4th Grade CES Admission Criteria?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
This data has been posted. It might be in this thread https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/754120.page I can't find the really long thread. Maybe someone else can post the link. If I remember correctly Asian students were the biggest losers. Biggest increase was white students. Some increase for blacks, negligible increase for hispanics. |
Anonymous
Yes, there was a bar graph that showed this. |
Anonymous
I haven't seen any reports isolating just the magnet students, let alone just 6th grade magnet students, but FWIW for TPMS overall, here are the racial/ethnic breakdowns for 2017 and 2018: 
Source: MCPS Official Reports of Enrollment, https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/ |
Anonymous
|
Thanks for posting the graph, PP. If that's the case, why has everyone (including immediate PPs) been claiming that whites were the biggest winners?
That doesn't seem to be true at all. |
Anonymous
D.. that graph is just for TPMS. There is Eastern, too. |
Anonymous
| The data was posted. Whites were the biggest winners, Asian enrollments and acceptances went down. |
Anonymous
You can find the numbers of TP magnet program only if you search the BOE meeting section. |
Anonymous
Thanks because the numbers posted above are for a school that is 8X larger than the magnet program and has completely unrelated demographics. |
Anonymous
|
This Bethesda Magazine article has convenient bar graphs with the breakdowns (scroll down a bit to the "Students Invited" pair): https://bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-beat/schools/mcps-pilots-universal-evaluation-process-for-middle-school-magnet-programs/.
These are the numbers for invited students, not for those who accepted, so they won't reflect the actual makeup of the current 6th grade classes. We're looking at a total change of 10 fewer Asian students invited at TPMS, and 7 fewer at Eastern (although EMS did admit a larger overall number to the magnet this year, adding about 20 seats). At TKMS, the Black/AfAm group picked up at least 9 students, depending on the actual number represented by the "equal or less than 10" stat from last year. The additional slots added at EMS seem to have been distributed between white, Black, mixed race, and Hispanic students. As the graphs show, between the two magnet programs we're talking about a total difference of 17 fewer Asian students invited this year. Given the additional spots this year at EMS, the two programs together invited about 33% Asian students last year, down to 24.5% this year. For TKMS alone, the change in percentage of Asian students invited is about the same as in the combined programs, from 39% Asian last year to 31% this year. So, a change of about 8 percentage points between this year and last, with respect to the number of Asian students in the magnet programs. Not a paltry change, but does it really constitute a vast anti-Asian conspiracy? I'd love to see the fluctuations between demographics over previous years. Have we ever had an 8% change in a single demographic between any two previous years? Frankly, the change that jumps out at me most from these graphs is that invitations at both schools were much more gender-balanced this year (larger percentage of girls admitted this year than last year at TKMS, larger percentage of boys at Eastern). I don't know whether the committee knew the gender of each applicant, or saw their names, which would allow an educated guess. My understanding was that all they saw was a student number, but I don't know that for sure. |
Anonymous
|
No conspiracy. I do think there were parents who thought they had the system figured out. Their children were sufficiently prepped and then they successfully scored high enough on the different metrics that would have been competitive in years past. But not this year.
The students who were not invited just did not score high enough because of the change. I think the parents of those students feel cheated, but the current system is more fair in my opinion. Others have stated why over and over, so I won’t rehash. But the parents who think it’s unfair won’t ever hear it. They’ll continue to think their child was more deserving and was cheated out of a superior education because they’re [insert reason]. |
Anonymous
| Well, universal screening vs. a process dependent upon parents produces some differences, as has been discussed pretty extensively here since last February. |
Anonymous
I do believe that gender was not hidden but names were. |
Anonymous
| I thought this thread was about 4th grade?!? |
Anonymous
Threads that go 12 pages are never still about whatever they started out being about. |
Anonymous
Because, frankly, there's no mileage in talking about the CES admissions criteria and the changes, because nobody how mix of students selected changed, and even if you did, you don't know the relative impacts of the changed criteria versus universal screening (which arguably is part of the changed criteria). |