Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

Doesn't make the data wrong. PP just presented the data and it is pretty clear it disadvantages and penalizes a particular racial minority group for good performance. I don't think it is fair but I am not particularly bothered by it. Eventually work doesn't go waste. Just have the grace though to accept the facts. It is obvious what's happening here - could be because of local mooring which happened for a reason.

The reason for local norming is a nationwide shift towards policies that reward the top percentile students based on their home school, not their entire district. It's a sea change, it's everywhere.

And it seems much more fair than simply handing out seats at these programs to the children of people whose kids attend prep. It seems more fair to reward actual talent which is distributed evenly if opportunities aren't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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?

Yes, but cherry-picking these hypotheticals to suit your narrative is also meaningless. Actual data looks exactly like what they got because that was the outcome of this process.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

Doesn't make the data wrong. PP just presented the data and it is pretty clear it disadvantages and penalizes a particular racial minority group for good performance. I don't think it is fair but I am not particularly bothered by it. Eventually work doesn't go waste. Just have the grace though to accept the facts. It is obvious what's happening here - could be because of local mooring which happened for a reason.

The reason for local norming is a nationwide shift towards policies that reward the top percentile students based on their home school, not their entire district. It's a sea change, it's everywhere.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

Doesn't make the data wrong. PP just presented the data and it is pretty clear it disadvantages and penalizes a particular racial minority group for good performance. I don't think it is fair but I am not particularly bothered by it. Eventually work doesn't go waste. Just have the grace though to accept the facts. It is obvious what's happening here - could be because of local mooring which happened for a reason.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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?

The low-FARMS school kid has a larger local cohort to allow the local school to address their needs. 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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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?

The low-FARMS school kid has a larger local cohort to allow the local school to address their needs. 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.

Anonymous wrote:It's pretty simple to calculate the relative chances of admission for students at the highest level in math 5 (performance level 5):

https://reportcard.msde.maryland.gov/Graphs/#/Assessments/MathPerformance/2MA/5/6/3/1/15/XXXX/2019

Percentage among all Asians in Math 5 PL5 = 36.9%
Percentage among all Blacks in Math 5 PL5 = 3.9%
Percentage among all Hispanics in Math 5 PL5 = 4.3%
Percentage among all Whites in Math 5 PL5 = 22.0%
Percentage among all students in Math 5 PL5 = 14.7%

https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/regulatoryaccountability/glance/currentyear/schools/middle.pdf

Percentage of Asians among middle school students = 14.3%
Percentage of Blacks among middle school students = 21.9%
Percentage of Hispanics among middle school students = 32.6%
Percentage of Whites among middle school students = 26.1%

Percentage of Asians among Math5 Performance Level 5 students = 35.9%
Percentage of Blacks among Math5 Performance Level 5 students = 5.8%
Percentage of Hispanics among Math5 Performance Level 5 students = 9.5%
Percentage of Whites among Math5 Performance Level 5 students = 39.1%

Percentage of Asians placed at Takoma Park = 20.8%
Percentage of Blacks placed at Takoma Park = 20.8%
Percentage of Hispanics placed at Takoma Park = 16.0%
Percentage of Whites placed at Takoma Park = 37.6%

Compared to a White Math 5 Performance Level 5 student,
An Asian Math 5 PL5 student has a 60% chance of being placed
A Black Math 5 PL5 student has a 372% chance of being placed
A Hispanic Math 5 PL5 student has a 174% chance of being placed

Good analysis.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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?

Less privilege (magic word)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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?

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:It's pretty simple to calculate the relative chances of admission for students at the highest level in math 5 (performance level 5):

https://reportcard.msde.maryland.gov/Graphs/#/Assessments/MathPerformance/2MA/5/6/3/1/15/XXXX/2019

Percentage among all Asians in Math 5 PL5 = 36.9%
Percentage among all Blacks in Math 5 PL5 = 3.9%
Percentage among all Hispanics in Math 5 PL5 = 4.3%
Percentage among all Whites in Math 5 PL5 = 22.0%
Percentage among all students in Math 5 PL5 = 14.7%

https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/regulatoryaccountability/glance/currentyear/schools/middle.pdf

Percentage of Asians among middle school students = 14.3%
Percentage of Blacks among middle school students = 21.9%
Percentage of Hispanics among middle school students = 32.6%
Percentage of Whites among middle school students = 26.1%

Percentage of Asians among Math5 Performance Level 5 students = 35.9%
Percentage of Blacks among Math5 Performance Level 5 students = 5.8%
Percentage of Hispanics among Math5 Performance Level 5 students = 9.5%
Percentage of Whites among Math5 Performance Level 5 students = 39.1%

Percentage of Asians placed at Takoma Park = 20.8%
Percentage of Blacks placed at Takoma Park = 20.8%
Percentage of Hispanics placed at Takoma Park = 16.0%
Percentage of Whites placed at Takoma Park = 37.6%

Compared to a White Math 5 Performance Level 5 student,
An Asian Math 5 PL5 student has a 60% chance of being placed
A Black Math 5 PL5 student has a 372% chance of being placed
A Hispanic Math 5 PL5 student has a 174% chance of being placed

This isn't really that helpful since level 5 isn't locally normed if it were you'd see very different statistics which probably would match exactly the demographics that were seeing and this year's lottery

It's pretty simple to calculate the relative chances of admission for students at the highest level in math 5 (performance level 5):

https://reportcard.msde.maryland.gov/Graphs/#/Assessments/MathPerformance/2MA/5/6/3/1/15/XXXX/2019

Percentage among all Asians in Math 5 PL5 = 36.9%
Percentage among all Blacks in Math 5 PL5 = 3.9%
Percentage among all Hispanics in Math 5 PL5 = 4.3%
Percentage among all Whites in Math 5 PL5 = 22.0%
Percentage among all students in Math 5 PL5 = 14.7%

https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/regulatoryaccountability/glance/currentyear/schools/middle.pdf

Percentage of Asians among middle school students = 14.3%
Percentage of Blacks among middle school students = 21.9%
Percentage of Hispanics among middle school students = 32.6%
Percentage of Whites among middle school students = 26.1%

Percentage of Asians among Math5 Performance Level 5 students = 35.9%
Percentage of Blacks among Math5 Performance Level 5 students = 5.8%
Percentage of Hispanics among Math5 Performance Level 5 students = 9.5%
Percentage of Whites among Math5 Performance Level 5 students = 39.1%

Percentage of Asians placed at Takoma Park = 20.8%
Percentage of Blacks placed at Takoma Park = 20.8%
Percentage of Hispanics placed at Takoma Park = 16.0%
Percentage of Whites placed at Takoma Park = 37.6%

Compared to a White Math 5 Performance Level 5 student,
An Asian Math 5 PL5 student has a 60% chance of being placed
A Black Math 5 PL5 student has a 372% chance of being placed
A Hispanic Math 5 PL5 student has a 174% chance of being placed

Anonymous wrote:

What happened to the OCD poster who kept insisting this was all a "straight" lottery?

Which poster? Link to post(s)?

anonymous wrote:
Why should they be setting aside seats for in-boundary. They get their own in-boundary CES and then set asides for MS? I guess they admit that they cannot compete.

Good question. Why should any CES, magnet or other desired program be preferentially serving a local catchment? Piney Branch (early gifted), Potomac (Chinese immersion), etc.? MCPS should be affording reasonably equal opportunities to every student, regardless of zip code (or race, or socioeconomic status, etc.). That doesn't mean a selected class should always follow demographics -- there probably are going to be some differences.

Whether, in the case of magnet programs for the gifted, there should be a weighting for groups (FARMS/everFARMS, 504, etc.) that have a demonstrated disadvantage that would tend to allow space for those with lower quantitative measures but equivalent underlying ability should reflect our underlying ideals as a society. Then, if we want ro acknowledge that there is a school-to-school difference in the quality of teaching or capability to deliver that teaching to all students due to the differential profile of the population served, there should be locally-normed adjustment on top of that -- as an independent variable/after the above disadvantages are teased out, for example, so as not to double count a weighting. Then, if we acknowledge that it is difficult to make enough seats at magnets/centers in a timely maner to serve the entire population who might be in need as population grows/changes, we should ensure that local cohorts, where they can be created, are served with reasonably the same level of instruction as they would receive if placed centrally.

Then we should have both the criteria and the placement data available in detail for the citizenry to be able to understand the process and be confident in the results.

That reasonably equal standard, above, goes for pretty much everything -- programs, quality of teachers, building condition and amenities, fields, proximity vs. mode of transportation, etc. With criteria/detailed stats easily available on all of this. And good, up-front communication that allows for meaningful action by and feedback from families, teachers, etc.

It's difficult to achieve, but important to target.