Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are people looking for this data as the basis for a lawsuit or something? Because it seems that MCPS can create whatever criteria it wants for admission to schools that it administers, as long as they are legal (not gender or race-based).

As an analogy, in Texas all students in the top 10% of their high school graduating classes are guaranteed admission to the University of Texas. So of course that means that many kids at lower performing schools are technically taking the place of students with higher scores and grades from more competitive high schools who didn't place in the top 10% of their classes. But Texas is allowed to do this because they're their schools and it helps provide opportunity to kids outside the usual wealthy suburbs.

So what. Some kids start college taking remedial math and others taking multivariable calculus. They all go on to get different degrees. Magnet schools should be the tippy top kids, not some kids of various races that don’t do as good.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think most of the HGCs were targeted. If a kid came to HGC from a good home school unless they were an outlier in their HGC they did not get in the MS magnet.

On the other hand, slightly above average URM students from any school and HGC students from poor performing home schools were invited to magnet MS.

We are assigned to a low performing ES, MS and HS. My children have always been in magnet programs and are outliers within the magnet program as well. Still, if the magnet programs are so diluted that any bright kid (but not exceptional child) can be included, I do not want to trek to a magnet program. The value of the magnet program is the peer group first, the parents second, the curriculum third and if we are lucky we get qualified teachers, dedicated coordinator and not hostile administration.

I wonder since when doing well became such a bad thing in American society?

There is absolutely no way you could have the data to support the assertions in bold, so this is just inflammatory.

I don't know if the second point is true, but the first absolutely is. Availability of peer cohort is listed as one of the criteria, and Cold Spring, with historically the highest admission stats across the board, arguably in itself yields three sizeable MS peer cohorts assigned to MSs with enriched (ha!) instruction. Those kids have learned the rudiments of Latin and are reading Shakespeare, and are now accustomed to doing up to 3 hours of homework per day. Many of them scored 99s in 3 or 4 categories, have straight As, very high MAP scores and were rejected. The drop from 25 to 2 admitted suggests only a CS CES child who got perfect scores, or close to it, had a chance. The remaining 97% would like to see the raw data. If the raw data supports admission based on merit, great. If not, the parents have the right to know. That data is also necessary to make a case for comparable instructions tracks at the home school, which the parents were told to advocate for. Knowing if your kid got a 155 vs. a 135 is helpful and important information! Be transparent, MCPS!

PP, you are the first poster who has concretely said many of the CS rejected students had 99s in 3 or 4 categories. I am not doubting it, but what do you actually know? Do you know three or four people’s scores and are assuming the rest? Have many of you shared scores with each other? Because on DCUM, some people have the impression that a lot of kids had such scores, but there is very little proof as few people have posted their scores.

Cold Spring parents are circulating a petition to obtain the raw scores data. At least six CS parents have stated their child received 99s in all 4 categories, and were rejected. Mine received three 99s and a 98. This more concrete information is just beginning to circulate, so I'm pretty sure there will be more. I'm actually fine with DC going to the home MS due to concern about the commute, but do think MCPS should release the raw data to allow parents to advocate for peer cohort grouping and critical thinking-based enriched instruction at the home schools. I also have no problem with strategies to counter the inequities in instructions at MCPS schools, and to address the achievement gap (if that's what this is), but believe MCPS needs to be absolutely transparent about admissions criteria and objectives.

I agree with all of that!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish folks would stop talking about a certain school being "targeted" as if there is malice involved.

They tested a lot of kids. They changed the test itself. They almost certainly included more kids who had not been in any CES at all.

One factor I haven't seen mentioned is that, beyond even the question of identifying gifted poor/working class kids, a lot of poor/working class kids who were accepted to the HGCs didn't go.

So you have a cohort of smart poor and working class kids who test well that are not in any CES but whose parents decide to make the leap for middle school that they didn't make for 4th and 5th.

It would be great if that were true, but if you read the Metis report, it's obvious that's not what's happening here. The report essentially says that reliance on standardized testing is unfair to African-American and latino students because it causes those groups to be proportionately underrepresented. Read pages 108 and 109. The report uses TJ as an illustration, and quotes directly from the complaint of a discrimination suit made against TJ. (Not from a court opinion, mind you... they just quote directly from a complaint.) The complaint says that "Nearly every FCPS student admitted to TJ attended a level 4 Advanced Academic center (GT) in middle school. Because Black and Latino students are denied access to these services at the very earliest stages of identification for ‘giftedness,’ the lack of Black and Latino representation at TJ should come as no surprise."

In other words, the Metis report just accepts, with no support, that black and latino students are "denied access" to the feeder gifted programs at the elementary level, and then uses that to argue that any standardized testing-based criteria at the middle or high school level is therefore biased, as it's just carrying over the initial discriminatory practice. The report argues, essentially, that MCPS should take a selected percentage from every elementary school, regardless of whether certain schools tend to be higher or lower performing.

I'm sympathetic to the argument that the MCPS programs need to be made more equitable, but it's important to make sure everyone understands how the BOE is thinking about this. They are not arguing that kids with the strongest standardized testing scores are being kept out because of lack of information - they are arguing that any standardized testing based criteria that results in racial disparities at magnet programs that are different than county-wide racial distributions must inherently be biased. Their support for that statement is, essentially, that someone alleged it in a lawsuit, and therefore it must be true.

Anonymous wrote:How are black and Latino kids being denied access?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are the magnets considered gifted programs? If not, I would think that like college, more than test scores would come into play.

More than test scores do come into play, which is clearly disclosed on the MCPS website, some parents believe acceptance should be based solely on the test. Some parents from certain schools are upset that there are more students this year. Last year only 800 applied whereas this year 4000+.

Well all this shows is there is a HUGE group of high achieving kids getting screwed. Just make it lottery instead. Or better yet, stop the stupid programs that bus these kids everywhere. Why do the gifted kids always get screwed. The6 usually have to decide between a magnet and a sport or music or other activity that can’t do because their school day is longer

Could you imagine if we bussed ESOL kids instead?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish folks would stop talking about a certain school being "targeted" as if there is malice involved.

They tested a lot of kids. They changed the test itself. They almost certainly included more kids who had not been in any CES at all.

One factor I haven't seen mentioned is that, beyond even the question of identifying gifted poor/working class kids, a lot of poor/working class kids who were accepted to the HGCs didn't go.

So you have a cohort of smart poor and working class kids who test well that are not in any CES but whose parents decide to make the leap for middle school that they didn't make for 4th and 5th.

It would be great if that were true, but if you read the Metis report, it's obvious that's not what's happening here. The report essentially says that reliance on standardized testing is unfair to African-American and latino students because it causes those groups to be proportionately underrepresented. Read pages 108 and 109. The report uses TJ as an illustration, and quotes directly from the complaint of a discrimination suit made against TJ. (Not from a court opinion, mind you... they just quote directly from a complaint.) The complaint says that "Nearly every FCPS student admitted to TJ attended a level 4 Advanced Academic center (GT) in middle school. Because Black and Latino students are denied access to these services at the very earliest stages of identification for ‘giftedness,’ the lack of Black and Latino representation at TJ should come as no surprise."

In other words, the Metis report just accepts, with no support, that black and latino students are "denied access" to the feeder gifted programs at the elementary level, and then uses that to argue that any standardized testing-based criteria at the middle or high school level is therefore biased, as it's just carrying over the initial discriminatory practice. The report argues, essentially, that MCPS should take a selected percentage from every elementary school, regardless of whether certain schools tend to be higher or lower performing.

I'm sympathetic to the argument that the MCPS programs need to be made more equitable, but it's important to make sure everyone understands how the BOE is thinking about this. They are not arguing that kids with the strongest standardized testing scores are being kept out because of lack of information - they are arguing that any standardized testing based criteria that results in racial disparities at magnet programs that are different than county-wide racial distributions must inherently be biased. Their support for that statement is, essentially, that someone alleged it in a lawsuit, and therefore it must be true.

Anonymous wrote:I wish folks would stop talking about a certain school being "targeted" as if there is malice involved.

They tested a lot of kids. They changed the test itself. They almost certainly included more kids who had not been in any CES at all.

One factor I haven't seen mentioned is that, beyond even the question of identifying gifted poor/working class kids, a lot of poor/working class kids who were accepted to the HGCs didn't go.

So you have a cohort of smart poor and working class kids who test well that are not in any CES but whose parents decide to make the leap for middle school that they didn't make for 4th and 5th.

Anonymous wrote:There is no way I am moving my child in 4\5th grade out of their home school and bussing them 30min away.

Middle school is a whole different playing field. Kids are older, the6 can tolerate longer bus rides, neighborhood friendships are more secure, 3 years with the same new group of kids. It just makes more sense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are the magnets considered gifted programs? If not, I would think that like college, more than test scores would come into play.

More than test scores do come into play, which is clearly disclosed on the MCPS website, some parents believe acceptance should be based solely on the test. Some parents from certain schools are upset that there are more students this year. Last year only 800 applied whereas this year 4000+.

Anonymous wrote:I wish folks would stop talking about a certain school being "targeted" as if there is malice involved.

They tested a lot of kids. They changed the test itself. They almost certainly included more kids who had not been in any CES at all.

One factor I haven't seen mentioned is that, beyond even the question of identifying gifted poor/working class kids, a lot of poor/working class kids who were accepted to the HGCs didn't go.

So you have a cohort of smart poor and working class kids who test well that are not in any CES but whose parents decide to make the leap for middle school that they didn't make for 4th and 5th.

Anonymous wrote:Cold Spring is too white. MCPS is trying to make all programs diverse now and are letting kids in that otherwise wouldn’t qualify but have the skin color or culture they need.

Anonymous wrote:

Agree, you have a right to the data because it is a government agency. You should ask for ALL the raw data of applicants, anonymized, with certain fields: school, race, admissions status (admitted, waitlisted, rejected), average grades, map scores, in electronic form so you don't have to retype. You should have someone in your group who is familiar with data analysis to calculate the means/medians. Call the education reporters at Bethesda Magazine or The Washington Post and the Montgomery County GT people and have them submit something, too. The news organizations can file an expedited request saying the information is in the public interest and it's urgent because it will give families information they need for an appeal.