Did the Takoma MS magnet got MORE white this year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Zip code and school catchment area is a highly correlated proxy for SES and race. Many people purposely live near their own markets, churches/temples/mosques, restaurants and communities within a larger society.

Pick a kid at random from Robert Frost MS. What race/ethnicity is that kid? What are the chances that the kid is not that race/ethnicity?

Now do the same for North Bethesda MS, Silver Spring International MS, Argyle MS, Rosa Parks MS...

You are both right: in many cases there is high correlation and in some cases it’s a try hodgepodge of students - like the ones Pp purposely chose.

But for most of the 200 MCPS there is high correlation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Zip code and school catchment area is a highly correlated proxy for SES and race. Many people purposely live near their own markets, churches/temples/mosques, restaurants and communities within a larger society.

Pick a kid at random from Robert Frost MS. What race/ethnicity is that kid? What are the chances that the kid is not that race/ethnicity?

Now do the same for North Bethesda MS, Silver Spring International MS, Argyle MS, Rosa Parks MS...

You are both right: in many cases there is high correlation and in some cases it’s a try hodgepodge of students - like the ones Pp purposely chose.

But for most of the 200 MCPS there is high correlation.

You are sort of right that there is a high correlation for whiteness, Blackness, and Latino-ness at certain schools. But PP is making a case about Asian American students, and zip code is a terrible proxy for that because there is no majority Asian American school in MCPS and there are more Asian American kids living outside Bethesda/Potomac than in it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Zip code and school catchment area is a highly correlated proxy for SES and race. Many people purposely live near their own markets, churches/temples/mosques, restaurants and communities within a larger society.

Pick a kid at random from Robert Frost MS. What race/ethnicity is that kid? What are the chances that the kid is not that race/ethnicity?

Now do the same for North Bethesda MS, Silver Spring International MS, Argyle MS, Rosa Parks MS...

You are both right: in many cases there is high correlation and in some cases it’s a try hodgepodge of students - like the ones Pp purposely chose.

But for most of the 200 MCPS there is high correlation.

Then you pick a MCPS middle school where there's a high probability that a randomly-chosen kid is a particularly race/ethnicity. Even at Pyle MS and John Poole MS, the chance that the kid is white is only 7 in 10. At Col. Brooke Lee MS, there's only a 6 in 10 chance that the kid is Hispanic. At the middle schools in the Churchill and Wootton clusters, odds are that the kid is white, since whites are the biggest group in all of those middle schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Zip code and school catchment area is a highly correlated proxy for SES and race. Many people purposely live near their own markets, churches/temples/mosques, restaurants and communities within a larger society.

Pick a kid at random from Robert Frost MS. What race/ethnicity is that kid? What are the chances that the kid is not that race/ethnicity?

Now do the same for North Bethesda MS, Silver Spring International MS, Argyle MS, Rosa Parks MS...

You are both right: in many cases there is high correlation and in some cases it’s a try hodgepodge of students - like the ones Pp purposely chose.

But for most of the 200 MCPS there is high correlation.

You are sort of right that there is a high correlation for whiteness, Blackness, and Latino-ness at certain schools. But PP is making a case about Asian American students, and zip code is a terrible proxy for that because there is no majority Asian American school in MCPS and there are more Asian American kids living outside Bethesda/Potomac than in it.

They aren't looking at the total student population. They are talking about the chances of the top scoring kid at those schools being Asian. If you look at the county as a whole it's really high. At some of those schools I'm guessing it's much more than 50 percent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Some people *clearly* do not understand statistics and probabilities.

If you have a group that normally scores high, then statistically, the median score of that group will be high.

If you widen the group and include many more groups that statistically score lower, then the median score of the whole group will go down.

You can argue that kids aren't a statistic, but the question of whether the median score went down with this new method is a simple matter of math.

I'm just using a bit of math and statistics to reach a conclusion. The naysayers are using emotion, not math or logic.

MCPS can put this question to rest by publishing the test scores of median accepted students like they used to do. Why did they stop doing so?

Why do you care about the median test scores of the accepted students? What does this information tell you? If you had this information, what would you do with it?

? Some of us are debating whether the new method lowered the median test scores or not. If you don't care about whether the median test scores went down, then why try to throw in the "we don't know, and you are just assuming" statements in there? No need to add your 2 cents if you don't care. I usually don't reply to posts for things I don't care about. Why do you?

I care because it's not right for a school district (which we are a part of) to use use this "new method" as a thin veil for affirmative action.

What would I do with? I would venture to guess that it would be much easier for parents to fight mcps regarding this new method if the data came out, and this is why MCPS chose to no longer publish the data. Wouldn't you fight an unfair policy? I'm pretty sure you would fight the Trump administration if they had a policy that discriminated against black people in favor of whites (as a matter of fact, in the Politics forum, there is a discussion about this very thing, and I think such a policy is wrong, too). I would fight unfair policies, period. Why wouldn't you?

We don't live in a W cluster. I have a DC in MS who chose not to apply to a magnet but even if DC did, it would've been prior to this new method, so I have no dog in this fight personally. But, a test in academic program in a public should not be using race or location or "peer cohort" as a criteria for admittance.

If they want to give URM more opportunities, then MCPS should create a magnet program just for that area so that they are not over run with students from the western side. They should also create a magnet program for students on the western side and let these students vie for the few slots on that side. Otherwise, what MCPS has done is pit one side against the other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Some people *clearly* do not understand statistics and probabilities.

If you have a group that normally scores high, then statistically, the median score of that group will be high.

If you widen the group and include many more groups that statistically score lower, then the median score of the whole group will go down.

You can argue that kids aren't a statistic, but the question of whether the median score went down with this new method is a simple matter of math.

I'm just using a bit of math and statistics to reach a conclusion. The naysayers are using emotion, not math or logic.

MCPS can put this question to rest by publishing the test scores of median accepted students like they used to do. Why did they stop doing so?

Why do you care about the median test scores of the accepted students? What does this information tell you? If you had this information, what would you do with it?

? Some of us are debating whether the new method lowered the median test scores or not. If you don't care about whether the median test scores went down, then why try to throw in the "we don't know, and you are just assuming" statements in there? No need to add your 2 cents if you don't care. I usually don't reply to posts for things I don't care about. Why do you?

I care because it's not right for a school district (which we are a part of) to use use this "new method" as a thin veil for affirmative action.

What would I do with? I would venture to guess that it would be much easier for parents to fight mcps regarding this new method if the data came out, and this is why MCPS chose to no longer publish the data. Wouldn't you fight an unfair policy? I'm pretty sure you would fight the Trump administration if they had a policy that discriminated against black people in favor of whites (as a matter of fact, in the Politics forum, there is a discussion about this very thing, and I think such a policy is wrong, too). I would fight unfair policies, period. Why wouldn't you?

We don't live in a W cluster. I have a DC in MS who chose not to apply to a magnet but even if DC did, it would've been prior to this new method, so I have no dog in this fight personally. But, a test in academic program in a public should not be using race or location or "peer cohort" as a criteria for admittance.

If they want to give URM more opportunities, then MCPS should create a magnet program just for that area so that they are not over run with students from the western side. They should also create a magnet program for students on the western side and let these students vie for the few slots on that side. Otherwise, what MCPS has done is pit one side against the other.

+1

[Anonymous]

OK, you expect that the median scores of admitted students went down, and you would use this as evidence for your assertion that MCPS discriminated on the basis of race.

Well, have at it, I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Zip code and school catchment area is a highly correlated proxy for SES and race. Many people purposely live near their own markets, churches/temples/mosques, restaurants and communities within a larger society.

Pick a kid at random from Robert Frost MS. What race/ethnicity is that kid? What are the chances that the kid is not that race/ethnicity?

Now do the same for North Bethesda MS, Silver Spring International MS, Argyle MS, Rosa Parks MS...

You are both right: in many cases there is high correlation and in some cases it’s a try hodgepodge of students - like the ones Pp purposely chose.

But for most of the 200 MCPS there is high correlation.

You are sort of right that there is a high correlation for whiteness, Blackness, and Latino-ness at certain schools. But PP is making a case about Asian American students, and zip code is a terrible proxy for that because there is no majority Asian American school in MCPS and there are more Asian American kids living outside Bethesda/Potomac than in it.

They aren't looking at the total student population. They are talking about the chances of the top scoring kid at those schools being Asian. If you look at the county as a whole it's really high. At some of those schools I'm guessing it's much more than 50 percent.

This. Most of the top scoring students at some schools are Asian. MCPS knows that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Zip code and school catchment area is a highly correlated proxy for SES and race. Many people purposely live near their own markets, churches/temples/mosques, restaurants and communities within a larger society.

Pick a kid at random from Robert Frost MS. What race/ethnicity is that kid? What are the chances that the kid is not that race/ethnicity?

Now do the same for North Bethesda MS, Silver Spring International MS, Argyle MS, Rosa Parks MS...

You are both right: in many cases there is high correlation and in some cases it’s a try hodgepodge of students - like the ones Pp purposely chose.

But for most of the 200 MCPS there is high correlation.

You are sort of right that there is a high correlation for whiteness, Blackness, and Latino-ness at certain schools. But PP is making a case about Asian American students, and zip code is a terrible proxy for that because there is no majority Asian American school in MCPS and there are more Asian American kids living outside Bethesda/Potomac than in it.

They aren't looking at the total student population. They are talking about the chances of the top scoring kid at those schools being Asian. If you look at the county as a whole it's really high. At some of those schools I'm guessing it's much more than 50 percent.

From further upthread about county wide Math 5 and Math 8 PARCC scores:
"Looking at the Maryland Report Card results for PARCC from 2017 for Grade 5 math in MCPS
There were 1319 students total in MCPS who "exceeded expectations" which seems like the bare minimum to be considered for TPMS magnet
Of these 494 were Asian (out of a total of 1653 Asian students), 550 were White (out of a total of 3476 white students), 102 were 2 or more races (out of 620).
So of the 1319 students who exceeded expectations 1146 came from these three groups which means only 173 students from other groups exceeded expectations.
http://reportcard.msde.maryland.gov/ParccTrends.as...15:AAAA:1:N:6:13:2:2:5:1:1:2:3

By 8th grade it is still bad
347 Asians (out of 969), 294 whites (out of 1797) and 45 mixed race (out of 281)
686 students from these three groups exceeded expectations. The total number of Grade 8 who exceeded expectations 735 (49 from all other groups exceeded expectations)."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Some people *clearly* do not understand statistics and probabilities.

If you have a group that normally scores high, then statistically, the median score of that group will be high.

If you widen the group and include many more groups that statistically score lower, then the median score of the whole group will go down.

You can argue that kids aren't a statistic, but the question of whether the median score went down with this new method is a simple matter of math.

I'm just using a bit of math and statistics to reach a conclusion. The naysayers are using emotion, not math or logic.

MCPS can put this question to rest by publishing the test scores of median accepted students like they used to do. Why did they stop doing so?

Why do you care about the median test scores of the accepted students? What does this information tell you? If you had this information, what would you do with it?

? Some of us are debating whether the new method lowered the median test scores or not. If you don't care about whether the median test scores went down, then why try to throw in the "we don't know, and you are just assuming" statements in there? No need to add your 2 cents if you don't care. I usually don't reply to posts for things I don't care about. Why do you?

I care because it's not right for a school district (which we are a part of) to use use this "new method" as a thin veil for affirmative action.

What would I do with? I would venture to guess that it would be much easier for parents to fight mcps regarding this new method if the data came out, and this is why MCPS chose to no longer publish the data. Wouldn't you fight an unfair policy? I'm pretty sure you would fight the Trump administration if they had a policy that discriminated against black people in favor of whites (as a matter of fact, in the Politics forum, there is a discussion about this very thing, and I think such a policy is wrong, too). I would fight unfair policies, period. Why wouldn't you?

We don't live in a W cluster. I have a DC in MS who chose not to apply to a magnet but even if DC did, it would've been prior to this new method, so I have no dog in this fight personally. But, a test in academic program in a public should not be using race or location or "peer cohort" as a criteria for admittance.

If they want to give URM more opportunities, then MCPS should create a magnet program just for that area so that they are not over run with students from the western side. They should also create a magnet program for students on the western side and let these students vie for the few slots on that side. Otherwise, what MCPS has done is pit one side against the other.

I agree with this.

I think the saddest part of this policy is to pit one minority against the other minority groups when in reality they have much of the same things to fight for in other domains. Feeling discriminated against at the college admission process causes many Asian parents to be hugely anxious about their kids' education at each step of the way. If they have to score so much higher to get into the same colleges with the other race/ethnicity, surely you can understand why they have more of a desire for these academic programs at the middle school and high school level. The MCPS policy is further dividing our community.

[Anonymous]

The cohort method is a better use of the country's finite resources. Less money spent on bussing while helping more high-achievers find an academic cohort. I'm sorry that some parents feel slighted but it will work out fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OK, you expect that the median scores of admitted students went down, and you would use this as evidence for your assertion that MCPS discriminated on the basis of race.

Well, have at it, I guess.

and you are perfectly ok with that, but never would be ok with any policy that discriminates against blacks. Who exactly is racist here?

MCPS is discriminating against people based on where they live, which in this case, is a proxy for race because most of the rejected students with top scores happen to be white/asian on the western side.

MCPS wanted more URM in the magnets, so they widened the testing net. Perfectly fine and acceptable. But if those students could get in without having to lower the threshold, then why change the testing, why stop reporting median test scores of accepted students, why look at "peer cohort" which disproportionately affects students from the western side? They couldn't figure out a way to increase URM admittance rate without having to change something.

Any policy which gives favor to one side over the other is not a fair policy. Remember the policy the US had about favoring European immigrants over others, like Asians? Some of the Trump supporters want to bring back this policy, which is favoring one location over another. Wouldn't you agree that was not a fair policy? Yet somehow MCPS policy of favoring one group based on location over the other is ok to you.

[Anonymous]

I really wish folks would stop posting the PARCC scores as "proof" that Black and Latinx students are over-represented in competitive magnets.

Not only are groups not individuals, but it feels gross to look at evidence of how our society and our system is systematically failing certain groups, and then use it to argue against members of those groups getting enrichment.

It's like looking at incarceration statistics to "prove" Black folks should be in prison. Using statistics that show a group is systematically being discriminated against to justify further discrimination is just awful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
BOTTOM LINE the top 2.5% of 4000 (2018 application pool) beats out the top 16% of 600 (2017 application pool)

BUT BUT 4000 kids selected to test because of high grades and test scores isn't the same as the 600 kids selected by their parents!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Some people *clearly* do not understand statistics and probabilities.

If you have a group that normally scores high, then statistically, the median score of that group will be high.

If you widen the group and include many more groups that statistically score lower, then the median score of the whole group will go down.

You can argue that kids aren't a statistic, but the question of whether the median score went down with this new method is a simple matter of math.

I'm just using a bit of math and statistics to reach a conclusion. The naysayers are using emotion, not math or logic.

MCPS can put this question to rest by publishing the test scores of median accepted students like they used to do. Why did they stop doing so?

Why do you care about the median test scores of the accepted students? What does this information tell you? If you had this information, what would you do with it?

? Some of us are debating whether the new method lowered the median test scores or not. If you don't care about whether the median test scores went down, then why try to throw in the "we don't know, and you are just assuming" statements in there? No need to add your 2 cents if you don't care. I usually don't reply to posts for things I don't care about. Why do you?

I care because it's not right for a school district (which we are a part of) to use use this "new method" as a thin veil for affirmative action.

What would I do with? I would venture to guess that it would be much easier for parents to fight mcps regarding this new method if the data came out, and this is why MCPS chose to no longer publish the data. Wouldn't you fight an unfair policy? I'm pretty sure you would fight the Trump administration if they had a policy that discriminated against black people in favor of whites (as a matter of fact, in the Politics forum, there is a discussion about this very thing, and I think such a policy is wrong, too). I would fight unfair policies, period. Why wouldn't you?

We don't live in a W cluster. I have a DC in MS who chose not to apply to a magnet but even if DC did, it would've been prior to this new method, so I have no dog in this fight personally. But, a test in academic program in a public should not be using race or location or "peer cohort" as a criteria for admittance.

If they want to give URM more opportunities, then MCPS should create a magnet program just for that area so that they are not over run with students from the western side. They should also create a magnet program for students on the western side and let these students vie for the few slots on that side. Otherwise, what MCPS has done is pit one side against the other.

Agree

I would absolutely expect a school district to release test score data of highly selective programs - quartiles, deciles, whole range, medians, averages - each year of who was admitted.
Just like they do, or should, for MAP tests, PARCC tests, SAT/ACT tests and AP tests. Non of this X% passed a low bar and got a 3 on the AP, or above a 25 on the ACT - that's not informative and is more deceptive than helpful.