Do unmotivated kids get into HGC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Is there a point for this data point, because from what I see, there are many URM that should be tested and would thrive in a magnet environment -

Math Met or Exceeded Expectations:

Asian - 82.1%
Black - 37.9%
Hispanic - 32.9%
White - 74%

English:

Asian - 72.2%
Black - 34%
Hispanic - 24.5%
White - 67.8%

That's what I see, too.

Let me reduce to only 'Exceeds'

English

Asian 16.2%
Black 2.7%
Hispanic 1.4%
White 11.4%

Math

Asian 43.8%
Black 6.6%
Hispanic 5.7%
White 29.3%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Is there a point for this data point, because from what I see, there are many URM that should be tested and would thrive in a magnet environment -

Math Met or Exceeded Expectations:

Asian - 82.1%
Black - 37.9%
Hispanic - 32.9%
White - 74%

English:

Asian - 72.2%
Black - 34%
Hispanic - 24.5%
White - 67.8%

That's what I see, too.

Let me reduce to only 'Exceeds'

English

Asian 16.2%
Black 2.7%
Hispanic 1.4%
White 11.4%

Math

Asian 43.8%
Black 6.6%
Hispanic 5.7%
White 29.3%

Yup. Lots of kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Yup. Lots of kids.

Yes. And with percentages of high achievers that look like:

Asian 16.2%
Black 2.7%
Hispanic 1.4%
White 11.4%

What demographic break down would you expect in a class of 27?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yup. Lots of kids.

Yes. And with percentages of high achievers that look like:

Asian 16.2%
Black 2.7%
Hispanic 1.4%
White 11.4%

What demographic break down would you expect in a class of 27?

Exactly.. and this is just PARCC results which I don't think is used for HGC entrance, but it's probably a representation of other standardized test scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Let me reduce to only 'Exceeds'

English

Asian 16.2%
Black 2.7%
Hispanic 1.4%
White 11.4%

Math

Asian 43.8%
Black 6.6%
Hispanic 5.7%
White 29.3%

Yup. Lots of kids.

^^^in fact, speaking of math, let's do the math. K-5 enrollment is about 72,000. Let's assume an even distribution, so 72,000/6 = 12,000 students per grade. In 2013-2014, the demographics for K-1 (using MCPS categories) were 31% Hispanic, 30% white, 20% African-American or black, 14% Asian. So 3,720 Hispanic kids, 3,600 white kids, 2,400 black kids, 1,680 Asian kids per grade. for current fourth-graders. So 212 Hispanic kids, 1,055 white kids, 158 black kids, and 736 Asian kids scored "exceeds" in math. And 52 Hispanic kids, 410 white kids, 65 black kids, and 272 Asian kids scored "exceeds" in English.

How many spots are there in the CESs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just a data point.

2017 PARCC scores for Montgomery County 3rd grade students (this year's HGC pool) by race

English - Met or Exceeded expectations

Asian - 72.2%
Black - 34%
Hispanic - 24.5%
White - 67.8%

English - Did not meet or Partially met expectations

Asian - 12.2%
Black - 42.7%
Hispanic - 52.7%
White - 14.1%

Math - Met or Exceeded expectations

Asian - 82.1%
Black - 37.9%
Hispanic - 32.9%
White - 74%

Math - Did not meet or Partially met expectations

Asian - 6.8%
Black - 34.9%
Hispanic - 39.4%
White - 9.9%

Is there a point for this data point, because from what I see, there are many URM that should be tested and would thrive in a magnet environment -

Math Met or Exceeded Expectations:

Asian - 82.1%
Black - 37.9%
Hispanic - 32.9%
White - 74%

English:

Asian - 72.2%
Black - 34%
Hispanic - 24.5%
White - 67.8%

The data also shows there are MANY more Asian and white kids who could thrive in a magnet environment. Why aren't we commissioning studies and changing policies to figure out a way to get more of them into the programs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


The data also shows there are MANY more Asian and white kids who could thrive in a magnet environment. Why aren't we commissioning studies and changing policies to figure out a way to get more of them into the programs?

In fact, the Metis study addressed that issue too.

Lots of kids would do well in the magnet programs So I don't understand why (some) people are having a hard time with the idea that there are black and Hispanic kids who are not in the magnet programs who would do well in the magnet programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: So 212 Hispanic kids, 1,055 white kids, 158 black kids, and 736 Asian kids scored "exceeds" in math. And 52 Hispanic kids, 410 white kids, 65 black kids, and 272 Asian kids scored "exceeds" in English.
How many spots are there in the CESs?

448 spots before the expansion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


The data also shows there are MANY more Asian and white kids who could thrive in a magnet environment. Why aren't we commissioning studies and changing policies to figure out a way to get more of them into the programs?

In fact, the Metis study addressed that issue too.

Lots of kids would do well in the magnet programs So I don't understand why (some) people are having a hard time with the idea that there are black and Hispanic kids who are not in the magnet programs who would do well in the magnet programs.

I think it shows that there are more Asian/white students who would do well in the program than the other way. So, if they expanded the program, did the number of Asian/white kids go up, too? Hard to say since McpS won't show the data or even what the median score of accepted students were so parents could figure out where their kid placed.

[Anonymous]

Percentage of students who “exceeded expectations” in Math by race
Asian 43.8%
Black 6.6%
Hispanic 5.7%
White 29.3%

Percentage of students who “exceeded expectations” in English by race
Asian 16.2%
Black 2.7%
Hispanic 1.4%
White 11.4%

Percentage of students accepted at HGCs by race, in the year studied in the Metis report
Asian 21.3%
Black 8.9%
Hispanic 10.1%
White 22.3%

I strongly agree with removing some barriers to access such as providing buses to testing and conducting a universal review. I think this will help poor students and those from disadvantaged backgrounds regardless of race. It’s the focus on race in the report and by MCPS that bothers me.

From looking at these test scores, you could argue that black and Hispanic students are OVERrepresented in acceptances at elementary magnets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


The data also shows there are MANY more Asian and white kids who could thrive in a magnet environment. Why aren't we commissioning studies and changing policies to figure out a way to get more of them into the programs?

In fact, the Metis study addressed that issue too.

Lots of kids would do well in the magnet programs So I don't understand why (some) people are having a hard time with the idea that there are black and Hispanic kids who are not in the magnet programs who would do well in the magnet programs.

I don't think anyone has a hard time with the idea that there are brilliant black and Hispanic children. Of course there are. I think what people have a hard time with is the county trying to level the playing field. If the PP is in the ballpark with:

So 212 Hispanic kids, 1,055 white kids, 158 black kids, and 736 Asian kids scored "exceeds" in math

what people are having trouble with is the county wanted to make the center programs look like 6 Hispanic kids, 6 white kids, 6 black kids and 6 Asian kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


The data also shows there are MANY more Asian and white kids who could thrive in a magnet environment. Why aren't we commissioning studies and changing policies to figure out a way to get more of them into the programs?

In fact, the Metis study addressed that issue too.

Lots of kids would do well in the magnet programs So I don't understand why (some) people are having a hard time with the idea that there are black and Hispanic kids who are not in the magnet programs who would do well in the magnet programs.

I think it shows that there are more Asian/white students who would do well in the program than the other way. So, if they expanded the program, did the number of Asian/white kids go up, too? Hard to say since McpS won't show the data or even what the median score of accepted students were so parents could figure out where their kid placed.

What other way? That there is an excess of black and Hispanic kids in the magnet programs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


The data also shows there are MANY more Asian and white kids who could thrive in a magnet environment. Why aren't we commissioning studies and changing policies to figure out a way to get more of them into the programs?

In fact, the Metis study addressed that issue too.

Lots of kids would do well in the magnet programs So I don't understand why (some) people are having a hard time with the idea that there are black and Hispanic kids who are not in the magnet programs who would do well in the magnet programs.

I don't think anyone has a hard time with the idea that there are brilliant black and Hispanic children. Of course there are. I think what people have a hard time with is the county trying to level the playing field. If the PP is in the ballpark with:

So 212 Hispanic kids, 1,055 white kids, 158 black kids, and 736 Asian kids scored "exceeds" in math

what people are having trouble with is the county wanted to make the center programs look like 6 Hispanic kids, 6 white kids, 6 black kids and 6 Asian kids.

...you're opposed to a level playing field?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Percentage of students who “exceeded expectations” in Math by race
Asian 43.8%
Black 6.6%
Hispanic 5.7%
White 29.3%

Percentage of students who “exceeded expectations” in English by race
Asian 16.2%
Black 2.7%
Hispanic 1.4%
White 11.4%

Percentage of students accepted at HGCs by race, in the year studied in the Metis report
Asian 21.3%
Black 8.9%
Hispanic 10.1%
White 22.3%

I strongly agree with removing some barriers to access such as providing buses to testing and conducting a universal review. I think this will help poor students and those from disadvantaged backgrounds regardless of race. It’s the focus on race in the report and by MCPS that bothers me.

From looking at these test scores, you could argue that black and Hispanic students are OVERrepresented in acceptances at elementary magnets.

No, you couldn't, or at least you couldn't with validity. You're comparing apples and oranges. The test scores reflect the percent of students in that group who "exceeded expectations" -- i.e., 43.8% of Asian students "exceeded expectations. The HGC numbers reflect the percent of students at the HGC who are in each group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


The data also shows there are MANY more Asian and white kids who could thrive in a magnet environment. Why aren't we commissioning studies and changing policies to figure out a way to get more of them into the programs?

In fact, the Metis study addressed that issue too.

Lots of kids would do well in the magnet programs So I don't understand why (some) people are having a hard time with the idea that there are black and Hispanic kids who are not in the magnet programs who would do well in the magnet programs.

I don't think anyone has a hard time with the idea that there are brilliant black and Hispanic children. Of course there are. I think what people have a hard time with is the county trying to level the playing field. If the PP is in the ballpark with:

So 212 Hispanic kids, 1,055 white kids, 158 black kids, and 736 Asian kids scored "exceeds" in math

what people are having trouble with is the county wanted to make the center programs look like 6 Hispanic kids, 6 white kids, 6 black kids and 6 Asian kids.

...you're opposed to a level playing field?

By headcount, yes. By representative percentile, no.

If student body A has 15 exceptional members and student body B has 368 exceptional members, selecting 5 from each group does not make an equitable representation. Nor a fair one.