Second community meeting on Choice Study?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's laughable that someone would think the magnet program should reflect the demographics of the county. If that's what mcps is after, then those programs should be removed indeed.

Why is it laughable? I'm not laughing.

Just look at test scores by demographics. That is the answer

http://reportcard.msde.maryland.gov/Entity.aspx?K=15AAAA

According to PARCC results, there were ~2400 Black and ~3450 Hispanic students in grade 3 in MCPS 2015 school year. Fewer than 10 students met "level 5: exceeded expectations" in both Math and reading in each group.
There were ~1600 Asians, 389/185 met in math/reading. ~3500 White, 472/316 met in math/reading. These are the base for the 4th grade HGC. I will be a genius's task to achieve racial-balance in HGC without hurting the quality of the program.

There were 122 black 4th graders who scored 5 on last year's PARCC. DD was one of them. She is not in compacted math. None of the white students in her grade at her school who are in compacted math scored 5 on the PARCC math. Does that say something about the selection process? Does it say something about the quality of instruction in compacted math?
No one is saying to allow underachieving black and latino kids into accelerated programs. But there are high achieving black and latino students who are not being included.

either you are not telling the truth, or MCPS had an error in the report card. According to the 2015 PARCC performance county summary, the count of 4th grade black students in level 5 math is fewer than 10.
The number is consistent in all grades.

This shows it's zero for level 5 in math for all ES/MS grades. Perhaps PP is thinking level 4?

http://reportcard.msde.maryland.gov/PARCC/Math/2015_PARCC_Performance_MA_15AAAA.pdf

You have to add up the number of black kids at each level and then subtract that number from the total number of black kids. The result is the number who scored 5. The * does not mean zero, it means less than 5%.

I think it means less than 10 count.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's laughable that someone would think the magnet program should reflect the demographics of the county. If that's what mcps is after, then those programs should be removed indeed.

Why is it laughable? I'm not laughing.

Just look at test scores by demographics. That is the answer

http://reportcard.msde.maryland.gov/Entity.aspx?K=15AAAA

According to PARCC results, there were ~2400 Black and ~3450 Hispanic students in grade 3 in MCPS 2015 school year. Fewer than 10 students met "level 5: exceeded expectations" in both Math and reading in each group.
There were ~1600 Asians, 389/185 met in math/reading. ~3500 White, 472/316 met in math/reading. These are the base for the 4th grade HGC. I will be a genius's task to achieve racial-balance in HGC without hurting the quality of the program.

There were 122 black 4th graders who scored 5 on last year's PARCC. DD was one of them. She is not in compacted math. None of the white students in her grade at her school who are in compacted math scored 5 on the PARCC math. Does that say something about the selection process? Does it say something about the quality of instruction in compacted math?
No one is saying to allow underachieving black and latino kids into accelerated programs. But there are high achieving black and latino students who are not being included.

either you are not telling the truth, or MCPS had an error in the report card. According to the 2015 PARCC performance county summary, the count of 4th grade black students in level 5 math is fewer than 10.
The number is consistent in all grades.

This shows it's zero for level 5 in math for all ES/MS grades. Perhaps PP is thinking level 4?

http://reportcard.msde.maryland.gov/PARCC/Math/2015_PARCC_Performance_MA_15AAAA.pdf

You have to add up the number of black kids at each level and then subtract that number from the total number of black kids. The result is the number who scored 5. The * does not mean zero, it means less than 5%.

I think it means less than 10 count.

It says it right at the bottom of the page in the link. It means fewer than 10 tested (which we know isn't the case), or for percentages less than 5% or greater than 95%
I am not lying about DD's score. They make low numbers on the individual school level supposedly for privacy reasons. The school report for DD's school shows no 4th grader getting a 5. But if you add up all the individual scores, there is one child missing, and it is mine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There were 122 black 4th graders who scored 5 on last year's PARCC. DD was one of them. She is not in compacted math. None of the white students in her grade at her school who are in compacted math scored 5 on the PARCC math. Does that say something about the selection process? Does it say something about the quality of instruction in compacted math?
No one is saying to allow underachieving black and latino kids into accelerated programs. But there are high achieving black and latino students who are not being included.

So she was excluded since she is black? My neighbors daughter is white and she was originally excluded. The process is not perfect but way better than
a) not having a process
or
b) admitting based on race quotas

Those are both straw men. Nobody is advocating admission without an admission process. And nobody is advocating admission based on race quotas.

Except that is exactly what the choice study recommended.

Which choice study? The choice study I read did not recommend those things. Not to mention that Option A would be infeasible (how do you admit somebody to a program without having an admissions process?), and Option B would be illegal.

Don't be absurd. This is whole thread is about the Metis Choice Study. Recommendation 3a. Group specific standard and norms. You draw your own conclusion.

People keep saying that. I have drawn my own conclusion. And the conclusion I've drawn is that Metis would not recommend, nor would MCPS adopt, something that is clearly illegal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is this really surprising to anyone

Quit the social engineering. Things are fine the way they are. Don't dumb down programs for the sake of diversity

The HGC is social engineering. All of the MCPS special programs are social engineering. The public school system is social engineering. Land use, development, and neighborhood zoning are social engineering. Transportation is social engineering. Law enforcement is social engineering. The court system is social engineering. The tax code is social engineering. Shall I go on?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Then tell us a good measure. And what makes you to think that when someone who can barely do above grade level will benefit from a program that was designed to accelerate at 2 grade above level.

And enlighten me why the HGC "should" reflect the county demographics? and who's going to benefit from such goal?

Designed by whom, and when, and how do you know? My fourth-grade kid at the HGC is doing compacted math, which is math 4 plus half of math 5. Apparently there are kids at other HGCs who are doing just regular grade-level math.

I think that all of society benefits when everybody has an equal opportunity to a high-quality public education. How do you feel about that?

[Anonymous]

High quality and high level are 2 different things. Giving a struggling reader the same book as a fluent reader is not a high quality education just because it is harder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's laughable that someone would think the magnet program should reflect the demographics of the county. If that's what mcps is after, then those programs should be removed indeed.

Why is it laughable? I'm not laughing.

Just look at test scores by demographics. That is the answer

http://reportcard.msde.maryland.gov/Entity.aspx?K=15AAAA

According to PARCC results, there were ~2400 Black and ~3450 Hispanic students in grade 3 in MCPS 2015 school year. Fewer than 10 students met "level 5: exceeded expectations" in both Math and reading in each group.
There were ~1600 Asians, 389/185 met in math/reading. ~3500 White, 472/316 met in math/reading. These are the base for the 4th grade HGC. I will be a genius's task to achieve racial-balance in HGC without hurting the quality of the program.

There were 122 black 4th graders who scored 5 on last year's PARCC. DD was one of them. She is not in compacted math. None of the white students in her grade at her school who are in compacted math scored 5 on the PARCC math. Does that say something about the selection process? Does it say something about the quality of instruction in compacted math?
No one is saying to allow underachieving black and latino kids into accelerated programs. But there are high achieving black and latino students who are not being included.

either you are not telling the truth, or MCPS had an error in the report card. According to the 2015 PARCC performance county summary, the count of 4th grade black students in level 5 math is fewer than 10.
The number is consistent in all grades.

This shows it's zero for level 5 in math for all ES/MS grades. Perhaps PP is thinking level 4?

http://reportcard.msde.maryland.gov/PARCC/Math/2015_PARCC_Performance_MA_15AAAA.pdf

You have to add up the number of black kids at each level and then subtract that number from the total number of black kids. The result is the number who scored 5. The * does not mean zero, it means less than 5%.

This is correct; when it's very low numbers they don't want to post them because it might be identifiable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:High quality and high level are 2 different things. Giving a struggling reader the same book as a fluent reader is not a high quality education just because it is harder.

Correct. But when a person would benefit from a high-level education, then the education has to be high-level in order to be high-quality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's laughable that someone would think the magnet program should reflect the demographics of the county. If that's what mcps is after, then those programs should be removed indeed.

Why is it laughable? I'm not laughing.

Just look at test scores by demographics. That is the answer

http://reportcard.msde.maryland.gov/Entity.aspx?K=15AAAA

According to PARCC results, there were ~2400 Black and ~3450 Hispanic students in grade 3 in MCPS 2015 school year. Fewer than 10 students met "level 5: exceeded expectations" in both Math and reading in each group.
There were ~1600 Asians, 389/185 met in math/reading. ~3500 White, 472/316 met in math/reading. These are the base for the 4th grade HGC. I will be a genius's task to achieve racial-balance in HGC without hurting the quality of the program.

There were 122 black 4th graders who scored 5 on last year's PARCC. DD was one of them. She is not in compacted math. None of the white students in her grade at her school who are in compacted math scored 5 on the PARCC math. Does that say something about the selection process? Does it say something about the quality of instruction in compacted math?
No one is saying to allow underachieving black and latino kids into accelerated programs. But there are high achieving black and latino students who are not being included.

Well, to be completely accurate there were 122 Black or Hispanic kids who scored a 5 on last years PARCC; since numbers aren't shown it's not possible to determine the exact split. I'd guess roughly half were Black though based on the split at the 4 level, so about 3% of Blacks scored a 5.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's laughable that someone would think the magnet program should reflect the demographics of the county. If that's what mcps is after, then those programs should be removed indeed.

Why is it laughable? I'm not laughing.

Just look at test scores by demographics. That is the answer

http://reportcard.msde.maryland.gov/Entity.aspx?K=15AAAA

According to PARCC results, there were ~2400 Black and ~3450 Hispanic students in grade 3 in MCPS 2015 school year. Fewer than 10 students met "level 5: exceeded expectations" in both Math and reading in each group.
There were ~1600 Asians, 389/185 met in math/reading. ~3500 White, 472/316 met in math/reading. These are the base for the 4th grade HGC. I will be a genius's task to achieve racial-balance in HGC without hurting the quality of the program.

There were 122 black 4th graders who scored 5 on last year's PARCC. DD was one of them. She is not in compacted math. None of the white students in her grade at her school who are in compacted math scored 5 on the PARCC math. Does that say something about the selection process? Does it say something about the quality of instruction in compacted math?
No one is saying to allow underachieving black and latino kids into accelerated programs. But there are high achieving black and latino students who are not being included.

Well, to be completely accurate there were 122 Black or Hispanic kids who scored a 5 on last years PARCC; since numbers aren't shown it's not possible to determine the exact split. I'd guess roughly half were Black though based on the split at the 4 level, so about 3% of Blacks scored a 5.

No it's 122 black kids. Add up the number of black kids who scored 1 thru 4, and subtract that number from the total number of black kids tested. We are talking 4th grade math here,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There were 122 black 4th graders who scored 5 on last year's PARCC. DD was one of them. She is not in compacted math. None of the white students in her grade at her school who are in compacted math scored 5 on the PARCC math. Does that say something about the selection process? Does it say something about the quality of instruction in compacted math?
No one is saying to allow underachieving black and latino kids into accelerated programs. But there are high achieving black and latino students who are not being included.

So she was excluded since she is black? My neighbors daughter is white and she was originally excluded. The process is not perfect but way better than
a) not having a process
or
b) admitting based on race quotas

Those are both straw men. Nobody is advocating admission without an admission process. And nobody is advocating admission based on race quotas.

Except that is exactly what the choice study recommended.

Which choice study? The choice study I read did not recommend those things. Not to mention that Option A would be infeasible (how do you admit somebody to a program without having an admissions process?), and Option B would be illegal.

Don't be absurd. This is whole thread is about the Metis Choice Study. Recommendation 3a. Group specific standard and norms. You draw your own conclusion.

People keep saying that. I have drawn my own conclusion. And the conclusion I've drawn is that Metis would not recommend, nor would MCPS adopt, something that is clearly illegal.

You keep saying that. Enlighten us what group specific standards mean.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's laughable that someone would think the magnet program should reflect the demographics of the county. If that's what mcps is after, then those programs should be removed indeed.

Why is it laughable? I'm not laughing.

Just look at test scores by demographics. That is the answer

http://reportcard.msde.maryland.gov/Entity.aspx?K=15AAAA

According to PARCC results, there were ~2400 Black and ~3450 Hispanic students in grade 3 in MCPS 2015 school year. Fewer than 10 students met "level 5: exceeded expectations" in both Math and reading in each group.
There were ~1600 Asians, 389/185 met in math/reading. ~3500 White, 472/316 met in math/reading. These are the base for the 4th grade HGC. I will be a genius's task to achieve racial-balance in HGC without hurting the quality of the program.

There were 122 black 4th graders who scored 5 on last year's PARCC. DD was one of them. She is not in compacted math. None of the white students in her grade at her school who are in compacted math scored 5 on the PARCC math. Does that say something about the selection process? Does it say something about the quality of instruction in compacted math?
No one is saying to allow underachieving black and latino kids into accelerated programs. But there are high achieving black and latino students who are not being included.

Well, to be completely accurate there were 122 Black or Hispanic kids who scored a 5 on last years PARCC; since numbers aren't shown it's not possible to determine the exact split. I'd guess roughly half were Black though based on the split at the 4 level, so about 3% of Blacks scored a 5.

No it's 122 black kids. Add up the number of black kids who scored 1 thru 4, and subtract that number from the total number of black kids tested. We are talking 4th grade math here,

I just did that three times and got 22; not 122.

2407 total.
Level 1 - 398
Level 2 - 886
Level 3 - 667
Level 4 - 434

1-4 total - 2385

So, 22 at level 5.

The level 1-4 percentages add up to 99% as well, so that squares as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's laughable that someone would think the magnet program should reflect the demographics of the county. If that's what mcps is after, then those programs should be removed indeed.

Why is it laughable? I'm not laughing.

Just look at test scores by demographics. That is the answer

http://reportcard.msde.maryland.gov/Entity.aspx?K=15AAAA

According to PARCC results, there were ~2400 Black and ~3450 Hispanic students in grade 3 in MCPS 2015 school year. Fewer than 10 students met "level 5: exceeded expectations" in both Math and reading in each group.
There were ~1600 Asians, 389/185 met in math/reading. ~3500 White, 472/316 met in math/reading. These are the base for the 4th grade HGC. I will be a genius's task to achieve racial-balance in HGC without hurting the quality of the program.

There were 122 black 4th graders who scored 5 on last year's PARCC. DD was one of them. She is not in compacted math. None of the white students in her grade at her school who are in compacted math scored 5 on the PARCC math. Does that say something about the selection process? Does it say something about the quality of instruction in compacted math?
No one is saying to allow underachieving black and latino kids into accelerated programs. But there are high achieving black and latino students who are not being included.

Well, to be completely accurate there were 122 Black or Hispanic kids who scored a 5 on last years PARCC; since numbers aren't shown it's not possible to determine the exact split. I'd guess roughly half were Black though based on the split at the 4 level, so about 3% of Blacks scored a 5.

No it's 122 black kids. Add up the number of black kids who scored 1 thru 4, and subtract that number from the total number of black kids tested. We are talking 4th grade math here,

I just did that three times and got 22; not 122.

2407 total.
Level 1 - 398
Level 2 - 886
Level 3 - 667
Level 4 - 434

1-4 total - 2385

So, 22 at level 5.

The level 1-4 percentages add up to 99% as well, so that squares as well.

Is this what it has come to? Anonymously adding up the number of black kids to prove/disprove that not ALL black kids are dumb? This is kind of sick.

[Anonymous]

The Metis report gives info on the students applying to the HGC for 2013/2014, those students would have taken last years 5th grade PARCC. So comparing numbers for those 5th graders

3.4% of all 3rd graders were offered spots at an HGC, 7.5% scored a 5 in math, 5.4% scored a 5 in Reading
White: 5.3% offered HGC, 9.8% 5 in math, 8.9% 5 in Reading
Asian: 8.3% offered HGC, 21% 5 in math, 11.4% 5 in Reading
Black: 1.4% offered HGC, 1.2% 5 in math, 1.4% 5 in Reading
Hispanic: 0.8% offered HGC, 1.4% 5 in math, 1.2% in Reading

I'd believe way to much credence could be placed in PARCC results, and there's no telling how much various groups overlap, e.g. certainly HGC students aren't a strict subset of students who receive 5s and there are far more 5s awarded than slots in HGCs. Still to the extent they are counting the same kids, it would suggest HGCs already do a good job attracting the best candidates in each subgroup, acceptances won't increase until all scores improve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Metis report gives info on the students applying to the HGC for 2013/2014, those students would have taken last years 5th grade PARCC. So comparing numbers for those 5th graders

3.4% of all 3rd graders were offered spots at an HGC, 7.5% scored a 5 in math, 5.4% scored a 5 in Reading
White: 5.3% offered HGC, 9.8% 5 in math, 8.9% 5 in Reading
Asian: 8.3% offered HGC, 21% 5 in math, 11.4% 5 in Reading
Black: 1.4% offered HGC, 1.2% 5 in math, 1.4% 5 in Reading
Hispanic: 0.8% offered HGC, 1.4% 5 in math, 1.2% in Reading

I'd believe way to much credence could be placed in PARCC results, and there's no telling how much various groups overlap, e.g. certainly HGC students aren't a strict subset of students who receive 5s and there are far more 5s awarded than slots in HGCs. Still to the extent they are counting the same kids, it would suggest HGCs already do a good job attracting the best candidates in each subgroup, acceptances won't increase until all scores improve.

I posted earlier that the proportions scoring 5s would probably match closely with the proportions in the HGC and it appears that I was correct. I agree; it looks like they're doing a good job of pulling qualified candidates.