Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My child went with 7 other kids from our neighborhood ES

It is based on numbers in each school. We were told 6 max (3 girs, 3 boys) in our ES with 100 kids in 4th grade. Schools have between 40-150 kids per 3rd grade. That grade had so many smarter girls too but it didn't matter.

????I'm pretty sure that gender is not considered. My child's HGC class has many more boys than girls and I've heard that in previous years it's been the opposite.

Agreed. At my kid's school, 1 girl and 6 boys were accepted to the center.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The data makes it seem like Asian parents were recommending students who may not have really been qualified but I think it just shows the clear bias in how the district manipulated the pilot programs against APAs. They put them in places where URMs were overrepresented and it's possible teachers and schools doing the recommending were told their goal is to increase URMs so there was a conscious or subconscious bias towards APAs.

Congratulations! You're the first poster to explicitly say that the results are only good about expanding the reach of the program because MCPS rigged the system.

They did rig the system. That was the whole point, to increase the number of URMs in the program. I don't think there's a secret conspiracy. They have been very open about it

It's not "rigging" if it's their system. They can invite who they want.

Anonymous wrote:Admissions rates by race

Before the changes 2015-16
White 22%
African American 12%
Hispanic 4.5%
Asian 21%

After the changes 2016-2017
White 10%
African American 7%
Hispanic 6%
Asian 16%

Was that in the report? It definitely confirms my observation that it was harder to get in this year. Are there similar numbers for middle school magnets?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The data makes it seem like Asian parents were recommending students who may not have really been qualified but I think it just shows the clear bias in how the district manipulated the pilot programs against APAs. They put them in places where URMs were overrepresented and it's possible teachers and schools doing the recommending were told their goal is to increase URMs so there was a conscious or subconscious bias towards APAs.

Congratulations! You're the first poster to explicitly say that the results are only good about expanding the reach of the program because MCPS rigged the system.

They did rig the system. That was the whole point, to increase the number of URMs in the program. I don't think there's a secret conspiracy. They have been very open about it

Anonymous wrote:

Any bets on how long it will take for the first poster on DCUM to provide the alternate explanation that MCPS put a thumb on the scale, preferentially admitting Hispanic/Latino and FARMS students who are unqualified (by definition) over qualified DCUM-demographic students?

What they did wasn't that simple. The bias was in the selection or identification pool. IMO, it didn't work as well as they hoped. Those look like very large percentage increases but that's only because the number of Hispanic/Latino or FARMS kids were virtually not represented at all in the HGCs. I would have thought that because they were being identified in such higher numbers that even more would have qualified but they did not. That implies the problem is NOT where they thought it was which is that many Hispanic or FARMS families didn't know about the program or didn't have time to apply or didn't think their child would get in, etc. because they fixed that problem through a lot of time and expense and they did not get the huge bump in numbers you might have expected if that were the only or even the main issue.

Admissions rates by race

Before the changes 2015-16
White 22%
African American 12%
Hispanic 4.5%
Asian 21%

After the changes 2016-2017
White 10%
African American 7%
Hispanic 6%
Asian 16%

Studies have shown time and time again it is very difficult for schools to make up for all the of the effects of poverty and create long term equality between all students.

Anonymous wrote:

The data makes it seem like Asian parents were recommending students who may not have really been qualified but I think it just shows the clear bias in how the district manipulated the pilot programs against APAs. They put them in places where URMs were overrepresented and it's possible teachers and schools doing the recommending were told their goal is to increase URMs so there was a conscious or subconscious bias towards APAs.

Congratulations! You're the first poster to explicitly say that the results are only good about expanding the reach of the program because MCPS rigged the system.

The racial data chart is very interesting.
In 2015-16, when it was up to parents applying the top racial groups were:
1. African American and Asian (very close numbers, in that order)
2. White
3. Hispanic

In 2016-17 when it was MCPS, school teams doing the selecting or identification the top groups were:
1. African American (BY FAR the largest group)
2. White
3. Asian and Hispanic (close numbers in that order)

I didn't realize so many African American families had previously been applying. All the rhetoric from the school district made it seem like the information wasn't getting out to URM families, both African American and Hispanic, and that's why their kids weren't getting in.

The data makes it seem like Asian parents were recommending students who may not have really been qualified but I think it just shows the clear bias in how the district manipulated the pilot programs against APAs. They put them in places where URMs were overrepresented and it's possible teachers and schools doing the recommending were told their goal is to increase URMs so there was a conscious or subconscious bias towards APAs.

Positive news is that it's nice to see them identifying more Hispanic students for consideration.

Negative is the second chart with selected students shows that they are still not admitting a very high % of FARMS students. That tells me that the problem starts sooner than 3rd grade and that by that time many kids may already very behind their peers. I know the district is putting more resources into enrichment in the early years but I think they need to do even more. All the time and resources wasted making the numbers look good for this pilot study could have been spent identifying kids who are 5 and 6 who have FARMS status and giving them more access to tutors, enrichment classes and other things that many middle-class students in MCPS take for granted.

Anonymous wrote:So I am seeing in another thread that the four new centers (Matsunaga, Piney Branch, Stonegate, Rachel Carson) will be water-down and pull-out versions of the local HGC. However, skimming through the letter to the Members of the Board of Education, I do not see any indication that states the four new centers are any different than the other existing Highly Gifted Centers with the exception of the four new centers serving its local school population. Are the any text somewhere else that indicates otherwise?

Rachel Carson (theoretically because there is no official notice of this on any website or official document) will be a local pull out center. The others mentioned are full-out HGC within the local school - meaning a separate classroom for all students all day every day.

So I am seeing in another thread that the four new centers (Matsunaga, Piney Branch, Stonegate, Rachel Carson) will be water-down and pull-out versions of the local HGC. However, skimming through the letter to the Members of the Board of Education, I do not see any indication that states the four new centers are any different than the other existing Highly Gifted Centers with the exception of the four new centers serving its local school population. Are the any text somewhere else that indicates otherwise?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. I didn't watch the BoE meeting yesterday, but there is now a PowerPoint presentation posted, presumably what was shown at the meeting: http://www.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/AM7GRE44D74F/$file/Choice%20Study%20Update%20PPT%20AC.pdf

It adds in the info about the new local center at Rachel Carson.

Oh, meant to say it also has stats on how selections changed from last year to this one (looks like just for the pilot schools). All demographics had higher selections this year, presumably because of more space with the local centers, but the biggest increases were in Hispanic students (up 425%) and FARMS (108%). So opening up the application pool may have had a significant impact on those groups.

Though it is small numbers (4 vs. 21 for Hispanic/Latino, 13 vs. 27 for FARMS). Nonetheless, I agree that this is good news. Good for MCPS.

Any bets on how long it will take for the first poster on DCUM to provide the alternate explanation that MCPS put a thumb on the scale, preferentially admitting Hispanic/Latino and FARMS students who are unqualified (by definition) over qualified DCUM-demographic students?

That is good news. I am sure there will be more qualified URMs in these programs as a result of there being more spots, more awareness after all the publicity in the wake of Metis etc. As long as the objective criteria for admission (test scores, grades etc) are similar for all admitted children I welcome the increase in diversity. If the selection criteria is amended to make it easier for one group to get in then I don't think it is fair to take a spot from a more qualified applicant because of race (or gender).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. I didn't watch the BoE meeting yesterday, but there is now a PowerPoint presentation posted, presumably what was shown at the meeting: http://www.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/AM7GRE44D74F/$file/Choice%20Study%20Update%20PPT%20AC.pdf

It adds in the info about the new local center at Rachel Carson.

Oh, meant to say it also has stats on how selections changed from last year to this one (looks like just for the pilot schools). All demographics had higher selections this year, presumably because of more space with the local centers, but the biggest increases were in Hispanic students (up 425%) and FARMS (108%). So opening up the application pool may have had a significant impact on those groups.

Though it is small numbers (4 vs. 21 for Hispanic/Latino, 13 vs. 27 for FARMS). Nonetheless, I agree that this is good news. Good for MCPS.

Any bets on how long it will take for the first poster on DCUM to provide the alternate explanation that MCPS put a thumb on the scale, preferentially admitting Hispanic/Latino and FARMS students who are unqualified (by definition) over qualified DCUM-demographic students?

Anonymous wrote:OP here. I didn't watch the BoE meeting yesterday, but there is now a PowerPoint presentation posted, presumably what was shown at the meeting: http://www.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/AM7GRE44D74F/$file/Choice%20Study%20Update%20PPT%20AC.pdf

It adds in the info about the new local center at Rachel Carson.

Oh, meant to say it also has stats on how selections changed from last year to this one (looks like just for the pilot schools). All demographics had higher selections this year, presumably because of more space with the local centers, but the biggest increases were in Hispanic students (up 425%) and FARMS (108%). So opening up the application pool may have had a significant impact on those groups.

OP here. I didn't watch the BoE meeting yesterday, but there is now a PowerPoint presentation posted, presumably what was shown at the meeting: http://www.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/AM7GRE44D74F/$file/Choice%20Study%20Update%20PPT%20AC.pdf

It adds in the info about the new local center at Rachel Carson.