Can a group who is still grossly over-represented at the magnets like White or Asian seriously claim discrimination because the testing methodology changed in order to provide greater equity?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Less interested in YOY change. How does TPMS magnet demographics compare to the county’s?

p this is a better indicator of whether we’re headed in the right direction

Are Asians still vastly over-represented at the magnets as a percentage of the County's total population?

so we are using % of total representative pop as criteria now? no wonder mcps is all f'ed up

Looking at the Maryland Report Card results for PARCC from 2017 for Grade 5 math in MCPS
There were 1319 students total in MCPS who "exceeded expectations" which seems like the bare minimum to be considered for TPMS magnet
Of these 494 were Asian (out of a total of 1653 Asian students), 550 were White (out of a total of 3476 white students), 102 were 2 or more races (out of 620).
So of the 1319 students who exceeded expectations 1146 came from these three groups which means only 173 students from other groups exceeded expectations.
http://reportcard.msde.maryland.gov/ParccTrends.aspx?PV=71:5:15:AAAA:1:N:6:13:2:2:5:1:1:2:3

By 8th grade it is still bad
347 Asians (out of 969), 294 whites (out of 1797) and 45 mixed race (out of 281)
686 students from these three groups exceeded expectations. The total number of Grade 8 who exceeded expectations 735 (49 from all other groups exceeded expectations).

The achievement gap is to blame for the poor representation of certain groups in the magnet programs. MCPS needs to treat the problem instead of obscuring the symptoms by changing selection criteria

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Less interested in YOY change. How does TPMS magnet demographics compare to the county’s?

p this is a better indicator of whether we’re headed in the right direction

Are Asians still vastly over-represented at the magnets as a percentage of the County's total population?

Only if you assume that everyone in the county should have an equal chance of getting in...like a lottery magnet. Otherwise it is impossible to make that kind of statement.

It is PUBLIC EDUCATION so that goes without saying...

Then you have to just make it a lottery. There can be no programs based on merit/ability/any other qualification.

So your contention is that some groups have more merit than others?

Two factors

1. SES
2. Culture

I think SES is the most important but you can't deny that certain populations value school work and prepping in general more than other groups

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Less interested in YOY change. How does TPMS magnet demographics compare to the county’s?

p this is a better indicator of whether we’re headed in the right direction

Are Asians still vastly over-represented at the magnets as a percentage of the County's total population?

Only if you assume that everyone in the county should have an equal chance of getting in...like a lottery magnet. Otherwise it is impossible to make that kind of statement.

It is PUBLIC EDUCATION so that goes without saying...

Then you have to just make it a lottery. There can be no programs based on merit/ability/any other qualification.

So your contention is that some groups have more merit than others?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Less interested in YOY change. How does TPMS magnet demographics compare to the county’s?

p this is a better indicator of whether we’re headed in the right direction

Are Asians still vastly over-represented at the magnets as a percentage of the County's total population?

so we are using % of total representative pop as criteria now? no wonder mcps is all f'ed up

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Less interested in YOY change. How does TPMS magnet demographics compare to the county’s?

p this is a better indicator of whether we’re headed in the right direction

Are Asians still vastly over-represented at the magnets as a percentage of the County's total population?

Only if you assume that everyone in the county should have an equal chance of getting in...like a lottery magnet. Otherwise it is impossible to make that kind of statement.

It is PUBLIC EDUCATION so that goes without saying...

Then you have to just make it a lottery. There can be no programs based on merit/ability/any other qualification.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Less interested in YOY change. How does TPMS magnet demographics compare to the county’s?

p this is a better indicator of whether we’re headed in the right direction

Are Asians still vastly over-represented at the magnets as a percentage of the County's total population?

Only if you assume that everyone in the county should have an equal chance of getting in...like a lottery magnet. Otherwise it is impossible to make that kind of statement.

It is PUBLIC EDUCATION so that goes without saying...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Less interested in YOY change. How does TPMS magnet demographics compare to the county’s?

p this is a better indicator of whether we’re headed in the right direction

Are Asians still vastly over-represented at the magnets as a percentage of the County's total population?

Only if you assume that everyone in the county should have an equal chance of getting in...like a lottery magnet. Otherwise it is impossible to make that kind of statement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Less interested in YOY change. How does TPMS magnet demographics compare to the county’s?

p this is a better indicator of whether we’re headed in the right direction

Are Asians still vastly over-represented at the magnets as a percentage of the County's total population?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But poster after poster has indicated that they DID apply different standards. So now you are saying they didn't? All this speculation is ridiculous....

They did apply different standards, depending on your home middle school. Not depending on your racial/ethnic category.

That is how they reduced Asian representation by over 20% each of the last two years.

But last year was the same process as the years before that. Where they did not consider the home middle school. What is your explanation for the decline in percentage of Asian-Americans last year compared to the previous year, when the same process was used in both years?

I don't think last year was blind admission though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But poster after poster has indicated that they DID apply different standards. So now you are saying they didn't? All this speculation is ridiculous....

They did apply different standards, depending on your home middle school. Not depending on your racial/ethnic category.

That is how they reduced Asian representation by over 20% each of the last two years.

But last year was the same process as the years before that. Where they did not consider the home middle school. What is your explanation for the decline in percentage of Asian-Americans last year compared to the previous year, when the same process was used in both years?

Anonymous wrote:Hey, at least it’s less Asian

ignorant fool.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But poster after poster has indicated that they DID apply different standards. So now you are saying they didn't? All this speculation is ridiculous....

They did apply different standards, depending on your home middle school. Not depending on your racial/ethnic category.

That is how they reduced Asian representation by over 20% each of the last two years.

Anonymous wrote:

But poster after poster has indicated that they DID apply different standards. So now you are saying they didn't? All this speculation is ridiculous....

They did apply different standards, depending on your home middle school. Not depending on your racial/ethnic category.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone else take a look at the numbers on the slides from the AEI meeting? It looks like the pool of students tested was 31% white. Of those invited to Takoma, 39% were white. That compares to 35% white in 2017. How did we just spend millions of dollars on trying to create more diversity and end up with this? Am I missing something?

They couldn't find enough qualified minority kids. Simple as that. Unless they apply different standards, like colleges do, this won't change.

But poster after poster has indicated that they DID apply different standards. So now you are saying they didn't? All this speculation is ridiculous....