Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your kids don't like to be in 99% group and want to be in that 1% group, have them work harder instead of demanding changing 1% to 10%. We all lose that way.

Okay, you are illustrating so many of the problems of this way of thinking and operating. If there really is only a top 1% with the brilliance and creativity to change the world who need special programs to nurture that talent further, then "working hard" isn't what gets you into that group. People's kids shouldn't just be "working harder" to bump up their MAP scores to get into countywide programs and then claiming they are better than everyone else and expansion would water things down, while taking the spaces from actually brilliant and creative kids from poorer backgrounds who don't have the time, resources, strong feeder schools, and sophistication to juice their scores enough to beat out the richer "hard workers."

If you want a program for the top 1% you need to figure out how to actually select the best kids with the most natural talent and potential across the county regardless of background. If you can't do then and those smarter poorer kids keep getting beaten out by bright hardworking richer kids, then you should cast a wider net.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your kids don't like to be in 99% group and want to be in that 1% group, have them work harder instead of demanding changing 1% to 10%. We all lose that way.

Okay, you are illustrating so many of the problems of this way of thinking and operating. If there really is only a top 1% with the brilliance and creativity to change the world who need special programs to nurture that talent further, then "working hard" isn't what gets you into that group. People's kids shouldn't just be "working harder" to bump up their MAP scores to get into countywide programs and then claiming they are better than everyone else and expansion would water things down, while taking the spaces from actually brilliant and creative kids from poorer backgrounds who don't have the time, resources, strong feeder schools, and sophistication to juice their scores enough to beat out the richer "hard workers."

If you want a program for the top 1% you need to figure out how to actually select the best kids with the most natural talent and potential across the county regardless of background. If you can't do then and those smarter poorer kids keep getting beaten out by bright hardworking richer kids, then you should cast a wider net.

People say “work harder,” but what they really mean is that they want parents to be able to ensure their children are set up for success by virtue of their own zip code and resources.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your kids don't like to be in 99% group and want to be in that 1% group, have them work harder instead of demanding changing 1% to 10%. We all lose that way.

I completely support this. Great strides in humanity was not made by average people. It was only dreamed of and achieved by extraordinary folks.

Anonymous wrote:If your kids don't like to be in 99% group and want to be in that 1% group, have them work harder instead of demanding changing 1% to 10%. We all lose that way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your kids don't like to be in 99% group and want to be in that 1% group, have them work harder instead of demanding changing 1% to 10%. We all lose that way.

Okay, you are illustrating so many of the problems of this way of thinking and operating. If there really is only a top 1% with the brilliance and creativity to change the world who need special programs to nurture that talent further, then "working hard" isn't what gets you into that group. People's kids shouldn't just be "working harder" to bump up their MAP scores to get into countywide programs and then claiming they are better than everyone else and expansion would water things down, while taking the spaces from actually brilliant and creative kids from poorer backgrounds who don't have the time, resources, strong feeder schools, and sophistication to juice their scores enough to beat out the richer "hard workers."

If you want a program for the top 1% you need to figure out how to actually select the best kids with the most natural talent and potential across the county regardless of background. If you can't do then and those smarter poorer kids keep getting beaten out by bright hardworking richer kids, then you should cast a wider net.

Anonymous wrote:If your kids don't like to be in 99% group and want to be in that 1% group, have them work harder instead of demanding changing 1% to 10%. We all lose that way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your kids don't like to be in 99% group and want to be in that 1% group, have them work harder instead of demanding changing 1% to 10%. We all lose that way.

Okay, you are illustrating so many of the problems of this way of thinking and operating. If there really is only a top 1% with the brilliance and creativity to change the world who need special programs to nurture that talent further, then "working hard" isn't what gets you into that group. People's kids shouldn't just be "working harder" to bump up their MAP scores to get into countywide programs and then claiming they are better than everyone else and expansion would water things down, while taking the spaces from actually brilliant and creative kids from poorer backgrounds who don't have the time, resources, strong feeder schools, and sophistication to juice their scores enough to beat out the richer "hard workers."

If you want a program for the top 1% you need to figure out how to actually select the best kids with the most natural talent and potential across the county regardless of background. If you can't do then and those smarter poorer kids keep getting beaten out by bright hardworking richer kids, then you should cast a wider net.

Anonymous wrote:If your kids don't like to be in 99% group and want to be in that 1% group, have them work harder instead of demanding changing 1% to 10%. We all lose that way.

Anonymous wrote:If your kids don't like to be in 99% group and want to be in that 1% group, have them work harder instead of demanding changing 1% to 10%. We all lose that way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your kids don't like to be in 99% group and want to be in that 1% group, have them work harder instead of demanding changing 1% to 10%. We all lose that way.

ewwwwww

As an adult “one percenter” whose kids are still tbd, this attitude is just gross.

Anonymous wrote:If your kids don't like to be in 99% group and want to be in that 1% group, have them work harder instead of demanding changing 1% to 10%. We all lose that way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of the justifications people are giving for why the system has to stay the way it is just sound like gatekeeping to me. People seem to want to benefit from a program and then slam the door behind them and keep access limited. “My kid was smart and had the right combination of skills and genius and prepping to do well, but yours might not!” “If more non-wealthy students have access to what my kids had access to, it will be tragic, the program will go downhill!” I’m all for broadening access. True access for students who qualify for a program. Not more gatekeeping behind lotteries, which is what MCPS has done in recent years and which isn’t any better. Why can’t each high school have the same advanced math classes? Because anonymous posters on dcum say it’s hard to get people with the right background to teach these subjects? It’s public school. People want a fair system, and having your course options limited because of where you live within the school district, or because the county does not create enough seats in a program for the number of students who qualify for the program, does not seem like a fair system.

I’m not gatekeeping. I’m in favor of expanding the number of seats in programs and even introducing a third SMCS program, a third Humanities program, and a second Global Ecology program so more students live within a reasonable commute. Play adjustments to the IB program.

What I’m not interested in is achieving equity by eliminating any meaningful cohorting and pretending that MCPS is flush with highly qualified, motivated teachers who are excited to take on new curricula.

They are going to roughly double the number of seats in SMCS programs (3 times the number of programs but each one will be smaller.). How is that eliminating any meaningful cohorting?

Because most of these programs aren’t for “smart” kids. Half or more MCPS’s students are smarter than the average American. These programs are for students who are already academically advanced, have demonstrated academic excellence, and are highly motivated to learn at a faster pace, dig deeper into material, master lessons on their own, complete special projects, and enter competitions. Not everyone wants that.

People complain about longer commutes to magnets, leaving friends behind at one’s home school, having trouble balancing extracurricular activities with long commutes and extra homework, but the existing programs require students and their parents to identify their top priority. The proposed changes are designed to make people feel like they can have it all.

For some of the current programs, group projects are a huge part of the experience. Projects can be bigger and much more detailed when there are 2-4 students working together. There’s frequently an issue where a student doesn’t do their fair share. Imagine amplifying that issue by admitting twice as many kids, many of whom wouldn’t have been interested in a program if it required a substantially bigger time commitment.

People keep posting that every kid who is qualified should have access to these programs. I don’t disagree with that, but I’m not sure we’re all envisioning the same definition of “qualified.” Is every student who could manage to pass these classes qualified? Students who maintain at least a C average in their program’s core classes? Students who are at least in the 90th percentile on subject related standardized testing? The top 10% of students in each individual region? 12% of all students countywide (twice the number currently being served)? What does qualified mean?

The top 10 percentile (ie, A students) by MAP M and R seems a good gauge. Having a hard cutoff, and an administration that will stand by it regardless of complaints) would prevent a watered down curriculum. From observation, those under 90 percentile really are B-type students and that’s where the wheels start coming off.

I have a 99.99% kid (MAP test at 99% level for 12th grade since 4th grade; CoGAT full score), and a 99% kid (MAP test on-level 99% or 1-2 level above; 3-4 questions wrong in CoGAT in each category). They are totally different kids. The first one barely learns anything from school but just self-studied through online materials they are able to find, but they find their peers at TPMS and Blair and are extremely happy to be able to finally social with their-kinds. They sought all kinds of national or international competition opportunities and worked as a team. They were able to deliver research analysis within a few weeks that typically takes a PhD student several months to complete. My second one is in general happy with school although still complaining about boredom from time to time. If my second one can be admitted to Blair, I think they would be able to survive, but would struggle from time to time and need to work hard.

Now you are talking about applying a curriculum that designed for the 99.9% kid, and a 99% kid would find very challenging, to the 90%-level kids. It will bring more harm than good. Only people went through this could understand.

I hope you say this out loud to someone in real life and they visibly roll their eyes at you. I mean, wth even is this?

The so-ridiculous-it's-not-even-wrong-it's-just-crazy bit "deliver research analysis within a few weeks that typically takes a PhD student several months to complete" ruined what otherwise would have been passable. But the whole comment is suspect now.

PP here. I myself is a university professor, and have supervised a half dozen of PhD students and mentored a dozen HS interns. I'm not comparing them to MIT PhD students, but just comparing them to students in my department. These high schoolers (Blair, TJ, Poolsville) are much better at learning and implementing an idea than new PhD students. Many of them later earned ISEF/Regeneron semi-finalists or published papers before entering college. Go attend a few MCPS science fair or FCPS science fair, you can quickly find that their projects are at a completely different level. I appreciate MCPS and FCPS in providing the educations, peer groups and teaching resources to help them be so advanced and prepared for directly diving into research. It's just my fortune that one of my kids is one of them, and it's going to be a loss to let this type of students die in solitary and not-learning-at-all during K-12. I'm also proud and happy for my 99% kid that they can learn somewhat, from which I see some value in the expansion to regional programs. What I originally wanted to emphasize is that current SMACS curriculum is not suited for 90% kid at all. Tremendous watering down is needed (e.g., chopping off all junior and senior selectives) before suiting their needs, but to do this at the expense of butchering the current SMACS program is like a suicidal move for MCPS.

Oh please. As a university professor, you know those talented kids can get the skills for research in college at any major university. Meanwhile if you ignore the other 99% of MCPS students by not offering them any enriched curriculum opportunities, you've probably lost them for good.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of the justifications people are giving for why the system has to stay the way it is just sound like gatekeeping to me. People seem to want to benefit from a program and then slam the door behind them and keep access limited. “My kid was smart and had the right combination of skills and genius and prepping to do well, but yours might not!” “If more non-wealthy students have access to what my kids had access to, it will be tragic, the program will go downhill!” I’m all for broadening access. True access for students who qualify for a program. Not more gatekeeping behind lotteries, which is what MCPS has done in recent years and which isn’t any better. Why can’t each high school have the same advanced math classes? Because anonymous posters on dcum say it’s hard to get people with the right background to teach these subjects? It’s public school. People want a fair system, and having your course options limited because of where you live within the school district, or because the county does not create enough seats in a program for the number of students who qualify for the program, does not seem like a fair system.

I’m not gatekeeping. I’m in favor of expanding the number of seats in programs and even introducing a third SMCS program, a third Humanities program, and a second Global Ecology program so more students live within a reasonable commute. Play adjustments to the IB program.

What I’m not interested in is achieving equity by eliminating any meaningful cohorting and pretending that MCPS is flush with highly qualified, motivated teachers who are excited to take on new curricula.

They are going to roughly double the number of seats in SMCS programs (3 times the number of programs but each one will be smaller.). How is that eliminating any meaningful cohorting?

Because most of these programs aren’t for “smart” kids. Half or more MCPS’s students are smarter than the average American. These programs are for students who are already academically advanced, have demonstrated academic excellence, and are highly motivated to learn at a faster pace, dig deeper into material, master lessons on their own, complete special projects, and enter competitions. Not everyone wants that.

People complain about longer commutes to magnets, leaving friends behind at one’s home school, having trouble balancing extracurricular activities with long commutes and extra homework, but the existing programs require students and their parents to identify their top priority. The proposed changes are designed to make people feel like they can have it all.

For some of the current programs, group projects are a huge part of the experience. Projects can be bigger and much more detailed when there are 2-4 students working together. There’s frequently an issue where a student doesn’t do their fair share. Imagine amplifying that issue by admitting twice as many kids, many of whom wouldn’t have been interested in a program if it required a substantially bigger time commitment.

People keep posting that every kid who is qualified should have access to these programs. I don’t disagree with that, but I’m not sure we’re all envisioning the same definition of “qualified.” Is every student who could manage to pass these classes qualified? Students who maintain at least a C average in their program’s core classes? Students who are at least in the 90th percentile on subject related standardized testing? The top 10% of students in each individual region? 12% of all students countywide (twice the number currently being served)? What does qualified mean?

The top 10 percentile (ie, A students) by MAP M and R seems a good gauge. Having a hard cutoff, and an administration that will stand by it regardless of complaints) would prevent a watered down curriculum. From observation, those under 90 percentile really are B-type students and that’s where the wheels start coming off.

I have a 99.99% kid (MAP test at 99% level for 12th grade since 4th grade; CoGAT full score), and a 99% kid (MAP test on-level 99% or 1-2 level above; 3-4 questions wrong in CoGAT in each category). They are totally different kids. The first one barely learns anything from school but just self-studied through online materials they are able to find, but they find their peers at TPMS and Blair and are extremely happy to be able to finally social with their-kinds. They sought all kinds of national or international competition opportunities and worked as a team. They were able to deliver research analysis within a few weeks that typically takes a PhD student several months to complete. My second one is in general happy with school although still complaining about boredom from time to time. If my second one can be admitted to Blair, I think they would be able to survive, but would struggle from time to time and need to work hard.

Now you are talking about applying a curriculum that designed for the 99.9% kid, and a 99% kid would find very challenging, to the 90%-level kids. It will bring more harm than good. Only people went through this could understand.

I hope you say this out loud to someone in real life and they visibly roll their eyes at you. I mean, wth even is this?

My kid is far from Blair gifted but I get wanting your kid to have a likeminded peer group.

I don’t get arguing that it is the job of a public school system to keep hoarding all the best opportunities for the top 0.1%.

I actually think we have the resources to have 2 programs for highly able students AND have additional programs for other achieving students. This isn't hoarding. I'm not buying this new negative take on the magnet programs. I've heard that bad-mouthing language out of CO staff but they haven't released financial figures to back this up.

I don't arguing that is the job of the veterinarian to keep hoarding all the dogfood for the dogs.

It's not "hoarding" to match students to good-fit classes that wouldn't be good fits for other students.

Definitely not. But we have finite resources and we cannot continue to prioritize the best fit for the tiniest group of high achievers while overlooking the needs of large numbers of others.

+1 Agreed. There's no reason to target only the 1% and have nothing for the remaining the 99%. And that's assuming MCPS is even identifying which group of kids are the 1%, which they're probably not, since all they're looking at is MAP test scores which only test exposure and is fairly easy to game by a smart kid with some prep.

Then there is really no reason to go through all this at all. Go to your assigned HS. Choose amongst the available classes. Or go private. The busding sounds absurd for what sounds like a couple of extra electives with a cohort that would be sinilar to the ap track at any school.

What I would like to know is which schools do not have enough higher level course options and how many students at these schools would actually select some of these courses if offered. This is the kind of data MCPS should be collecting to determine need/interest. People keep focusing on whether we should cut resources for magnet students, but conversely should we overturn the entire system apple cart because a few dozen students across a handful of lower performing high schools don’t have an appropriate course in one subject in one or two school years? It seems like we should directly solve that problem for those kids rather than dismantle successful programs and sprinkle thousands of students all over the place to give the appearance of increased access.

As someone who lives in East County and whose child and some of her friends were lucky enough to lottery in to a magnet program AND who left friends behind who also got in but whose families just couldn't make the ridiculous commute work....well, I can't think of anything nice to say so I just won't say anything. But you get the picture.

Anonymous wrote:America's always been a land of 1% leaders and 99% followers who benefited from 1%'s leadership and creativity.