I agree. Basing admission on one test means that the kids who get in are the best test takers. |
oh my god, people. read the FAQs on this on the MCPS website. they explain the process. the new admissions process is based on a number of factors, including scores on the magnet admission test, grades, whether you're considered to have a peer cohort at your school (aka how many kids at your school have similarly above-grade-level qualifications), etc. the reason people are saying people used to be able to work the system is because the criteria used to hinge heavily on parents/teacher recommendations, so parents could push for their kid to be considered and take the test. there was an audit done of the program, which revealed that a huge percentage of the magnet kids were Asian and white. the county responded to that audit by screening many more kids, in an effort to identify all the kids who were qualified to do magnet-level work. |
great, so run a transparent selection process with lots of data points + teacher recs, not a secretive one at MCPS discretion. |
More or less.., but the new system seems more equitable and comprehensive. It relies on multiple tests for example. There are numerous threads already about this that go into excruciating detail. |
I dont have a problem with them looking at writing samples and teacher recs, but why change the testing if not because they found that URM weren't testing as well? Why not get rid of testing all together and just use grades and MAP scores? Actually, if they used MAP scores, that wouldn't help most of the URM. Any kind of quantitative measure wouldn't help URM because statistically, they don't score as high. Same for PARCC scores. |
And then how do they rank the kids? |
Thanks for clearing that up. The new system sounds like a step in the right direciton. |
To my knowledge, they take one test. What other test do they look at? MAP, PARCC? |
Yes we are all aware of the new criteria but I was challenging someone who indicated that the kids in the lower SES schools were somehow not as talented because they hadn't made the "cut off" before this change in admissions criteria. I was trying to point out that basing the decision on ONE SCORE is ludicrous. |
This is false. ANYONE could take the test, and it wasn't heavily reliant on teacher/parent rec. |
You are willfully ignoring that the kids on the western side got their own, in-house programming. No one is saying that they scored lower, are they? They are getting put into a special program. Just that it is a new way to make sure more eligible kids have access to both programming and cohorts. The work now is to assess and then, if necessary, improve your pilot in-house program, which I am sure the families of those kids will ensure.
|
If the test scores aren't as high as others who didn't get in, including MAP, PARCC, then they wouldn't have met the cutoff. And if they do score as high, then why doesn't MCPS publish the median test scores of the accepted students? Why hide it? |
Because admission is based on more than just test score apparently -- which honestly I think it should be. I would assume you disagree. |
Fine so we agree that admission was mainly based on one test. I think that is flawed methodology and I am glad they are changing it. |
Not necessarily, but why hide it? The fact that they no longer publish this information makes it appear like they are hiding something. |