Reply to Did MCPS do a sneaky thing for the magnet lotteries?

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "Did MCPS do a sneaky thing for the magnet lotteries?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I wonder what percent of each group take private math courses?  I suspect the taking of private math courses correlates far more with 5s than does race.  [/quote]

You may be right, but not sure that matters. They're ignoring the details of the process like local morning which explains the delta that they're pointing to as evidence of rigging. I think they're just heavily vested in this narrative and are in heavy denial of reality.[/quote]
A Black student in a low FARMS school scores a 225 MAP-M that is locally normed to 80% and is not eligible for the lottery. A Black student in a high FARMS school gets a MAP-M 220 locally normed to the 90% and is eligible for the lottery. What makes that second student more deserving of the opportunity to be selected for enriched curriculum than the first?[/quote]

[b]The low-FARMS school kid has a larger local cohort to allow the local school to address their needs.[/b]  If the local school isn't providing the courses to meet the needs associated with the profile of that cohort, then it is incumbent on that school to change and for MCPS to force that change.

The problem is that not all principals do what is right to meet the identified cohort need, in part because of underfunding, in part because of a misplaced distaste for having one group treated differently from another (focus on need as the basis for provision of opportunities and the perception of differential treatment tends to evaporate) and in part because of mismangement, including poor planning by the county at the County Council & Planning Commission levels.  That leads to the magnets, where the enriched curriculum is guaranteed, being an artificially scarce resource where there should be plenty.

The %iles of 80 and 90, while possibly valid when looking at the past year -- MAP %iles were only one of several identifying factors -- probably are below the equivalent example for the coming year.  Last year they couldn't get better measures like COGAT in play and every measure they could use had pandemic-related elements of unreliability.  That resulted in the wide net & lottery approach.   We'll have to see if they keep the lottery aspect, but I'd imagine that the standards for consideration will be much more stringent -- say something like 94 and 98 instead of 80 and 90.[/quote]

This cohort is likely something that will exist in name only.  A cohort of mostly (not all) kids of races with a not good history with AAs.  MCPS working on improving all this, but progress hard, criticism of MCPS efforts easy.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics