Is Cold Spring HGC the only HGC targeted by MCPS for denying entrance to MS magnet programs?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| I'm sure someone must be doing a records request. It would be foolish not to do so if you're in the position they are in. It probably won't change the outcome but I think the parents are owed an explanation. |
Anonymous
|
Anonymous
Very interesting! A lottery combined with a wide net for testing/qualification could be a very fair way to proceed. |
Anonymous
I really like this idea. Lang Lin and other GCC officers-Is this something that could be raised with MCPS for consideration for next year? |
Anonymous
Here's a great example of the type of reasoning contained in the Metis report: "Data on applications and acceptances to elementary centers and secondary magnet and application programs show that Hispanic/Latino, Black/African American, Limited English Proficient (LEP), special education, and low-income students are less likely than White, Asian, and higher income students to be selected and enroll in these programs[u]. [u]As a result, Hispanic/Latino, Black/African American, LEP, special education, and low-income students are underrepresented in academically selective programs when compared with districtwide enrollment data." Seriously, just apply some simple logical reasoning to the quoted text. They argue in the first sentence that data on applications and acceptances shows that certain groups are less likely to be selected and enroll. As a result, these groups are underrepresented. So the reason for the underrepresentation of these groups in the program is that... wait for it... data shows these groups are selected and enroll less. Circular reasoning at its best. |
Anonymous
Your information is correct but you're being too literally and arguing over nothing. No one meant that you could get private health information from MCPS for example. |
Anonymous
Not really. Here are some possible reasons for underrepresentation by Group X: they apply less, they're selected less, they enroll less. Metis is saying here that it's all three. But it wouldn't have to be all three. And different reasons require different solutions. |
Anonymous
|
MPIA - If you want all data for everyone, email correspondence between staff the programs, reports that haven't been released to the public, data sets, minutes from meetings, etc. (For privacy or other reasons, some information may be redacted) FERPA - Your own child's records. |
Anonymous
It is the raw scores that are most helpful (rather than just the percentiles). |
Anonymous
However, MPIA won't get you all data for everyone unless MCPS already has that information in a public record that can be disclosed. MPIA requires MCPS to give you public records. MPIA doesn't require MCPS to answer your requests for data. A public record is defined as the original or copy of any documentary material in any form created or received by an agency in connection with the transaction of public business. Included in this definition are written materials, books, photographs, photocopies, firms, microfilms, records, tapes, computerized records, maps, drawings and other materials. http://www.marylandattorneygeneral.gov/OpenGov%20Documents/Appendix_I.pdf Also, MCPS can (and possibly will) charge a fee for searching for the requested records. |
Anonymous
We can raise whatever ideas, but the end of the day some high performers will still get screwed. In this county, we have a large number of kids who deserve proper enrichment. I don't understand why we are putting a ceiling on our kids if they are able to do better? If there are 100 kids who meet the benchmark, then only allow 100 kids. If in a year there happen to be 300 kids, then allow those 300 kids whether it is at the home school or at the regional centers. I'm so confused as to why we bicker over a few points on some tests to see which kid is smarter than which. These kids have multiple assessments and grades. If your kid scores 1% of the nation on multiple tests, for god sake why can't we advocate for all these kids to get the proper curriculum in place for them. I strongly believe that the central office and the middle schools are responsible for taking the lead to get something solid in place. We, as their biggest advocates, need to stop arguing and see the larger picture here. Make all the comments you need on DCUM to help you vent your anger, but I encourage all parents to make sure they take time out to write to MCPS and make the proper appeal. |
Anonymous
So your kids "deserve" enrichment. Fine. But what makes you think that that enrichment MUST take the form of a magnet school? You're proposing to fiat more seats at the magnets; I can just as easily propose to fiat more enrichment in your home school. |
Anonymous
I didn't say it has to be at a regional magnet. I don't care where it is done, be it home school or at a regional center. As long as kids have access to the curriculum with proper teaching, that's all that matters. |
Anonymous
|
I know there are a lot of folks on this thread, so we cannot expect a common voice, but it would be great if folks could figure out what they REALLY want and advocate for it.
Or, rather, they need to figure out what is necessary vs. what would be great, and fight for that first. Do they want a program with ONLY the top 1% or so of kids in the county? Do they want access to specialized classes? What if they could have access to specialized classes but those classes would be open to all interested students? What if they could have access to specialized classes, but with the top 33% of students? What is the actual goal? Is it the peer group or the specialized classes? |
Anonymous
The report doesn't differentiate between select and enroll - that's one aggregated concept. However, that's not a cause, that's an effect. The reason that these populations get selected and enroll less can't be because they get selected and enroll less. With respect to them applying less... the report doesn't actually make that conclusion based on any statistical data, as far as I can tell. They theorize it might be true based on things like focus groups, but there doesn't appear to be any robust statistical finding. Either way though, the report makes clear that those aren't the only reasons for the underrepresentations. The report goes on in that place to say: "[T]he lack of diversity and underrepresentation of some student subgroups in these programs suggests that the process may rely too heavily on one or more indicators or may need to consider additional measures of student ability. These indicators may include broadening the definition of gifted to include noncognitive measures such as motivation and persistence, using group-specific norms that benchmark student performance against school peers with comparable backgrounds, offering automatic admissions for students in the top 5-10% of sending elementary or middle schools in the district, or using other methods that are outlined in the report and utilized in other districts across the country." I'm not necessarily disagreeing with where they're going here from a policy standpoint, but I just want to make sure everyone understands what the report is saying. It is not that the underrepresented groups have test scores that warrant inclusion (even if you assume all "barriers to access," like knowledge of the program and transportation issues, are removed) - it's actually the exact opposite. They're saying that if those groups don't test as well (and the report strongly suggests that they do not), then the county needs to use something other than test scores to ensure that the selection outcomes have proportionate distributions. In other words, "equitable" in this context doesn't necessarily mean equal access; it means equal outcomes, by whatever means are necessary to achieve them. |