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

[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.

I have no doubt that the quality went up with universal screening but am skeptical about next year's class. Yes, they'll be bright kids, but the lottery will rarely select the top 1%-2%.I know we'd like to think this is based on merit but maybe that was never the goal.

[Anonymous]

It isn't a straight lottery. 🙄 If you've read the previous posts, you'd know MCPS creates its lottery using a secret formula it'll never divulge. And as I've said, the process is self selecting. No one is going to uproot their child and put them in the magnets (away from friends and often requiring long commutes) unless they felt their child would succeed in the program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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%.

+1 I think this year's selection process was both sub-optimal and the best we were going to get under the pandemic circumstances. Without the CogAT, there was really not a good way to find the "true" top 5% (or whatever). MAP tells you how much material a child has been exposed to, but that's not really a reliable indicator of potential. Grades tell you whether a child tries hard in the class they are in, but not whether they really need a different environment entirely.

I hope they don't keep the lottery, but I also don't think it's part of some nefarious plot to dismantle the magnets. It was a weird year, and a lottery was the best of bad solutions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

If it was a straight lottery of the top 15 percent of students, the 232- and 234 scorers would've been in the pool. Instead it was a lottery of the top 2 percentiles.

[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.

Link please, because as a CES teacher I can tell you that the opposite is true.

[Anonymous]

If it was a straight lottery of the top 15 percent of students, the 232- and 234 scorers would've been in the pool. Instead it was a lottery of the top 2 percentiles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Link please, because as a CES teacher I can tell you that the opposite is true.

I don't even know if you're a real teacher, but please read the whole thread before you respond.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/90/735015.page

[Anonymous]

I don't even know if you're a real teacher, but please read the whole thread before you respond. This, for one.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/90/735015.page

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
If it was a straight lottery of the top 15 percent of students, the 232- and 234 scorers would've been in the pool. Instead it was a lottery of the top 2 percentiles.

Not if the 232 and 234 scorers didn't have straight As on their report cards, which is entirely possible. Are you saying that the county's FAQ that says a score of 85th percentile was the cutoff is incorrect?
If it was a lottery of only the top 2 percentile, we would have seen a lot more acceptances posted on that list of high scorers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It isn't a straight lottery. 🙄 If you've read the previous posts, you'd know MCPS creates its lottery using a secret formula it'll never divulge. And as I've said, the process is self selecting. No one is going to uproot their child and put them in the magnets (away from friends and often requiring long commutes) unless they felt their child would succeed in the program.

Following the selection, it was stated they created the pool from the top 85% of test scores and grades. It wasn't secret at all. Selections were then made at random from the pool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If it was a straight lottery of the top 15 percent of students, the 232- and 234 scorers would've been in the pool. Instead it was a lottery of the top 2 percentiles.

Not if the 232 and 234 scorers didn't have straight As on their report cards, which is entirely possible. Are you saying that the county's FAQ that says a score of 85th percentile was the cutoff is incorrect?
If it was a lottery of only the top 2 percentile, we would have seen a lot more acceptances posted on that list of high scorers.

The 85th percentile cutoff which the county clearly stated is correct but yes grades were the other factor. Any kid with A's and scoring in the 85% was in the pool. Most of the selections will skew towards the 85% since there are more people with lower scores than higher scores. This is basic math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

If it was a straight lottery of the top 15 percent of students, the 232- and 234 scorers would've been in the pool. Instead it was a lottery of the top 2 percentiles.

The reported scores show that lower scores were admitted whereas higher ones were not. A score of 244 for example is around the 96% whereas the kids with 272 and 283 were rejected. Stop kidding yourself. This wasn't about merit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If it was a straight lottery of the top 15 percent of students, the 232- and 234 scorers would've been in the pool. Instead it was a lottery of the top 2 percentiles.

Not if the 232 and 234 scorers didn't have straight As on their report cards, which is entirely possible. Are you saying that the county's FAQ that says a score of 85th percentile was the cutoff is incorrect?
If it was a lottery of only the top 2 percentile, we would have seen a lot more acceptances posted on that list of high scorers.

The 232 and 234 scorers didn't need straight As. Just As in the subject matters that the magnets are based on. Also, MCPS has had a baseline of 85 percent in previous years. It accommodates kids with special circumstances. MCPS likely has separate pools for kids with special needs and FARM and general population (with a higher cutoff). The self reported data supports this.

I also think many people confuse the magnet middle schools and CES. There are very few spots in the former, so it's not surprising to see so few acceptances. I think the number of spots in magnet middles should be increased, but that's another issue altogether.

Ultimately we'll have to wait and see how this year's cohorts do in the magnet programs. I've seen a number of spiteful comments from what I assume to be parents of children who didn't get in. But I trust the magnet teachers will do a great job teaching this group of students, as they have every year. And for those parents whose children didn't get into the programs, your DC will do well wherever they go. You already know this. No need to be spiteful to other kids and families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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%.

+1 I think this year's selection process was both sub-optimal and the best we were going to get under the pandemic circumstances. Without the CogAT, there was really not a good way to find the "true" top 5% (or whatever). MAP tells you how much material a child has been exposed to, but that's not really a reliable indicator of potential. Grades tell you whether a child tries hard in the class they are in, but not whether they really need a different environment entirely.

I hope they don't keep the lottery, but I also don't think it's part of some nefarious plot to dismantle the magnets. It was a weird year, and a lottery was the best of bad solutions.

Not to say that it’s right or wrong, but I think 85% for lottery probably optimizes selection for racial and economic diversity.

I honestly just don’t understand why they don’t create more centers/magnets. Student population is rising but not the number of county-wide seats. What is rising is the number of in-boundary center seats, which is another story.

[Anonymous]

I'm done. Let's just agree to disagree.