How common is a math or reading MAP score at the 99th percentile in this area?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DD is in CES (got pulled off the wait list after 1st quarter) for 5th grade after a student moved. She is low 90s to 97% on MAP. Her most recent math was 87% from I can tell on the link provided earlier in the thread. Honestly, she outperforms most of the students in class work wise since she is much more collaborative and good at motivating other students. The teacher said she is a perfect CES candidate. MAP percentiles have never been mentioned. I think people need to understand that MAP is not the only criteria anymore.

And, this makes no sense as many of our kids had much higher scores, especially in math. Anyone 95 and up should be in, really 90 and up.

It makes perfect sense. The lottery this year consisted of student s who scored 85% or higher. Students were selected at random. The majority of new magnet students will be close to 85%.. this is very different than previous years where 90% scored 95% or higher. Next year that number will be more like 20%.

The lottery makes no sense if the cut off is 85% as that really hurts kids like mine who score much higher. But, its MCPS, we have zero expectations so anything is a bonus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DD is in CES (got pulled off the wait list after 1st quarter) for 5th grade after a student moved. She is low 90s to 97% on MAP. Her most recent math was 87% from I can tell on the link provided earlier in the thread. Honestly, she outperforms most of the students in class work wise since she is much more collaborative and good at motivating other students. The teacher said she is a perfect CES candidate. MAP percentiles have never been mentioned. I think people need to understand that MAP is not the only criteria anymore.

And, this makes no sense as many of our kids had much higher scores, especially in math. Anyone 95 and up should be in, really 90 and up.

It makes perfect sense. The lottery this year consisted of student s who scored 85% or higher. Students were selected at random. The majority of new magnet students will be close to 85%.. this is very different than previous years where 90% scored 95% or higher. Next year that number will be more like 20%.

The lottery makes no sense if the cut off is 85% as that really hurts kids like mine who score much higher. But, its MCPS, we have zero expectations so anything is a bonus.

I agree but that's what the county did this year. They've come out stated this publicly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DD is in CES (got pulled off the wait list after 1st quarter) for 5th grade after a student moved. She is low 90s to 97% on MAP. Her most recent math was 87% from I can tell on the link provided earlier in the thread. Honestly, she outperforms most of the students in class work wise since she is much more collaborative and good at motivating other students. The teacher said she is a perfect CES candidate. MAP percentiles have never been mentioned. I think people need to understand that MAP is not the only criteria anymore.

And, this makes no sense as many of our kids had much higher scores, especially in math. Anyone 95 and up should be in, really 90 and up.

It makes perfect sense. The lottery this year consisted of student s who scored 85% or higher. Students were selected at random. The majority of new magnet students will be close to 85%.. this is very different than previous years where 90% scored 95% or higher. Next year that number will be more like 20%.

The lottery makes no sense if the cut off is 85% as that really hurts kids like mine who score much higher. But, its MCPS, we have zero expectations so anything is a bonus.

They probably didn't have a lot of choice to do much aside from this since many parents complained about previous methodologies hoping to gain some advantage for their kids. One group says it should just be scores other claim it should be socres but they should be weighted by school since as many parents seem to believe not all schools are the same. Regardless, those systems resulted in lawsuits and this one doesn't. Sure, the magnet these days is basically a random group of kids that in years past would make IM math in 6th instead of the cream of the crop but that's how it goes I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: You need to go back and read the post again. Most of the posts that reported scores in the high 90s weren't selected whereas the few that said they got in were very low from years past.

You're the one who needs to go back and reread the posts.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/951999.page

Most of the scores posted as being part of the magnet pools (from which the lottery took place) were high 90s. Of course there will be lower scores here and there, as there are every year, to account for students with twice exceptional needs, etc.

[Anonymous]

But Reopeners said no one would ever score this high! They demanded these tests hoping for low scores to prove their point. The kids seem to be doing just fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My DD is in CES (got pulled off the wait list after 1st quarter) for 5th grade after a student moved. She is low 90s to 97% on MAP. Her most recent math was 87% from I can tell on the link provided earlier in the thread. Honestly, she outperforms most of the students in class work wise since she is much more collaborative and good at motivating other students. The teacher said she is a perfect CES candidate. MAP percentiles have never been mentioned. I think people need to understand that MAP is not the only criteria anymore.

My DC attended CES a couple years ago. Always tested above 96%. Sometimes higher, sometimes lower. I remember being told that a couple kids were testing around 270 for math. I was so curious that I had to look it up. It was >95% for 1tth graders. This was for kids in the fifth grade. On the reading side, I really don't remember any scores but I do remember that one of DC's friends was a better writer than me and everyone at my office. It was incredible.

I don't know why I am telling you this because it sounds like your kid is doing great. But I think my only point is that there are kids that are just operating on another level.

This county is like Lake Woebegon sometimes, where everyone thinks their kid is special. But there are legitimately kids that are off the charts. I sincerely hope that MCPS is able to find a way to cultivate and encourage them. I imagine that school could get really boring if you were operating at a freshman in college level in the 5th Grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think these are fairly common in the magnet population. Same for other exams - Raven, (also terranova, once upon a time), parcc, magnet admission tests, cogat, SAT, ACT, IB, AP.

Most of the tests you listed are content based, which shows how much content has been taught and then retained. These are not the same as intelligence tests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know how concentrated they are in this area, but my kid has had 99th percentile on MAPs consistently and 99th percentile on CoGat and did not get into the CES gifted program.

YUP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: You need to go back and read the post again. Most of the posts that reported scores in the high 90s weren't selected whereas the few that said they got in were very low from years past.

You're the one who needs to go back and reread the posts.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/951999.page

Most of the scores posted as being part of the magnet pools (from which the lottery took place) were high 90s. Of course there will be lower scores here and there, as there are every year, to account for students with twice exceptional needs, etc.

There's a summary on page 8 of that thread that affirms the earlier posters arguemnt.
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/105/951999.page

MAP-M and Math magnet results:
232 - not in pool
234 - not in pool
242 - in pool
244 - in pool (selected)
245 - in pool
252 - in pool (selected)
255 - not in pool
255 - in pool
262 - in pool
268 - in pool
272 - in pool (and in-bounds for TPMS, but not selected)
283 - in pool

MAP-R and Humanities magnet results:
235 - in pool
235 - in pool
237 - in pool
238 - in pool
239- in pool (selected)
240- not in pool
240 - in pool
240 - in pool
240 - in pool
245 - in pool
245 - in pool
256 - in pool

Students with higher scores were not admitted while admission seemed random and were lower than years past.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DD is in CES (got pulled off the wait list after 1st quarter) for 5th grade after a student moved. She is low 90s to 97% on MAP. Her most recent math was 87% from I can tell on the link provided earlier in the thread. Honestly, she outperforms most of the students in class work wise since she is much more collaborative and good at motivating other students. The teacher said she is a perfect CES candidate. MAP percentiles have never been mentioned. I think people need to understand that MAP is not the only criteria anymore.

And, this makes no sense as many of our kids had much higher scores, especially in math. Anyone 95 and up should be in, really 90 and up.

It makes perfect sense. The lottery this year consisted of student s who scored 85% or higher. Students were selected at random. The majority of new magnet students will be close to 85%.. this is very different than previous years where 90% scored 95% or higher. Next year that number will be more like 20%.

The lottery makes no sense if the cut off is 85% as that really hurts kids like mine who score much higher. But, its MCPS, we have zero expectations so anything is a bonus.

They probably didn't have a lot of choice to do much aside from this since many parents complained about previous methodologies hoping to gain some advantage for their kids. One group says it should just be scores other claim it should be socres but they should be weighted by school since as many parents seem to believe not all schools are the same. Regardless, those systems resulted in lawsuits and this one doesn't. Sure, the magnet these days is basically a random group of kids that in years past would make IM math in 6th instead of the cream of the crop but that's how it goes I guess.

Our MS lets any kid ready into IM so the need for compacted math is less than people realize. But, MCPS math is so slow so that was our reason for wanting it and even compacted math was slow. Some MS allow 6th grade algebra too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
There's a summary on page 8 of that thread that affirms the earlier posters arguemnt.
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/105/951999.page

MAP-M and Math magnet results:
232 - not in pool
234 - not in pool
242 - in pool
244 - in pool (selected)
245 - in pool
252 - in pool (selected)
255 - not in pool
255 - in pool
262 - in pool
268 - in pool
272 - in pool (and in-bounds for TPMS, but not selected)
283 - in pool

MAP-R and Humanities magnet results:
235 - in pool
235 - in pool
237 - in pool
238 - in pool
239- in pool (selected)
240- not in pool
240 - in pool
240 - in pool
240 - in pool
245 - in pool
245 - in pool
256 - in pool

Students with higher scores were not admitted while admission seemed random and were lower than years past.

A 242 cutoff in MAP Math means the pool was made up of 98 precent scorers and above. I think a lottery that uses such a high cutoff is fair, or at least as fair as we can get given the difficulties of this past year and considering that MAP tests for exposure and not innate intelligence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
It makes perfect sense. The lottery this year consisted of student s who scored 85% or higher. Students were selected at random. The majority of new magnet students will be close to 85%.. this is very different than previous years where 90% scored 95% or higher. Next year that number will be more like 20%.

Wow, this PP seems way off

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

A 242 cutoff in MAP Math means the pool was made up of 98 precent scorers and above. I think a lottery that uses such a high cutoff is fair, or at least as fair as we can get given the difficulties of this past year and considering that MAP tests for exposure and not innate intelligence.

The FAQ posted by MCPS says the cutoff was 85th percentile. DCUM posters willing to list their kids' scores may not be representative of all students in the pool.

From the MCPS website :

To be placed in the humanities and communication lottery pool, an A in both reading and writing and an indication of above reading grade level on the report card from Grade 4, and a locally normed minimum of 85th percentile on either last year (winter) or this year’s (fall) MAP-R. For math, science or computer science, an A in both math and science and an indication of on level or higher for reading on the report card from Grade 4 and a locally normed minimum of 85th percentile on either last year (winter) or this year’s (fall) MAP-M.

[Anonymous]

A baseline of lower scores HAS to be established to account for students with special needs, FARM, etc. It's been there for years. And to a certain extent, this process is self-selecting. A family is unlikely to uproot their child and send them to such a program unless they believed they would both benefit and succeed in it. And I know families who have turned down a magnet program because it wasn't in their wheelhouse. Also, as a magnet teacher has written on this and other threads, the quality of the cohorts has actually improved since MCPS opened up the process to all 5th graders (and not just those are aware of the programs), regardless of the lower baseline. The self-reporting of scores previously posted is indicative. The lottery selects for higher scorers like mine who reads at the end of high school level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
A baseline of lower scores HAS to be established to account for students with special needs, FARM, etc. It's been there for years. And to a certain extent, this process is self-selecting. A family is unlikely to uproot their child and send them to such a program unless they believed they would both benefit and succeed in it. And I know families who have turned down a magnet program because it wasn't in their wheelhouse. Also, as a magnet teacher has written on this and other threads, the quality of the cohorts has actually improved since MCPS opened up the process to all 5th graders (and not just those are aware of the programs), regardless of the lower baseline. The self-reporting of scores previously posted is indicative. The lottery selects for higher scorers like mine who reads at the end of high school level.

Exactly the lottery pool was limited to kids in the top 15% but since these scores fall on a bell curve most of the selected candidates are closer to 15% than 1%.