other side could prevail at trial. If MCPS does not change its position that it is not sure whether or not it will return to the "old" pre-lottery system after the pandemic (maybe as early as next year), the case will proceed to trial. There are enough facts to support a race-based decision making process already on the record. Likelihood of proceeding to trial heightened depending on outcome of Supreme Court Harvard case.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The point is to give highly able kids the opportunity for enrichment. Many of the highest performing kids already had that, which is why they were high in performance. But, what if the kids who didn't have A++ and Dr. Li and parents who were in academia, kids who demonstrated they were gifted and highly able but who didn't have the enrichment that some kids already had, what if these kids were able to get in? Frankly, this county needs more seats. But, parents who enrich have got to stop assuming their kid "deserves" a magnet space more than a kid who scored a few points below. Lottery + threshold is not ideal but the best way to accomplish that I suppose.

Why does a kid who didn't try hard to get in deserve to get in anymore than a kid who did try hard to get in? Also, not every kid who got in went to Dr Li's. Should they be penalized because of their skin color being associated with "prepping"?

The PP made a valid point. I don't know why you're bringing up "skin color."

You are being disingenuous when you claim it's not about "skin color" when the majority of people on here who are fine with discriminatory practices claim that Asian Americans students get in because they "prep" and go to Dr Li's classes.

So, answer the question: Why does a kid who didn't try hard to get in deserve to get in anymore than a kid who did try hard to get in?

A student who not only shows academic talent but who tries hard should actually be more challenged than a kid who doesn't want to try hard.

My kid is in a team sport, but isn't good at it, but doesn't want to practice to get better. Yesterday, my kid didn't get to play a whole lot and complained about it. I told DC that if they wanted more playing time they need to show that they are trying hard and need to practice more. Silence. Why should my DC get more playing time if DC isn't wiling to put in the effort?

I apply that to all areas in life. Why should you get anything if you aren't willing to work for it? I grew up lower income to immigrant parents and had to work for everything I have.

Sure, it would be awesome if MCPS could open more seats to magnets, but MCPS isn't doing that. What they are doing, and what many so-called progressive liberals are supporting, is using a policy that disadvantages one group over another.

And frankly, the same groups that MCPS and uber liberals are trying to push into magnets have a large achievement gap. No amount of pushing the kids to magents is going to close that gap. MCPS and uber liberals should focus on closing the achievement gap rather than raising URM representation in magnets by a couple of percentage points.

And if you say, "These kids aren't a monolith, they should be treated as individuals".. blah blah blah, well then you're a hypocrite because you seem to have no problem treating all Asian Americans as a monolith.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The point is to give highly able kids the opportunity for enrichment. Many of the highest performing kids already had that, which is why they were high in performance. But, what if the kids who didn't have A++ and Dr. Li and parents who were in academia, kids who demonstrated they were gifted and highly able but who didn't have the enrichment that some kids already had, what if these kids were able to get in? Frankly, this county needs more seats. But, parents who enrich have got to stop assuming their kid "deserves" a magnet space more than a kid who scored a few points below. Lottery + threshold is not ideal but the best way to accomplish that I suppose.

Why does a kid who didn't try hard to get in deserve to get in anymore than a kid who did try hard to get in? Also, not every kid who got in went to Dr Li's. Should they be penalized because of their skin color being associated with "prepping"?

The PP made a valid point. I don't know why you're bringing up "skin color."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't a group already sue MCPS because of the MS magnet changes? MCPS didn't change the HS process.

Yes there is a law suit pending in the federal district court. https://casetext.com/case/assn-for-educ-fairness-v-montgomery-cnty-bd-of-educ

This case refers to middle school magnet admissions, correct? I thought it was dismissed because Moco switched to a lottery during the pandemic.

Read the first paragraph of the linked opinion. It was not dismissed.

The lawsuit is still pending but there are some open questions that would need to be adjudicated.

MCPS will probably file to dismiss and claim that it’s moot and that the claimants no longer have an injury for which there is a remedy.

In that scenario, the judge could agree with MCPS or allow discovery to proceed and a hearing in order to confirm those claims.

I for one hope that it gets at least that far such that there will be further public disclosure about this lottery process that they have been pointedly secretive about.