Did the Takoma MS magnet got MORE white this year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You guys seriously don't understand statistics, and completely ignore MCPS' own methodology which looks at cohort at the home school. They USED to pick the top 2.5% of all test takers. Now, they look at cohort before they pick the "top" performers. A kid who got a higher score but has a cohort at the home school will be denied entrance.

This is very similar to how the average scores of URM in top universities are much lower than the ORM in those schools.

You can argue that this method is "better", but to say that these students are the top 2.5% is disingenuous and actually, shows that you are clueless about how statistics works.

They did? Where did you get that information from?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm willing to bet that next year's 6th Grade Takoma students will perform worse in highly rated academic competitions compared to before.

funny I’m willing to bet the opposite

Okay, let's check back next winter with some statistics.

MCPS won't release those statistics because it will cast a negative light on the new methodology. It's why they won't release the median test scores of accepted students now. If those numbers showed that their new method worked, why wouldn't they publicize it? It would be PR gold and the national standards. But, nope. They won't ever release it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
MCPS won't release those statistics because it will cast a negative light on the new methodology. It's why they won't release the median test scores of accepted students now. If those numbers showed that their new method worked, why wouldn't they publicize it? It would be PR gold and the national standards. But, nope. They won't ever release it.

Yes, you keep saying that.

[Anonymous]

I'm not that PP but you must be kidding. It's clear they did not just rank the kids by top scores on the Cogat, PARCC, Map, grades because they kept emphasizing what a big deal "peer cohort" was in the admissions process.

I think you're being obnoxious by asking this question but I also think it's obnoxious to state that the kids that got in are somehow less "qualified." I think the method they used is questionable but I have no reason to believe those kids aren't as equally "qualified" to do the work and succeed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm willing to bet that next year's 6th Grade Takoma students will perform worse in highly rated academic competitions compared to before.

funny I’m willing to bet the opposite

Okay, let's check back next winter with some statistics.

MCPS won't release those statistics because it will cast a negative light on the new methodology. It's why they won't release the median test scores of accepted students now. If those numbers showed that their new method worked, why wouldn't they publicize it? It would be PR gold and the national standards. But, nope. They won't ever release it.

They have it and they will release if if someone asks for it. Has the GT PTA asked for this information?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm willing to bet that next year's 6th Grade Takoma students will perform worse in highly rated academic competitions compared to before.

funny I’m willing to bet the opposite

Okay, let's check back next winter with some statistics.

MCPS won't release those statistics because it will cast a negative light on the new methodology. It's why they won't release the median test scores of accepted students now. If those numbers showed that their new method worked, why wouldn't they publicize it? It would be PR gold and the national standards. But, nope. They won't ever release it.

They have it and they will release if if someone asks for it. Has the GT PTA asked for this information?

Yes, I believe they did ask for it and was told they would never release that information.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not that PP but you must be kidding. It's clear they did not just rank the kids by top scores on the Cogat, PARCC, Map, grades because they kept emphasizing what a big deal "peer cohort" was in the admissions process.

I think you're being obnoxious by asking this question but I also think it's obnoxious to state that the kids that got in are somehow less "qualified." I think the method they used is questionable but I have no reason to believe those kids aren't as equally "qualified" to do the work and succeed.

They didn't do that under the previous admissions process either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm willing to bet that next year's 6th Grade Takoma students will perform worse in highly rated academic competitions compared to before.

funny I’m willing to bet the opposite

Okay, let's check back next winter with some statistics.

MCPS won't release those statistics because it will cast a negative light on the new methodology. It's why they won't release the median test scores of accepted students now. If those numbers showed that their new method worked, why wouldn't they publicize it? It would be PR gold and the national standards. But, nope. They won't ever release it.

They have it and they will release if if someone asks for it. Has the GT PTA asked for this information?

Yes, I believe they did ask for it and was told they would never release that information.

If they have it, they have to release it. It's the law. They are a governmental group bound by information acts.

[Anonymous]

http://www.marylandattorneygeneral.gov/Pages/OpenGov/pia.aspx

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hey, at least it’s less Asian

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since the selection pool was so much larger this year they were able to fill the 100 seats while applying even higher standards. The math is simple.

The top 2.5% of 4000 applicants is better than the top 16% of 600 applicants.

It’s true but there’s a serious case of sour grapes here. People are angry that admissions are more competitive and not as easily gamed.

This is not necessarily true. Expanding the applicant pool and screening more widely was an excellent idea. In theory that should have made admissions more competitive and could have resulted in the county finding highly able candidates who might not have applied in prior years. Unfortunately, it sounds like many students with higher application test scores were rejected in favor of students with lower application test scores based on some BS cohort rationale. The PARRC scores also seem to indicate that around 85% of the students who do well in Math in 5th grade and around 93% of the students who do well in Math in 8th grade come from just 3 groups (white, Asian and mixed race) so simply expanding the pool isn't necessarily going to increase diversity (a valuable goal) unless the school system works harder to ensure that more kids from lower performing groups do better in Math. They need to expand the applicant pool of qualified candidates by improving Math education and Math performance for URMs. They need to do the hard work to close the achievement gap instead of focusing on feel good but ultimately counterproductive measures to change application standards for academically competitive programs.

It's pure speculation on your part that admission wasn't competitive. If there's evidence to the contrary, then post it; otherwise, the numbers we actually know speak for themselves, the top 2..5% of 4000 candidates vs the top 16.5% of 600 candidates is a no-brainer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, I believe they did ask for it and was told they would never release that information.

If they have it, they have to release it. It's the law. They are a governmental group bound by information acts.

The law does not necessarily require them to release it.

http://www.marylandattorneygeneral.gov/OpenGov%20Documents/Chapter3.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey, at least it’s less Asian

Please look up sarcasm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since the selection pool was so much larger this year they were able to fill the 100 seats while applying even higher standards. The math is simple.

The top 2.5% of 4000 applicants is better than the top 16% of 600 applicants.

It’s true but there’s a serious case of sour grapes here. People are angry that admissions are more competitive and not as easily gamed.

This is not necessarily true. Expanding the applicant pool and screening more widely was an excellent idea. In theory that should have made admissions more competitive and could have resulted in the county finding highly able candidates who might not have applied in prior years. Unfortunately, it sounds like many students with higher application test scores were rejected in favor of students with lower application test scores based on some BS cohort rationale. The PARRC scores also seem to indicate that around 85% of the students who do well in Math in 5th grade and around 93% of the students who do well in Math in 8th grade come from just 3 groups (white, Asian and mixed race) so simply expanding the pool isn't necessarily going to increase diversity (a valuable goal) unless the school system works harder to ensure that more kids from lower performing groups do better in Math. They need to expand the applicant pool of qualified candidates by improving Math education and Math performance for URMs. They need to do the hard work to close the achievement gap instead of focusing on feel good but ultimately counterproductive measures to change application standards for academically competitive programs.

It's pure speculation on your part that admission wasn't competitive. If there's evidence to the contrary, then post it; otherwise, the numbers we actually know speak for themselves, the top 2..5% of 4000 candidates vs the top 16.5% of 600 candidates is a no-brainer.

only when you assume the 600 is representative of the population when in fact they may include the vast majority of gifted children in the county.

[Anonymous]

They can decline to release of the information and fight it in court bu no court will stand for it. The exemptions apply to things like proprietary commercial secrets, information private to an individual, something that might compromise security.