Reply to DEI and magnet schools

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "DEI and magnet schools "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]When a kid who has 85% gets into a magnet at the expense of a kid who got a 99%, it is because of DEI.  [/quote]

There is an element of that that encouraged the lottery approach, but there is much more to the picture.

First, the largest underlying problem is the lack of adequate seating for the magnet programs when compared to the size of the student population that would benefit.

[b]Second, the use of exposure-related metrics such as MAP encourages prepping, resulting in higher scores by those less highly able but exposed via tutoring than by the more highly able but not exposed[/b], when the object is more about meeting the need/capacity of those more highly able than meeting the current learning level of those who have been pushed -- not that some of those might also be highly able.

Third, when a highly able kid with no family resources to facilitate outside exposure (or sometimes even be aware of that opportunity) and no local peer cohort to facilitate in-class enrichment/acceleration scores at the 85th percentile, but where that is locally normed to the 99th, considering relative achievement vs. similarly situated peers, but is denied in favor of a less highly able kid who got a 98th percentile (nobody at national 99th is left out of the lottery) due to family- and peer-cohort-enabled additional exposure, it is because of wealth.[/quote]

stop with the nonsense. everything you need to know for MAP is available for free at khan academy. "exposure" is irrelevant. you still need to solve problems and in fact you can solve problems you were never "exposed" to.

you are this MCPS teacher who constantly attacks parents of gifted children. you are clearly not familiar with the questions on the MAP. [/quote]

Not nonsense.  Sure, Khan is there, as are others.  This does not mean a highly able student will access that where a less highly able student might due to family condition.  And MAP RIT scores are recognized, quite clearly by NWEA, the organization that creates the MAP, as being highly correlated to exposure.  They also clearly recommend only using it as a complement to a more ability-related metric for magnet/enriched program placement.  They also recommend utilizing local norming.

Also not a teacher in any traditional sense, and not a school/MCPS employee of any kind.  If you take a moment to reconsider that posted, I advocate [i]for[/i] GT education.  Adequate seating with meaningful differentiation to meet the needs of the many so fortunate as to have high ability in MCPS.

I don't think that those with high achievement should be excluded, but I do think that the more important need to meet is that associated with high ability.  Of course, there can be plenty of overlap, there, imdividual ability can vary across domains (rather than being a monolithic "intelligence") and it also can vary across years.[/quote]

NWEA is making defensive documents and is, paradoxically, not the best source of information about the tests it makes. [b]this crap you believe is their sales brochure because people don't want another IQ test[/b].

in reality, MAP-M is a test of quantitative reasoning, and MAP-R is a test of verbal reasoning. not saying it is entirely uncorrelated to exposure, but, [b]by the time these tests start to matter, smart kids got themselves exposed to relevant content[/b]. average kids are looking at make up videos and smart ones are seeking e.g. algebra content. this is not a mystery.

your supposed fight for ability vs. achievement is in fact undermining gifted kids. [b]this is the only test we have[/b] and the charade around "exposure" is what makes it possible for the test to survive as a tool of selection.

stop undermining talented kids.[/quote]

Now [i]there's[/i] some nonsense.

The "crap" that indicates that MAP should not be used as the primary placement test comes from third-party research that has informed some of NWEA's guidance, not from any promo slick.

These tests are made to "matter" by MCPS's GT identification and program placement paradigm, with is just starting to reincorporate an aptitude measure, as the research suggests.  Perhaps not so much in insulated communities of wealthy and/or highly academically inclined families that provide structure for such or where a high-performing homogeneous local cohort allows for teachers to manage enrichment, but there are a lot of smart kids who haven't "gotten themselves exposed" to concepts/vocabulary that result in higher RIT scores by the time MAP is employed for magnet pool placement -- middle of 3rd grade and start of 5th for elementary/middle, respectively.

MAP was the only test (besides MCAP) due in the first place to the pandemic making administration of CogAT infeasible, and in the second place to the twin desires not to instill an additional change so quickly and to keep costs down.  While I begrudgingly accept the initial decision, I definitely opposed its continuation when a clearly better paradigm was feasible.  You misconstrue my stance as somehow supporting the continued use of MAP as the main selection tool.

Meanwhile, and again, MAP RIT scores are highly correlated to exposure. This makes them a reasonably good tool for the purposes for which MAP was designed -- general/inexact assessment of a student's [i]current[/i] strengths, weaknesses and year-to-year development to allow teachers to tailor (at least to the degree allowed within the MCPS curriculum) their approach to a particular student or class, and year-to-year evaluation of teaching effectiveness across large enough populations as would provide a statistically meaningful result.  [i]Not[/i] to be the primary GT identification or magnet pool selection tool.

Support all kids.  Support [i]talented[/i] kids with paradigms that do the best job of identifying that talent, curricula that best meet the associated educational need, enforced policy that ensures those curricula are employed with fidelity across the system and funding to make that happen with reasonable equivalence for all so identified. [/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