Anonymous wrote:Imagine if they just made enough real magnet-level education available locally to everyone with a big enough local peer cohort and centrally to everyone without. Too bad that the old paradigm was so demagogued by ongoing anti-GT elements that that approach, when introduced, didn't come with either the organization or funding to support that local equivalent well enough, and was then the subject of threatened lawsuits such that it lasted a single year and we've ended up with the lottery, instead.

My daughter has been a beneficiary of the CES/magnet lottery preference for high FARMS area kids. And thank goodness. It was awful for her to be told she had to limit raising her hand to answer questions to twice per week in her math classes so other kids could have a chance to answer. Some of you complaining have no idea what it's like for your kid to be one of only a handful of high-performing kids. I only wish her cohort at her home school was full of high performers so we didn't have to make the ridiculous trek to TPMS and back twice every day.

What makes me crazy about this conversation (other than the casual racism) is that MCPS used to be better at this than they are now!

If we start from the assumption that there are highly able kids in every community, and it is a social good to identify those kids and give them appropriate insruction, then the question becomes how to you identify and nurture that talent even in kids whose families are not able to give them extensive exposure?

We know the answer, and the infuriating thing is that MCPS used to do it.

Key steps:

Identify highly able kids by 3rd grade using a mix of standardized tests and teacher recommendations

Extend differentiated instruction to those kids through break-out math classes, ELC, and Saturday School opportunities.

Encourage parents of highly able kids to consider CES and other magnet opportunities, including by ensuring interpretation at any parent information events and ensuring that they understand the logistics

Continue to provide differentiated instruction in math and ELA in home schools for kids whose parents choose not to change schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:let's say a (supposedly) very smart 8th grader scored 250 on MAP-M. why do they need more math opportunities? they haven't even availed themselves of opportunities they were given. you want to rush them to MV calculus - why? why do they need this?

compare this to your villain - a "heavily exposed" child who scored 300 on the same test. regardless of how they got there - they actually need more advanced material.

A very slanted take, there.

"Supposedly?" "Villain?" An argument that can't be made without unnecessary charged words is not much of an argument.

Why would the former need more than standard curriculum? Because they can absorb more. Because it is easy for them to catch up on content due to that ability. Because standard pace does not meet their learning need and more likely leads to their disinterest in academics, which becomes a tragedy. Why are they at 250? Not because they haven't "availed themselves." Because the circumstances haven't afforded them reliable exposure due to any of the several reasons previously mentioned.

Of course not everyone at 250, using this scenario, should be definitively in the mix -- that's where an ability-related metric becomes important as a principal identifier, to go along with any heuristic that might employ exposure-related metrics on a locally normed basis. We shouldn't be relying purely on that local norming of exposure-related scores either.

These are real kids, not some unicorn. I don't expect their numbers to be overwhelming, but they deserve both identification and program access, and there is significant research providing bases for better identification paradigms than those afforded by principal reliance on MAP.

Would the 300-scorer in the proffered scenario not be able to demonstrate ability outside of the exposure-based metric? Bacause "regardless of how they got there" patently sets up a strawman argument in this regard.

Separately, and, once again, repeating where it clearly has been ignored, I would not begrudge a student with high exposure-related scores access to magnet programming, except that I would first address the needs associated with ability. That advanced learning also demonstrates a need, albeit one that inherits from a different cause.

There is considerable experience at programs like SMCS of students coming in with high exposure-based scores struggling more than might be expected, however. With respect to math, in this case, neither group might need to rush to MVC, but we should be affording each a supported path, with off-ramps, if needed.

And, while not unimportant, the HS magnet selection paradigm at least incorporates more elements for program review. The magnet programs where central identification applies are for elementary and middle, with the latest tests considered coming at the beginning of 5th grade. Much more than enough time to allow a student of high ability the chance to catch up, if needed. That is part of the magnet intent and implementation paradigm.

From before:

"Support all kids. Support talented kids with paradigms that do the best job of identifying that talent, curricula that best meet the associated educational need, enforced policy that ensures those curricula are employed with fidelity across the system and funding to make that happen with reasonable equivalence for all so identified."

Identify well and make enough room. I don't see where this causes the objection, especially when making room to include access to advanced courses for those having mastered precedent material from additional exposure, alone. Unless there is a desire to keep funding low, seats few and access most dependent on the privileges of family circumstance.

if they could absorb more, the would have absorbed more. these are 13-14 olds, not 5-6 year olds. they don't need to "catch up" - they need to shore up their shaky foundations. life is long, they can catch up later.

meanwhile, magnets should be for those who are already well ahead of others.

This ignoring of points provided is foolish.

Absorption happens with exposure. Real opportunity for exposure is not uniformly distributed in society.

Much of magnet programming is designed to incorporate the necessary foundational ramp-up for those able/attuned to the subject matter but needing the exposure. The ability to absorb quickly, without significant repetition and with leaps in understanding that allow skipping of intermediate concepts is what allows this to occur with minimal drag on the experience of others.

Those entering HS magnets may be 13- to 14-year-olds, but this life stage is far from beyond that catch-up. When considering the ES and MS magnets, entering as 8- to 9- & 10- to 11-year olds, respectively, the notion of its not being possible for highly able students to catch up is laughable. Catching up later actually is harder, with less cognitive plasticity, especially given the differential exigencies of life during higher education and afterwards.

Once more, I'd like to see enough magnet seating or local true equivalents to accommodate the needs of those having learned content from additional/external exposure, even if not identified as highly able. The "well ahead of others" that makes magnets effective, both for the individual and for society, has much more to do with domain ability, however, and it is considerably more difficult to have those needs met in an alternative manner than the opposite, should a choice between the two groups be necessary due to lack of funding or the like.

Based on a presumption that this is the same poster continuing the argument, I don't expect, at this point, a change of heart based on these thoughts. It appears that we will have to agree to disagree.

no, it doesn't. learning is active. people are not sponges. that absorb e.g. math knowledge by sitting in a room where someone is talking about higher level math. they direct their own attention. the very same kids who you claim did not have enough exposure to high level math (laughable) know 50x or 100x more about makeup or sneaker brands etc than kids who had roughly similar level of exposure but paid attention to it.

what kids want to learn matters too. it is also highly related to their innate strengths to the point where the whole discussion of IQ vs. content meaningless. call it smart kids or call it kids with a lot of exposure. the point is, some kids are ready and eager to jump on highly enriched and accelerated content and some aren't. the should all be provided with what meets their needs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:let's say a (supposedly) very smart 8th grader scored 250 on MAP-M. why do they need more math opportunities? they haven't even availed themselves of opportunities they were given. you want to rush them to MV calculus - why? why do they need this?

compare this to your villain - a "heavily exposed" child who scored 300 on the same test. regardless of how they got there - they actually need more advanced material.

A very slanted take, there.

"Supposedly?" "Villain?" An argument that can't be made without unnecessary charged words is not much of an argument.

Why would the former need more than standard curriculum? Because they can absorb more. Because it is easy for them to catch up on content due to that ability. Because standard pace does not meet their learning need and more likely leads to their disinterest in academics, which becomes a tragedy. Why are they at 250? Not because they haven't "availed themselves." Because the circumstances haven't afforded them reliable exposure due to any of the several reasons previously mentioned.

Of course not everyone at 250, using this scenario, should be definitively in the mix -- that's where an ability-related metric becomes important as a principal identifier, to go along with any heuristic that might employ exposure-related metrics on a locally normed basis. We shouldn't be relying purely on that local norming of exposure-related scores either.

These are real kids, not some unicorn. I don't expect their numbers to be overwhelming, but they deserve both identification and program access, and there is significant research providing bases for better identification paradigms than those afforded by principal reliance on MAP.

Would the 300-scorer in the proffered scenario not be able to demonstrate ability outside of the exposure-based metric? Bacause "regardless of how they got there" patently sets up a strawman argument in this regard.

Separately, and, once again, repeating where it clearly has been ignored, I would not begrudge a student with high exposure-related scores access to magnet programming, except that I would first address the needs associated with ability. That advanced learning also demonstrates a need, albeit one that inherits from a different cause.

There is considerable experience at programs like SMCS of students coming in with high exposure-based scores struggling more than might be expected, however. With respect to math, in this case, neither group might need to rush to MVC, but we should be affording each a supported path, with off-ramps, if needed.

And, while not unimportant, the HS magnet selection paradigm at least incorporates more elements for program review. The magnet programs where central identification applies are for elementary and middle, with the latest tests considered coming at the beginning of 5th grade. Much more than enough time to allow a student of high ability the chance to catch up, if needed. That is part of the magnet intent and implementation paradigm.

From before:

"Support all kids. Support talented kids with paradigms that do the best job of identifying that talent, curricula that best meet the associated educational need, enforced policy that ensures those curricula are employed with fidelity across the system and funding to make that happen with reasonable equivalence for all so identified."

Identify well and make enough room. I don't see where this causes the objection, especially when making room to include access to advanced courses for those having mastered precedent material from additional exposure, alone. Unless there is a desire to keep funding low, seats few and access most dependent on the privileges of family circumstance.

if they could absorb more, the would have absorbed more. these are 13-14 olds, not 5-6 year olds. they don't need to "catch up" - they need to shore up their shaky foundations. life is long, they can catch up later.

meanwhile, magnets should be for those who are already well ahead of others.

This ignoring of points provided is foolish.

Absorption happens with exposure. Real opportunity for exposure is not uniformly distributed in society.

Much of magnet programming is designed to incorporate the necessary foundational ramp-up for those able/attuned to the subject matter but needing the exposure. The ability to absorb quickly, without significant repetition and with leaps in understanding that allow skipping of intermediate concepts is what allows this to occur with minimal drag on the experience of others.

Those entering HS magnets may be 13- to 14-year-olds, but this life stage is far from beyond that catch-up. When considering the ES and MS magnets, entering as 8- to 9- & 10- to 11-year olds, respectively, the notion of its not being possible for highly able students to catch up is laughable. Catching up later actually is harder, with less cognitive plasticity, especially given the differential exigencies of life during higher education and afterwards.

Once more, I'd like to see enough magnet seating or local true equivalents to accommodate the needs of those having learned content from additional/external exposure, even if not identified as highly able. The "well ahead of others" that makes magnets effective, both for the individual and for society, has much more to do with domain ability, however, and it is considerably more difficult to have those needs met in an alternative manner than the opposite, should a choice between the two groups be necessary due to lack of funding or the like.

Based on a presumption that this is the same poster continuing the argument, I don't expect, at this point, a change of heart based on these thoughts. It appears that we will have to agree to disagree.

no, it doesn't. learning is active. people are not sponges. that absorb e.g. math knowledge by sitting in a room where someone is talking about higher level math. they direct their own attention. the very same kids who you claim did not have enough exposure to high level math (laughable) know 50x or 100x more about makeup or sneaker brands etc than kids who had roughly similar level of exposure but paid attention to it.

what kids want to learn matters too. it is also highly related to their innate strengths to the point where the whole discussion of IQ vs. content meaningless. call it smart kids or call it kids with a lot of exposure. the point is, some kids are ready and eager to jump on highly enriched and accelerated content and some aren't. the should all be provided with what meets their needs.

Reading the argument above from PPs is frustrating to me, because I think you’re both right, but you’re also both missing part of the picture.

Magnet classes go faster than a standard class. Even if a child starts with advanced subject matter knowledge, they need to have the ability to learn new material at an accelerated pace to keep up, or they could quickly become overwhelmed and fall behind.

Magnet students also need to have a foundation level of knowledge - no matter how smart they are, there are limits to how much they can catch up on, especially when their magnet class is proceeding at a faster pace than the standard level.

The problem is that resources for students who need more are so rationed that we end up fighting amongst ourselves for scraps. What we really need to do is stop treating knowledge like a limited resource and restructure the program so that our children have the opportunity to learn as much as they want. We even have a model to start from - high school. Differentiation in high school includes options at the following levels: remedial, standard, honors, AP/IB, and magnet school programs. If every middle school offered both honors and the watered-down but still advanced versions of magnet classes, many kids would probably prefer to stay at their home schools. I still think we need magnet schools for those kids who crave the extra intensity, and we probably need to open another magnet program, maybe two. In fact, while I’m making my wish list, I’d like to see them structured so that magnet level classes are offered in all 4 core subjects so the kids don’t have to choose, and enough funding to allow a block schedule so that magnet kids can have both language and music classes if they wish.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:let's say a (supposedly) very smart 8th grader scored 250 on MAP-M. why do they need more math opportunities? they haven't even availed themselves of opportunities they were given. you want to rush them to MV calculus - why? why do they need this?

compare this to your villain - a "heavily exposed" child who scored 300 on the same test. regardless of how they got there - they actually need more advanced material.

A very slanted take, there.

"Supposedly?" "Villain?" An argument that can't be made without unnecessary charged words is not much of an argument.

Why would the former need more than standard curriculum? Because they can absorb more. Because it is easy for them to catch up on content due to that ability. Because standard pace does not meet their learning need and more likely leads to their disinterest in academics, which becomes a tragedy. Why are they at 250? Not because they haven't "availed themselves." Because the circumstances haven't afforded them reliable exposure due to any of the several reasons previously mentioned.

Of course not everyone at 250, using this scenario, should be definitively in the mix -- that's where an ability-related metric becomes important as a principal identifier, to go along with any heuristic that might employ exposure-related metrics on a locally normed basis. We shouldn't be relying purely on that local norming of exposure-related scores either.

These are real kids, not some unicorn. I don't expect their numbers to be overwhelming, but they deserve both identification and program access, and there is significant research providing bases for better identification paradigms than those afforded by principal reliance on MAP.

Would the 300-scorer in the proffered scenario not be able to demonstrate ability outside of the exposure-based metric? Bacause "regardless of how they got there" patently sets up a strawman argument in this regard.

Separately, and, once again, repeating where it clearly has been ignored, I would not begrudge a student with high exposure-related scores access to magnet programming, except that I would first address the needs associated with ability. That advanced learning also demonstrates a need, albeit one that inherits from a different cause.

There is considerable experience at programs like SMCS of students coming in with high exposure-based scores struggling more than might be expected, however. With respect to math, in this case, neither group might need to rush to MVC, but we should be affording each a supported path, with off-ramps, if needed.

And, while not unimportant, the HS magnet selection paradigm at least incorporates more elements for program review. The magnet programs where central identification applies are for elementary and middle, with the latest tests considered coming at the beginning of 5th grade. Much more than enough time to allow a student of high ability the chance to catch up, if needed. That is part of the magnet intent and implementation paradigm.

From before:

"Support all kids. Support talented kids with paradigms that do the best job of identifying that talent, curricula that best meet the associated educational need, enforced policy that ensures those curricula are employed with fidelity across the system and funding to make that happen with reasonable equivalence for all so identified."

Identify well and make enough room. I don't see where this causes the objection, especially when making room to include access to advanced courses for those having mastered precedent material from additional exposure, alone. Unless there is a desire to keep funding low, seats few and access most dependent on the privileges of family circumstance.

if they could absorb more, the would have absorbed more. these are 13-14 olds, not 5-6 year olds. they don't need to "catch up" - they need to shore up their shaky foundations. life is long, they can catch up later.

meanwhile, magnets should be for those who are already well ahead of others.

This ignoring of points provided is foolish.

Absorption happens with exposure. Real opportunity for exposure is not uniformly distributed in society.

Much of magnet programming is designed to incorporate the necessary foundational ramp-up for those able/attuned to the subject matter but needing the exposure. The ability to absorb quickly, without significant repetition and with leaps in understanding that allow skipping of intermediate concepts is what allows this to occur with minimal drag on the experience of others.

Those entering HS magnets may be 13- to 14-year-olds, but this life stage is far from beyond that catch-up. When considering the ES and MS magnets, entering as 8- to 9- & 10- to 11-year olds, respectively, the notion of its not being possible for highly able students to catch up is laughable. Catching up later actually is harder, with less cognitive plasticity, especially given the differential exigencies of life during higher education and afterwards.

Once more, I'd like to see enough magnet seating or local true equivalents to accommodate the needs of those having learned content from additional/external exposure, even if not identified as highly able. The "well ahead of others" that makes magnets effective, both for the individual and for society, has much more to do with domain ability, however, and it is considerably more difficult to have those needs met in an alternative manner than the opposite, should a choice between the two groups be necessary due to lack of funding or the like.

Based on a presumption that this is the same poster continuing the argument, I don't expect, at this point, a change of heart based on these thoughts. It appears that we will have to agree to disagree.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:let's say a (supposedly) very smart 8th grader scored 250 on MAP-M. why do they need more math opportunities? they haven't even availed themselves of opportunities they were given. you want to rush them to MV calculus - why? why do they need this?

compare this to your villain - a "heavily exposed" child who scored 300 on the same test. regardless of how they got there - they actually need more advanced material.

A very slanted take, there.

"Supposedly?" "Villain?" An argument that can't be made without unnecessary charged words is not much of an argument.

Why would the former need more than standard curriculum? Because they can absorb more. Because it is easy for them to catch up on content due to that ability. Because standard pace does not meet their learning need and more likely leads to their disinterest in academics, which becomes a tragedy. Why are they at 250? Not because they haven't "availed themselves." Because the circumstances haven't afforded them reliable exposure due to any of the several reasons previously mentioned.

Of course not everyone at 250, using this scenario, should be definitively in the mix -- that's where an ability-related metric becomes important as a principal identifier, to go along with any heuristic that might employ exposure-related metrics on a locally normed basis. We shouldn't be relying purely on that local norming of exposure-related scores either.

These are real kids, not some unicorn. I don't expect their numbers to be overwhelming, but they deserve both identification and program access, and there is significant research providing bases for better identification paradigms than those afforded by principal reliance on MAP.

Would the 300-scorer in the proffered scenario not be able to demonstrate ability outside of the exposure-based metric? Bacause "regardless of how they got there" patently sets up a strawman argument in this regard.

Separately, and, once again, repeating where it clearly has been ignored, I would not begrudge a student with high exposure-related scores access to magnet programming, except that I would first address the needs associated with ability. That advanced learning also demonstrates a need, albeit one that inherits from a different cause.

There is considerable experience at programs like SMCS of students coming in with high exposure-based scores struggling more than might be expected, however. With respect to math, in this case, neither group might need to rush to MVC, but we should be affording each a supported path, with off-ramps, if needed.

And, while not unimportant, the HS magnet selection paradigm at least incorporates more elements for program review. The magnet programs where central identification applies are for elementary and middle, with the latest tests considered coming at the beginning of 5th grade. Much more than enough time to allow a student of high ability the chance to catch up, if needed. That is part of the magnet intent and implementation paradigm.

From before:

"Support all kids. Support talented kids with paradigms that do the best job of identifying that talent, curricula that best meet the associated educational need, enforced policy that ensures those curricula are employed with fidelity across the system and funding to make that happen with reasonable equivalence for all so identified."

Identify well and make enough room. I don't see where this causes the objection, especially when making room to include access to advanced courses for those having mastered precedent material from additional exposure, alone. Unless there is a desire to keep funding low, seats few and access most dependent on the privileges of family circumstance.

if they could absorb more, the would have absorbed more. these are 13-14 olds, not 5-6 year olds. they don't need to "catch up" - they need to shore up their shaky foundations. life is long, they can catch up later.

meanwhile, magnets should be for those who are already well ahead of others.

Anonymous wrote:let's say a (supposedly) very smart 8th grader scored 250 on MAP-M. why do they need more math opportunities? they haven't even availed themselves of opportunities they were given. you want to rush them to MV calculus - why? why do they need this?

compare this to your villain - a "heavily exposed" child who scored 300 on the same test. regardless of how they got there - they actually need more advanced material.

A very slanted take, there.

"Supposedly?" "Villain?" An argument that can't be made without unnecessary charged words is not much of an argument.

Why would the former need more than standard curriculum? Because they can absorb more. Because it is easy for them to catch up on content due to that ability. Because standard pace does not meet their learning need and more likely leads to their disinterest in academics, which becomes a tragedy. Why are they at 250? Not because they haven't "availed themselves." Because the circumstances haven't afforded them reliable exposure due to any of the several reasons previously mentioned.

Of course not everyone at 250, using this scenario, should be definitively in the mix -- that's where an ability-related metric becomes important as a principal identifier, to go along with any heuristic that might employ exposure-related metrics on a locally normed basis. We shouldn't be relying purely on that local norming of exposure-related scores either.

These are real kids, not some unicorn. I don't expect their numbers to be overwhelming, but they deserve both identification and program access, and there is significant research providing bases for better identification paradigms than those afforded by principal reliance on MAP.

Would the 300-scorer in the proffered scenario not be able to demonstrate ability outside of the exposure-based metric? Bacause "regardless of how they got there" patently sets up a strawman argument in this regard.

Separately, and, once again, repeating where it clearly has been ignored, I would not begrudge a student with high exposure-related scores access to magnet programming, except that I would first address the needs associated with ability. That advanced learning also demonstrates a need, albeit one that inherits from a different cause.

There is considerable experience at programs like SMCS of students coming in with high exposure-based scores struggling more than might be expected, however. With respect to math, in this case, neither group might need to rush to MVC, but we should be affording each a supported path, with off-ramps, if needed.

And, while not unimportant, the HS magnet selection paradigm at least incorporates more elements for program review. The magnet programs where central identification applies are for elementary and middle, with the latest tests considered coming at the beginning of 5th grade. Much more than enough time to allow a student of high ability the chance to catch up, if needed. That is part of the magnet intent and implementation paradigm.

From before:

"Support all kids. Support talented kids with paradigms that do the best job of identifying that talent, curricula that best meet the associated educational need, enforced policy that ensures those curricula are employed with fidelity across the system and funding to make that happen with reasonable equivalence for all so identified."

Identify well and make enough room. I don't see where this causes the objection, especially when making room to include access to advanced courses for those having mastered precedent material from additional exposure, alone. Unless there is a desire to keep funding low, seats few and access most dependent on the privileges of family circumstance.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:let's say a (supposedly) very smart 8th grader scored 250 on MAP-M. why do they need more math opportunities? they haven't even availed themselves of opportunities they were given. you want to rush them to MV calculus - why? why do they need this?

compare this to your villain - a "heavily exposed" child who scored 300 on the same test. regardless of how they got there - they actually need more advanced material.

Sure, but a heavily exposed kid will continue to be heavily exposed no matter what the public schools do. No matter how much acceleration the schools offer, some parents will treat it as an arms race. I'd be thrilled if MCPS just decided to let those kids progress outside of school if their parents want it so badly.

oh, but "heavily exposed" kid will still be forced to waste many many hours at their school. yes, they can find the material elsewhere - though you know, their parents pay taxes, too. however, the primary point of the magnet/gifted classes and the reason kids seeks them is not "exposure to material". it's teachers who are allowed to go through material more deeply/faster because everyone is on the same advanced page and peer group that supports and engages their interests.

your hypothetical high ability kids who are 2-3 years behind will have a hard time in this type of classroom. you can put absolute genius in AP german - if they haven't studied it before they are going to either struggle or drag the whole class.

Gotta love MCPS. Where your kid is too smart to learn, too white to learn, or too rich to learn.

Anonymous wrote:let's say a (supposedly) very smart 8th grader scored 250 on MAP-M. why do they need more math opportunities? they haven't even availed themselves of opportunities they were given. you want to rush them to MV calculus - why? why do they need this?

compare this to your villain - a "heavily exposed" child who scored 300 on the same test. regardless of how they got there - they actually need more advanced material.

Sure, but a heavily exposed kid will continue to be heavily exposed no matter what the public schools do. No matter how much acceleration the schools offer, some parents will treat it as an arms race. I'd be thrilled if MCPS just decided to let those kids progress outside of school if their parents want it so badly.

let's say a (supposedly) very smart 8th grader scored 250 on MAP-M. why do they need more math opportunities? they haven't even availed themselves of opportunities they were given. you want to rush them to MV calculus - why? why do they need this?

compare this to your villain - a "heavily exposed" child who scored 300 on the same test. regardless of how they got there - they actually need more advanced material.

Anonymous wrote:there are ZERO smart kids who score poorly no both MAPs. the only people who believe in those unicorns are parents of strivers who failed.

I'm assuming, for the moment, that "kids who score poorly" is meant to mean those not scoring in the very high ranges vs. national norms that are commonly bandied about, here, as typical of those in certain well heeled MCPS schools -- something like 95th national %ile, if not well into the 99th %ile range. Please clarify if the meaning was substantially different.

Even if believing that assertion (clearly refuted by research, including that supporting the use of local norming), it still does not support using MAP as the main tool in determining GT identification or magnet pool placement, when the purpose of those is more about supporting learning ability than present content learned. Once again, this is not that I would advocate keeping out those having achieved a certain learning level: rather, I would seek with these programs first to adress the needs of those with ability.

there are ZERO smart kids who score poorly no both MAPs. the only people who believe in those unicorns are parents of strivers who failed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When a kid who has 85% gets into a magnet at the expense of a kid who got a 99%, it is because of DEI.

There is an element of that that encouraged the lottery approach, but there is much more to the picture.

First, the largest underlying problem is the lack of adequate seating for the magnet programs when compared to the size of the student population that would benefit.

Second, the use of exposure-related metrics such as MAP encourages prepping, resulting in higher scores by those less highly able but exposed via tutoring than by the more highly able but not exposed, when the object is more about meeting the need/capacity of those more highly able than meeting the current learning level of those who have been pushed -- not that some of those might also be highly able.

Third, when a highly able kid with no family resources to facilitate outside exposure (or sometimes even be aware of that opportunity) and no local peer cohort to facilitate in-class enrichment/acceleration scores at the 85th percentile, but where that is locally normed to the 99th, considering relative achievement vs. similarly situated peers, but is denied in favor of a less highly able kid who got a 98th percentile (nobody at national 99th is left out of the lottery) due to family- and peer-cohort-enabled additional exposure, it is because of wealth.

stop with the nonsense. everything you need to know for MAP is available for free at khan academy. "exposure" is irrelevant. you still need to solve problems and in fact you can solve problems you were never "exposed" to.

you are this MCPS teacher who constantly attacks parents of gifted children. you are clearly not familiar with the questions on the MAP.

Not nonsense. Sure, Khan is there, as are others. This does not mean a highly able student will access that where a less highly able student might due to family condition. And MAP RIT scores are recognized, quite clearly by NWEA, the organization that creates the MAP, as being highly correlated to exposure. They also clearly recommend only using it as a complement to a more ability-related metric for magnet/enriched program placement. They also recommend utilizing local norming.

Also not a teacher in any traditional sense, and not a school/MCPS employee of any kind. If you take a moment to reconsider that posted, I advocate for GT education. Adequate seating with meaningful differentiation to meet the needs of the many so fortunate as to have high ability in MCPS.

I don't think that those with high achievement should be excluded, but I do think that the more important need to meet is that associated with high ability. Of course, there can be plenty of overlap, there, imdividual ability can vary across domains (rather than being a monolithic "intelligence") and it also can vary across years.

NWEA is making defensive documents and is, paradoxically, not the best source of information about the tests it makes. this crap you believe is their sales brochure because people don't want another IQ test.

in reality, MAP-M is a test of quantitative reasoning, and MAP-R is a test of verbal reasoning. not saying it is entirely uncorrelated to exposure, but, by the time these tests start to matter, smart kids got themselves exposed to relevant content. average kids are looking at make up videos and smart ones are seeking e.g. algebra content. this is not a mystery.

your supposed fight for ability vs. achievement is in fact undermining gifted kids. this is the only test we have and the charade around "exposure" is what makes it possible for the test to survive as a tool of selection.

stop undermining talented kids.

Now there's some nonsense.

The "crap" that indicates that MAP should not be used as the primary placement test comes from third-party research that has informed some of NWEA's guidance, not from any promo slick.

These tests are made to "matter" by MCPS's GT identification and program placement paradigm, with is just starting to reincorporate an aptitude measure, as the research suggests. Perhaps not so much in insulated communities of wealthy and/or highly academically inclined families that provide structure for such or where a high-performing homogeneous local cohort allows for teachers to manage enrichment, but there are a lot of smart kids who haven't "gotten themselves exposed" to concepts/vocabulary that result in higher RIT scores by the time MAP is employed for magnet pool placement -- middle of 3rd grade and start of 5th for elementary/middle, respectively.

MAP was the only test (besides MCAP) due in the first place to the pandemic making administration of CogAT infeasible, and in the second place to the twin desires not to instill an additional change so quickly and to keep costs down. While I begrudgingly accept the initial decision, I definitely opposed its continuation when a clearly better paradigm was feasible. You misconstrue my stance as somehow supporting the continued use of MAP as the main selection tool.

Meanwhile, and again, MAP RIT scores are highly correlated to exposure. This makes them a reasonably good tool for the purposes for which MAP was designed -- general/inexact assessment of a student's current strengths, weaknesses and year-to-year development to allow teachers to tailor (at least to the degree allowed within the MCPS curriculum) their approach to a particular student or class, and year-to-year evaluation of teaching effectiveness across large enough populations as would provide a statistically meaningful result. Not to be the primary GT identification or magnet pool selection tool.

Support all kids. Support talented kids with paradigms that do the best job of identifying that talent, curricula that best meet the associated educational need, enforced policy that ensures those curricula are employed with fidelity across the system and funding to make that happen with reasonable equivalence for all so identified.