"My child's national verbal percentile was 97% and MCPS percentile was 78%. That seems like a large swing. The difference in quantitative was smaller - 99% national and 92% MCPS. The nonverbal was overall lower but also a large spread 79% and 49%

So yes, it can be a big change between national and MCPS percentiles."

Wow, that IS a big spread! Your child is in the top 3% nationally for verbal - and isn't even the top 20% in MoCo.. Really eye-opening.
I wish MCPS did the same last year for CES admissions other than just sending around rejections in the letter that also stated 99% test scores in all categories; it could have saved us a lot of frustration if we knew how our child performed in comparison to other MoCo applicants.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Check out Table B4 for TPMS
2016, 2017,2018 numbers of invited students

White/37/48/53
Asian/67/53/43
Hispanic/<10/15/12

You decide whether "MCPS needs to explain to the AA and Hispanic communities why white students benefited the most from the reform."


Wow this is awful. It certainly looks like MCPS staff actually didn't like that the magnet wasn't majority white so they shifted the criteria to put white students back on top. This is a textbook example of institutional racism favoring white students. They just disguised it in their rhetoric and by admitting 2 more hispanic students.

In order to achieve this "desired" balance of more white students than asian students and very few additional hispanic/AA students MCPS had to lower the standards and pull in the cohort geographic proxy so the magnets no longer have the strongest students. This also feeds into white privilege by making it easier for the lower scoring white kids to succeed in the program and be on top. Very shameful!

Your anger is overshadowing your sense of logic. You think MCPS has an institutional mandate to improve outcomes for white kids?! This entire change has been about closing the achievement gap for low/income, AA, and Hispanic kids. This is their mandate right now, as it absolutely should be in a county as diverse as ours. If you think they completely changed the admissions process so they could get 5 more white kids, you are wearing a tinfoil hat. The data show they got a lot more FARMS kids and a lot more AA kids. And 5 more white kids.

Institutional racism doesn't come from public mandates. It comes from people within a system who operate on racial biases .They make decisions and put in place processes that favor whites over other races. This is EXACTLY an example of this. The staff within MCPS orchestrated a process that had the outcome of putting whites back on top at the expense of Asians who are a minority. Racism against asians is prevalent in college admissions and the workforce because as a minority group they represent a threat to whites being on top.

10 more AA is great but that doesn't disguise the fact they also increased whites by much more. In fact if you look at the three year trend whites keep going up, Asians keep going down and the hispanic number went down too. (Since you didn't post all 3 years for AAs I don't know what that trend it but I hope its going up not down.)

Only the last numbers - the 2018 numbers - are from the new selection process. The 2016 and 2017 numbers used the same old application-based selection process. So the difference between the 2016 and 2017 numbers is variation within the same selection process. It is not a "three year trend" attributable to the new process. It is just as likely if not more likely to be a statistical anomaly within the data for the prior admission process.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Check out Table B4 for TPMS
2016, 2017,2018 numbers of invited students

White/37/48/53
Asian/67/53/43
Hispanic/<10/15/12

You decide whether "MCPS needs to explain to the AA and Hispanic communities why white students benefited the most from the reform."

In my experience, white families tend to trust the schools and teachers and are terrified of getting labeled pushy. So if their child complains that school is slow, they just think, “Oh, well, school isn’t fun for anyone.” They see kids of academically focused parents go to the magnets and the soccer field conversation is about how they are these horrible pressure cookers with outrageous homework and how they would never do that and deny their children the fun of childhood. They place emphasis on sports and community. They are used to the system working for them and don’t have any reason to question if it is working for their child. This is in general, of course. But I see it all the time. The global application process is identifying many more white children because the kids are from relatively high SES, have all of those advantages, and are as a result performing well in school... but their parents didn’t apply before. But once they are accepted, the parents sometimes have a change of heart, go to the open house, and decide to try it. I really think that is a big reason why the accepted white population has soared under the new system.

+1 I think I shared this in another of our many threads on the magnets, but I'm a highly educated professional, able to give my kids a lot of enrichment and support, and would likely not have applied under the previous system. Because I'm acutely aware of the ways in which my child might *appear* gifted but really just be lucky enough to have a stable home life, high quality preK, and ongoing enrichment, I would not have assumed my child was "HGC material."

It was only after the InView tests in 2nd that I started to consider it, and then we were in a pilot zone for the elementary level magnet roll out last year.

At any rate, what PP says here rings true for me based on my own experience as a parent, at least with the HGC/CES program.

Right. So I will say that I think this isn’t an anti-asian american thing so much as a way of identifying more kids from the entire population. And since Asian Americans were statistically more likely to apply than other groups when applications were primarily parent-driven, it would make sense that they are a lower percentage of accepted students in the new system. So maybe see this not as set up against one group so much as trying to include all groups.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:(Re-posted from another similar thread: https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/0/781550.page#14429226)

My husband actually called the central office and they said that the CES students's percentiles were calculated based on their current elementary school's SES. They then use the outcome of that ES-based calculation to identify a cohort at the middle school (which may also have a different feeder group and SES that the CES from which the student was calculated, but that's not taken into account). They also said that there may be a difference in the calculation at our home school, but it's unlikely to be much of a difference as to final outcome of cohort, but they can't be sure without a recalculation, which they won't do unless specifically requested on an appeal. (In our case, the CES ES has about 50% FARMS, but our home ES has about 80% FARMS.) This supports the suspicion that students in the CES are less likely to be accepted into the magnets, especially if their "cohorts" are being determined based on numbers that are skewed in different ways from the home schools.

Let me get this straight-
So a poor FARMS child at Chevy Chase CES which is not high FARMS would be compared to those in the the high SES group so this child who is very bright ends up at only 80th percentile.
Let's say that child is supposed to go to Silver Creek MS which is middle SES.
She's competing against children from Rock Creek Forest which is middle SES. They have lower scores nationally than the Chevy Chase child but because they are being compared to a different peer group they are 99th percentile.

Are you saying that they would compare the Chevy Chase CES child's 80th percentile against the Rock Creek Forest child's 99th percentile in admissions for magnets? If so, that makes no sense and supports this idea that kids at CES are being penalized.

Well, you are making a huge assumption that the difference between the high SES and middle SES groups could make a student who is lower percentile nationally 19 percentage points higher than a student in the other group who is actually higher nationally. I think that's really unlikely, but only someone with access to all the numbers could say for sure. If you have two students who are both 98% nationally and one from a low SES group ends up with an MCPS 99% and one from a high SES group ends up with an MCPS 96% do you still think that makes no sense? We don't know what these numbers actually are and how much the national % and MCPS % are different, but based on what 5th grade parents were reporting on other threads I don't think you can be 98 or 99% nationally and be 80% MCPS. I don't think it changes that much. They are reporting both scores to parents, so if there are differences that large, there should be people here who can attest to it (of course, anonymous, so...)

My child's national verbal percentile was 97% and MCPS percentile was 78%. That seems like a large swing. The difference in quantitative was smaller - 99% national and 92% MCPS. The nonverbal was overall lower but also a large spread 79% and 49%

So yes, it can be a big change between national and MCPS percentiles.

Anonymous wrote:
Check out Table B4 for TPMS
2016, 2017,2018 numbers of invited students

White/37/48/53
Asian/67/53/43
Hispanic/<10/15/12

You decide whether "MCPS needs to explain to the AA and Hispanic communities why white students benefited the most from the reform."


Wow this is awful. It certainly looks like MCPS staff actually didn't like that the magnet wasn't majority white so they shifted the criteria to put white students back on top. This is a textbook example of institutional racism favoring white students. They just disguised it in their rhetoric and by admitting 2 more hispanic students.

In order to achieve this "desired" balance of more white students than asian students and very few additional hispanic/AA students MCPS had to lower the standards and pull in the cohort geographic proxy so the magnets no longer have the strongest students. This also feeds into white privilege by making it easier for the lower scoring white kids to succeed in the program and be on top. Very shameful!

Your anger is overshadowing your sense of logic. You think MCPS has an institutional mandate to improve outcomes for white kids?! This entire change has been about closing the achievement gap for low/income, AA, and Hispanic kids. This is their mandate right now, as it absolutely should be in a county as diverse as ours. If you think they completely changed the admissions process so they could get 5 more white kids, you are wearing a tinfoil hat. The data show they got a lot more FARMS kids and a lot more AA kids. And 5 more white kids.

Institutional racism doesn't come from public mandates. It comes from people within a system who operate on racial biases .They make decisions and put in place processes that favor whites over other races. This is EXACTLY an example of this. The staff within MCPS orchestrated a process that had the outcome of putting whites back on top at the expense of Asians who are a minority. Racism against asians is prevalent in college admissions and the workforce because as a minority group they represent a threat to whites being on top.

10 more AA is great but that doesn't disguise the fact they also increased whites by much more. In fact if you look at the three year trend whites keep going up, Asians keep going down and the hispanic number went down too. (Since you didn't post all 3 years for AAs I don't know what that trend it but I hope its going up not down.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Check out Table B4 for TPMS
2016, 2017,2018 numbers of invited students

White/37/48/53
Asian/67/53/43
Hispanic/<10/15/12

You decide whether "MCPS needs to explain to the AA and Hispanic communities why white students benefited the most from the reform."

Ok, I’ll decide. That same table said African American invitations went up by at least 10. So no explaining there. Also, same table, FARMS student invitations went from 13 to 28. Read the data.

I think this is great! Everyone gets a peer group and more FARMS kids are identified. This is just wonderful. As an outsider I see this.

And if a child is in a middle school that doesn't have enough similarly strong students to fill up the enriched classes, they were very very likely offered a MS magnet spot.

It's a different world.

And there are something like over 1,000 kids of all types who have one or two enriched classes made up of similarly strong students where they had nothing before this year.

Anonymous wrote:

Check out Table B4 for TPMS
2016, 2017,2018 numbers of invited students

White/37/48/53
Asian/67/53/43
Hispanic/<10/15/12

You decide whether "MCPS needs to explain to the AA and Hispanic communities why white students benefited the most from the reform."

Wow this is awful. It certainly looks like MCPS staff actually didn't like that the magnet wasn't majority white so they shifted the criteria to put white students back on top. This is a textbook example of institutional racism favoring white students. They just disguised it in their rhetoric and by admitting 2 more hispanic students.

In order to achieve this "desired" balance of more white students than asian students and very few additional hispanic/AA students MCPS had to lower the standards and pull in the cohort geographic proxy so the magnets no longer have the strongest students. This also feeds into white privilege by making it easier for the lower scoring white kids to succeed in the program and be on top. Very shameful!

Your anger is overshadowing your sense of logic. You think MCPS has an institutional mandate to improve outcomes for white kids?! This entire change has been about closing the achievement gap for low/income, AA, and Hispanic kids. This is their mandate right now, as it absolutely should be in a county as diverse as ours. If you think they completely changed the admissions process so they could get 5 more white kids, you are wearing a tinfoil hat. The data show they got a lot more FARMS kids and a lot more AA kids. And 5 more white kids.

Anonymous wrote:Check out Table B4 for TPMS
2016, 2017,2018 numbers of invited students

White/37/48/53
Asian/67/53/43
Hispanic/<10/15/12

You decide whether "MCPS needs to explain to the AA and Hispanic communities why white students benefited the most from the reform."

Ok, I’ll decide. That same table said African American invitations went up by at least 10. So no explaining there. Also, same table, FARMS student invitations went from 13 to 28. Read the data.

Anonymous wrote:The MCPS percentage is what is calculated based on the performance of students in the "bands" of low, moderate, high. And that seems likely based on the school the student is currently in, not home school. But when the assessment for cohort or "outlier" status is made, the student is looked at with students that will attend the same home middle school. The MCPS percentage is one data point, but not the only data point, that they will look at in deciding who is an "outlier." And in deciding who is an "outlier" the student will be compared with other students slated to attend the home MS.

That is my understanding of how this MCPS percentage thing fits in with the rest of the evaluation process.

They use the band-weighted score from the ES level to then compare all incoming middle school students. That's how score weighting works. They assume that, if you attended a less poor ES, then you got a superior education and your scores are not directly equivalent to someone who went to a richer school. This does not take into account the entire purpose of the CES, which assumes that the educational process is improved over the home school (although, they did change the name away from "Highly Gifted Center" for a reason). CES students are not weighted for their grades in a more difficult program; an A is an A.

So if someone in a rich school sends their student to a poorer school CES, gets a more "enriched" experience, then is weighted higher for the same score as someone who stayed at the home school, they are more likely to be pushed out of the cohort band into "outlier" status. Similarly, a CES student in that situation who may have raw scores lower than the local rich school may be bumped into the cohort, rather than being an outlier (but I still hold that they shouldn't have been qualified for the magnet pull-out by being a low performer outlier). The same process (but in reverse) is true for students in CESs that are richer than their home school. Under the current rules, you are definitely better off staying at your home school to increase odds of fair consideration to the magnets, and give up the CES.

They should either drop the CES program altogether and make a local CES in every school, just compare the raw scores to other students at the same middle school (without weighting by ES), or just take the top students from each ES.

At our home middle school, there are a total of 10 CES students in the elementary school area covered by the PCES/Oak View CESs (6 at PCES, 4 at OVES). Only 1 of the 10 was invited to either magnet (invited to both). At our home ES, we know of one student invited to Eastern and one invited to TPMS, and that's just one of the 3 local ESs (there are claims that at least one student was invited for each program from each ES). That means that, of the 20 students required for a cohort at the MS, (presuming that all CES students were in the cohort group), more than half are coming from the local schools, and the odds of being invited to a magnet are HIGHER if you stayed at the home school. The numbers don't lie. Whether the weighting made a difference is unclear, and is seems from posts above that the magnet office won't answer that, but clearly the CES students are not getting the "enrichment" that was promised (or those 9 remaining students would not be part of the home middle school cohort), or are being helped at the elementary level for grades 4/5, only to be screwed over for middle school because they are now at the same level from having been in the same classes for 2 years.

It should also be noted that math is not a consideration for the elementary CESs, but it is for the STEM middle school. I know that, for math, there was no individual enrichment for math 4/5 in my DC's class last year, but there has been quite a bit for this year's 5/6 class. However, the enrichment (and subsequent significant bump in the winter MAP-M scores) was not in time for the September testing for the fall MAP-M.

The CES students who have their compacted math in 4th and 5th grades supposedly randomly assigned to the non-CES teacher (because one class-full of local non-magnet students is mixed in, so they have to add another teacher for compacted math) regularly complain that the non-CES teacher is not providing the speed and level of enrichment that the CES teachers provide. This is another example of local inequities in the CES program that causes issues for CES students applying to the middle schools.

Check out Table B4 for TPMS
2016, 2017,2018 numbers of invited students

White/37/48/53
Asian/67/53/43
Hispanic/<10/15/12

You decide whether "MCPS needs to explain to the AA and Hispanic communities why white students benefited the most from the reform."

Wow this is awful. It certainly looks like MCPS staff actually didn't like that the magnet wasn't majority white so they shifted the criteria to put white students back on top. This is a textbook example of institutional racism favoring white students. They just disguised it in their rhetoric and by admitting 2 more hispanic students.

In order to achieve this "desired" balance of more white students than asian students and very few additional hispanic/AA students MCPS had to lower the standards and pull in the cohort geographic proxy so the magnets no longer have the strongest students. This also feeds into white privilege by making it easier for the lower scoring white kids to succeed in the program and be on top. Very shameful!

Sorry, I meant *higher* SES!

^^^^ Mine, too, and I think it is imperfect but better than any other system I can think of. And if kids are at a lower SES CES, they have been benefiting from that better environment for two years. I remember a thread about PTA activities at some wealthier downcounty schools and it is just incredibly more than my kids have ever gotten in their relatively poorer upcounty ES.

The MCPS percentage is what is calculated based on the performance of students in the "bands" of low, moderate, high. And that seems likely based on the school the student is currently in, not home school. But when the assessment for cohort or "outlier" status is made, the student is looked at with students that will attend the same home middle school. The MCPS percentage is one data point, but not the only data point, that they will look at in deciding who is an "outlier." And in deciding who is an "outlier" the student will be compared with other students slated to attend the home MS.

That is my understanding of how this MCPS percentage thing fits in with the rest of the evaluation process.