The second statement is not true. The test was very similar to the test the kids aced to get into the CESs in the first place, which is why MCPS won't release the test scores of the admitted students. It was the "peer cohort" criteria that messed up success rates. |
|
If all of sudden Asian American students bombed the test then MCPS wouldn't have a problem releasing the data. MCPS isn't trying to hide the fact that the highest scoring students didn't get in but they do not want people to know how the low they relaxed the standards. I also suspect that these lower standards were used to let a few white kids in that otherwise shouldn't be there if it were a truly fair process. Regardless, MCPS itself said in the article that it did not admit the brightest kids. This isn't a secret.
Why is one poster so intent on creating falsehoods to support MCPS in ways that MCPS itself evening trying to claim? Why does she hate Asian Americans so much? |
No it was the difference between competing with 800 vs 4000. But you don't want to believe that. |
MCPS isn't even saying this. They've been really clear that they had to use the outlier and cohort to achieve the diversity they wanted. |
OMG. That is spot on! I could definitely see that happening. |
|
"You're still here? It's over.
Go home. Go!" --Ferris Bueller (1986) |
Why do you ignore the majority of Asian-Americans who live in the rest of the downcounty? |
Why do the administrators care that there are less Hispanics and blacks in the program. It's not like the superintendent would fire them |
| Has the new screening process actually increased the children of color in the CES? Our very diverse Focus school had about a dozen students admitted but as far as I know, they were all white. |
You might want to look up BoE meeting minutes - especially the one, I think in April/May, after all the kerfuffle about the new MS Magnet admissions process, where one of the members (Rocca, I believe) asked why the minority enrollment did not change significantly in spite of the new admissions process. |
You have no idea what you are talking about. They didn't change' the test, they shortened it! Instead of a full-battery CogAt, they only administered a screener. Same text, only 1/3 in length. Didn't mess up any of the prep programs, kids who attended those had all the advantages. |
|
Is that you Dr. Li? |
|
Why do people constantly bring up prep programs? Are there any statistics on the percentage of magnet students who went through a prep program? Is there any evidence that the students who do go through such a program score significantly better than they would have otherwise?
I have 2 kids who have been in the magnet programs from 4th grade through high school. The only prep they had was glancing briefly at the sample questions on the MCPS website. |
This is positively Trumpian! FYI: *even MCPS* is not claiming what you believe. If what you believe is true, MCPS could just shrug and say, "tough luck, the test changed, and your kids did not do well." But they don't, because we are talking about kids who had no problem acing the new test, and aced PARCC/MAP/etc. They were not admitted to TPMS/Eastern this year solely because of the peer group criterion. These are kids for whom the test did not make any difference. A thought experiment: MCPS could have first tried universal testing along with a new test but without the peer group criterion. Why do you think they included the peer group factor on top of the other two? |