I don't get it- very few CES kids get into magnet school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s teally good that we were given the MCPS percentiles in addition to the national percentiles. It really paints the picture for me. I have twins. One scored in the 99th percentile nationally on a particular section of the CogAT, but only in the 93rd percentile for MCPS. The other scored in the 98th percentile nationally on that section, but only in the 85th percentile in MCPS. Another poster that their child scored in the 97th percentile nationally on that section, but in the 83rd percentile in MCPS. That tellls me that among the fifth graders in MCPS who took the CogAT this year, roughly 7-8% were in the 99th percentile nationally for that test section and another 7-8% were in the 98th% nationally. Two kids could both be in the 99th% on a MAP test but have scores that are 20 points apart. If 3% or less of MCPS fifth graders get accepted into the competitive magnets, then they can’t take all the students who have always been in the 99th% nationally on all tests because there aren’t that many seats in the program. The selection committee had to try to determine what separated one 99th% from another. In the end, I’m sure there was a certain amount of luck involved because they were probably looking at very small differences in lots of cases. When you add in the consideration for home middle school cohort, well, it’s easy to see why many parents can’t understand why their very high performing child didn’t get in and it seems unfair to parents because the home cohort aspect is something they couldn’t control for and cannot understand because they don’t get to see the grades and test scores of other students. How do you ever really know how your child compares to other students if even the 99% kids aren’t all the same?

99th percentile kid here. Grade, age, national and MCPS scores all the same. V-99%, Q- 99%, NV- 98%. What was interesting was that 51/52 scored 99% for Quantitative, but 43/60 for non-verbal scored 98%. That struck me as odd. I'd be curious to see what the percentile ranges were for each ability.

I don't think it's odd at all! Non-verbal, undoubtedly, is the hardest subsection, there's not a lot of prepping you can do for it (unlike, say, quantitative, that is pure math, or verbal that is vocabulary/grammar), and I'd even venture to say that non-verbal battery is the one reflecting 'raw intellectual ability' the most.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s teally good that we were given the MCPS percentiles in addition to the national percentiles. It really paints the picture for me. I have twins. One scored in the 99th percentile nationally on a particular section of the CogAT, but only in the 93rd percentile for MCPS. The other scored in the 98th percentile nationally on that section, but only in the 85th percentile in MCPS. Another poster that their child scored in the 97th percentile nationally on that section, but in the 83rd percentile in MCPS. That tellls me that among the fifth graders in MCPS who took the CogAT this year, roughly 7-8% were in the 99th percentile nationally for that test section and another 7-8% were in the 98th% nationally. Two kids could both be in the 99th% on a MAP test but have scores that are 20 points apart. If 3% or less of MCPS fifth graders get accepted into the competitive magnets, then they can’t take all the students who have always been in the 99th% nationally on all tests because there aren’t that many seats in the program. The selection committee had to try to determine what separated one 99th% from another. In the end, I’m sure there was a certain amount of luck involved because they were probably looking at very small differences in lots of cases. When you add in the consideration for home middle school cohort, well, it’s easy to see why many parents can’t understand why their very high performing child didn’t get in and it seems unfair to parents because the home cohort aspect is something they couldn’t control for and cannot understand because they don’t get to see the grades and test scores of other students. How do you ever really know how your child compares to other students if even the 99% kids aren’t all the same?

99th percentile kid here. Grade, age, national and MCPS scores all the same. V-99%, Q- 99%, NV- 98%. What was interesting was that 51/52 scored 99% for Quantitative, but 43/60 for non-verbal scored 98%. That struck me as odd. I'd be curious to see what the percentile ranges were for each ability.

I don't think it's odd at all! Non-verbal, undoubtedly, is the hardest subsection, there's not a lot of prepping you can do for it (unlike, say, quantitative, that is pure math, or verbal that is vocabulary/grammar), and I'd even venture to say that non-verbal battery is the one reflecting 'raw intellectual ability' the most.

DS was 99% for non-verbal for MCPS stats. Did almost perfect on that section. The other he got 95% for MCPS stats. All other MAP and PARCC are excellent, being 99% multiple grades up for MAP-M and 99% on grade for MAP-R. Was rejected likely due to cohort as we are a W-feeder school. Child is in a CES and had all A's in first quarter. So I don't think central office cared so much that DS did amazing well on non-verbal in their evaluation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s teally good that we were given the MCPS percentiles in addition to the national percentiles. It really paints the picture for me. I have twins. One scored in the 99th percentile nationally on a particular section of the CogAT, but only in the 93rd percentile for MCPS. The other scored in the 98th percentile nationally on that section, but only in the 85th percentile in MCPS. Another poster that their child scored in the 97th percentile nationally on that section, but in the 83rd percentile in MCPS. That tellls me that among the fifth graders in MCPS who took the CogAT this year, roughly 7-8% were in the 99th percentile nationally for that test section and another 7-8% were in the 98th% nationally. Two kids could both be in the 99th% on a MAP test but have scores that are 20 points apart. If 3% or less of MCPS fifth graders get accepted into the competitive magnets, then they can’t take all the students who have always been in the 99th% nationally on all tests because there aren’t that many seats in the program. The selection committee had to try to determine what separated one 99th% from another. In the end, I’m sure there was a certain amount of luck involved because they were probably looking at very small differences in lots of cases. When you add in the consideration for home middle school cohort, well, it’s easy to see why many parents can’t understand why their very high performing child didn’t get in and it seems unfair to parents because the home cohort aspect is something they couldn’t control for and cannot understand because they don’t get to see the grades and test scores of other students. How do you ever really know how your child compares to other students if even the 99% kids aren’t all the same?

99th percentile kid here. Grade, age, national and MCPS scores all the same. V-99%, Q- 99%, NV- 98%. What was interesting was that 51/52 scored 99% for Quantitative, but 43/60 for non-verbal scored 98%. That struck me as odd. I'd be curious to see what the percentile ranges were for each ability.

Wow, great scores. Did your kid get in? What was the absolute score for verbal, if you don’t mind sharing, I’m just curious what it took to get 99%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s teally good that we were given the MCPS percentiles in addition to the national percentiles. It really paints the picture for me. I have twins. One scored in the 99th percentile nationally on a particular section of the CogAT, but only in the 93rd percentile for MCPS. The other scored in the 98th percentile nationally on that section, but only in the 85th percentile in MCPS. Another poster that their child scored in the 97th percentile nationally on that section, but in the 83rd percentile in MCPS. That tellls me that among the fifth graders in MCPS who took the CogAT this year, roughly 7-8% were in the 99th percentile nationally for that test section and another 7-8% were in the 98th% nationally. Two kids could both be in the 99th% on a MAP test but have scores that are 20 points apart. If 3% or less of MCPS fifth graders get accepted into the competitive magnets, then they can’t take all the students who have always been in the 99th% nationally on all tests because there aren’t that many seats in the program. The selection committee had to try to determine what separated one 99th% from another. In the end, I’m sure there was a certain amount of luck involved because they were probably looking at very small differences in lots of cases. When you add in the consideration for home middle school cohort, well, it’s easy to see why many parents can’t understand why their very high performing child didn’t get in and it seems unfair to parents because the home cohort aspect is something they couldn’t control for and cannot understand because they don’t get to see the grades and test scores of other students. How do you ever really know how your child compares to other students if even the 99% kids aren’t all the same?

99th percentile kid here. Grade, age, national and MCPS scores all the same. V-99%, Q- 99%, NV- 98%. What was interesting was that 51/52 scored 99% for Quantitative, but 43/60 for non-verbal scored 98%. That struck me as odd. I'd be curious to see what the percentile ranges were for each ability.

To complicate things a bit further, mcps used the age-normed scores, rather than the grade-normed ones, so the number correct to percentile conversion may not be consistent for different students. My young-for-grade student got 99% mcps verbal (57/60), 87%Q (35 correct out of 36 attempted out of 52 total), and 93%NV (39/60).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s teally good that we were given the MCPS percentiles in addition to the national percentiles. It really paints the picture for me. I have twins. One scored in the 99th percentile nationally on a particular section of the CogAT, but only in the 93rd percentile for MCPS. The other scored in the 98th percentile nationally on that section, but only in the 85th percentile in MCPS. Another poster that their child scored in the 97th percentile nationally on that section, but in the 83rd percentile in MCPS. That tellls me that among the fifth graders in MCPS who took the CogAT this year, roughly 7-8% were in the 99th percentile nationally for that test section and another 7-8% were in the 98th% nationally. Two kids could both be in the 99th% on a MAP test but have scores that are 20 points apart. If 3% or less of MCPS fifth graders get accepted into the competitive magnets, then they can’t take all the students who have always been in the 99th% nationally on all tests because there aren’t that many seats in the program. The selection committee had to try to determine what separated one 99th% from another. In the end, I’m sure there was a certain amount of luck involved because they were probably looking at very small differences in lots of cases. When you add in the consideration for home middle school cohort, well, it’s easy to see why many parents can’t understand why their very high performing child didn’t get in and it seems unfair to parents because the home cohort aspect is something they couldn’t control for and cannot understand because they don’t get to see the grades and test scores of other students. How do you ever really know how your child compares to other students if even the 99% kids aren’t all the same?

99th percentile kid here. Grade, age, national and MCPS scores all the same. V-99%, Q- 99%, NV- 98%. What was interesting was that 51/52 scored 99% for Quantitative, but 43/60 for non-verbal scored 98%. That struck me as odd. I'd be curious to see what the percentile ranges were for each ability.

To complicate things a bit further, mcps used the age-normed scores, rather than the grade-normed ones, so the number correct to percentile conversion may not be consistent for different students. My young-for-grade student got 99% mcps verbal (57/60), 87%Q (35 correct out of 36 attempted out of 52 total), and 93%NV (39/60).

Pp here -- sorry, verbal was 57/64.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s teally good that we were given the MCPS percentiles in addition to the national percentiles. It really paints the picture for me. I have twins. One scored in the 99th percentile nationally on a particular section of the CogAT, but only in the 93rd percentile for MCPS. The other scored in the 98th percentile nationally on that section, but only in the 85th percentile in MCPS. Another poster that their child scored in the 97th percentile nationally on that section, but in the 83rd percentile in MCPS. That tellls me that among the fifth graders in MCPS who took the CogAT this year, roughly 7-8% were in the 99th percentile nationally for that test section and another 7-8% were in the 98th% nationally. Two kids could both be in the 99th% on a MAP test but have scores that are 20 points apart. If 3% or less of MCPS fifth graders get accepted into the competitive magnets, then they can’t take all the students who have always been in the 99th% nationally on all tests because there aren’t that many seats in the program. The selection committee had to try to determine what separated one 99th% from another. In the end, I’m sure there was a certain amount of luck involved because they were probably looking at very small differences in lots of cases. When you add in the consideration for home middle school cohort, well, it’s easy to see why many parents can’t understand why their very high performing child didn’t get in and it seems unfair to parents because the home cohort aspect is something they couldn’t control for and cannot understand because they don’t get to see the grades and test scores of other students. How do you ever really know how your child compares to other students if even the 99% kids aren’t all the same?

99th percentile kid here. Grade, age, national and MCPS scores all the same. V-99%, Q- 99%, NV- 98%. What was interesting was that 51/52 scored 99% for Quantitative, but 43/60 for non-verbal scored 98%. That struck me as odd. I'd be curious to see what the percentile ranges were for each ability.

Wow, great scores. Did your kid get in? What was the absolute score for verbal, if you don’t mind sharing, I’m just curious what it took to get 99%.

Verbal was 59/64. Wait-listed for humanities, accepted to STEM program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s teally good that we were given the MCPS percentiles in addition to the national percentiles. It really paints the picture for me. I have twins. One scored in the 99th percentile nationally on a particular section of the CogAT, but only in the 93rd percentile for MCPS. The other scored in the 98th percentile nationally on that section, but only in the 85th percentile in MCPS. Another poster that their child scored in the 97th percentile nationally on that section, but in the 83rd percentile in MCPS. That tellls me that among the fifth graders in MCPS who took the CogAT this year, roughly 7-8% were in the 99th percentile nationally for that test section and another 7-8% were in the 98th% nationally. Two kids could both be in the 99th% on a MAP test but have scores that are 20 points apart. If 3% or less of MCPS fifth graders get accepted into the competitive magnets, then they can’t take all the students who have always been in the 99th% nationally on all tests because there aren’t that many seats in the program. The selection committee had to try to determine what separated one 99th% from another. In the end, I’m sure there was a certain amount of luck involved because they were probably looking at very small differences in lots of cases. When you add in the consideration for home middle school cohort, well, it’s easy to see why many parents can’t understand why their very high performing child didn’t get in and it seems unfair to parents because the home cohort aspect is something they couldn’t control for and cannot understand because they don’t get to see the grades and test scores of other students. How do you ever really know how your child compares to other students if even the 99% kids aren’t all the same?

99th percentile kid here. Grade, age, national and MCPS scores all the same. V-99%, Q- 99%, NV- 98%. What was interesting was that 51/52 scored 99% for Quantitative, but 43/60 for non-verbal scored 98%. That struck me as odd. I'd be curious to see what the percentile ranges were for each ability.

Wow, great scores. Did your kid get in? What was the absolute score for verbal, if you don’t mind sharing, I’m just curious what it took to get 99%.

Verbal was 59/64. Wait-listed for humanities, accepted to STEM program.

Congrats. FYI, my kid had almost identical scores last year and was rejected for both programs in the first round, coming from a non-W school. I'm glad your kid fared well in the selection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s teally good that we were given the MCPS percentiles in addition to the national percentiles. It really paints the picture for me. I have twins. One scored in the 99th percentile nationally on a particular section of the CogAT, but only in the 93rd percentile for MCPS. The other scored in the 98th percentile nationally on that section, but only in the 85th percentile in MCPS. Another poster that their child scored in the 97th percentile nationally on that section, but in the 83rd percentile in MCPS. That tellls me that among the fifth graders in MCPS who took the CogAT this year, roughly 7-8% were in the 99th percentile nationally for that test section and another 7-8% were in the 98th% nationally. Two kids could both be in the 99th% on a MAP test but have scores that are 20 points apart. If 3% or less of MCPS fifth graders get accepted into the competitive magnets, then they can’t take all the students who have always been in the 99th% nationally on all tests because there aren’t that many seats in the program. The selection committee had to try to determine what separated one 99th% from another. In the end, I’m sure there was a certain amount of luck involved because they were probably looking at very small differences in lots of cases. When you add in the consideration for home middle school cohort, well, it’s easy to see why many parents can’t understand why their very high performing child didn’t get in and it seems unfair to parents because the home cohort aspect is something they couldn’t control for and cannot understand because they don’t get to see the grades and test scores of other students. How do you ever really know how your child compares to other students if even the 99% kids aren’t all the same?

99th percentile kid here. Grade, age, national and MCPS scores all the same. V-99%, Q- 99%, NV- 98%. What was interesting was that 51/52 scored 99% for Quantitative, but 43/60 for non-verbal scored 98%. That struck me as odd. I'd be curious to see what the percentile ranges were for each ability.

I don't think it's odd at all! Non-verbal, undoubtedly, is the hardest subsection, there's not a lot of prepping you can do for it (unlike, say, quantitative, that is pure math, or verbal that is vocabulary/grammar), and I'd even venture to say that non-verbal battery is the one reflecting 'raw intellectual ability' the most.

DS was 99% for non-verbal for MCPS stats. Did almost perfect on that section. The other he got 95% for MCPS stats. All other MAP and PARCC are excellent, being 99% multiple grades up for MAP-M and 99% on grade for MAP-R. Was rejected likely due to cohort as we are a W-feeder school. Child is in a CES and had all A's in first quarter. So I don't think central office cared so much that DS did amazing well on non-verbal in their evaluation.

I feel very sorry for your kid, PP. This is extremely unfair and you should appeal for her definitely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s teally good that we were given the MCPS percentiles in addition to the national percentiles. It really paints the picture for me. I have twins. One scored in the 99th percentile nationally on a particular section of the CogAT, but only in the 93rd percentile for MCPS. The other scored in the 98th percentile nationally on that section, but only in the 85th percentile in MCPS. Another poster that their child scored in the 97th percentile nationally on that section, but in the 83rd percentile in MCPS. That tellls me that among the fifth graders in MCPS who took the CogAT this year, roughly 7-8% were in the 99th percentile nationally for that test section and another 7-8% were in the 98th% nationally. Two kids could both be in the 99th% on a MAP test but have scores that are 20 points apart. If 3% or less of MCPS fifth graders get accepted into the competitive magnets, then they can’t take all the students who have always been in the 99th% nationally on all tests because there aren’t that many seats in the program. The selection committee had to try to determine what separated one 99th% from another. In the end, I’m sure there was a certain amount of luck involved because they were probably looking at very small differences in lots of cases. When you add in the consideration for home middle school cohort, well, it’s easy to see why many parents can’t understand why their very high performing child didn’t get in and it seems unfair to parents because the home cohort aspect is something they couldn’t control for and cannot understand because they don’t get to see the grades and test scores of other students. How do you ever really know how your child compares to other students if even the 99% kids aren’t all the same?

99th percentile kid here. Grade, age, national and MCPS scores all the same. V-99%, Q- 99%, NV- 98%. What was interesting was that 51/52 scored 99% for Quantitative, but 43/60 for non-verbal scored 98%. That struck me as odd. I'd be curious to see what the percentile ranges were for each ability.

I don't think it's odd at all! Non-verbal, undoubtedly, is the hardest subsection, there's not a lot of prepping you can do for it (unlike, say, quantitative, that is pure math, or verbal that is vocabulary/grammar), and I'd even venture to say that non-verbal battery is the one reflecting 'raw intellectual ability' the most.

DS was 99% for non-verbal for MCPS stats. Did almost perfect on that section. The other he got 95% for MCPS stats. All other MAP and PARCC are excellent, being 99% multiple grades up for MAP-M and 99% on grade for MAP-R. Was rejected likely due to cohort as we are a W-feeder school. Child is in a CES and had all A's in first quarter. So I don't think central office cared so much that DS did amazing well on non-verbal in their evaluation.

Magnet admissions are very competitive these days. Many children who would do well are turned away simply because there aren't many seats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s teally good that we were given the MCPS percentiles in addition to the national percentiles. It really paints the picture for me. I have twins. One scored in the 99th percentile nationally on a particular section of the CogAT, but only in the 93rd percentile for MCPS. The other scored in the 98th percentile nationally on that section, but only in the 85th percentile in MCPS. Another poster that their child scored in the 97th percentile nationally on that section, but in the 83rd percentile in MCPS. That tellls me that among the fifth graders in MCPS who took the CogAT this year, roughly 7-8% were in the 99th percentile nationally for that test section and another 7-8% were in the 98th% nationally. Two kids could both be in the 99th% on a MAP test but have scores that are 20 points apart. If 3% or less of MCPS fifth graders get accepted into the competitive magnets, then they can’t take all the students who have always been in the 99th% nationally on all tests because there aren’t that many seats in the program. The selection committee had to try to determine what separated one 99th% from another. In the end, I’m sure there was a certain amount of luck involved because they were probably looking at very small differences in lots of cases. When you add in the consideration for home middle school cohort, well, it’s easy to see why many parents can’t understand why their very high performing child didn’t get in and it seems unfair to parents because the home cohort aspect is something they couldn’t control for and cannot understand because they don’t get to see the grades and test scores of other students. How do you ever really know how your child compares to other students if even the 99% kids aren’t all the same?

I tried to make your point last year without the MCPS average data. My 99% kid didn't get in and 2 of DC's classmates did. They were also 99%, but I knew that they scored higher on MAP tests and their raw Cogat scores were higher. My child's school was also listed as one with a high number of cohort kids. This process seems obvious to me! I suspect some people of lying and using the National percentiles to explain the rejections OR their kids scored on the lower end of 99% for other measures such as MAP and PARCC. Is it possible that some kids were overlooked, yes; but I don't think it is a systemic issue because someone would have sued to make sure MCPS couldn't do the same thing 2 years in a row.

So here's what I want to know: why there aren't "that many" seats in the program to accomodate every 99%? Why can't MCPS offer magnet curriculum to the top 5% other than the top 2%?

Because, by PP's summary, the number of students scoring 98-99 percentile nationally on any given test is already 85% of the students MCPS screened this year--that's close to 1000 kids. If you start talking about being a 99 percentile on map or parcc or cogat, who knows how many that is. If this is the ballpark figure, this need should be addressed at the home school. But I don't blame the parents, they've been seeing high 90s year in year out and assumed that meant their kid was in the top 3% of the county, but it turns out to be more like top 15%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s teally good that we were given the MCPS percentiles in addition to the national percentiles. It really paints the picture for me. I have twins. One scored in the 99th percentile nationally on a particular section of the CogAT, but only in the 93rd percentile for MCPS. The other scored in the 98th percentile nationally on that section, but only in the 85th percentile in MCPS. Another poster that their child scored in the 97th percentile nationally on that section, but in the 83rd percentile in MCPS. That tellls me that among the fifth graders in MCPS who took the CogAT this year, roughly 7-8% were in the 99th percentile nationally for that test section and another 7-8% were in the 98th% nationally. Two kids could both be in the 99th% on a MAP test but have scores that are 20 points apart. If 3% or less of MCPS fifth graders get accepted into the competitive magnets, then they can’t take all the students who have always been in the 99th% nationally on all tests because there aren’t that many seats in the program. The selection committee had to try to determine what separated one 99th% from another. In the end, I’m sure there was a certain amount of luck involved because they were probably looking at very small differences in lots of cases. When you add in the consideration for home middle school cohort, well, it’s easy to see why many parents can’t understand why their very high performing child didn’t get in and it seems unfair to parents because the home cohort aspect is something they couldn’t control for and cannot understand because they don’t get to see the grades and test scores of other students. How do you ever really know how your child compares to other students if even the 99% kids aren’t all the same?

I tried to make your point last year without the MCPS average data. My 99% kid didn't get in and 2 of DC's classmates did. They were also 99%, but I knew that they scored higher on MAP tests and their raw Cogat scores were higher. My child's school was also listed as one with a high number of cohort kids. This process seems obvious to me! I suspect some people of lying and using the National percentiles to explain the rejections OR their kids scored on the lower end of 99% for other measures such as MAP and PARCC. Is it possible that some kids were overlooked, yes; but I don't think it is a systemic issue because someone would have sued to make sure MCPS couldn't do the same thing 2 years in a row.

So here's what I want to know: why there aren't "that many" seats in the program to accomodate every 99%? Why can't MCPS offer magnet curriculum to the top 5% other than the top 2%?

Because, by PP's summary, the number of students scoring 98-99 percentile nationally on any given test is already 85% of the students MCPS screened this year--that's close to 1000 kids. If you start talking about being a 99 percentile on map or parcc or cogat, who knows how many that is. If this is the ballpark figure, this need should be addressed at the home school. But I don't blame the parents, they've been seeing high 90s year in year out and assumed that meant their kid was in the top 3% of the county, but it turns out to be more like top 15%.

85%??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s teally good that we were given the MCPS percentiles in addition to the national percentiles. It really paints the picture for me. I have twins. One scored in the 99th percentile nationally on a particular section of the CogAT, but only in the 93rd percentile for MCPS. The other scored in the 98th percentile nationally on that section, but only in the 85th percentile in MCPS. Another poster that their child scored in the 97th percentile nationally on that section, but in the 83rd percentile in MCPS. That tellls me that among the fifth graders in MCPS who took the CogAT this year, roughly 7-8% were in the 99th percentile nationally for that test section and another 7-8% were in the 98th% nationally. Two kids could both be in the 99th% on a MAP test but have scores that are 20 points apart. If 3% or less of MCPS fifth graders get accepted into the competitive magnets, then they can’t take all the students who have always been in the 99th% nationally on all tests because there aren’t that many seats in the program. The selection committee had to try to determine what separated one 99th% from another. In the end, I’m sure there was a certain amount of luck involved because they were probably looking at very small differences in lots of cases. When you add in the consideration for home middle school cohort, well, it’s easy to see why many parents can’t understand why their very high performing child didn’t get in and it seems unfair to parents because the home cohort aspect is something they couldn’t control for and cannot understand because they don’t get to see the grades and test scores of other students. How do you ever really know how your child compares to other students if even the 99% kids aren’t all the same?

I tried to make your point last year without the MCPS average data. My 99% kid didn't get in and 2 of DC's classmates did. They were also 99%, but I knew that they scored higher on MAP tests and their raw Cogat scores were higher. My child's school was also listed as one with a high number of cohort kids. This process seems obvious to me! I suspect some people of lying and using the National percentiles to explain the rejections OR their kids scored on the lower end of 99% for other measures such as MAP and PARCC. Is it possible that some kids were overlooked, yes; but I don't think it is a systemic issue because someone would have sued to make sure MCPS couldn't do the same thing 2 years in a row.

So here's what I want to know: why there aren't "that many" seats in the program to accomodate every 99%? Why can't MCPS offer magnet curriculum to the top 5% other than the top 2%?

Because, by PP's summary, the number of students scoring 98-99 percentile nationally on any given test is already 85% of the students MCPS screened this year--that's close to 1000 kids. If you start talking about being a 99 percentile on map or parcc or cogat, who knows how many that is. If this is the ballpark figure, this need should be addressed at the home school. But I don't blame the parents, they've been seeing high 90s year in year out and assumed that meant their kid was in the top 3% of the county, but it turns out to be more like top 15%.

85%??

PP is saying that kids who score in the top 2 percentiles nationally on that section of CogAT can be as low as 85th percentile among MCPS students, meaning they’re only in the top 15% of MCPS students, which would only place them in the top roughly 1000 or so tested, which is correct because something like 6700 kids were tested.

[Anonymous]

If something like 6700 were tested and the number of kids invited to 4 magnet programs is -- maybe -- 600 total, that's less than 1% acceptance rate?
Even friggin' Ivies are easier to get into! WTF?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If something like 6700 were tested and the number of kids invited to 4 magnet programs is -- maybe -- 600 total, that's less than 1% acceptance rate?
Even friggin' Ivies are easier to get into! WTF?

It's 300. 50 to MLK, 50 to Clemente, 100 to TPMS and 100 to Eastern. Down from 675 seats for CES.

And, for what it's worth, your math is a little off. That would be roughly 9%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If something like 6700 were tested and the number of kids invited to 4 magnet programs is -- maybe -- 600 total, that's less than 1% acceptance rate?
Even friggin' Ivies are easier to get into! WTF?

It's 300. 50 to MLK, 50 to Clemente, 100 to TPMS and 100 to Eastern. Down from 675 seats for CES.

And, for what it's worth, your math is a little off. That would be roughly 9%.

But it wasn’t only CES kids that tested, so a smaller percentage of tested/accepted.