MCPS percentiles based on current school and not county or home school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:(Re-posted from another similar thread: https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/0/781550.page#14429226)

My husband actually called the central office and they said that the CES students's percentiles were calculated based on their current elementary school's SES. They then use the outcome of that ES-based calculation to identify a cohort at the middle school (which may also have a different feeder group and SES that the CES from which the student was calculated, but that's not taken into account). They also said that there may be a difference in the calculation at our home school, but it's unlikely to be much of a difference as to final outcome of cohort, but they can't be sure without a recalculation, which they won't do unless specifically requested on an appeal. (In our case, the CES ES has about 50% FARMS, but our home ES has about 80% FARMS.) This supports the suspicion that students in the CES are less likely to be accepted into the magnets, especially if their "cohorts" are being determined based on numbers that are skewed in different ways from the home schools.

I am still a little confused... does that mean that they determine percentiles based only on the ES, or on all ES with similar SES? Because if they are just comparing CES kids to each other and then sending them to different middle schools, how will that identify a cohort at the middle school? So a kid who is in the middle of the pack for his CES, but is an outlier for his middle school would be deemed not an outlier?

It seemed like they were saying there are 3 groups of ES - low poverty, medium poverty, high poverty and that your child's MCPS percentage is normed with all of the ES test-takers from one of those groups - based on where your child currently goes to school. Then, for "cohort" analysis, the child's percentage would be compared with those of students slated to attend the home MS. It could be that those students slated to attend the home MS were evaluated for their percentage in a different group of ES students. But it is very confusing to piece together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:(Re-posted from another similar thread: https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/0/781550.page#14429226)

My husband actually called the central office and they said that the CES students's percentiles were calculated based on their current elementary school's SES. They then use the outcome of that ES-based calculation to identify a cohort at the middle school (which may also have a different feeder group and SES that the CES from which the student was calculated, but that's not taken into account). They also said that there may be a difference in the calculation at our home school, but it's unlikely to be much of a difference as to final outcome of cohort, but they can't be sure without a recalculation, which they won't do unless specifically requested on an appeal. (In our case, the CES ES has about 50% FARMS, but our home ES has about 80% FARMS.) This supports the suspicion that students in the CES are less likely to be accepted into the magnets, especially if their "cohorts" are being determined based on numbers that are skewed in different ways from the home schools.

I am still a little confused... does that mean that they determine percentiles based only on the ES, or on all ES with similar SES? Because if they are just comparing CES kids to each other and then sending them to different middle schools, how will that identify a cohort at the middle school? So a kid who is in the middle of the pack for his CES, but is an outlier for his middle school would be deemed not an outlier?

It seemed like they were saying there are 3 groups of ES - low poverty, medium poverty, high poverty and that your child's MCPS percentage is normed with all of the ES test-takers from one of those groups - based on where your child currently goes to school. Then, for "cohort" analysis, the child's percentage would be compared with those of students slated to attend the home MS. It could be that those students slated to attend the home MS were evaluated for their percentage in a different group of ES students. But it is very confusing to piece together.

Thank you! That makes more sense to me.

[Anonymous]

This is really bad. Are they fools? It really sounds like they run the numbers using one formula, check to see if they got the racial demographics they wanted and if not, come up with another formula until they get the racial and geographic profile they want.

It would make sense to run FARMS kids as their own cohort with percentages. They could even include kids who have been in FARMS in the past which is data that they also have in their records. A MC white kid with an undergrad college education a parent who work at a non-profit making only 40K or 50K isn't a group they need to be giving extra help to. Its the kids who live in extreme poverty and have the potential to use the magnet experience to pull out of it.

It also sounds like they are further looking for ways to exclude any kids coming from W schools which is just going to make the W middle schools perform even higher while diluting the magnets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is really bad. Are they fools? It really sounds like they run the numbers using one formula, check to see if they got the racial demographics they wanted and if not, come up with another formula until they get the racial and geographic profile they want.

It would make sense to run FARMS kids as their own cohort with percentages. They could even include kids who have been in FARMS in the past which is data that they also have in their records. A MC white kid with an undergrad college education a parent who work at a non-profit making only 40K or 50K isn't a group they need to be giving extra help to. Its the kids who live in extreme poverty and have the potential to use the magnet experience to pull out of it.

It also sounds like they are further looking for ways to exclude any kids coming from W schools which is just going to make the W middle schools perform even higher while diluting the magnets.

They are following the best practices of gifted education experts. Are you asking if the experts are fools? Are you an expert?

[Anonymous]

Where are you getting this? There are no best practices. Different school systems are overhauling their selection criteria and are settling on different methods depending on what is convenient for their goals.
NYC is redoing it's system and they have the same goals as MCPS to increase diversity but given most of the Asian kids they are trying to push out of the magnets in their system are poor they do not want to compare those poor Asian kids to poor Hispanic or poor black kids.

The most "fair" system I have heard of is in Miami where individual students who are FARMS get some amount of extra points. This did end up giving them their desired demographics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is really bad. Are they fools? It really sounds like they run the numbers using one formula, check to see if they got the racial demographics they wanted and if not, come up with another formula until they get the racial and geographic profile they want.

It would make sense to run FARMS kids as their own cohort with percentages. They could even include kids who have been in FARMS in the past which is data that they also have in their records. A MC white kid with an undergrad college education a parent who work at a non-profit making only 40K or 50K isn't a group they need to be giving extra help to. Its the kids who live in extreme poverty and have the potential to use the magnet experience to pull out of it.

It also sounds like they are further looking for ways to exclude any kids coming from W schools which is just going to make the W middle schools perform even higher while diluting the magnets.

+1
This method doesn't seem to be based in logic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is really bad. Are they fools? It really sounds like they run the numbers using one formula, check to see if they got the racial demographics they wanted and if not, come up with another formula until they get the racial and geographic profile they want.

It would make sense to run FARMS kids as their own cohort with percentages. They could even include kids who have been in FARMS in the past which is data that they also have in their records. A MC white kid with an undergrad college education a parent who work at a non-profit making only 40K or 50K isn't a group they need to be giving extra help to. Its the kids who live in extreme poverty and have the potential to use the magnet experience to pull out of it.

It also sounds like they are further looking for ways to exclude any kids coming from W schools which is just going to make the W middle schools perform even higher while diluting the magnets.

They are following the best practices of gifted education experts. Are you asking if the experts are fools? Are you an expert?

Equity experts, maybe. But not actual gifted experts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where are you getting this? There are no best practices. Different school systems are overhauling their selection criteria and are settling on different methods depending on what is convenient for their goals.
NYC is redoing it's system and they have the same goals as MCPS to increase diversity but given most of the Asian kids they are trying to push out of the magnets in their system are poor they do not want to compare those poor Asian kids to poor Hispanic or poor black kids.

The most "fair" system I have heard of is in Miami where individual students who are FARMS get some amount of extra points. This did end up giving them their desired demographics.

PP is getting it from the MCPS quote which says "Gifted and talented experts recommend the use of local norms..." I assume "best practices" was inferred by PP from "G&T experts recommend." It's not a crazy reading of the quote, but it is accepting the MCPS statement completely at face value and assuming "best practices" have been established as opposed to there being various experts making various recommendation and MCPS has chosen the one they like best. I agree that MCPS is flailing around trying to find a system that increases the racial and socio-economic diversity of the magnet programs, which I do not think is a completely irrational or inappropriate goal. But this system does seem as likely if not more likely to select students who are in the 20% non-FARMS cohort at 80% FARMS schools rather than to select students who are adversely affected by poverty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:(Re-posted from another similar thread: https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/0/781550.page#14429226)

My husband actually called the central office and they said that the CES students's percentiles were calculated based on their current elementary school's SES. They then use the outcome of that ES-based calculation to identify a cohort at the middle school (which may also have a different feeder group and SES that the CES from which the student was calculated, but that's not taken into account). They also said that there may be a difference in the calculation at our home school, but it's unlikely to be much of a difference as to final outcome of cohort, but they can't be sure without a recalculation, which they won't do unless specifically requested on an appeal. (In our case, the CES ES has about 50% FARMS, but our home ES has about 80% FARMS.) This supports the suspicion that students in the CES are less likely to be accepted into the magnets, especially if their "cohorts" are being determined based on numbers that are skewed in different ways from the home schools.

Let me get this straight-
So a poor FARMS child at Chevy Chase CES which is not high FARMS would be compared to those in the the high SES group so this child who is very bright ends up at only 80th percentile.
Let's say that child is supposed to go to Silver Creek MS which is middle SES.
She's competing against children from Rock Creek Forest which is middle SES. They have lower scores nationally than the Chevy Chase child but because they are being compared to a different peer group they are 99th percentile.

Are you saying that they would compare the Chevy Chase CES child's 80th percentile against the Rock Creek Forest child's 99th percentile in admissions for magnets? If so, that makes no sense and supports this idea that kids at CES are being penalized.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where are you getting this? There are no best practices. Different school systems are overhauling their selection criteria and are settling on different methods depending on what is convenient for their goals.
NYC is redoing it's system and they have the same goals as MCPS to increase diversity but given most of the Asian kids they are trying to push out of the magnets in their system are poor they do not want to compare those poor Asian kids to poor Hispanic or poor black kids.

The most "fair" system I have heard of is in Miami where individual students who are FARMS get some amount of extra points. This did end up giving them their desired demographics.

PP is getting it from the MCPS quote which says "Gifted and talented experts recommend the use of local norms..." I assume "best practices" was inferred by PP from "G&T experts recommend." It's not a crazy reading of the quote, but it is accepting the MCPS statement completely at face value and assuming "best practices" have been established as opposed to there being various experts making various recommendation and MCPS has chosen the one they like best. I agree that MCPS is flailing around trying to find a system that increases the racial and socio-economic diversity of the magnet programs, which I do not think is a completely irrational or inappropriate goal. But this system does seem as likely if not more likely to select students who are in the 20% non-FARMS cohort at 80% FARMS schools rather than to select students who are adversely affected by poverty.

+1 Completely agree with last sentence. Local norms could simply be MCPS norms but, again, that would lead to "too many" Asians being admitted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is really bad. Are they fools? It really sounds like they run the numbers using one formula, check to see if they got the racial demographics they wanted and if not, come up with another formula until they get the racial and geographic profile they want.

It would make sense to run FARMS kids as their own cohort with percentages. They could even include kids who have been in FARMS in the past which is data that they also have in their records. A MC white kid with an undergrad college education a parent who work at a non-profit making only 40K or 50K isn't a group they need to be giving extra help to. Its the kids who live in extreme poverty and have the potential to use the magnet experience to pull out of it.

It also sounds like they are further looking for ways to exclude any kids coming from W schools which is just going to make the W middle schools perform even higher while diluting the magnets.

They are following the best practices of gifted education experts. Are you asking if the experts are fools? Are you an expert?

No, if they indeed follow the best practices of gifted education experts, they should have known from the very beginning that CoGAT CANNOT be used to differentiate the top percentiles (quoted from CoGAT designers), nor does MAP or PARCC test. The extremely absurd denominators they use are only for a single purpose to select the ones they want to select, while in the same time, make the numbers as beautiful as they can so to cover up the absolute values.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where are you getting this? There are no best practices. Different school systems are overhauling their selection criteria and are settling on different methods depending on what is convenient for their goals.
NYC is redoing it's system and they have the same goals as MCPS to increase diversity but given most of the Asian kids they are trying to push out of the magnets in their system are poor they do not want to compare those poor Asian kids to poor Hispanic or poor black kids.

The most "fair" system I have heard of is in Miami where individual students who are FARMS get some amount of extra points. This did end up giving them their desired demographics.

PP is getting it from the MCPS quote which says "Gifted and talented experts recommend the use of local norms..." I assume "best practices" was inferred by PP from "G&T experts recommend." It's not a crazy reading of the quote, but it is accepting the MCPS statement completely at face value and assuming "best practices" have been established as opposed to there being various experts making various recommendation and MCPS has chosen the one they like best. I agree that MCPS is flailing around trying to find a system that increases the racial and socio-economic diversity of the magnet programs, which I do not think is a completely irrational or inappropriate goal. But this system does seem as likely if not more likely to select students who are in the 20% non-FARMS cohort at 80% FARMS schools rather than to select students who are adversely affected by poverty.

+1 Completely agree with last sentence. Local norms could simply be MCPS norms but, again, that would lead to "too many" Asians being admitted.

They already list "FARMS" as one of the factors considered by the admissions committee - last year and this year. Why this additional calculation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:(Re-posted from another similar thread: https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/0/781550.page#14429226)

My husband actually called the central office and they said that the CES students's percentiles were calculated based on their current elementary school's SES. They then use the outcome of that ES-based calculation to identify a cohort at the middle school (which may also have a different feeder group and SES that the CES from which the student was calculated, but that's not taken into account). They also said that there may be a difference in the calculation at our home school, but it's unlikely to be much of a difference as to final outcome of cohort, but they can't be sure without a recalculation, which they won't do unless specifically requested on an appeal. (In our case, the CES ES has about 50% FARMS, but our home ES has about 80% FARMS.) This supports the suspicion that students in the CES are less likely to be accepted into the magnets, especially if their "cohorts" are being determined based on numbers that are skewed in different ways from the home schools.

Let me get this straight-
So a poor FARMS child at Chevy Chase CES which is not high FARMS would be compared to those in the the high SES group so this child who is very bright ends up at only 80th percentile.
Let's say that child is supposed to go to Silver Creek MS which is middle SES.
She's competing against children from Rock Creek Forest which is middle SES. They have lower scores nationally than the Chevy Chase child but because they are being compared to a different peer group they are 99th percentile.

Are you saying that they would compare the Chevy Chase CES child's 80th percentile against the Rock Creek Forest child's 99th percentile in admissions for magnets? If so, that makes no sense and supports this idea that kids at CES are being penalized.

Well, you are making a huge assumption that the difference between the high SES and middle SES groups could make a student who is lower percentile nationally 19 percentage points higher than a student in the other group who is actually higher nationally. I think that's really unlikely, but only someone with access to all the numbers could say for sure. If you have two students who are both 98% nationally and one from a low SES group ends up with an MCPS 99% and one from a high SES group ends up with an MCPS 96% do you still think that makes no sense? We don't know what these numbers actually are and how much the national % and MCPS % are different, but based on what 5th grade parents were reporting on other threads I don't think you can be 98 or 99% nationally and be 80% MCPS. I don't think it changes that much. They are reporting both scores to parents, so if there are differences that large, there should be people here who can attest to it (of course, anonymous, so...)

[Anonymous]

^^^ It also depends where they do the cut-off for low, middle, high. The FARMS rate for RCF to use PP's example, is only about 5 percentage points higher than for CCES. One falls on the <20% (barely) and one falls on the >20%, but they are not hugely different. Hard to know how they decided to split up the schools.

[Anonymous]

Actually, there were some PPs in a different thread reporting 99th national scores but only 80s in MCPS. Maybe they were in the high SES group.

If there weren't a significant difference MCPS wouldn't bother with the calculations, PP.