Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are people looking for this data as the basis for a lawsuit or something? Because it seems that MCPS can create whatever criteria it wants for admission to schools that it administers, as long as they are legal (not gender or race-based).

As an analogy, in Texas all students in the top 10% of their high school graduating classes are guaranteed admission to the University of Texas. So of course that means that many kids at lower performing schools are technically taking the place of students with higher scores and grades from more competitive high schools who didn't place in the top 10% of their classes. But Texas is allowed to do this because they're their schools and it helps provide opportunity to kids outside the usual wealthy suburbs.

It is hard for some CS parents to grasp that admission is not solely based on the raw score of the test, despite descriptions on the MCPS website.

Anonymous wrote:Are people looking for this data as the basis for a lawsuit or something? Because it seems that MCPS can create whatever criteria it wants for admission to schools that it administers, as long as they are legal (not gender or race-based).

As an analogy, in Texas all students in the top 10% of their high school graduating classes are guaranteed admission to the University of Texas. So of course that means that many kids at lower performing schools are technically taking the place of students with higher scores and grades from more competitive high schools who didn't place in the top 10% of their classes. But Texas is allowed to do this because they're their schools and it helps provide opportunity to kids outside the usual wealthy suburbs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think most of the HGCs were targeted. If a kid came to HGC from a good home school unless they were an outlier in their HGC they did not get in the MS magnet.

On the other hand, slightly above average URM students from any school and HGC students from poor performing home schools were invited to magnet MS.

We are assigned to a low performing ES, MS and HS. My children have always been in magnet programs and are outliers within the magnet program as well. Still, if the magnet programs are so diluted that any bright kid (but not exceptional child) can be included, I do not want to trek to a magnet program. The value of the magnet program is the peer group first, the parents second, the curriculum third and if we are lucky we get qualified teachers, dedicated coordinator and not hostile administration.

I wonder since when doing well became such a bad thing in American society?

There is absolutely no way you could have the data to support the assertions in bold, so this is just inflammatory.

I don't know if the second point is true, but the first absolutely is. Availability of peer cohort is listed as one of the criteria, and Cold Spring, with historically the highest admission stats across the board, arguably in itself yields three sizeable MS peer cohorts assigned to MSs with enriched (ha!) instruction. Those kids have learned the rudiments of Latin and are reading Shakespeare, and are now accustomed to doing up to 3 hours of homework per day. Many of them scored 99s in 3 or 4 categories, have straight As, very high MAP scores and were rejected. The drop from 25 to 2 admitted suggests only a CS CES child who got perfect scores, or close to it, had a chance. The remaining 97% would like to see the raw data. If the raw data supports admission based on merit, great. If not, the parents have the right to know. That data is also necessary to make a case for comparable instructions tracks at the home school, which the parents were told to advocate for. Knowing if your kid got a 155 vs. a 135 is helpful and important information! Be transparent, MCPS!

PP, you are the first poster who has concretely said many of the CS rejected students had 99s in 3 or 4 categories. I am not doubting it, but what do you actually know? Do you know three or four people’s scores and are assuming the rest? Have many of you shared scores with each other? Because on DCUM, some people have the impression that a lot of kids had such scores, but there is very little proof as few people have posted their scores.

Cold Spring parents are circulating a petition to obtain the raw scores data. At least six CS parents have stated their child received 99s in all 4 categories, and were rejected. Mine received three 99s and a 98. This more concrete information is just beginning to circulate, so I'm pretty sure there will be more. I'm actually fine with DC going to the home MS due to concern about the commute, but do think MCPS should release the raw data to allow parents to advocate for peer cohort grouping and critical thinking-based enriched instruction at the home schools. I also have no problem with strategies to counter the inequities in instructions at MCPS schools, and to address the achievement gap (if that's what this is), but believe MCPS needs to be absolutely transparent about admissions criteria and objectives.

You have a right to this sata under MPIA. Don't just circulate a petition, ask for it under MPIA, or make sure your petition references MPIA. You can ask both for CS sata and for the data of admitted students as well as the entire applicant group.

They will try to blind the data to skew it, so be aware what you're getting. Means and medians can be deceptive. You should know ranges. Plus info for applicant pool, admitted pool, waitlisted pool and CS pool.

Anonymous wrote:Np. The COGAT was never intended for distinguishing above 99%. It’s a group administered ability test for the purposes of screening. It does not identify “exceptional” children apart from 99% kids. You all are putting way too much stock in this test.

I lived in a school district which did a very similar thing with their gifted magnet schools. 95% was the threshold. Kids who scored above that were eligible for a lottery and the school district played with demographics as they saw fit. The only difference was all kids were screened and those who did well were given a real IQ test by one school psych, and that was the only score that mattered. (No appeals or outside testing)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think most of the HGCs were targeted. If a kid came to HGC from a good home school unless they were an outlier in their HGC they did not get in the MS magnet.

On the other hand, slightly above average URM students from any school and HGC students from poor performing home schools were invited to magnet MS.

We are assigned to a low performing ES, MS and HS. My children have always been in magnet programs and are outliers within the magnet program as well. Still, if the magnet programs are so diluted that any bright kid (but not exceptional child) can be included, I do not want to trek to a magnet program. The value of the magnet program is the peer group first, the parents second, the curriculum third and if we are lucky we get qualified teachers, dedicated coordinator and not hostile administration.

I wonder since when doing well became such a bad thing in American society?

There is absolutely no way you could have the data to support the assertions in bold, so this is just inflammatory.

I don't know if the second point is true, but the first absolutely is. Availability of peer cohort is listed as one of the criteria, and Cold Spring, with historically the highest admission stats across the board, arguably in itself yields three sizeable MS peer cohorts assigned to MSs with enriched (ha!) instruction. Those kids have learned the rudiments of Latin and are reading Shakespeare, and are now accustomed to doing up to 3 hours of homework per day. Many of them scored 99s in 3 or 4 categories, have straight As, very high MAP scores and were rejected. The drop from 25 to 2 admitted suggests only a CS CES child who got perfect scores, or close to it, had a chance. The remaining 97% would like to see the raw data. If the raw data supports admission based on merit, great. If not, the parents have the right to know. That data is also necessary to make a case for comparable instructions tracks at the home school, which the parents were told to advocate for. Knowing if your kid got a 155 vs. a 135 is helpful and important information! Be transparent, MCPS!

PP, you are the first poster who has concretely said many of the CS rejected students had 99s in 3 or 4 categories. I am not doubting it, but what do you actually know? Do you know three or four people’s scores and are assuming the rest? Have many of you shared scores with each other? Because on DCUM, some people have the impression that a lot of kids had such scores, but there is very little proof as few people have posted their scores.

Cold Spring parents are circulating a petition to obtain the raw scores data. At least six CS parents have stated their child received 99s in all 4 categories, and were rejected. Mine received three 99s and a 98. This more concrete information is just beginning to circulate, so I'm pretty sure there will be more. I'm actually fine with DC going to the home MS due to concern about the commute, but do think MCPS should release the raw data to allow parents to advocate for peer cohort grouping and critical thinking-based enriched instruction at the home schools. I also have no problem with strategies to counter the inequities in instructions at MCPS schools, and to address the achievement gap (if that's what this is), but believe MCPS needs to be absolutely transparent about admissions criteria and objectives.

You have a right to this sata under MPIA. Don't just circulate a petition, ask for it under MPIA, or make sure your petition references MPIA. You can ask both for CS sata and for the data of admitted students as well as the entire applicant group.

They will try to blind the data to skew it, so be aware what you're getting. Means and medians can be deceptive. You should know ranges. Plus info for applicant pool, admitted pool, waitlisted pool and CS pool.

Not a CS parent, but we are at Barnsley. This is a great idea! I hope someone does get the CS data and please come back and post it here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think most of the HGCs were targeted. If a kid came to HGC from a good home school unless they were an outlier in their HGC they did not get in the MS magnet.

On the other hand, slightly above average URM students from any school and HGC students from poor performing home schools were invited to magnet MS.

We are assigned to a low performing ES, MS and HS. My children have always been in magnet programs and are outliers within the magnet program as well. Still, if the magnet programs are so diluted that any bright kid (but not exceptional child) can be included, I do not want to trek to a magnet program. The value of the magnet program is the peer group first, the parents second, the curriculum third and if we are lucky we get qualified teachers, dedicated coordinator and not hostile administration.

I wonder since when doing well became such a bad thing in American society?

There is absolutely no way you could have the data to support the assertions in bold, so this is just inflammatory.

I don't know if the second point is true, but the first absolutely is. Availability of peer cohort is listed as one of the criteria, and Cold Spring, with historically the highest admission stats across the board, arguably in itself yields three sizeable MS peer cohorts assigned to MSs with enriched (ha!) instruction. Those kids have learned the rudiments of Latin and are reading Shakespeare, and are now accustomed to doing up to 3 hours of homework per day. Many of them scored 99s in 3 or 4 categories, have straight As, very high MAP scores and were rejected. The drop from 25 to 2 admitted suggests only a CS CES child who got perfect scores, or close to it, had a chance. The remaining 97% would like to see the raw data. If the raw data supports admission based on merit, great. If not, the parents have the right to know. That data is also necessary to make a case for comparable instructions tracks at the home school, which the parents were told to advocate for. Knowing if your kid got a 155 vs. a 135 is helpful and important information! Be transparent, MCPS!

PP, you are the first poster who has concretely said many of the CS rejected students had 99s in 3 or 4 categories. I am not doubting it, but what do you actually know? Do you know three or four people’s scores and are assuming the rest? Have many of you shared scores with each other? Because on DCUM, some people have the impression that a lot of kids had such scores, but there is very little proof as few people have posted their scores.

Cold Spring parents are circulating a petition to obtain the raw scores data. At least six CS parents have stated their child received 99s in all 4 categories, and were rejected. Mine received three 99s and a 98. This more concrete information is just beginning to circulate, so I'm pretty sure there will be more. I'm actually fine with DC going to the home MS due to concern about the commute, but do think MCPS should release the raw data to allow parents to advocate for peer cohort grouping and critical thinking-based enriched instruction at the home schools. I also have no problem with strategies to counter the inequities in instructions at MCPS schools, and to address the achievement gap (if that's what this is), but believe MCPS needs to be absolutely transparent about admissions criteria and objectives.

You have a right to this sata under MPIA. Don't just circulate a petition, ask for it under MPIA, or make sure your petition references MPIA. You can ask both for CS sata and for the data of admitted students as well as the entire applicant group.

They will try to blind the data to skew it, so be aware what you're getting. Means and medians can be deceptive. You should know ranges. Plus info for applicant pool, admitted pool, waitlisted pool and CS pool.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think most of the HGCs were targeted. If a kid came to HGC from a good home school unless they were an outlier in their HGC they did not get in the MS magnet.

On the other hand, slightly above average URM students from any school and HGC students from poor performing home schools were invited to magnet MS.

We are assigned to a low performing ES, MS and HS. My children have always been in magnet programs and are outliers within the magnet program as well. Still, if the magnet programs are so diluted that any bright kid (but not exceptional child) can be included, I do not want to trek to a magnet program. The value of the magnet program is the peer group first, the parents second, the curriculum third and if we are lucky we get qualified teachers, dedicated coordinator and not hostile administration.

I wonder since when doing well became such a bad thing in American society?

There is absolutely no way you could have the data to support the assertions in bold, so this is just inflammatory.

I don't know if the second point is true, but the first absolutely is. Availability of peer cohort is listed as one of the criteria, and Cold Spring, with historically the highest admission stats across the board, arguably in itself yields three sizeable MS peer cohorts assigned to MSs with enriched (ha!) instruction. Those kids have learned the rudiments of Latin and are reading Shakespeare, and are now accustomed to doing up to 3 hours of homework per day. Many of them scored 99s in 3 or 4 categories, have straight As, very high MAP scores and were rejected. The drop from 25 to 2 admitted suggests only a CS CES child who got perfect scores, or close to it, had a chance. The remaining 97% would like to see the raw data. If the raw data supports admission based on merit, great. If not, the parents have the right to know. That data is also necessary to make a case for comparable instructions tracks at the home school, which the parents were told to advocate for. Knowing if your kid got a 155 vs. a 135 is helpful and important information! Be transparent, MCPS!

PP, you are the first poster who has concretely said many of the CS rejected students had 99s in 3 or 4 categories. I am not doubting it, but what do you actually know? Do you know three or four people’s scores and are assuming the rest? Have many of you shared scores with each other? Because on DCUM, some people have the impression that a lot of kids had such scores, but there is very little proof as few people have posted their scores.

Cold Spring parents are circulating a petition to obtain the raw scores data. At least six CS parents have stated their child received 99s in all 4 categories, and were rejected. Mine received three 99s and a 98. This more concrete information is just beginning to circulate, so I'm pretty sure there will be more. I'm actually fine with DC going to the home MS due to concern about the commute, but do think MCPS should release the raw data to allow parents to advocate for peer cohort grouping and critical thinking-based enriched instruction at the home schools. I also have no problem with strategies to counter the inequities in instructions at MCPS schools, and to address the achievement gap (if that's what this is), but believe MCPS needs to be absolutely transparent about admissions criteria and objectives.

You have a right to this sata under MPIA. Don't just circulate a petition, ask for it under MPIA, or make sure your petition references MPIA. You can ask both for CS sata and for the data of admitted students as well as the entire applicant group.

They will try to blind the data to skew it, so be aware what you're getting. Means and medians can be deceptive. You should know ranges. Plus info for applicant pool, admitted pool, waitlisted pool and CS pool.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think most of the HGCs were targeted. If a kid came to HGC from a good home school unless they were an outlier in their HGC they did not get in the MS magnet.

On the other hand, slightly above average URM students from any school and HGC students from poor performing home schools were invited to magnet MS.

We are assigned to a low performing ES, MS and HS. My children have always been in magnet programs and are outliers within the magnet program as well. Still, if the magnet programs are so diluted that any bright kid (but not exceptional child) can be included, I do not want to trek to a magnet program. The value of the magnet program is the peer group first, the parents second, the curriculum third and if we are lucky we get qualified teachers, dedicated coordinator and not hostile administration.

I wonder since when doing well became such a bad thing in American society?

There is absolutely no way you could have the data to support the assertions in bold, so this is just inflammatory.

I don't know if the second point is true, but the first absolutely is. Availability of peer cohort is listed as one of the criteria, and Cold Spring, with historically the highest admission stats across the board, arguably in itself yields three sizeable MS peer cohorts assigned to MSs with enriched (ha!) instruction. Those kids have learned the rudiments of Latin and are reading Shakespeare, and are now accustomed to doing up to 3 hours of homework per day. Many of them scored 99s in 3 or 4 categories, have straight As, very high MAP scores and were rejected. The drop from 25 to 2 admitted suggests only a CS CES child who got perfect scores, or close to it, had a chance. The remaining 97% would like to see the raw data. If the raw data supports admission based on merit, great. If not, the parents have the right to know. That data is also necessary to make a case for comparable instructions tracks at the home school, which the parents were told to advocate for. Knowing if your kid got a 155 vs. a 135 is helpful and important information! Be transparent, MCPS!

PP, you are the first poster who has concretely said many of the CS rejected students had 99s in 3 or 4 categories. I am not doubting it, but what do you actually know? Do you know three or four people’s scores and are assuming the rest? Have many of you shared scores with each other? Because on DCUM, some people have the impression that a lot of kids had such scores, but there is very little proof as few people have posted their scores.

Cold Spring parents are circulating a petition to obtain the raw scores data. At least six CS parents have stated their child received 99s in all 4 categories, and were rejected. Mine received three 99s and a 98. This more concrete information is just beginning to circulate, so I'm pretty sure there will be more. I'm actually fine with DC going to the home MS due to concern about the commute, but do think MCPS should release the raw data to allow parents to advocate for peer cohort grouping and critical thinking-based enriched instruction at the home schools. I also have no problem with strategies to counter the inequities in instructions at MCPS schools, and to address the achievement gap (if that's what this is), but believe MCPS needs to be absolutely transparent about admissions criteria and objectives.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:are now accustomed to doing up to 3 hours of homework per day

Jeez... why are these kids doing 3 hours of homework a night in 5th grade? That's way too much. There should be a place for gifted students that doesn't involve entering a rat race at age 10 for no good reason - that's just a recipe for burnout.

Anonymous wrote:are now accustomed to doing up to 3 hours of homework per day

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think most of the HGCs were targeted. If a kid came to HGC from a good home school unless they were an outlier in their HGC they did not get in the MS magnet.

On the other hand, slightly above average URM students from any school and HGC students from poor performing home schools were invited to magnet MS.

We are assigned to a low performing ES, MS and HS. My children have always been in magnet programs and are outliers within the magnet program as well. Still, if the magnet programs are so diluted that any bright kid (but not exceptional child) can be included, I do not want to trek to a magnet program. The value of the magnet program is the peer group first, the parents second, the curriculum third and if we are lucky we get qualified teachers, dedicated coordinator and not hostile administration.

I wonder since when doing well became such a bad thing in American society?

There is absolutely no way you could have the data to support the assertions in bold, so this is just inflammatory.

I don't know if the second point is true, but the first absolutely is. Availability of peer cohort is listed as one of the criteria, and Cold Spring, with historically the highest admission stats across the board, arguably in itself yields three sizeable MS peer cohorts assigned to MSs with enriched (ha!) instruction. Those kids have learned the rudiments of Latin and are reading Shakespeare, and are now accustomed to doing up to 3 hours of homework per day. Many of them scored 99s in 3 or 4 categories, have straight As, very high MAP scores and were rejected. The drop from 25 to 2 admitted suggests only a CS CES child who got perfect scores, or close to it, had a chance. The remaining 97% would like to see the raw data. If the raw data supports admission based on merit, great. If not, the parents have the right to know. That data is also necessary to make a case for comparable instructions tracks at the home school, which the parents were told to advocate for. Knowing if your kid got a 155 vs. a 135 is helpful and important information! Be transparent, MCPS!

PP, you are the first poster who has concretely said many of the CS rejected students had 99s in 3 or 4 categories. I am not doubting it, but what do you actually know? Do you know three or four people’s scores and are assuming the rest? Have many of you shared scores with each other? Because on DCUM, some people have the impression that a lot of kids had such scores, but there is very little proof as few people have posted their scores.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think most of the HGCs were targeted. If a kid came to HGC from a good home school unless they were an outlier in their HGC they did not get in the MS magnet.

On the other hand, slightly above average URM students from any school and HGC students from poor performing home schools were invited to magnet MS.

We are assigned to a low performing ES, MS and HS. My children have always been in magnet programs and are outliers within the magnet program as well. Still, if the magnet programs are so diluted that any bright kid (but not exceptional child) can be included, I do not want to trek to a magnet program. The value of the magnet program is the peer group first, the parents second, the curriculum third and if we are lucky we get qualified teachers, dedicated coordinator and not hostile administration.

I wonder since when doing well became such a bad thing in American society?

There is absolutely no way you could have the data to support the assertions in bold, so this is just inflammatory.

I don't know if the second point is true, but the first absolutely is. Availability of peer cohort is listed as one of the criteria, and Cold Spring, with historically the highest admission stats across the board, arguably in itself yields three sizeable MS peer cohorts assigned to MSs with enriched (ha!) instruction. Those kids have learned the rudiments of Latin and are reading Shakespeare, and are now accustomed to doing up to 3 hours of homework per day. Many of them scored 99s in 3 or 4 categories, have straight As, very high MAP scores and were rejected. The drop from 25 to 2 admitted suggests only a CS CES child who got perfect scores, or close to it, had a chance. The remaining 97% would like to see the raw data. If the raw data supports admission based on merit, great. If not, the parents have the right to know. That data is also necessary to make a case for comparable instructions tracks at the home school, which the parents were told to advocate for. Knowing if your kid got a 155 vs. a 135 is helpful and important information! Be transparent, MCPS!