CES letters?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My son (who is Black) was in the 95th percentile on MAP-R at a "focus" school, was placed in the lottery, did not get in the regional CES. Not sure how or if this matches the anecdotes already gathered in this thread.

I'll admit to a little pang because I was in "GT" classes when I was a kid and I have a love/hate relationship with that label. But staying in his home school is probably a better move for him, and I feel confident that his needs will be met.

You should appeal this decision.

WHY. Why should this parent appeal?

I'm a flaming progressive that would be happy to have race be a consideration, but it's not.

So what is there to appeal? A 95th percentile kid WAS put in the lottery pool, but then wasn't randomly selected? Just like tons of other 90th, 95th and 99th percentile kids, because there are more of them than slots available?

Thus...?

I would like to believe it is an absolutely fair lottery game. Your case support it.

There is a race consideration, it's just not explicit because that would be unlawful. By locally norming students' scores, MCPS made it easier for kids at high FARMS schools to qualify for the pool than kids from low FARMS schools. Because FARMS rates correlate so closely with how many underrepresented minority students attend a school, it was the best MCPS could do under the law to make the pool more racially diverse and less white. Was about time, especially in light of the prior conversations above about how many (mostly white/asian) parents used to game the system by paying for tutors and prep classes to make sure their kids score high on the entrance tests.

LOL, pay tutor for MAPs test....., Save your money for Sport private lesson.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My son (who is Black) was in the 95th percentile on MAP-R at a "focus" school, was placed in the lottery, did not get in the regional CES. Not sure how or if this matches the anecdotes already gathered in this thread.

I'll admit to a little pang because I was in "GT" classes when I was a kid and I have a love/hate relationship with that label. But staying in his home school is probably a better move for him, and I feel confident that his needs will be met.

You should appeal this decision.

WHY. Why should this parent appeal?

I'm a flaming progressive that would be happy to have race be a consideration, but it's not.

So what is there to appeal? A 95th percentile kid WAS put in the lottery pool, but then wasn't randomly selected? Just like tons of other 90th, 95th and 99th percentile kids, because there are more of them than slots available?

Thus...?

I would like to believe it is an absolutely fair lottery game. Your case support it.

There is a race consideration, it's just not explicit because that would be unlawful. By locally norming students' scores, MCPS made it easier for kids at high FARMS schools to qualify for the pool than kids from low FARMS schools. Because FARMS rates correlate so closely with how many underrepresented minority students attend a school, it was the best MCPS could do under the law to make the pool more racially diverse and less white. Was about time, especially in light of the prior conversations above about how many (mostly white/asian) parents used to game the system by paying for tutors and prep classes to make sure their kids score high on the entrance tests.

I wonder if there's a case for disparate impact racial discrimination based on the local norming?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My son (who is Black) was in the 95th percentile on MAP-R at a "focus" school, was placed in the lottery, did not get in the regional CES. Not sure how or if this matches the anecdotes already gathered in this thread.

I'll admit to a little pang because I was in "GT" classes when I was a kid and I have a love/hate relationship with that label. But staying in his home school is probably a better move for him, and I feel confident that his needs will be met.

You should appeal this decision.

WHY. Why should this parent appeal?

I'm a flaming progressive that would be happy to have race be a consideration, but it's not.

So what is there to appeal? A 95th percentile kid WAS put in the lottery pool, but then wasn't randomly selected? Just like tons of other 90th, 95th and 99th percentile kids, because there are more of them than slots available?

Thus...?

I would like to believe it is an absolutely fair lottery game. Your case support it.

There is a race consideration, it's just not explicit because that would be unlawful. By locally norming students' scores, MCPS made it easier for kids at high FARMS schools to qualify for the pool than kids from low FARMS schools. Because FARMS rates correlate so closely with how many underrepresented minority students attend a school, it was the best MCPS could do under the law to make the pool more racially diverse and less white. Was about time, especially in light of the prior conversations above about how many (mostly white/asian) parents used to game the system by paying for tutors and prep classes to make sure their kids score high on the entrance tests.

I wonder if there's a case for disparate impact racial discrimination based on the local norming?

No.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My son (who is Black) was in the 95th percentile on MAP-R at a "focus" school, was placed in the lottery, did not get in the regional CES. Not sure how or if this matches the anecdotes already gathered in this thread.

I'll admit to a little pang because I was in "GT" classes when I was a kid and I have a love/hate relationship with that label. But staying in his home school is probably a better move for him, and I feel confident that his needs will be met.

You should appeal this decision.

WHY. Why should this parent appeal?

I'm a flaming progressive that would be happy to have race be a consideration, but it's not.

So what is there to appeal? A 95th percentile kid WAS put in the lottery pool, but then wasn't randomly selected? Just like tons of other 90th, 95th and 99th percentile kids, because there are more of them than slots available?

Thus...?

I would like to believe it is an absolutely fair lottery game. Your case support it.

There is a race consideration, it's just not explicit because that would be unlawful. By locally norming students' scores, MCPS made it easier for kids at high FARMS schools to qualify for the pool than kids from low FARMS schools. Because FARMS rates correlate so closely with how many underrepresented minority students attend a school, it was the best MCPS could do under the law to make the pool more racially diverse and less white. Was about time, especially in light of the prior conversations above about how many (mostly white/asian) parents used to game the system by paying for tutors and prep classes to make sure their kids score high on the entrance tests.

I wonder if there's a case for disparate impact racial discrimination based on the local norming?

No.

I doubt there’s anyone willing to sue in order to find out given how far downhill the CES program has gone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My son (who is Black) was in the 95th percentile on MAP-R at a "focus" school, was placed in the lottery, did not get in the regional CES. Not sure how or if this matches the anecdotes already gathered in this thread.

I'll admit to a little pang because I was in "GT" classes when I was a kid and I have a love/hate relationship with that label. But staying in his home school is probably a better move for him, and I feel confident that his needs will be met.

You should appeal this decision.

WHY. Why should this parent appeal?

I'm a flaming progressive that would be happy to have race be a consideration, but it's not.

So what is there to appeal? A 95th percentile kid WAS put in the lottery pool, but then wasn't randomly selected? Just like tons of other 90th, 95th and 99th percentile kids, because there are more of them than slots available?

Thus...?

I would like to believe it is an absolutely fair lottery game. Your case support it.

There is a race consideration, it's just not explicit because that would be unlawful. By locally norming students' scores, MCPS made it easier for kids at high FARMS schools to qualify for the pool than kids from low FARMS schools. Because FARMS rates correlate so closely with how many underrepresented minority students attend a school, it was the best MCPS could do under the law to make the pool more racially diverse and less white. Was about time, especially in light of the prior conversations above about how many (mostly white/asian) parents used to game the system by paying for tutors and prep classes to make sure their kids score high on the entrance tests.

I wonder if there's a case for disparate impact racial discrimination based on the local norming?

Local morning is considered a best practice for G&T program selection, but in the case of CES has almost no impact since children in all but a few cases are competing against similar SES schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My son (who is Black) was in the 95th percentile on MAP-R at a "focus" school, was placed in the lottery, did not get in the regional CES. Not sure how or if this matches the anecdotes already gathered in this thread.

I'll admit to a little pang because I was in "GT" classes when I was a kid and I have a love/hate relationship with that label. But staying in his home school is probably a better move for him, and I feel confident that his needs will be met.

You should appeal this decision.

WHY. Why should this parent appeal?

I'm a flaming progressive that would be happy to have race be a consideration, but it's not.

So what is there to appeal? A 95th percentile kid WAS put in the lottery pool, but then wasn't randomly selected? Just like tons of other 90th, 95th and 99th percentile kids, because there are more of them than slots available?

Thus...?

I would like to believe it is an absolutely fair lottery game. Your case support it.

There is a race consideration, it's just not explicit because that would be unlawful. By locally norming students' scores, MCPS made it easier for kids at high FARMS schools to qualify for the pool than kids from low FARMS schools. Because FARMS rates correlate so closely with how many underrepresented minority students attend a school, it was the best MCPS could do under the law to make the pool more racially diverse and less white. Was about time, especially in light of the prior conversations above about how many (mostly white/asian) parents used to game the system by paying for tutors and prep classes to make sure their kids score high on the entrance tests.

I wonder if there's a case for disparate impact racial discrimination based on the local norming?

Local morning is considered a best practice for G&T program selection, but in the case of CES has almost no impact since children in all but a few cases are competing against similar SES schools.

Yeah I mean, fine if they want to use local norming to find students in lower SES school environments who would benefit from and succeed in a CES type environment. I just don’t quite get the logic of using norming to lower a student’s score and erect barriers for a high performing student from a higher SES school. Why is the child with a 95tb percentile having their “standardized” test averaged downward and gaslighted/denied enrichment because you needed to norm other kids’ scores upward when those students are not headed to the same regional CES anyway?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My son (who is Black) was in the 95th percentile on MAP-R at a "focus" school, was placed in the lottery, did not get in the regional CES. Not sure how or if this matches the anecdotes already gathered in this thread.

I'll admit to a little pang because I was in "GT" classes when I was a kid and I have a love/hate relationship with that label. But staying in his home school is probably a better move for him, and I feel confident that his needs will be met.

You should appeal this decision.

WHY. Why should this parent appeal?

I'm a flaming progressive that would be happy to have race be a consideration, but it's not.

So what is there to appeal? A 95th percentile kid WAS put in the lottery pool, but then wasn't randomly selected? Just like tons of other 90th, 95th and 99th percentile kids, because there are more of them than slots available?

Thus...?

I would like to believe it is an absolutely fair lottery game. Your case support it.

There is a race consideration, it's just not explicit because that would be unlawful. By locally norming students' scores, MCPS made it easier for kids at high FARMS schools to qualify for the pool than kids from low FARMS schools. Because FARMS rates correlate so closely with how many underrepresented minority students attend a school, it was the best MCPS could do under the law to make the pool more racially diverse and less white. Was about time, especially in light of the prior conversations above about how many (mostly white/asian) parents used to game the system by paying for tutors and prep classes to make sure their kids score high on the entrance tests.

I wonder if there's a case for disparate impact racial discrimination based on the local norming?

Local morning is considered a best practice for G&T program selection, but in the case of CES has almost no impact since children in all but a few cases are competing against similar SES schools.

Yeah I mean, fine if they want to use local norming to find students in lower SES school environments who would benefit from and succeed in a CES type environment. I just don’t quite get the logic of using norming to lower a student’s score and erect barriers for a high performing student from a higher SES school. Why is the child with a 95tb percentile having their “standardized” test averaged downward and gaslighted/denied enrichment because you needed to norm other kids’ scores upward when those students are not headed to the same regional CES anyway?

Essentially, I think they should only use the local norming to help students. The way it is now is honestly a net harm to some students and I don’t think that is in the spirit of appropriately meeting the needs of all students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My son (who is Black) was in the 95th percentile on MAP-R at a "focus" school, was placed in the lottery, did not get in the regional CES. Not sure how or if this matches the anecdotes already gathered in this thread.

I'll admit to a little pang because I was in "GT" classes when I was a kid and I have a love/hate relationship with that label. But staying in his home school is probably a better move for him, and I feel confident that his needs will be met.

You should appeal this decision.

WHY. Why should this parent appeal?

I'm a flaming progressive that would be happy to have race be a consideration, but it's not.

So what is there to appeal? A 95th percentile kid WAS put in the lottery pool, but then wasn't randomly selected? Just like tons of other 90th, 95th and 99th percentile kids, because there are more of them than slots available?

Thus...?

I would like to believe it is an absolutely fair lottery game. Your case support it.

There is a race consideration, it's just not explicit because that would be unlawful. By locally norming students' scores, MCPS made it easier for kids at high FARMS schools to qualify for the pool than kids from low FARMS schools. Because FARMS rates correlate so closely with how many underrepresented minority students attend a school, it was the best MCPS could do under the law to make the pool more racially diverse and less white. Was about time, especially in light of the prior conversations above about how many (mostly white/asian) parents used to game the system by paying for tutors and prep classes to make sure their kids score high on the entrance tests.

I wonder if there's a case for disparate impact racial discrimination based on the local norming?

Local morning is considered a best practice for G&T program selection, but in the case of CES has almost no impact since children in all but a few cases are competing against similar SES schools.

Yeah I mean, fine if they want to use local norming to find students in lower SES school environments who would benefit from and succeed in a CES type environment. I just don’t quite get the logic of using norming to lower a student’s score and erect barriers for a high performing student from a higher SES school. Why is the child with a 95tb percentile having their “standardized” test averaged downward and gaslighted/denied enrichment because you needed to norm other kids’ scores upward when those students are not headed to the same regional CES anyway?

Look at it this way. The kids getting "normed" out of the pool were the edge cases anyway. It's not the 95th percentile kids dropping out of the pool - it's the 86th percentile kids in the highest SES schools. Those kids woudn't have even been in the pool under the old system, so it's the same difference in the end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My son (who is Black) was in the 95th percentile on MAP-R at a "focus" school, was placed in the lottery, did not get in the regional CES. Not sure how or if this matches the anecdotes already gathered in this thread.

I'll admit to a little pang because I was in "GT" classes when I was a kid and I have a love/hate relationship with that label. But staying in his home school is probably a better move for him, and I feel confident that his needs will be met.

You should appeal this decision.

WHY. Why should this parent appeal?

I'm a flaming progressive that would be happy to have race be a consideration, but it's not.

So what is there to appeal? A 95th percentile kid WAS put in the lottery pool, but then wasn't randomly selected? Just like tons of other 90th, 95th and 99th percentile kids, because there are more of them than slots available?

Thus...?

I would like to believe it is an absolutely fair lottery game. Your case support it.

There is a race consideration, it's just not explicit because that would be unlawful. By locally norming students' scores, MCPS made it easier for kids at high FARMS schools to qualify for the pool than kids from low FARMS schools. Because FARMS rates correlate so closely with how many underrepresented minority students attend a school, it was the best MCPS could do under the law to make the pool more racially diverse and less white. Was about time, especially in light of the prior conversations above about how many (mostly white/asian) parents used to game the system by paying for tutors and prep classes to make sure their kids score high on the entrance tests.

I wonder if there's a case for disparate impact racial discrimination based on the local norming?

Local morning is considered a best practice for G&T program selection, but in the case of CES has almost no impact since children in all but a few cases are competing against similar SES schools.

Yeah I mean, fine if they want to use local norming to find students in lower SES school environments who would benefit from and succeed in a CES type environment. I just don’t quite get the logic of using norming to lower a student’s score and erect barriers for a high performing student from a higher SES school. Why is the child with a 95tb percentile having their “standardized” test averaged downward and gaslighted/denied enrichment because you needed to norm other kids’ scores upward when those students are not headed to the same regional CES anyway?

Look at it this way. The kids getting "normed" out of the pool were the edge cases anyway. It's not the 95th percentile kids dropping out of the pool - it's the 86th percentile kids in the highest SES schools. Those kids woudn't have even been in the pool under the old system, so it's the same difference in the end.

Are you saying that kids from high SES schools who scored in the 96th percentile on the national scale (before MCPS drove down/locally normed their score to the 84th percentile on the MCPS high SES scale) would never have been considered for the program in years past? I didn't realize the bar was that high to qualify before they started using local norming and the lottery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My son (who is Black) was in the 95th percentile on MAP-R at a "focus" school, was placed in the lottery, did not get in the regional CES. Not sure how or if this matches the anecdotes already gathered in this thread.

I'll admit to a little pang because I was in "GT" classes when I was a kid and I have a love/hate relationship with that label. But staying in his home school is probably a better move for him, and I feel confident that his needs will be met.

You should appeal this decision.

WHY. Why should this parent appeal?

I'm a flaming progressive that would be happy to have race be a consideration, but it's not.

So what is there to appeal? A 95th percentile kid WAS put in the lottery pool, but then wasn't randomly selected? Just like tons of other 90th, 95th and 99th percentile kids, because there are more of them than slots available?

Thus...?

I would like to believe it is an absolutely fair lottery game. Your case support it.

There is a race consideration, it's just not explicit because that would be unlawful. By locally norming students' scores, MCPS made it easier for kids at high FARMS schools to qualify for the pool than kids from low FARMS schools. Because FARMS rates correlate so closely with how many underrepresented minority students attend a school, it was the best MCPS could do under the law to make the pool more racially diverse and less white. Was about time, especially in light of the prior conversations above about how many (mostly white/asian) parents used to game the system by paying for tutors and prep classes to make sure their kids score high on the entrance tests.

I wonder if there's a case for disparate impact racial discrimination based on the local norming?

Local morning is considered a best practice for G&T program selection, but in the case of CES has almost no impact since children in all but a few cases are competing against similar SES schools.

Yeah I mean, fine if they want to use local norming to find students in lower SES school environments who would benefit from and succeed in a CES type environment. I just don’t quite get the logic of using norming to lower a student’s score and erect barriers for a high performing student from a higher SES school. Why is the child with a 95tb percentile having their “standardized” test averaged downward and gaslighted/denied enrichment because you needed to norm other kids’ scores upward when those students are not headed to the same regional CES anyway?

Look at it this way. The kids getting "normed" out of the pool were the edge cases anyway. It's not the 95th percentile kids dropping out of the pool - it's the 86th percentile kids in the highest SES schools. Those kids woudn't have even been in the pool under the old system, so it's the same difference in the end.

Are you saying that kids from high SES schools who scored in the 96th percentile on the national scale (before MCPS drove down/locally normed their score to the 84th percentile on the MCPS high SES scale) would never have been considered for the program in years past? I didn't realize the bar was that high to qualify before they started using local norming and the lottery.

Well, my kids attended a CES at a Focus school years ago before all these changes and many neighbor kids with 97% and 98% natioanl CogAT were rejected. I don't think the SES of an area is as big a factor as some people seem to imagine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My son (who is Black) was in the 95th percentile on MAP-R at a "focus" school, was placed in the lottery, did not get in the regional CES. Not sure how or if this matches the anecdotes already gathered in this thread.

I'll admit to a little pang because I was in "GT" classes when I was a kid and I have a love/hate relationship with that label. But staying in his home school is probably a better move for him, and I feel confident that his needs will be met.

You should appeal this decision.

WHY. Why should this parent appeal?

I'm a flaming progressive that would be happy to have race be a consideration, but it's not.

So what is there to appeal? A 95th percentile kid WAS put in the lottery pool, but then wasn't randomly selected? Just like tons of other 90th, 95th and 99th percentile kids, because there are more of them than slots available?

Thus...?

I would like to believe it is an absolutely fair lottery game. Your case support it.

There is a race consideration, it's just not explicit because that would be unlawful. By locally norming students' scores, MCPS made it easier for kids at high FARMS schools to qualify for the pool than kids from low FARMS schools. Because FARMS rates correlate so closely with how many underrepresented minority students attend a school, it was the best MCPS could do under the law to make the pool more racially diverse and less white. Was about time, especially in light of the prior conversations above about how many (mostly white/asian) parents used to game the system by paying for tutors and prep classes to make sure their kids score high on the entrance tests.

I wonder if there's a case for disparate impact racial discrimination based on the local norming?

Local morning is considered a best practice for G&T program selection, but in the case of CES has almost no impact since children in all but a few cases are competing against similar SES schools.

Yeah I mean, fine if they want to use local norming to find students in lower SES school environments who would benefit from and succeed in a CES type environment. I just don’t quite get the logic of using norming to lower a student’s score and erect barriers for a high performing student from a higher SES school. Why is the child with a 95tb percentile having their “standardized” test averaged downward and gaslighted/denied enrichment because you needed to norm other kids’ scores upward when those students are not headed to the same regional CES anyway?

Look at it this way. The kids getting "normed" out of the pool were the edge cases anyway. It's not the 95th percentile kids dropping out of the pool - it's the 86th percentile kids in the highest SES schools. Those kids woudn't have even been in the pool under the old system, so it's the same difference in the end.

Are you saying that kids from high SES schools who scored in the 96th percentile on the national scale (before MCPS drove down/locally normed their score to the 84th percentile on the MCPS high SES scale) would never have been considered for the program in years past? I didn't realize the bar was that high to qualify before they started using local norming and the lottery.

Well, my kids attended a CES at a Focus school years ago before all these changes and many neighbor kids with 97% and 98% natioanl CogAT were rejected. I don't think the SES of an area is as big a factor as some people seem to imagine.

It's actually a huge factor now that there is a random lottery - maybe not back when the CES picked individual kids and so could aim to take only those 99 percentile kids.

To qualify for the lottery pool these days, students at low SES schools need a 85th percentile MAP-R while students at high SES schools, regardless of their personal circumstance, need a 96th percentile to qualify for the lottery. Of course, once a kid is in the pool, selection is entirely random. So kids in high SES schools with 86th, 87th, 88th, 89th, 90th etc. percentile scores have no chance at all, while kids at low SES schools with those same scores have as good a chance to be accepted into the program as kids with 99th percentile scores.

Seems like a pretty big difference to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My son (who is Black) was in the 95th percentile on MAP-R at a "focus" school, was placed in the lottery, did not get in the regional CES. Not sure how or if this matches the anecdotes already gathered in this thread.

I'll admit to a little pang because I was in "GT" classes when I was a kid and I have a love/hate relationship with that label. But staying in his home school is probably a better move for him, and I feel confident that his needs will be met.

You should appeal this decision.

WHY. Why should this parent appeal?

I'm a flaming progressive that would be happy to have race be a consideration, but it's not.

So what is there to appeal? A 95th percentile kid WAS put in the lottery pool, but then wasn't randomly selected? Just like tons of other 90th, 95th and 99th percentile kids, because there are more of them than slots available?

Thus...?

I would like to believe it is an absolutely fair lottery game. Your case support it.

There is a race consideration, it's just not explicit because that would be unlawful. By locally norming students' scores, MCPS made it easier for kids at high FARMS schools to qualify for the pool than kids from low FARMS schools. Because FARMS rates correlate so closely with how many underrepresented minority students attend a school, it was the best MCPS could do under the law to make the pool more racially diverse and less white. Was about time, especially in light of the prior conversations above about how many (mostly white/asian) parents used to game the system by paying for tutors and prep classes to make sure their kids score high on the entrance tests.

I wonder if there's a case for disparate impact racial discrimination based on the local norming?

Local morning is considered a best practice for G&T program selection, but in the case of CES has almost no impact since children in all but a few cases are competing against similar SES schools.

Yeah I mean, fine if they want to use local norming to find students in lower SES school environments who would benefit from and succeed in a CES type environment. I just don’t quite get the logic of using norming to lower a student’s score and erect barriers for a high performing student from a higher SES school. Why is the child with a 95tb percentile having their “standardized” test averaged downward and gaslighted/denied enrichment because you needed to norm other kids’ scores upward when those students are not headed to the same regional CES anyway?

Look at it this way. The kids getting "normed" out of the pool were the edge cases anyway. It's not the 95th percentile kids dropping out of the pool - it's the 86th percentile kids in the highest SES schools. Those kids woudn't have even been in the pool under the old system, so it's the same difference in the end.

Are you saying that kids from high SES schools who scored in the 96th percentile on the national scale (before MCPS drove down/locally normed their score to the 84th percentile on the MCPS high SES scale) would never have been considered for the program in years past? I didn't realize the bar was that high to qualify before they started using local norming and the lottery.

Not PP, but there's a different way to look at this. We all know regional CES draws from a certain predetermined number of ESs. So Pyle kids are not competing for the same spots as Frost kids who are not competing for the same spots as Newport Mill kids. They each have separate a CES. Each CES has a certain number of spots to give out. If we looked at how many CES invitations are offered to each school, I would not be surprised to find it's more or less a similar number across all the ESs, I would guess in the range of 6-8 spots per school. So while the Pyle or Frost families may be upset that more of their kids don't get spots (and that their corresponding threshold MAP percentile may be higher than some others), really there's no way around the fact that there are a limited number of seats at their CES and it's not going to get any bigger. So in the end, the Pyle students are not competing against either the Frost students or the Newport Mill students. They are competing against kids in their own cluster and the other clusters that feed into their specific CES. The local norming is only there to allow lower SES schools to send a similar number of kids to their CES, which is NOT the CES that draws from Pyle or Frost.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My son (who is Black) was in the 95th percentile on MAP-R at a "focus" school, was placed in the lottery, did not get in the regional CES. Not sure how or if this matches the anecdotes already gathered in this thread.

I'll admit to a little pang because I was in "GT" classes when I was a kid and I have a love/hate relationship with that label. But staying in his home school is probably a better move for him, and I feel confident that his needs will be met.

You should appeal this decision.

WHY. Why should this parent appeal?

I'm a flaming progressive that would be happy to have race be a consideration, but it's not.

So what is there to appeal? A 95th percentile kid WAS put in the lottery pool, but then wasn't randomly selected? Just like tons of other 90th, 95th and 99th percentile kids, because there are more of them than slots available?

Thus...?

I would like to believe it is an absolutely fair lottery game. Your case support it.

There is a race consideration, it's just not explicit because that would be unlawful. By locally norming students' scores, MCPS made it easier for kids at high FARMS schools to qualify for the pool than kids from low FARMS schools. Because FARMS rates correlate so closely with how many underrepresented minority students attend a school, it was the best MCPS could do under the law to make the pool more racially diverse and less white. Was about time, especially in light of the prior conversations above about how many (mostly white/asian) parents used to game the system by paying for tutors and prep classes to make sure their kids score high on the entrance tests.

I wonder if there's a case for disparate impact racial discrimination based on the local norming?

Local morning is considered a best practice for G&T program selection, but in the case of CES has almost no impact since children in all but a few cases are competing against similar SES schools.

Yeah I mean, fine if they want to use local norming to find students in lower SES school environments who would benefit from and succeed in a CES type environment. I just don’t quite get the logic of using norming to lower a student’s score and erect barriers for a high performing student from a higher SES school. Why is the child with a 95tb percentile having their “standardized” test averaged downward and gaslighted/denied enrichment because you needed to norm other kids’ scores upward when those students are not headed to the same regional CES anyway?

Look at it this way. The kids getting "normed" out of the pool were the edge cases anyway. It's not the 95th percentile kids dropping out of the pool - it's the 86th percentile kids in the highest SES schools. Those kids woudn't have even been in the pool under the old system, so it's the same difference in the end.

Are you saying that kids from high SES schools who scored in the 96th percentile on the national scale (before MCPS drove down/locally normed their score to the 84th percentile on the MCPS high SES scale) would never have been considered for the program in years past? I didn't realize the bar was that high to qualify before they started using local norming and the lottery.

Not PP, but there's a different way to look at this. We all know regional CES draws from a certain predetermined number of ESs. So Pyle kids are not competing for the same spots as Frost kids who are not competing for the same spots as Newport Mill kids. They each have separate a CES. Each CES has a certain number of spots to give out. If we looked at how many CES invitations are offered to each school, I would not be surprised to find it's more or less a similar number across all the ESs, I would guess in the range of 6-8 spots per school. So while the Pyle or Frost families may be upset that more of their kids don't get spots (and that their corresponding threshold MAP percentile may be higher than some others), really there's no way around the fact that there are a limited number of seats at their CES and it's not going to get any bigger. So in the end, the Pyle students are not competing against either the Frost students or the Newport Mill students. They are competing against kids in their own cluster and the other clusters that feed into their specific CES. The local norming is only there to allow lower SES schools to send a similar number of kids to their CES, which is NOT the CES that draws from Pyle or Frost.

Well this is not 100% true. There are mid-tier SES schools that feed into the CES for Pyle at least.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My son (who is Black) was in the 95th percentile on MAP-R at a "focus" school, was placed in the lottery, did not get in the regional CES. Not sure how or if this matches the anecdotes already gathered in this thread.

I'll admit to a little pang because I was in "GT" classes when I was a kid and I have a love/hate relationship with that label. But staying in his home school is probably a better move for him, and I feel confident that his needs will be met.

You should appeal this decision.

WHY. Why should this parent appeal?

I'm a flaming progressive that would be happy to have race be a consideration, but it's not.

So what is there to appeal? A 95th percentile kid WAS put in the lottery pool, but then wasn't randomly selected? Just like tons of other 90th, 95th and 99th percentile kids, because there are more of them than slots available?

Thus...?

I would like to believe it is an absolutely fair lottery game. Your case support it.

There is a race consideration, it's just not explicit because that would be unlawful. By locally norming students' scores, MCPS made it easier for kids at high FARMS schools to qualify for the pool than kids from low FARMS schools. Because FARMS rates correlate so closely with how many underrepresented minority students attend a school, it was the best MCPS could do under the law to make the pool more racially diverse and less white. Was about time, especially in light of the prior conversations above about how many (mostly white/asian) parents used to game the system by paying for tutors and prep classes to make sure their kids score high on the entrance tests.

I wonder if there's a case for disparate impact racial discrimination based on the local norming?

Local morning is considered a best practice for G&T program selection, but in the case of CES has almost no impact since children in all but a few cases are competing against similar SES schools.

Yeah I mean, fine if they want to use local norming to find students in lower SES school environments who would benefit from and succeed in a CES type environment. I just don’t quite get the logic of using norming to lower a student’s score and erect barriers for a high performing student from a higher SES school. Why is the child with a 95tb percentile having their “standardized” test averaged downward and gaslighted/denied enrichment because you needed to norm other kids’ scores upward when those students are not headed to the same regional CES anyway?

Look at it this way. The kids getting "normed" out of the pool were the edge cases anyway. It's not the 95th percentile kids dropping out of the pool - it's the 86th percentile kids in the highest SES schools. Those kids woudn't have even been in the pool under the old system, so it's the same difference in the end.

Are you saying that kids from high SES schools who scored in the 96th percentile on the national scale (before MCPS drove down/locally normed their score to the 84th percentile on the MCPS high SES scale) would never have been considered for the program in years past? I didn't realize the bar was that high to qualify before they started using local norming and the lottery.

Well, my kids attended a CES at a Focus school years ago before all these changes and many neighbor kids with 97% and 98% natioanl CogAT were rejected. I don't think the SES of an area is as big a factor as some people seem to imagine.

It's actually a huge factor now that there is a random lottery - maybe not back when the CES picked individual kids and so could aim to take only those 99 percentile kids.

To qualify for the lottery pool these days, students at low SES schools need a 85th percentile MAP-R while students at high SES schools, regardless of their personal circumstance, need a 96th percentile to qualify for the lottery. Of course, once a kid is in the pool, selection is entirely random. So kids in high SES schools with 86th, 87th, 88th, 89th, 90th etc. percentile scores have no chance at all, while kids at low SES schools with those same scores have as good a chance to be accepted into the program as kids with 99th percentile scores.

Seems like a pretty big difference to me.

The local norming is still a huge factor. If it were not they would NOT do it. It changed the composition of the pool a great deal, perhaps not as much as they would like it racially but it did change where those kids come from.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My son (who is Black) was in the 95th percentile on MAP-R at a "focus" school, was placed in the lottery, did not get in the regional CES. Not sure how or if this matches the anecdotes already gathered in this thread.

I'll admit to a little pang because I was in "GT" classes when I was a kid and I have a love/hate relationship with that label. But staying in his home school is probably a better move for him, and I feel confident that his needs will be met.

You should appeal this decision.

WHY. Why should this parent appeal?

I'm a flaming progressive that would be happy to have race be a consideration, but it's not.

So what is there to appeal? A 95th percentile kid WAS put in the lottery pool, but then wasn't randomly selected? Just like tons of other 90th, 95th and 99th percentile kids, because there are more of them than slots available?

Thus...?

I would like to believe it is an absolutely fair lottery game. Your case support it.

There is a race consideration, it's just not explicit because that would be unlawful. By locally norming students' scores, MCPS made it easier for kids at high FARMS schools to qualify for the pool than kids from low FARMS schools. Because FARMS rates correlate so closely with how many underrepresented minority students attend a school, it was the best MCPS could do under the law to make the pool more racially diverse and less white. Was about time, especially in light of the prior conversations above about how many (mostly white/asian) parents used to game the system by paying for tutors and prep classes to make sure their kids score high on the entrance tests.

I wonder if there's a case for disparate impact racial discrimination based on the local norming?

Local morning is considered a best practice for G&T program selection, but in the case of CES has almost no impact since children in all but a few cases are competing against similar SES schools.

Yeah I mean, fine if they want to use local norming to find students in lower SES school environments who would benefit from and succeed in a CES type environment. I just don’t quite get the logic of using norming to lower a student’s score and erect barriers for a high performing student from a higher SES school. Why is the child with a 95tb percentile having their “standardized” test averaged downward and gaslighted/denied enrichment because you needed to norm other kids’ scores upward when those students are not headed to the same regional CES anyway?

Look at it this way. The kids getting "normed" out of the pool were the edge cases anyway. It's not the 95th percentile kids dropping out of the pool - it's the 86th percentile kids in the highest SES schools. Those kids woudn't have even been in the pool under the old system, so it's the same difference in the end.

Are you saying that kids from high SES schools who scored in the 96th percentile on the national scale (before MCPS drove down/locally normed their score to the 84th percentile on the MCPS high SES scale) would never have been considered for the program in years past? I didn't realize the bar was that high to qualify before they started using local norming and the lottery.

Not PP, but there's a different way to look at this. We all know regional CES draws from a certain predetermined number of ESs. So Pyle kids are not competing for the same spots as Frost kids who are not competing for the same spots as Newport Mill kids. They each have separate a CES. Each CES has a certain number of spots to give out. If we looked at how many CES invitations are offered to each school, I would not be surprised to find it's more or less a similar number across all the ESs, I would guess in the range of 6-8 spots per school. So while the Pyle or Frost families may be upset that more of their kids don't get spots (and that their corresponding threshold MAP percentile may be higher than some others), really there's no way around the fact that there are a limited number of seats at their CES and it's not going to get any bigger. So in the end, the Pyle students are not competing against either the Frost students or the Newport Mill students. They are competing against kids in their own cluster and the other clusters that feed into their specific CES. The local norming is only there to allow lower SES schools to send a similar number of kids to their CES, which is NOT the CES that draws from Pyle or Frost.

Well this is not 100% true. There are mid-tier SES schools that feed into the CES for Pyle at least.

?? We don’t know what cut off MCPS uses for mid-tier. Rock Creek Forest is the only Focus school that feeds into that CES.