Did the Takoma MS magnet got MORE white this year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can a group who is still grossly over-represented at the magnets like White or Asian seriously claim discrimination because the testing methodology changed in order to provide greater equity?

Why are they grossly over represented, even now? Because statistically, they do better in school.

Why should a test in academic program care about who else is in the local school when determining who should get in?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can a group who is still grossly over-represented at the magnets like White or Asian seriously claim discrimination because the testing methodology changed in order to provide greater equity?

Why are they grossly over represented, even now? Because statistically, they do better in school.

Why should a test in academic program care about who else is in the local school when determining who should get in?

Because the test-in magnet programs have long been for people whose needs can't be met at the home school.

[Anonymous]

The county altered the testing methodology to be:

1) more inclusive i.e. tests way more applicants now
2) new criteria reduces the advantage of kids who prep

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Less interested in YOY change. How does TPMS magnet demographics compare to the county’s?

p this is a better indicator of whether we’re headed in the right direction

Are Asians still vastly over-represented at the magnets as a percentage of the County's total population?

so we are using % of total representative pop as criteria now? no wonder mcps is all f'ed up

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.aspx?PV=71:5:15: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).

The achievement gap is to blame for the poor representation of certain groups in the magnet programs. MCPS needs to treat the problem instead of obscuring the symptoms by changing selection criteria

+1 magnet group should represent MCPS' own statistics in terms of who performs well academically and who doesn't. Test in academic programs should not reflect the demographics of the district, but rather the demographics of those who, by MCPS' own statistics, perform well in school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The county altered the testing methodology to be:

1) more inclusive i.e. tests way more applicants now
2) new criteria reduces the advantage of kids who prep

no.. all it did was lower the bar. If you really think it didn't, then you are ignoring the fact that MCPS no longer releases the median test scores of accepted students. One doesn't have to be gifted to figure out why that is. If I'm wrong, and those URM identified students have really high test scores, then why doesn't MCPS release the stats? It would prove to all the naysayers how this new method works better.

And the change was about "cohort" at home school. I don't think anyone is against testing more students. They are against lowering the bar and looking at "cohort".

No matter how many times you repeat that the new way didn't lower the bar, MCPS' own statistics will always prove you wrong.

The new method is pretty much just looking at cohort, and the test scores in relation to the cohort. You can argue that this is a better method or not, but if the method is admitting students with much lower scores than before, then yes, the new method has lowered the bar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
no.. all it did was lower the bar. If you really think it didn't, then you are ignoring the fact that MCPS no longer releases the median test scores of accepted students. One doesn't have to be gifted to figure out why that is. If I'm wrong, and those URM identified students have really high test scores, then why doesn't MCPS release the stats? It would prove to all the naysayers how this new method works better.

And the change was about "cohort" at home school. I don't think anyone is against testing more students. They are against lowering the bar and looking at "cohort".

No matter how many times you repeat that the new way didn't lower the bar, MCPS' own statistics will always prove you wrong.

The new method is pretty much just looking at cohort, and the test scores in relation to the cohort. You can argue that this is a better method or not, but if the method is admitting students with much lower scores than before, then yes, the new method has lowered the bar.

Back to the "the only way to increase the numbers of poor, black, and Hispanic kids is to admit dumber kids" line of argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The county altered the testing methodology to be:

1) more inclusive i.e. tests way more applicants now
2) new criteria reduces the advantage of kids who prep

It stands to reason with the larget sample that median scores are now much higher too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
no.. all it did was lower the bar. If you really think it didn't, then you are ignoring the fact that MCPS no longer releases the median test scores of accepted students. One doesn't have to be gifted to figure out why that is. If I'm wrong, and those URM identified students have really high test scores, then why doesn't MCPS release the stats? It would prove to all the naysayers how this new method works better.

And the change was about "cohort" at home school. I don't think anyone is against testing more students. They are against lowering the bar and looking at "cohort".

No matter how many times you repeat that the new way didn't lower the bar, MCPS' own statistics will always prove you wrong.

The new method is pretty much just looking at cohort, and the test scores in relation to the cohort. You can argue that this is a better method or not, but if the method is admitting students with much lower scores than before, then yes, the new method has lowered the bar.

Back to the "the only way to increase the numbers of poor, black, and Hispanic kids is to admit dumber kids" line of argument.

Exactly - their argument isn't based on known facts but hinges on speculation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
no.. all it did was lower the bar. If you really think it didn't, then you are ignoring the fact that MCPS no longer releases the median test scores of accepted students. One doesn't have to be gifted to figure out why that is. If I'm wrong, and those URM identified students have really high test scores, then why doesn't MCPS release the stats? It would prove to all the naysayers how this new method works better.

And the change was about "cohort" at home school. I don't think anyone is against testing more students. They are against lowering the bar and looking at "cohort".

No matter how many times you repeat that the new way didn't lower the bar, MCPS' own statistics will always prove you wrong.

The new method is pretty much just looking at cohort, and the test scores in relation to the cohort. You can argue that this is a better method or not, but if the method is admitting students with much lower scores than before, then yes, the new method has lowered the bar.

Back to the "the only way to increase the numbers of poor, black, and Hispanic kids is to admit dumber kids" line of argument.

Exactly - their argument isn't based on known facts but hinges on speculation.

As stated, if I'm wrong, why doesn't MCPS release those numbers. It's a bit like Trump and his tax returns. He doesn't want to release them because there's something in there that he doesn't want you to know about. Same with MCPS.

If this wasn't the only way to increase URM participation then why change the methodology? Why not just to implement the wider testing without changing the methodology or looking at the cohort? Seriously, you guys are ignoring the obvious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county altered the testing methodology to be:

1) more inclusive i.e. tests way more applicants now
2) new criteria reduces the advantage of kids who prep

It stands to reason with the larget sample that median scores are now much higher too.

It would if the larger sample had higher test scores, but MCPS' own stats says otherwise. Why do some people just completely ignore statistics and probabilities?

[Anonymous]

I wish there was a way to know whether the same folks making the case that MCPS needs to expand the centers are the ones complaining about "lowering the bar."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county altered the testing methodology to be:

1) more inclusive i.e. tests way more applicants now
2) new criteria reduces the advantage of kids who prep

It stands to reason with the larget sample that median scores are now much higher too.

Median score is very unlikely to go up when you test more people. It is certainly not going to go up now when you deny entry of all those 99% kids from the W schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Less interested in YOY change. How does TPMS magnet demographics compare to the county’s?

p this is a better indicator of whether we’re headed in the right direction

Are Asians still vastly over-represented at the magnets as a percentage of the County's total population?

so we are using % of total representative pop as criteria now? no wonder mcps is all f'ed up

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.aspx?PV=71:5:15: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).

The achievement gap is to blame for the poor representation of certain groups in the magnet programs. MCPS needs to treat the problem instead of obscuring the symptoms by changing selection criteria

Can someone in the know please clue me in on what MCPS means by 'exceeding expectations' in math? If we're looking at 5th graders who are, supposedly, taught a certain curriculum in class, does 'exceeding expectations' mean they've mastered the information offered by the 5th grade curriculum in-depth, or does that mean they studied after school and learned extra material, not yet covered in class, thus 'exceeding expectations'? What does 'exceeding expectations' mean?

MAP-M is an 'adaptive' test that basically gives significant score advantages to kids who were prepped on the side. Is this also the case with PARCC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Less interested in YOY change. How does TPMS magnet demographics compare to the county’s?

p this is a better indicator of whether we’re headed in the right direction

Are Asians still vastly over-represented at the magnets as a percentage of the County's total population?

so we are using % of total representative pop as criteria now? no wonder mcps is all f'ed up

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.aspx?PV=71:5:15: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).

The achievement gap is to blame for the poor representation of certain groups in the magnet programs. MCPS needs to treat the problem instead of obscuring the symptoms by changing selection criteria

NP here. I did not write the above post, but I must say it is very valid. But I would be interested to hear the other side's argument against this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county altered the testing methodology to be:

1) more inclusive i.e. tests way more applicants now
2) new criteria reduces the advantage of kids who prep

It stands to reason with the larget sample that median scores are now much higher too.

Median score is very unlikely to go up when you test more people. It is certainly not going to go up now when you deny entry of all those 99% kids from the W schools.

The median would be more reliable and consistent since the sample size is what 10X larger now.