Brookings Institution article about the new MCPS middle school magnet selection process

[Anonymous]

Article by Jishnu Das, a senior economist at the World Bank

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/future-development/2018/09/21/magnets-for-discrimination-affirmative-action-in-maryland/

[Anonymous]

Is it possible that mcps is finally moving towards a magnet program for the best and brightest per test scores rather than skewing heavily towards privileged kids with parents equipped to advocate?

And, is there anything wrong with that?

[Anonymous]

It would be great if they actually chose only the best and brightest as per test score -- although there are many who would argue that the tests themselves are not a perfect measure of who is the best and the brightest.

But MCPS is not doing that -- because of the peer cohort criterion. The middle school magnet classes that are chosen from those with the top test scores, a number of whom are rejected because other kids in their home middle schools also scored extremely high, will not yield a class of the top scorers only.

The new MCPS magnet admissions process was specifically not intended to be solely a merit-based system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It would be great if they actually chose only the best and brightest as per test score -- although there are many who would argue that the tests themselves are not a perfect measure of who is the best and the brightest.

But MCPS is not doing that -- because of the peer cohort criterion. The middle school magnet classes that are chosen from those with the top test scores, a number of whom are rejected because other kids in their home middle schools also scored extremely high, will not yield a class of the top scorers only.

The new MCPS magnet admissions process was specifically not intended to be solely a merit-based system.

+1

[Anonymous]

So sick of people's false assertion that universal testing resulted in the selection of the best and brightest. If true, that would mean only a minuscule number of best and brightest are from Bethesda-Chevy Chase and Potomac. A more even split sure, but a minuscule number is not plausible. MCPS won't release the median scores of admitted students, as they've always done, for a good reason. Tippy-top scores were not they criterion--geographic diversity as a proxy for race (which didn't work out as well as MCPS had hoped), and evidence of brightness were. Very few of even the self-reported scores on DCUM were straight 99%ers in all metrics, unlike scores of "peer cohort" rejectees, most of whom also had the advantage of the rigorous CES curriculum to prepare them for the MS magnets.

[Anonymous]

I stopped caring when I got to the statistic that the middle school magnets used to be 45% Asian and have now dropped 8%. This, in a county that is 15% Asian. First world problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be great if they actually chose only the best and brightest as per test score -- although there are many who would argue that the tests themselves are not a perfect measure of who is the best and the brightest.

But MCPS is not doing that -- because of the peer cohort criterion. The middle school magnet classes that are chosen from those with the top test scores, a number of whom are rejected because other kids in their home middle schools also scored extremely high, will not yield a class of the top scorers only.

The new MCPS magnet admissions process was specifically not intended to be solely a merit-based system.

+1

+1. They move to an “at MCPS discretion” admit process and don’t even make public scrubbed scores of those admitted and not admitted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So sick of people's false assertion that universal testing resulted in the selection of the best and brightest. If true, that would mean only a minuscule number of best and brightest are from Bethesda-Chevy Chase and Potomac. A more even split sure, but a minuscule number is not plausible. MCPS won't release the median scores of admitted students, as they've always done, for a good reason. Tippy-top scores were not they criterion--geographic diversity as a proxy for race (which didn't work out as well as MCPS had hoped), and evidence of brightness were. Very few of even the self-reported scores on DCUM were straight 99%ers in all metrics, unlike scores of "peer cohort" rejectees, most of whom also had the advantage of the rigorous CES curriculum to prepare them for the MS magnets.

Universal testing allowed ten fold the applicants into the pool this year which in the past was limited to a few kids whose parents nominated them. The selection was far more competitive and yielded more qualified students than ever before. Most parents complain because they can no longer easily game the results of this system the way they did in the past which mostly guaranteed their children admission.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So sick of people's false assertion that universal testing resulted in the selection of the best and brightest. If true, that would mean only a minuscule number of best and brightest are from Bethesda-Chevy Chase and Potomac. A more even split sure, but a minuscule number is not plausible. MCPS won't release the median scores of admitted students, as they've always done, for a good reason. Tippy-top scores were not they criterion--geographic diversity as a proxy for race (which didn't work out as well as MCPS had hoped), and evidence of brightness were. Very few of even the self-reported scores on DCUM were straight 99%ers in all metrics, unlike scores of "peer cohort" rejectees, most of whom also had the advantage of the rigorous CES curriculum to prepare them for the MS magnets.

Universal testing allowed ten fold the applicants into the pool this year which in the past was limited to a few kids whose parents nominated them. The selection was far more competitive and yielded more qualified students than ever before. Most parents complain because they can no longer easily game the results of this system the way they did in the past which mostly guaranteed their children admission.

That word "qualified" is a loaded word. What does that mean? If they have a lower threshold for lower income kids, that still makes them "qualified". But is it right to have a lower threshold based on income for a public school program?

By MCPS' own words, they took "peer cohort" into account. That means that students with higher test scores who had a peer cohort at home were not admitted.

If indeed, those who were admitted scored well above those not admitted, especially the URM population, don't you think MCPS would be shouting that from the roof tops. MCPS likes to tout the AP participation rate among URM, why wouldn't they tout their magnet test scores if it was something to brag about.

And why not make it transparent? What are they hiding?

As the article states, it's unclear exactly what happened because MCPS refuses to share the data. How hard is it to publish the median test scores of the accepted students? There are no names involved; no identifying markers what so ever.

And spare me the ".. tests don't tell you everything". That may be the case, then why bother with universal *testing*. Obviously tests do measure something.

And spare me the ".. oh but W parents say peer cohort is important".. Of course they do. It is important no matter what program they are in.

If the 2 enriched classes at the home school are just as good as the magnet program then why not offer those to the other schools, and let the students with the higher test scores in the magnet program? A couple of enriched classes is not the same as a magnet program. No way. Separate is not the same as equal.

[Anonymous]

MCPS wants it both ways (merit-based + diversity boost) when a magnet program cannot in all justice be both at the same time.

A magnet program should be blind to everything except measures of academic achievement. No race, no gender, no geographic discrimination.

[Anonymous]

Why not simply set high expectations at all schools and meet every student's academic needs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why not simply set high expectations at all schools and meet every student's academic needs?

The overall hope is to get there. That’s why you have the peer cohort — to allow them to be challenged, work with their peers, and raise performance. If you don’t have a high ability peer group you can’t teach a class of high ability students and they are pulled back.

[Anonymous]

The number of students in the new peer cohort classes dwarfs the number of middle school magnet slots. This is a dramatic development. We love the peers and the teachers/content. Happy we turned down the long bus rides.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The number of students in the new peer cohort classes dwarfs the number of middle school magnet slots. This is a dramatic development. We love the peers and the teachers/content. Happy we turned down the long bus rides.

I agree it's wonderful, especially the commute part, but don't kid yourself that the level is the same as in the magnet program. The two are simply not comparable.

[Anonymous]

Hypothesis 1: The program was fair and unbiased. It uncovered highly able black and Hispanic children who were not applying before. The fraction of whites also increased because white households were better at judging whether their children belonged in a G&T program—among all populations, they had (by far) the highest admission rate conditional on applying in 2017, before the program started.

Hypothesis 2: The program was unfair and biased. The program had different implicit cutoffs by ability for different subgroups. In addition, program intake was biased against Asians while ensuring that representation among whites did not change.

What truly happened depends on the relative performance of different subgroups. What we know from publicly available information, including the choice report, is that the performance of Asian and White children is similar (and very high) on average. This lends credibility to Hypothesis 2, but what we really need to know is how the top 5 percent of each group is performing—and here, averages can be highly misleading.

This is an excellent analysis and exactly why MCPS needs to release the data. An independent, neutral body needs to looks at all the data and communications within MCPS to determine whether they are operating a fair or biased program.