Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing is that MCPS very very briefly offered hope for an admissions scheme that had the potential to work, but then they reneged on their pledge to parents and built this inane lottery with a cut-off around the 50th percentile for some kids.

Back in 2018 (I think), MCPS moved to a more holistic approach to MS magnet admissions. They got rid of the-at home essay and teacher recommendations, both of which advantaged either kids who had parent assistance or kids who were compliant learners.

Then, they looked at which kids had a peer cohort at their home schools and which did not. Kids who would absolutely not have an educational peer group at their home schools were prioritized. De facto, this led to something like the UT Austin approach of taking the top X% from each sending school.

In order to meet the needs of learners who were gifted/highly able but not "outliers," MCPS promised to roll out AIM and HIGH in every MS and to cohort the kids who were above a certain threshold.

So, you had a system that pissed some people off but was absolutely better. Kids "let behind" at schools like Hoover were still going to get access to an equivalent peer group and curriculum, without the bus ride. Kids who would otherwise have been at a lower performing MS got a peer group for the first time.

But then a variety of factors derailed this (actually pretty good) plan.

First, parents freaked out and cried discrimination, filing the lawsuit that led MCPS to just throw up their hands and do a lottery.

Then, schools gave up on cohorting HIGH and AIM, while also giving up on Honors English.

So, parents who had been promised that their highly able kids would be cohorted and offered something akin to the magnet curriculum found their kids either without access those classes at all, or without cohorting.

That got us where we are now. No differentiated instruction for social studies or English, and AIM being dismantled across the county.

MCPS knows how to fix this, and parents need to pressure them to get at it. Even if they keep the lottery (but hopefully move the threshold up to 90%), they can still ameliorate the damage they've done if they just bring back cohorted differentiated instruction.

Global Humanities 6 and 7 and American Studies are still being offered.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing is that MCPS very very briefly offered hope for an admissions scheme that had the potential to work, but then they reneged on their pledge to parents and built this inane lottery with a cut-off around the 50th percentile for some kids.

Back in 2018 (I think), MCPS moved to a more holistic approach to MS magnet admissions. They got rid of the-at home essay and teacher recommendations, both of which advantaged either kids who had parent assistance or kids who were compliant learners.

Then, they looked at which kids had a peer cohort at their home schools and which did not. Kids who would absolutely not have an educational peer group at their home schools were prioritized. De facto, this led to something like the UT Austin approach of taking the top X% from each sending school.

In order to meet the needs of learners who were gifted/highly able but not "outliers," MCPS promised to roll out AIM and HIGH in every MS and to cohort the kids who were above a certain threshold.

So, you had a system that pissed some people off but was absolutely better. Kids "let behind" at schools like Hoover were still going to get access to an equivalent peer group and curriculum, without the bus ride. Kids who would otherwise have been at a lower performing MS got a peer group for the first time.

But then a variety of factors derailed this (actually pretty good) plan.

First, parents freaked out and cried discrimination, filing the lawsuit that led MCPS to just throw up their hands and do a lottery.

Then, schools gave up on cohorting HIGH and AIM, while also giving up on Honors English.

So, parents who had been promised that their highly able kids would be cohorted and offered something akin to the magnet curriculum found their kids either without access those classes at all, or without cohorting.

That got us where we are now. No differentiated instruction for social studies or English, and AIM being dismantled across the county.

MCPS knows how to fix this, and parents need to pressure them to get at it. Even if they keep the lottery (but hopefully move the threshold up to 90%), they can still ameliorate the damage they've done if they just bring back cohorted differentiated instruction.

Global Humanities 6 and 7 and American Studies are still being offered.

Anonymous wrote:The thing is that MCPS very very briefly offered hope for an admissions scheme that had the potential to work, but then they reneged on their pledge to parents and built this inane lottery with a cut-off around the 50th percentile for some kids.

Back in 2018 (I think), MCPS moved to a more holistic approach to MS magnet admissions. They got rid of the-at home essay and teacher recommendations, both of which advantaged either kids who had parent assistance or kids who were compliant learners.

Then, they looked at which kids had a peer cohort at their home schools and which did not. Kids who would absolutely not have an educational peer group at their home schools were prioritized. De facto, this led to something like the UT Austin approach of taking the top X% from each sending school.

In order to meet the needs of learners who were gifted/highly able but not "outliers," MCPS promised to roll out AIM and HIGH in every MS and to cohort the kids who were above a certain threshold.

So, you had a system that pissed some people off but was absolutely better. Kids "let behind" at schools like Hoover were still going to get access to an equivalent peer group and curriculum, without the bus ride. Kids who would otherwise have been at a lower performing MS got a peer group for the first time.

But then a variety of factors derailed this (actually pretty good) plan.

First, parents freaked out and cried discrimination, filing the lawsuit that led MCPS to just throw up their hands and do a lottery.

Then, schools gave up on cohorting HIGH and AIM, while also giving up on Honors English.

So, parents who had been promised that their highly able kids would be cohorted and offered something akin to the magnet curriculum found their kids either without access those classes at all, or without cohorting.

That got us where we are now. No differentiated instruction for social studies or English, and AIM being dismantled across the county.

MCPS knows how to fix this, and parents need to pressure them to get at it. Even if they keep the lottery (but hopefully move the threshold up to 90%), they can still ameliorate the damage they've done if they just bring back cohorted differentiated instruction.

Anonymous wrote:It’s another test UMCs prep for which leaves URMs further behind. So hope it’s good riddance.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid took the COGAT last year, coming from private and applying to the SMCS magnet. So MoCo does accept for some.

This may just mean MCPS take COGAT as reference but it doesn't mean that is major factor.

If they're going to use the CogAT, they need to give us more advanced warning so I can get my kid into CogAT prep.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid took the COGAT last year, coming from private and applying to the SMCS magnet. So MoCo does accept for some.

This may just mean MCPS take COGAT as reference but it doesn't mean that is major factor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More seats, for sure. There are plenty who would benefit from enrichment -- it shouldn't be the top x%, where x is a fairly small number that fits an artificially-low number of seats made available. They thumb their noses at state requirements by having the separate SIPPI process, but tying that to much more watered-down options for within-standard-curricula (but poorly and inconsistently used) enrichments, as opposed to more holistic enrichment programs (e.g., CES & criteria-based magnets).

CogAT can be gamed, but much less so than MAP, which, for any kid with moderately high ability, is so much more about exposure (outside tutoring, anyone?) than innate capacity to learn/need to stretch beyond the standard curriculum. If anything, they've set up a less equitable system by using MAP, abandoning better paradigms that have been put forth with sounder reasoning, and have used the CovID excuse for it well beyond the one year (or maybe two) that it might have made sense.

Someone remarked about gatekeeping. I think that's a word thrown around inappropriately, and perhaps intentionally, simply making it difficult to put any identification paradigm in play, as identification, required by state law (along with programs to meet identified need), becomes a gate, itself.

There shouldn't be anything wrong with the concept of identification of learning ability, nor should there be anything wrong with the idea of providing commensurate programs. We certainly do the latter for those with great difficulties, though it seems that MCPS resists the former in some cases (I'm guessing from a combination of high cost and overzealous gaming of that system, too). The difference seems to be a combination of specificity within the statutes and a poor presumption that we don't need to worry about the needs of high flyers the way we would about others.

Implementations that allow significant gaming, inflexible/poorly targeted schemas, poor matches of available program seats (or alternate high-quality enrichments) to identified needs, etc. -- this is where the problem lies.

There's probably something out there less gameable than CogAT. Let's find it. In the meantime, let's use the known of CogAT to do something far better than the largely MAP-based system they have in place at the moment.

Who are you and how do we get you on the BOE? You'd have my vote.

And there are TONS of parents who game the MAP test system by buying MAP test prep materials online too. MCPS has to do better.

Well said!

Anonymous wrote:My kid took the COGAT last year, coming from private and applying to the SMCS magnet. So MoCo does accept for some.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More seats, for sure. There are plenty who would benefit from enrichment -- it shouldn't be the top x%, where x is a fairly small number that fits an artificially-low number of seats made available. They thumb their noses at state requirements by having the separate SIPPI process, but tying that to much more watered-down options for within-standard-curricula (but poorly and inconsistently used) enrichments, as opposed to more holistic enrichment programs (e.g., CES & criteria-based magnets).

CogAT can be gamed, but much less so than MAP, which, for any kid with moderately high ability, is so much more about exposure (outside tutoring, anyone?) than innate capacity to learn/need to stretch beyond the standard curriculum. If anything, they've set up a less equitable system by using MAP, abandoning better paradigms that have been put forth with sounder reasoning, and have used the CovID excuse for it well beyond the one year (or maybe two) that it might have made sense.

Someone remarked about gatekeeping. I think that's a word thrown around inappropriately, and perhaps intentionally, simply making it difficult to put any identification paradigm in play, as identification, required by state law (along with programs to meet identified need), becomes a gate, itself.

There shouldn't be anything wrong with the concept of identification of learning ability, nor should there be anything wrong with the idea of providing commensurate programs. We certainly do the latter for those with great difficulties, though it seems that MCPS resists the former in some cases (I'm guessing from a combination of high cost and overzealous gaming of that system, too). The difference seems to be a combination of specificity within the statutes and a poor presumption that we don't need to worry about the needs of high flyers the way we would about others.

Implementations that allow significant gaming, inflexible/poorly targeted schemas, poor matches of available program seats (or alternate high-quality enrichments) to identified needs, etc. -- this is where the problem lies.

There's probably something out there less gameable than CogAT. Let's find it. In the meantime, let's use the known of CogAT to do something far better than the largely MAP-based system they have in place at the moment.

Who are you and how do we get you on the BOE? You'd have my vote.

And there are TONS of parents who game the MAP test system by buying MAP test prep materials online too. MCPS has to do better.

Anonymous wrote:More seats, for sure. There are plenty who would benefit from enrichment -- it shouldn't be the top x%, where x is a fairly small number that fits an artificially-low number of seats made available. They thumb their noses at state requirements by having the separate SIPPI process, but tying that to much more watered-down options for within-standard-curricula (but poorly and inconsistently used) enrichments, as opposed to more holistic enrichment programs (e.g., CES & criteria-based magnets).

CogAT can be gamed, but much less so than MAP, which, for any kid with moderately high ability, is so much more about exposure (outside tutoring, anyone?) than innate capacity to learn/need to stretch beyond the standard curriculum. If anything, they've set up a less equitable system by using MAP, abandoning better paradigms that have been put forth with sounder reasoning, and have used the CovID excuse for it well beyond the one year (or maybe two) that it might have made sense.

Someone remarked about gatekeeping. I think that's a word thrown around inappropriately, and perhaps intentionally, simply making it difficult to put any identification paradigm in play, as identification, required by state law (along with programs to meet identified need), becomes a gate, itself.

There shouldn't be anything wrong with the concept of identification of learning ability, nor should there be anything wrong with the idea of providing commensurate programs. We certainly do the latter for those with great difficulties, though it seems that MCPS resists the former in some cases (I'm guessing from a combination of high cost and overzealous gaming of that system, too). The difference seems to be a combination of specificity within the statutes and a poor presumption that we don't need to worry about the needs of high flyers the way we would about others.

Implementations that allow significant gaming, inflexible/poorly targeted schemas, poor matches of available program seats (or alternate high-quality enrichments) to identified needs, etc. -- this is where the problem lies.

There's probably something out there less gameable than CogAT. Let's find it. In the meantime, let's use the known of CogAT to do something far better than the largely MAP-based system they have in place at the moment.