What is so pathetic about this is that while MCPS may have intended to reduce the Asian students in favor of other minority students, the end result after admit acceptances seems to be replacing higher performing Asian students with lower performing white DCC students. White privilege is alive and well and the white DCC mommies on this thread are busy protecting it! They could care less about Latino or AA students and are constantly, desperately seeking more URM whites to "save" their neighborhood schools, want to bus the poor kids out of their schools , and push for schools within schools so their kids don't mix with the other lower performing population. Biggest bunch os hypocrites on the planet.

The whole thing is a big cluster. No one is happy except the DCC white mommies who think they benefited somehow. Actual URM students were not helped in any way. MCPS is yet again in legal hot water this time for racial selection thinly disguised as geographic discrimination. Principals and teachers got screwed when the central office tried to dig themselves out at the last minute by creating faux enriched classes that didn't exist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's no evidence to suggest that selection was done by race or even by neighborhood. This is complete nonsense.

People suspect the new peer cohort consideration was a way to discriminate against students in certain school clusters. Again MCPS should release the test scores.

There is no "suspicion" about it. MCPS explicitly said that they considered peer cohort in the home middle school. The issue is that you think that MCPS should not have used this criterion.

This is largely tiger mom's winging that their anointed ones didn't make the cut. Now that admissions draw from a much larger pool it's more competitive than ever, but I agree the current programs are too small for the county's size. That's why providing more accelerated classes where a larger peer group is present makes the most sense.

Exactly! No matter what the county does many of these people will find something to complain about.

I don’t know what people are complaining about...now their middle schools get advanced programs right in the school and their kids don’t have to travel anywhere. So once again the wealthy schools have the better end of the stick.

+100

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's no evidence to suggest that selection was done by race or even by neighborhood. This is complete nonsense.

People suspect the new peer cohort consideration was a way to discriminate against students in certain school clusters. Again MCPS should release the test scores.

There is no "suspicion" about it. MCPS explicitly said that they considered peer cohort in the home middle school. The issue is that you think that MCPS should not have used this criterion.

This is largely tiger mom's winging that their anointed ones didn't make the cut. Now that admissions draw from a much larger pool it's more competitive than ever, but I agree the current programs are too small for the county's size. That's why providing more accelerated classes where a larger peer group is present makes the most sense.

Exactly! No matter what the county does many of these people will find something to complain about.

I don’t know what people are complaining about...now their middle schools get advanced programs right in the school and their kids don’t have to travel anywhere. So once again the wealthy schools have the better end of the stick.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's no evidence to suggest that selection was done by race or even by neighborhood. This is complete nonsense.

People suspect the new peer cohort consideration was a way to discriminate against students in certain school clusters. Again MCPS should release the test scores.

There is no "suspicion" about it. MCPS explicitly said that they considered peer cohort in the home middle school. The issue is that you think that MCPS should not have used this criterion.

This is largely tiger mom's winging that their anointed ones didn't make the cut. Now that admissions draw from a much larger pool it's more competitive than ever, but I agree the current programs are too small for the county's size. That's why providing more accelerated classes where a larger peer group is present makes the most sense.

Exactly! No matter what the county does many of these people will find something to complain about.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's no evidence to suggest that selection was done by race or even by neighborhood. This is complete nonsense.

People suspect the new peer cohort consideration was a way to discriminate against students in certain school clusters. Again MCPS should release the test scores.

There is no "suspicion" about it. MCPS explicitly said that they considered peer cohort in the home middle school. The issue is that you think that MCPS should not have used this criterion.

This is largely tiger mom's winging that their anointed ones didn't make the cut. Now that admissions draw from a much larger pool it's more competitive than ever, but I agree the current programs are too small for the county's size. That's why providing more accelerated classes where a larger peer group is present makes the most sense.

Anonymous wrote:
That doesn't explain why neighborhoods would be segregated by race/ethnicity. And it also doesn't explain the lack of diversity of housing types in a given area.

Policies like red-lining or locating the vast majority of section 8 housing to remote corners of the county helped contribute to this situation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's no evidence to suggest that selection was done by race or even by neighborhood. This is complete nonsense.

People suspect the new peer cohort consideration was a way to discriminate against students in certain school clusters. Again MCPS should release the test scores.

There is no "suspicion" about it. MCPS explicitly said that they considered peer cohort in the home middle school. The issue is that you think that MCPS should not have used this criterion.

Again they should consider peer cohort which has nothing to do with race. To be pushing this false narrative is reprehensible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's no evidence to suggest that selection was done by race or even by neighborhood. This is complete nonsense.

People suspect the new peer cohort consideration was a way to discriminate against students in certain school clusters. Again MCPS should release the test scores.

There is no "suspicion" about it. MCPS explicitly said that they considered peer cohort in the home middle school. The issue is that you think that MCPS should not have used this criterion.

Anonymous wrote:There's no evidence to suggest that selection was done by race or even by neighborhood. This is complete nonsense.

People suspect the new peer cohort consideration was a way to discriminate against students in certain school clusters. Again MCPS should release the test scores.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not by race, it’s by neighborhoods mostly of certain URM race and ethnicities. Totally legal!

You could just say "it's by neighborhoods where most people are black and/or Hispanic".

Which would be factually incorrect, and would also raise questions about why, in 2018, we have neighborhoods in Montgomery County that are highly segregated by race/ethnicity, but at least you'd be saying what you meant.

It’s a global phenomenon. Educated, skilled, literate married couples with full time jobs have the savings and income to afford more costly land and housing. And vice verse.

That doesn't explain why neighborhoods would be segregated by race/ethnicity. And it also doesn't explain the lack of diversity of housing types in a given area.

There's no evidence to suggest that selection was done by race or even by neighborhood. This is complete nonsense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh stop. MCPS found more high scoring kids. It also started to use the COGAT correctly. COGAtT creators state it should not be used to try to differentiate the last percentile. They also state it should not be the sole determinant of entry into any program. This is difficult news for parents who want to believe there is statistically valid meaning in the difference between their child's 99.7 percentile score and another child's 99.0.

Did MCPS disclose the cut off for selection was 99.0%? That would shut up a lot of people if that was true. On the flip side, if the cutoff was statistically significantly lower, ie 95% it’d look foolish since that would be a very large pool still. 3x the number admitted when looking at historical published data.

FWIW, COGAT's percentile rankings are rounded off to whole numbers. There is no 99.0 or 99.7, only 99%.

The raw score range for the 99th percentile is quite large and I seem to remember seeing tables identifying the raw scores associated with 99.9th percentile so I think the raw scores should matter especially since MCPS is now testing thousands of children ( which is the only thing I like about the new selection process). Until last year they used to release the raw scores to parents (your child’s raw scores and the median raw scores of accepted students was included in the letter. I don’t understand why they are being so secretive this year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh stop. MCPS found more high scoring kids. It also started to use the COGAT correctly. COGAtT creators state it should not be used to try to differentiate the last percentile. They also state it should not be the sole determinant of entry into any program. This is difficult news for parents who want to believe there is statistically valid meaning in the difference between their child's 99.7 percentile score and another child's 99.0.

Did MCPS disclose the cut off for selection was 99.0%? That would shut up a lot of people if that was true. On the flip side, if the cutoff was statistically significantly lower, ie 95% it’d look foolish since that would be a very large pool still. 3x the number admitted when looking at historical published data.

FWIW, COGAT's percentile rankings are rounded off to whole numbers. There is no 99.0 or 99.7, only 99%.

Anonymous wrote:Oh stop. MCPS found more high scoring kids. It also started to use the COGAT correctly. COGAtT creators state it should not be used to try to differentiate the last percentile. They also state it should not be the sole determinant of entry into any program. This is difficult news for parents who want to believe there is statistically valid meaning in the difference between their child's 99.7 percentile score and another child's 99.0.

Did MCPS disclose the cut off for selection was 99.0%? That would shut up a lot of people if that was true. On the flip side, if the cutoff was statistically significantly lower, ie 95% it’d look foolish since that would be a very large pool still. 3x the number admitted when looking at historical published data.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not by race, it’s by neighborhoods mostly of certain URM race and ethnicities. Totally legal!

You could just say "it's by neighborhoods where most people are black and/or Hispanic".

Which would be factually incorrect, and would also raise questions about why, in 2018, we have neighborhoods in Montgomery County that are highly segregated by race/ethnicity, but at least you'd be saying what you meant.

It’s a global phenomenon. Educated, skilled, literate married couples with full time jobs have the savings and income to afford more costly land and housing. And vice verse.