Reply to Is Cold Spring HGC the only HGC targeted by MCPS for denying entrance to MS magnet programs?

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "Is Cold Spring HGC the only HGC targeted by MCPS for denying entrance to MS magnet programs?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]How are black and Latino kids being denied access? [/quote]

Read the darn Metis report. (Your taxes paid for it, the least you can do is try to get your money's worth out of it.) You can do a search on "barriers to access", if you don't want to read the whole thing.[/quote]
Here's a great example of the type of reasoning contained in the Metis report:

"[u]Data on applications and acceptances[/u] to elementary centers and secondary magnet and application programs [u]show that[/u] Hispanic/Latino, Black/African American, Limited English Proficient (LEP), special education, and low-income students [u]are less likely[/u] than White, Asian, and higher income students [u]to be selected and enroll in these programs[u]. [b][u]As a result[/b][/u], Hispanic/Latino, Black/African American, LEP, special education, and low-income students [u]are underrepresented[/u] 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. [b]Circular reasoning at its best[/b].[/quote]

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.[/quote]
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 [u]noncognitive measures such as motivation and persistence[/u], 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.[/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