Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:American public schools are not like the schools some people here experienced in their home countries. Unfortunately this magnet cycle may have been a rude awakening. The mission of the US Department of Education is this: "ED's mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access." Note the "and ensuring equal access" part, which had to be a goal because this country has a very long history of restricting access to education by race and class. The mission is not to reward the top test-takers or to winnow out the best students for the purpose of plum jobs or college spots, like it may be in some countries. I feel as if we are speaking a different language from one another here.

This should be a pinned post. Someone in one of these threads posted about how magnet admissions should be more like uni admissions in Russia or India. Which...leaving aside the issues of corruption in those systems, and leaving aside that we are talking about 8 year-olds, not 18 year-olds, that's not how America works. Social mobility is a core national ideal, and you cannot square that with a system that tracks kids from kindergarten onward and then subjects them to high-stakes testing at 16 that determines their college major and life trajectory.

MSers are not 8 yrs olds (I believe this thread is about MS magnet).

Equitable access means -- it doesn't matter where you live, too.

I thought merit was also an American value.

If MCPS doesn't care about test scores then why are they trying to close the achievement gap and publish test score stats?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
BOTTOM LINE the top 2.5% of 4000 (2018 application pool) beats out the top 16% of 600 (2017 application pool)

BUT BUT 4000 kids selected to test because of high grades and test scores isn't the same as the 600 kids selected by their parents!!

I didn't know half of the down county students have high grades and test scores. I might have believed you if they only tested 1000 or 1500. A whole 50% of kids?

They should probably do universal testing to shut-up the Cold Spring whiners.

but the tests don't matter as much now. just pass the new lower bar and then let the diversity experts do their thing based on where you live.

curious how the last couple years of Blue Ribbon ESs did with admits to CES versus the last few years. Blue RIbbon is synonymous with high PARCC scores.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the county's top-secret illegal agenda was to increase diversity in the magnets, they failed miserably since it's still 75%+ White and Asian.

Yes. It is a failure in multiple dimensions. But at least they successfully reduced the Asian "over-representation," Discerning public should think more carefully whether this kind of divisive policy and social engineering is good for anyone.

Cohort method appears to be a big win for the county since it helps more kids achieve while reducing bussing costs.

https://theblackandwhite.net/59776/news/boe-holds-community-meeting-addresses-staffing-new-curriculum-mental-health/

At least on of these strong-peer-cohort middle school pricipal is on the record saying the new classes won't be much different.

But in contrast to this year the "new classes" won't have a mix of ability levels sitting in the seats (2012 C2.0 thing from before, don't want to embarrass the poor performers so let them make fun of the high performers by putting them all in same class).
The two "enriched" classes will have selected higher performers so that class can discuss more (these such kids yearn for class discussions from more than just 3 kids of the 33), go deeper, and do more meaningful projects.

MCPS might as well just follow the AAP model in FCPS. That would be better than what we have now with the cohort nonsense.

- keep magnet programs for the highest achievers
- have local programs for high achievers in their local schools

Anonymous wrote:American public schools are not like the schools some people here experienced in their home countries. Unfortunately this magnet cycle may have been a rude awakening. The mission of the US Department of Education is this: "ED's mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access." Note the "and ensuring equal access" part, which had to be a goal because this country has a very long history of restricting access to education by race and class. The mission is not to reward the top test-takers or to winnow out the best students for the purpose of plum jobs or college spots, like it may be in some countries. I feel as if we are speaking a different language from one another here.

This should be a pinned post. Someone in one of these threads posted about how magnet admissions should be more like uni admissions in Russia or India. Which...leaving aside the issues of corruption in those systems, and leaving aside that we are talking about 8 year-olds, not 18 year-olds, that's not how America works. Social mobility is a core national ideal, and you cannot square that with a system that tracks kids from kindergarten onward and then subjects them to high-stakes testing at 16 that determines their college major and life trajectory.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
.. at the expense of others based on where they live. It's not about "hoarding". It's about equitable access, which this new method does not provide in the case of "peer cohort". If they did away with the cohort nonsense, the whole thread would go away.

I am pretty sure that it's ironic for parents who live in Bethesda and Potomac to complain about inequitable access in the context of MCPS, but my intuitive understanding of irony has been messed up since 1995 (damn you, Alanis Morissette).

it is inequitable access to a magnet program that the district provides supposedly to everyone, but they ding you if you have a peer cohort at your home school. That's not equitable access.

If you are referring to the fact that those rich kids in Bethesda and Potomac have more access to enrichment both in and outside of school, that's not enrichment provided by the school district. If it were, then it would be inequitable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If you think one or two "enriched" classes is the same as a whole magnet program, then you are clueless about how a magnet program works. If MCPS brought the exact same program to the western side, then I would agree with you. But they aren't doing that.

I think that two special classes is only one class less than the number of magnet classes in the magnet program.

Those two "special" classes are not going to be the same as the magnet programs, and even if it's one less, it's still not the same.

My God. I'm inclined to be sympathetic to disappointed parents, but this is just foot stamping nonsense at this point. This whole thread is a case study in hoarding opportunity and deep resentment at the idea that someone else might get a chance to reach their potential.

.. at the expense of others based on where they live. It's not about "hoarding". It's about equitable access, which this new method does not provide in the case of "peer cohort". If they did away with the cohort nonsense, the whole thread would go away.

If they did away with cohort, there would still be kids who didn't get in, so I don't think we'd be better off in terms of complaining.

But they've ALWAYS considered peer cohort because they have always had to figure out how to best distribute limited seats. Allowing kids with strong peer cohorts to remain in their home schools, while providing opportunities to kids who don't have the same advantage in terms of peer cohort, is and always has been the best way to distribute a scarce resource. It maximizes benefit.

I don't recall in previous years MCPS mentioning "peer cohort" as a bases of admittance, like they are doing now.

Most of the complaints recently are about peer cohort, so yes, I think a lot of the "whining" would go away if they did away with that.

Anonymous wrote:
.. at the expense of others based on where they live. It's not about "hoarding". It's about equitable access, which this new method does not provide in the case of "peer cohort". If they did away with the cohort nonsense, the whole thread would go away.

I am pretty sure that it's ironic for parents who live in Bethesda and Potomac to complain about inequitable access in the context of MCPS, but my intuitive understanding of irony has been messed up since 1995 (damn you, Alanis Morissette).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If you think one or two "enriched" classes is the same as a whole magnet program, then you are clueless about how a magnet program works. If MCPS brought the exact same program to the western side, then I would agree with you. But they aren't doing that.

I think that two special classes is only one class less than the number of magnet classes in the magnet program.

Those two "special" classes are not going to be the same as the magnet programs, and even if it's one less, it's still not the same.

My God. I'm inclined to be sympathetic to disappointed parents, but this is just foot stamping nonsense at this point. This whole thread is a case study in hoarding opportunity and deep resentment at the idea that someone else might get a chance to reach their potential.

.. at the expense of others based on where they live. It's not about "hoarding". It's about equitable access, which this new method does not provide in the case of "peer cohort". If they did away with the cohort nonsense, the whole thread would go away.

If they did away with cohort, there would still be kids who didn't get in, so I don't think we'd be better off in terms of complaining.

But they've ALWAYS considered peer cohort because they have always had to figure out how to best distribute limited seats. Allowing kids with strong peer cohorts to remain in their home schools, while providing opportunities to kids who don't have the same advantage in terms of peer cohort, is and always has been the best way to distribute a scarce resource. It maximizes benefit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If you think one or two "enriched" classes is the same as a whole magnet program, then you are clueless about how a magnet program works. If MCPS brought the exact same program to the western side, then I would agree with you. But they aren't doing that.

I think that two special classes is only one class less than the number of magnet classes in the magnet program.

Those two "special" classes are not going to be the same as the magnet programs, and even if it's one less, it's still not the same.

My God. I'm inclined to be sympathetic to disappointed parents, but this is just foot stamping nonsense at this point. This whole thread is a case study in hoarding opportunity and deep resentment at the idea that someone else might get a chance to reach their potential.

.. at the expense of others based on where they live. It's not about "hoarding". It's about equitable access, which this new method does not provide in the case of "peer cohort". If they did away with the cohort nonsense, the whole thread would go away.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If you think one or two "enriched" classes is the same as a whole magnet program, then you are clueless about how a magnet program works. If MCPS brought the exact same program to the western side, then I would agree with you. But they aren't doing that.

I think that two special classes is only one class less than the number of magnet classes in the magnet program.

Those two "special" classes are not going to be the same as the magnet programs, and even if it's one less, it's still not the same.

My God. I'm inclined to be sympathetic to disappointed parents, but this is just foot stamping nonsense at this point. This whole thread is a case study in hoarding opportunity and deep resentment at the idea that someone else might get a chance to reach their potential.

Look up thread.. those classes are not the same. And if you think "One less" class is the same, then why not offer the "one less" class program to the magnet program, and offer one more class to the other MSs?

American public schools are not like the schools some people here experienced in their home countries. Unfortunately this magnet cycle may have been a rude awakening. The mission of the US Department of Education is this: "ED's mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access." Note the "and ensuring equal access" part, which had to be a goal because this country has a very long history of restricting access to education by race and class. The mission is not to reward the top test-takers or to winnow out the best students for the purpose of plum jobs or college spots, like it may be in some countries. I feel as if we are speaking a different language from one another here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If you think one or two "enriched" classes is the same as a whole magnet program, then you are clueless about how a magnet program works. If MCPS brought the exact same program to the western side, then I would agree with you. But they aren't doing that.

I think that two special classes is only one class less than the number of magnet classes in the magnet program.

Those two "special" classes are not going to be the same as the magnet programs, and even if it's one less, it's still not the same.

My God. I'm inclined to be sympathetic to disappointed parents, but this is just foot stamping nonsense at this point. This whole thread is a case study in hoarding opportunity and deep resentment at the idea that someone else might get a chance to reach their potential.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If you think one or two "enriched" classes is the same as a whole magnet program, then you are clueless about how a magnet program works. If MCPS brought the exact same program to the western side, then I would agree with you. But they aren't doing that.

I think that two special classes is only one class less than the number of magnet classes in the magnet program.

in response to the PP underlined, Not sure if this is the right etiquette but I copied and pasted this post from the AEI thread:
"Applaud MCPS for offering this new option for high achieving students who wish to stay in their home middle schools but one humanities class and one math class is not going to offer just "one course less" than the magnet experience.
At Eastern for instance there are 4 magnet humanities classes offered in 6th grade. Students read Animal Farm in English as they study the Russian Revolution in World History. They read "The Good Earth" in English class as they study Chinese History in their World History class and read "Red Scarf Girl" a memoir of the Cultural Revolution in their Literature in the Humanities class. They work on related projects in their Media class.
Also while the peer group might be great in a high performing middle school there is something different about being with 100 kids pulled from 16 high school clusters."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If you think one or two "enriched" classes is the same as a whole magnet program, then you are clueless about how a magnet program works. If MCPS brought the exact same program to the western side, then I would agree with you. But they aren't doing that.

I think that two special classes is only one class less than the number of magnet classes in the magnet program.

Those two "special" classes are not going to be the same as the magnet programs, and even if it's one less, it's still not the same.