Did the Takoma MS magnet got MORE white this year?

[Anonymous]

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?

Well the JHU report pointed out that there were serious flaws in the MCPS 2.0 math curriculum leading to students not learning how to execute the skill, retaining knowledge or having large holes where MCPS failed to teach the concept or focused more on process than the actual concept or skill. Students who have been learning outside math school in on-line math programs, Kumon or Singapore etc would have an advantage.

MCPS created this gap on its own.

This isn't a reason though to keep the highest performance students out of the most advanced courses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

That's not an MCPS thing. That's a PARCC thing.

http://www.understandthescore.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/UTS-Sample-Full-Score-Rpeort.compressed.pdf

[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.

exactly... if you test more lowering scoring students, the median score would go down, and mcps' own statistics shows which group tests lower. It's simple probability and statistics,

[Anonymous]

^lower not lowering

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And did the median scores of accepted students go up, down, the same? Why doesn't MCPS release those numbers like years in past?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Well the JHU report pointed out that there were serious flaws in the MCPS 2.0 math curriculum leading to students not learning how to execute the skill, retaining knowledge or having large holes where MCPS failed to teach the concept or focused more on process than the actual concept or skill. Students who have been learning outside math school in on-line math programs, Kumon or Singapore etc would have an advantage.

MCPS created this gap on its own.

This isn't a reason though to keep the highest performance students out of the most advanced courses.

No, MCPS did not. Anymore than MCPS's deficient PE curriculum led to a gap between the soccer skills of students who do soccer outside of school vs. students who only do soccer at school, or MCPS's deficient music curriculum led to a gap between the skills of students who have private lessons on the violin vs. students who only do instrumental music at school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And did the median scores of accepted students go up, down, the same? Why doesn't MCPS release those numbers like years in past?

If MCPS did provide this information, what would you do with it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The Median score of all who tested will be more precise because of the larger sample. The median scores of those who were accepted likely went down because MCPS no longer provides them.

[Anonymous]

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

It's not really a sample; it's a population: the number of students considered.

[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?

Depends on as compared to what? The demographics of kids in MCPS? The demographics of those tested? “High achievers” as defined by getting 5s on the PARCC? If you look at the PARCC, Asians are grossly underrepresented.

Asians made up 37% of all those that scored 5 on PARCC Math. Yet 9 percent of those invited to the Takoma magnet are Asian.

Asians made up 31% of all those that scored 5 on PARCC English. Yet only 10 percent of those invited to the Eastern magnet are Asian.

[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?

Depends on as compared to what? The demographics of kids in MCPS? The demographics of those tested? “High achievers” as defined by getting 5s on the PARCC? If you look at the PARCC, Asians are grossly underrepresented.

Asians made up 37% of all those that scored 5 on PARCC Math. Yet 9 percent of those invited to the Takoma magnet are Asian.

Asians made up 31% of all those that scored 5 on PARCC English. Yet only 10 percent of those invited to the Eastern magnet are Asian.

Yep. There is real evidence that Asians need to score higher to get into these programs. Just like they have to score higher to get into the same colleges, or medical schools.

[Anonymous]

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?


Well the JHU report pointed out that there were serious flaws in the MCPS 2.0 math curriculum leading to students not learning how to execute the skill, retaining knowledge or having large holes where MCPS failed to teach the concept or focused more on process than the actual concept or skill. Students who have been learning outside math school in on-line math programs, Kumon or Singapore etc would have an advantage.

MCPS created this gap on its own.

This isn't a reason though to keep the highest performance students out of the most advanced courses.


No, MCPS did not. Anymore than MCPS's deficient PE curriculum led to a gap between the soccer skills of students who do soccer outside of school vs. students who only do soccer at school, or MCPS's deficient music curriculum led to a gap between the skills of students who have private lessons on the violin vs. students who only do instrumental music at school.

Yes, MCPS did create this particular gap all on its own. One of the findings of the JHU report was that the flaws and fundamental problems in the curriculum were disproportionately hurting already lower performing students. The higher performing students who already had learned math at home or were in outside program only showed residency because they learned outside the system. When MCPS fails to teach math, it hurts everyone but it hurts the kids that aren't getting a back up education at home.

The answer to this isn't to punish or hold back the kids that learned at home. The answer is to punish the incompetent people that created the terrible curriculum, apologize to the entire community and offer free tutoring to any poor kid who wasn't already able to learn on their own at home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, MCPS did create this particular gap all on its own. One of the findings of the JHU report was that the flaws and fundamental problems in the curriculum were disproportionately hurting already lower performing students. The higher performing students who already had learned math at home or were in outside program only showed residency because they learned outside the system. When MCPS fails to teach math, it hurts everyone but it hurts the kids that aren't getting a back up education at home.

The answer to this isn't to punish or hold back the kids that learned at home. The answer is to punish the incompetent people that created the terrible curriculum, apologize to the entire community and offer free tutoring to any poor kid who wasn't already able to learn on their own at home.

No, they didn't. Kids who got math tutoring/supplementation/whatever before Curriculum 2.0 also knew more than kids who didn't. Of course they knew more. How could they not know more?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Yep. There is real evidence that Asians need to score higher to get into these programs. Just like they have to score higher to get into the same colleges, or medical schools.

No, not just like. Unlike colleges or medical schools, MCPS is not allowed to use race as a factor in admissions decisions. And the people who made the Takoma/Eastern admissions decisions did not know the racial/ethnic categories of the applicants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Well the JHU report pointed out that there were serious flaws in the MCPS 2.0 math curriculum leading to students not learning how to execute the skill, retaining knowledge or having large holes where MCPS failed to teach the concept or focused more on process than the actual concept or skill. Students who have been learning outside math school in on-line math programs, Kumon or Singapore etc would have an advantage.

MCPS created this gap on its own.

This isn't a reason though to keep the highest performance students out of the most advanced courses.

No, MCPS did not. Anymore than MCPS's deficient PE curriculum led to a gap between the soccer skills of students who do soccer outside of school vs. students who only do soccer at school, or MCPS's deficient music curriculum led to a gap between the skills of students who have private lessons on the violin vs. students who only do instrumental music at school.

This is a good analogy. My child's music teacher grades like it's an academic class and the kids that are "prepped" or take music lessons outside of school (who by the way are usually pretty rich) get higher grades.