Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Again, the creators of tests say they can't meaningfully distinguish within the SEM, usually at least the top 2 percent.

Well that's fine as long as they are only taking kids that score 98% and up. They are now inviting kids that score in the 80s and rejecting kids with 99%.

Where are you getting that information from?

https://montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/2019/Enriched%20and%20Accelerated%2028Jan2019%20FINAL.pdf

Wow. For entry into the CES: "Roughly less than half (41.7%) were in the 80th to the 94th percentile on the MAP-M". For the Cogat 34% were in this range. When my kid got into the HGC several years back her scores were in the 130+ on everything (98th, 99th percentile) and 99th percentile on MAP-M/R and she was just barely above average for the center based on the scores of admitted students they provided. The people who were saying that this new system led to more qualified students were clearly wrong.

Same here, these are very lax academic criteria fo being considered. Guess they foreshadowed the total change when renaming from HGc to ces.

So glad my kids are out, hope we can sell the house well next year or two.

What a dumb argument you're trying to make.

The racial makeup of the selection committee is 100% in MCPS's control. These people are appointed.

MCPS has no control over which students perform better than others on achievement and cognitive tests and grades.

Anonymous wrote:27 total.
10 White - 37%
8 Black - 30%
5 Hispanic - 19%
2 Two or more races - 7%
1 Asian - 4%

MCPS is 14% Asian and the magnets used to be more than 50% Asian before the changes. What gives? Why were Asian voices shut out of the selection process?


https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/schools/msmagnet/about/MS%20SELECTION%20COMMITTEE%202017-18.pdf
Note the total number by race only adds up to 26 but there are 27 members.

You have got some nerves!
So your beef is with the make up of the selection committee ?
Where's your beef with the fact that Asians are only 14% but made up more than 50% of the magnets ?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Possibly. It would be easy to determine if they hadn’t quit publishing that information. I wonder why they did that.

This isn't enough information for you?

https://montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/2019/Enriched%20and%20Accelerated%2028Jan2019%20FINAL.pdf

Posted by a PP who cited the report to show that they are admitting unqualified students.

The data in this report although interesting doesn’t show that standards have declined. It doesn’t provide details comparing current with past years. You’re making assumptions for which you have no supporting evidence.

My suspicious side tells me that MCPS would have gleefully trumpeted the scores had they indeed gone up or stayed the same. The fact that they didn't publish them per center anymore and started reporting them in a much less granular form suggests that they did not in fact go up or stay the same. That's not proof though. I'll be interested to see what data comes out during the trial.

My instinct tells me MCPS stopped reported the mean scores for many reasons, some may be:
- they used MCPS percentiles for CogAT that were adjusted based on the ES a student attended, the mean scores would include percentiles created from different norming groups
-to try to help the community understand that "the Test" is only ONE piece of data considered during the selection process and that "the Test" score reflects a moment in time
-to attempt to avoid the comparisons parents insist on making between programs
-The numbers can be deceiving: Since students can be selected for both programs, the invited student mean would include the scores of some students for both programs, the mean of students accepting the invitation is different from that of those invited, and the waitpool is full of students who were in a sense "selected" but not able to attend b/c of space, so how should those scores be reflected in a mean?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Again, the creators of tests say they can't meaningfully distinguish within the SEM, usually at least the top 2 percent.

Well that's fine as long as they are only taking kids that score 98% and up. They are now inviting kids that score in the 80s and rejecting kids with 99%.

Where are you getting that information from?

https://montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/2019/Enriched%20and%20Accelerated%2028Jan2019%20FINAL.pdf

Wow. For entry into the CES: "Roughly less than half (41.7%) were in the 80th to the 94th percentile on the MAP-M". For the Cogat 34% were in this range. When my kid got into the HGC several years back her scores were in the 130+ on everything (98th, 99th percentile) and 99th percentile on MAP-M/R and she was just barely above average for the center based on the scores of admitted students they provided. The people who were saying that this new system led to more qualified students were clearly wrong.

humble brag

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My suspicious side tells me that MCPS would have gleefully trumpeted the scores had they indeed gone up or stayed the same. The fact that they didn't publish them per center anymore and started reporting them in a much less granular form suggests that they did not in fact go up or stay the same. That's not proof though. I'll be interested to see what data comes out during the trial.

What trial?

I'm sorry, I meant investigation, not trial.

Anonymous wrote:

My suspicious side tells me that MCPS would have gleefully trumpeted the scores had they indeed gone up or stayed the same. The fact that they didn't publish them per center anymore and started reporting them in a much less granular form suggests that they did not in fact go up or stay the same. That's not proof though. I'll be interested to see what data comes out during the trial.

What trial?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Possibly. It would be easy to determine if they hadn’t quit publishing that information. I wonder why they did that.

This isn't enough information for you?

https://montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/2019/Enriched%20and%20Accelerated%2028Jan2019%20FINAL.pdf

Posted by a PP who cited the report to show that they are admitting unqualified students.

The data in this report although interesting doesn’t show that standards have declined. It doesn’t provide details comparing current with past years. You’re making assumptions for which you have no supporting evidence.

My suspicious side tells me that MCPS would have gleefully trumpeted the scores had they indeed gone up or stayed the same. The fact that they didn't publish them per center anymore and started reporting them in a much less granular form suggests that they did not in fact go up or stay the same. That's not proof though. I'll be interested to see what data comes out during the trial.

I agree!

If scores had gone up due to Universal Screening, MCPS would be trumpeting them far and wide in tweets and Press Releases.

Instead the data will absolutely show that many Asian American kids with really high scores were NOT admitted this year.

-Parent of a 5th grader in a CES where the kids know/see/discuss their scores

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Possibly. It would be easy to determine if they hadn’t quit publishing that information. I wonder why they did that.

This isn't enough information for you?

https://montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/2019/Enriched%20and%20Accelerated%2028Jan2019%20FINAL.pdf

Posted by a PP who cited the report to show that they are admitting unqualified students.

The data in this report although interesting doesn’t show that standards have declined. It doesn’t provide details comparing current with past years. You’re making assumptions for which you have no supporting evidence.

My suspicious side tells me that MCPS would have gleefully trumpeted the scores had they indeed gone up or stayed the same. The fact that they didn't publish them per center anymore and started reporting them in a much less granular form suggests that they did not in fact go up or stay the same. That's not proof though. I'll be interested to see what data comes out during the trial.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Possibly. It would be easy to determine if they hadn’t quit publishing that information. I wonder why they did that.

This isn't enough information for you?

https://montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/2019/Enriched%20and%20Accelerated%2028Jan2019%20FINAL.pdf

Posted by a PP who cited the report to show that they are admitting unqualified students.

The data in this report although interesting doesn’t show that standards have declined. It doesn’t provide details comparing current with past years. You’re making assumptions for which you have no supporting evidence.

Anonymous wrote:

Possibly. It would be easy to determine if they hadn’t quit publishing that information. I wonder why they did that.

This isn't enough information for you?

https://montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/2019/Enriched%20and%20Accelerated%2028Jan2019%20FINAL.pdf

Posted by a PP who cited the report to show that they are admitting unqualified students.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Again, the creators of tests say they can't meaningfully distinguish within the SEM, usually at least the top 2 percent.

Well that's fine as long as they are only taking kids that score 98% and up. They are now inviting kids that score in the 80s and rejecting kids with 99%.

Where are you getting that information from?

https://montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/2019/Enriched%20and%20Accelerated%2028Jan2019%20FINAL.pdf

So I'm seeing that 4.4% of the TPMS invitees scored in the 80-94th percentile on MAP-M, and 95.6% scored in the 95th percentile and up. That doesn't seem like a cause for panic, to me - unless you think that admission to the middle-school magnet program should be based solely on test scores.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Again, the creators of tests say they can't meaningfully distinguish within the SEM, usually at least the top 2 percent.

Well that's fine as long as they are only taking kids that score 98% and up. They are now inviting kids that score in the 80s and rejecting kids with 99%.

Where are you getting that information from?

https://montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/2019/Enriched%20and%20Accelerated%2028Jan2019%20FINAL.pdf

Wow. For entry into the CES: "Roughly less than half (41.7%) were in the 80th to the 94th percentile on the MAP-M". For the Cogat 34% were in this range. When my kid got into the HGC several years back her scores were in the 130+ on everything (98th, 99th percentile) and 99th percentile on MAP-M/R and she was just barely above average for the center based on the scores of admitted students they provided. The people who were saying that this new system led to more qualified students were clearly wrong.

There are posts on this board several years ago that state the exact same thing went on with the old system. You’re only seeing these things because you want to. There is no evidence

Possibly. It would be easy to determine if they hadn’t quit publishing that information. I wonder why they did that.

Anonymous wrote:27 total.
10 White - 37%
8 Black - 30%
5 Hispanic - 19%
2 Two or more races - 7%
1 Asian - 4%

MCPS is 14% Asian and the magnets used to be more than 50% Asian before the changes. What gives? Why were Asian voices shut out of the selection process?


https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/schools/msmagnet/about/MS%20SELECTION%20COMMITTEE%202017-18.pdf
Note the total number by race only adds up to 26 but there are 27 members.

So you’d feel better if the committee had racial makeup that reflected the county’s demographics? That’s fascinating...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Again, the creators of tests say they can't meaningfully distinguish within the SEM, usually at least the top 2 percent.

Well that's fine as long as they are only taking kids that score 98% and up. They are now inviting kids that score in the 80s and rejecting kids with 99%.

Where are you getting that information from?

https://montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/2019/Enriched%20and%20Accelerated%2028Jan2019%20FINAL.pdf

Wow. For entry into the CES: "Roughly less than half (41.7%) were in the 80th to the 94th percentile on the MAP-M". For the Cogat 34% were in this range. When my kid got into the HGC several years back her scores were in the 130+ on everything (98th, 99th percentile) and 99th percentile on MAP-M/R and she was just barely above average for the center based on the scores of admitted students they provided. The people who were saying that this new system led to more qualified students were clearly wrong.

There are posts on this board several years ago that state the exact same thing went on with the old system. You’re only seeing these things because you want to. There is no evidence