Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it sounds like letters will be going out to provide the results of the lottery. But was there any prior communication to let parents know if a child made it pass the central review and placed into the lottery?

No, you find out with the lottery letter. That's one of the things that's frustrating - if you were mistakenly not placed in the lottery, you can appeal it and get placed on the waitlist, but it's a lot harder for you to get a spot at that point. Would be nice to be able to appeal and have that settled before the lottery.

DP - it would also be nice to be able to express preference for a given program. My DD meets criteria (by grades and MAP scores) for both the math/science and humanities magnets, but has no interest in the latter. Seems like a waste to even consider her for it; god forbid the system take student interest into account.

Just make sure you don’t accept a seat in a program she has no interest in. Another kid will move off the waitlist.

If your child gets accepted to humanities and not math, go ahead Put them in the humanities prgm even if they are not interested…middle schoolers interest change over time….. And if they are not interested down the road they can always move back to their home middle school.

I second this. If it was us…we would accept it in a heart beat bc our home middle school has no real enrichment and at this point any enrichment is better than no enrichment.

No, we’re not putting her in the humanities program if she gets in. She’s not interested, it would be a royal PITA to get her there, she wouldn’t get enough sleep - and for what? Kids at our home middle school seem to really like it. DH and I aren’t making a decision to increase our collective stress levels for minimal benefit.

Let’s see how u feel when your kid comes home crying everyday bc middle school is so boring and the lack of enrichment drives them crazy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it sounds like letters will be going out to provide the results of the lottery. But was there any prior communication to let parents know if a child made it pass the central review and placed into the lottery?

No, you find out with the lottery letter. That's one of the things that's frustrating - if you were mistakenly not placed in the lottery, you can appeal it and get placed on the waitlist, but it's a lot harder for you to get a spot at that point. Would be nice to be able to appeal and have that settled before the lottery.

DP - it would also be nice to be able to express preference for a given program. My DD meets criteria (by grades and MAP scores) for both the math/science and humanities magnets, but has no interest in the latter. Seems like a waste to even consider her for it; god forbid the system take student interest into account.

Just make sure you don’t accept a seat in a program she has no interest in. Another kid will move off the waitlist.

If your child gets accepted to humanities and not math, go ahead Put them in the humanities prgm even if they are not interested…middle schoolers interest change over time….. And if they are not interested down the road they can always move back to their home middle school.

I second this. If it was us…we would accept it in a heart beat bc our home middle school has no real enrichment and at this point any enrichment is better than no enrichment.

No, we’re not putting her in the humanities program if she gets in. She’s not interested, it would be a royal PITA to get her there, she wouldn’t get enough sleep - and for what? Kids at our home middle school seem to really like it. DH and I aren’t making a decision to increase our collective stress levels for minimal benefit.

Agree with you. If child doesn't want to do it or lacks motivation in the subject, then having to drive your kid or put them on a very early bus doesn't make sense.

I really wish they would provide the science and English classes from the test-in magnets in local middle schools for children who qualify (like they offer ELC in elementary school). My kid would much rather be at his local school than have to travel to go to a magnet. And then more gifted children could be served.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it sounds like letters will be going out to provide the results of the lottery. But was there any prior communication to let parents know if a child made it pass the central review and placed into the lottery?

No, you find out with the lottery letter. That's one of the things that's frustrating - if you were mistakenly not placed in the lottery, you can appeal it and get placed on the waitlist, but it's a lot harder for you to get a spot at that point. Would be nice to be able to appeal and have that settled before the lottery.

DP - it would also be nice to be able to express preference for a given program. My DD meets criteria (by grades and MAP scores) for both the math/science and humanities magnets, but has no interest in the latter. Seems like a waste to even consider her for it; god forbid the system take student interest into account.

Just make sure you don’t accept a seat in a program she has no interest in. Another kid will move off the waitlist.

If your child gets accepted to humanities and not math, go ahead Put them in the humanities prgm even if they are not interested…middle schoolers interest change over time….. And if they are not interested down the road they can always move back to their home middle school.

I second this. If it was us…we would accept it in a heart beat bc our home middle school has no real enrichment and at this point any enrichment is better than no enrichment.

No, we’re not putting her in the humanities program if she gets in. She’s not interested, it would be a royal PITA to get her there, she wouldn’t get enough sleep - and for what? Kids at our home middle school seem to really like it. DH and I aren’t making a decision to increase our collective stress levels for minimal benefit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it sounds like letters will be going out to provide the results of the lottery. But was there any prior communication to let parents know if a child made it pass the central review and placed into the lottery?

No, you find out with the lottery letter. That's one of the things that's frustrating - if you were mistakenly not placed in the lottery, you can appeal it and get placed on the waitlist, but it's a lot harder for you to get a spot at that point. Would be nice to be able to appeal and have that settled before the lottery.

DP - it would also be nice to be able to express preference for a given program. My DD meets criteria (by grades and MAP scores) for both the math/science and humanities magnets, but has no interest in the latter. Seems like a waste to even consider her for it; god forbid the system take student interest into account.

Just make sure you don’t accept a seat in a program she has no interest in. Another kid will move off the waitlist.

If your child gets accepted to humanities and not math, go ahead Put them in the humanities prgm even if they are not interested…middle schoolers interest change over time….. And if they are not interested down the road they can always move back to their home middle school.

I second this. If it was us…we would accept it in a heart beat bc our home middle school has no real enrichment and at this point any enrichment is better than no enrichment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it sounds like letters will be going out to provide the results of the lottery. But was there any prior communication to let parents know if a child made it pass the central review and placed into the lottery?

No, you find out with the lottery letter. That's one of the things that's frustrating - if you were mistakenly not placed in the lottery, you can appeal it and get placed on the waitlist, but it's a lot harder for you to get a spot at that point. Would be nice to be able to appeal and have that settled before the lottery.

DP - it would also be nice to be able to express preference for a given program. My DD meets criteria (by grades and MAP scores) for both the math/science and humanities magnets, but has no interest in the latter. Seems like a waste to even consider her for it; god forbid the system take student interest into account.

Just make sure you don’t accept a seat in a program she has no interest in. Another kid will move off the waitlist.

If your child gets accepted to humanities and not math, go ahead Put them in the humanities prgm even if they are not interested…middle schoolers interest change over time….. And if they are not interested down the road they can always move back to their home middle school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it sounds like letters will be going out to provide the results of the lottery. But was there any prior communication to let parents know if a child made it pass the central review and placed into the lottery?

No, you find out with the lottery letter. That's one of the things that's frustrating - if you were mistakenly not placed in the lottery, you can appeal it and get placed on the waitlist, but it's a lot harder for you to get a spot at that point. Would be nice to be able to appeal and have that settled before the lottery.

DP - it would also be nice to be able to express preference for a given program. My DD meets criteria (by grades and MAP scores) for both the math/science and humanities magnets, but has no interest in the latter. Seems like a waste to even consider her for it; god forbid the system take student interest into account.

Just make sure you don’t accept a seat in a program she has no interest in. Another kid will move off the waitlist.

Good luck to everyone!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it sounds like letters will be going out to provide the results of the lottery. But was there any prior communication to let parents know if a child made it pass the central review and placed into the lottery?

No, you find out with the lottery letter. That's one of the things that's frustrating - if you were mistakenly not placed in the lottery, you can appeal it and get placed on the waitlist, but it's a lot harder for you to get a spot at that point. Would be nice to be able to appeal and have that settled before the lottery.

DP - it would also be nice to be able to express preference for a given program. My DD meets criteria (by grades and MAP scores) for both the math/science and humanities magnets, but has no interest in the latter. Seems like a waste to even consider her for it; god forbid the system take student interest into account.

Just received this email - hoping this means we'll get results in the next couple of days.

This message is being sent from Montgomery County Public Schools to families of students in Grade 5.

The central review of student data for enrichment recommendations in middle school is complete. Students who met the criteria for enrichment were placed in a lottery pool. A lottery has been conducted for each of the regional criteria-based middle school magnet programs. Families of Grade 5 students should receive results of the central review and the lottery (where applicable) in late January/early February.

Please visit the special programs website for more information. https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/specialprograms/middle/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know...when evaluating a 5th grader for these programs who is in a CES, do they use the FARMS rate of their home elementary school or the FARMS rate of the school that houses the CES?

I think it would be the FARMS rate of their home MS.

MCPS has not been clear about this. It could be either. Thatbis a good question to ask AEI.

They were clear about it the first year they did this and it was their home elementary school.

It is supposed to be the school they attend, not their home elementary. Otherwise they might just use a student's individual FARMS status. They use the school FARMS rate as a proxy for the difficulty in providing depth/enrichment in a particular class.

It's not that high-SES kids are naturally better at Math, per se (though they might be), but that large cohorts of them tend to be easier to manage with enrichment/depth, due both to the lower variation in exposure to material within the a class/school and to supports available at home (e.g., education level of parents, ease of access to tutoring/likelihood of utilizing outside enrichment, etc.). This difference is reflected in things like MAP scores, which overwhelmingly skew towards level of exposure rather than underlying ability.

Whether that proxy is appropriate to serve that purpose is valid for debate.

No you are wrong. They explained this clearly in the past. Home school FARMS status as proxy for SES. Middle school home school as proxy for peer cohort.

No, it'a the elementary school attended. In the FAQ (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CD-zDANEJAR5X-g5pMijtx9sCd4JS1IGPEB1VL-0-9Y) the answer to question 2 about local norming says, "In establishing local norms, students in schools with similar FARMS rates were grouped together for comparison." Not "in catchments" or "in home schools," but "in schools," as in "in attendance at schools." There are 5 FARMS rate categories they use, with more at the low-FARMS (presumed high SES/more easily managed student cohorts) end of the scale than the opposite. You can take my word for it or contact MCPS to confirm.

I see the logic there but I don’t know if it’s true. If it is, it’s a little unfair. For instance, say you have a kid whose home school is Carderock, with a very low FARMS pop, who is at the CCES magnet. CCES is low-moderate, so a different SES band, but the vast majority of FARMS students are in the gen Ed program and have no classes with the CES student. So a different student who remained at Carderock bc he didn’t win the CES lottery would be held to a higher standard to enter the middle school pool. They could literally be next door neighbors. Doesn’t seem fair.

It's home school. I know PP quoted the document, and the document didn't say "except for students not attending their home school due to CES or language immersion placement" but that's just MCPS being broad. If you look at the lottery/placement letter, it clearly notes both school attending and home school. Particularly given that the CES is often in schools that are higher needs for their cluster, and this number is meant to be a proxy for home income, they are going to use home school to assign the flexible bar for entry.

For both you and the immediate past poster, I encourage you to contact MCPS DCCAPS, which runs the lottery. You will find that it is the school attended that determines the FARMS rate tranche for local norming, not the home school.

Again, a high FARMS rate within a school is used a proxy for the difficulty encountered in providing enriched classroom instruction that would expose students to more content/deeper exploration. That difficulty, then, is presumed to result in lower scores on a test like MAP, which is so highly dependent on exposure, under-representing the need of those with high ability but low exposure.

FARMS status of an individual may be an additional factor, as the FAQ (question 1) mentions, separately from local norming, that the criteria include "student services including: special education services, EML- Emergent Multilingual Learner, Section 504 accommodations plan and Free and Reduced-priced Meals." Inquiries about how adjustment is made for services received indicated that there is an adjustment (a different, but more direct response than the more vaguely-worded one received by the MCCPTA GEC in response to last year's inquiry), but the exact weighting was not divulged.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know...when evaluating a 5th grader for these programs who is in a CES, do they use the FARMS rate of their home elementary school or the FARMS rate of the school that houses the CES?

I think it would be the FARMS rate of their home MS.

MCPS has not been clear about this. It could be either. Thatbis a good question to ask AEI.

They were clear about it the first year they did this and it was their home elementary school.

It is supposed to be the school they attend, not their home elementary. Otherwise they might just use a student's individual FARMS status. They use the school FARMS rate as a proxy for the difficulty in providing depth/enrichment in a particular class.

It's not that high-SES kids are naturally better at Math, per se (though they might be), but that large cohorts of them tend to be easier to manage with enrichment/depth, due both to the lower variation in exposure to material within the a class/school and to supports available at home (e.g., education level of parents, ease of access to tutoring/likelihood of utilizing outside enrichment, etc.). This difference is reflected in things like MAP scores, which overwhelmingly skew towards level of exposure rather than underlying ability.

Whether that proxy is appropriate to serve that purpose is valid for debate.

No you are wrong. They explained this clearly in the past. Home school FARMS status as proxy for SES. Middle school home school as proxy for peer cohort.

No, it'a the elementary school attended. In the FAQ (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CD-zDANEJAR5X-g5pMijtx9sCd4JS1IGPEB1VL-0-9Y) the answer to question 2 about local norming says, "In establishing local norms, students in schools with similar FARMS rates were grouped together for comparison." Not "in catchments" or "in home schools," but "in schools," as in "in attendance at schools." There are 5 FARMS rate categories they use, with more at the low-FARMS (presumed high SES/more easily managed student cohorts) end of the scale than the opposite. You can take my word for it or contact MCPS to confirm.

I see the logic there but I don’t know if it’s true. If it is, it’s a little unfair. For instance, say you have a kid whose home school is Carderock, with a very low FARMS pop, who is at the CCES magnet. CCES is low-moderate, so a different SES band, but the vast majority of FARMS students are in the gen Ed program and have no classes with the CES student. So a different student who remained at Carderock bc he didn’t win the CES lottery would be held to a higher standard to enter the middle school pool. They could literally be next door neighbors. Doesn’t seem fair.

It's home school. I know PP quoted the document, and the document didn't say "except for students not attending their home school due to CES or language immersion placement" but that's just MCPS being broad. If you look at the lottery/placement letter, it clearly notes both school attending and home school. Particularly given that the CES is often in schools that are higher needs for their cluster, and this number is meant to be a proxy for home income, they are going to use home school to assign the flexible bar for entry.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know...when evaluating a 5th grader for these programs who is in a CES, do they use the FARMS rate of their home elementary school or the FARMS rate of the school that houses the CES?

I think it would be the FARMS rate of their home MS.

MCPS has not been clear about this. It could be either. Thatbis a good question to ask AEI.

They were clear about it the first year they did this and it was their home elementary school.

It is supposed to be the school they attend, not their home elementary. Otherwise they might just use a student's individual FARMS status. They use the school FARMS rate as a proxy for the difficulty in providing depth/enrichment in a particular class.

It's not that high-SES kids are naturally better at Math, per se (though they might be), but that large cohorts of them tend to be easier to manage with enrichment/depth, due both to the lower variation in exposure to material within the a class/school and to supports available at home (e.g., education level of parents, ease of access to tutoring/likelihood of utilizing outside enrichment, etc.). This difference is reflected in things like MAP scores, which overwhelmingly skew towards level of exposure rather than underlying ability.

Whether that proxy is appropriate to serve that purpose is valid for debate.

No you are wrong. They explained this clearly in the past. Home school FARMS status as proxy for SES. Middle school home school as proxy for peer cohort.

No, it'a the elementary school attended. In the FAQ (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CD-zDANEJAR5X-g5pMijtx9sCd4JS1IGPEB1VL-0-9Y) the answer to question 2 about local norming says, "In establishing local norms, students in schools with similar FARMS rates were grouped together for comparison." Not "in catchments" or "in home schools," but "in schools," as in "in attendance at schools." There are 5 FARMS rate categories they use, with more at the low-FARMS (presumed high SES/more easily managed student cohorts) end of the scale than the opposite. You can take my word for it or contact MCPS to confirm.

You are misinterpreting the FAQ. Nowhere does it explicitly say this and when the specific question came up before MCPS explained that it only makes sense to use the home school for FARMS. It really does not matter with the lottery very much because the chances of making it in the lottery to a CES and then again to an MS are miniscule. Anyone want to do the math?

Anonymous wrote:PP who posted about Cabin John here. I'm not saying individual schools may not be keeping AIM (for now, since PP noted that it may no longer be part of the curriculum MCPS uses), but that I felt gaslit when I said our school no longer offers it and some people said "That's not true, AIM is still being offered." Trust me, I know what my school offers...

MCPS is offering AIM. It is NOT offering IM anymore. They have pulled that, but at curriculum night they said that AEI has control over the enriched offerings and that AIM would be offered. You should contact AEI if you want AIM at Cabin John and they are not offering, because it is supposed to be offered.

IM should not be offered anywhere next year.

Anonymous wrote:So it sounds like letters will be going out to provide the results of the lottery. But was there any prior communication to let parents know if a child made it pass the central review and placed into the lottery?

No, you find out with the lottery letter. That's one of the things that's frustrating - if you were mistakenly not placed in the lottery, you can appeal it and get placed on the waitlist, but it's a lot harder for you to get a spot at that point. Would be nice to be able to appeal and have that settled before the lottery.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know...when evaluating a 5th grader for these programs who is in a CES, do they use the FARMS rate of their home elementary school or the FARMS rate of the school that houses the CES?

I think it would be the FARMS rate of their home MS.

MCPS has not been clear about this. It could be either. Thatbis a good question to ask AEI.

They were clear about it the first year they did this and it was their home elementary school.

It is supposed to be the school they attend, not their home elementary. Otherwise they might just use a student's individual FARMS status. They use the school FARMS rate as a proxy for the difficulty in providing depth/enrichment in a particular class.

It's not that high-SES kids are naturally better at Math, per se (though they might be), but that large cohorts of them tend to be easier to manage with enrichment/depth, due both to the lower variation in exposure to material within the a class/school and to supports available at home (e.g., education level of parents, ease of access to tutoring/likelihood of utilizing outside enrichment, etc.). This difference is reflected in things like MAP scores, which overwhelmingly skew towards level of exposure rather than underlying ability.

Whether that proxy is appropriate to serve that purpose is valid for debate.

No you are wrong. They explained this clearly in the past. Home school FARMS status as proxy for SES. Middle school home school as proxy for peer cohort.

No, it'a the elementary school attended. In the FAQ (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CD-zDANEJAR5X-g5pMijtx9sCd4JS1IGPEB1VL-0-9Y) the answer to question 2 about local norming says, "In establishing local norms, students in schools with similar FARMS rates were grouped together for comparison." Not "in catchments" or "in home schools," but "in schools," as in "in attendance at schools." There are 5 FARMS rate categories they use, with more at the low-FARMS (presumed high SES/more easily managed student cohorts) end of the scale than the opposite. You can take my word for it or contact MCPS to confirm.

I see the logic there but I don’t know if it’s true. If it is, it’s a little unfair. For instance, say you have a kid whose home school is Carderock, with a very low FARMS pop, who is at the CCES magnet. CCES is low-moderate, so a different SES band, but the vast majority of FARMS students are in the gen Ed program and have no classes with the CES student. So a different student who remained at Carderock bc he didn’t win the CES lottery would be held to a higher standard to enter the middle school pool. They could literally be next door neighbors. Doesn’t seem fair.

Agree. The system has a ways to go, and that is one of the glaring weaknesses. It's hard to get to fair, but something like that should have been a no-brainer to change (by, say, parsing out the FARMS rate for magnet vs. non-magnet populations, since they tend to be cohorted).