Magnet Middle School Thread: MAP scores and results

[Anonymous]

MCPS should hire my husband, or another savvy programmer, who can build them a neat little algorithm to pick out the best student for each magnet

The program can weigh math and reading test scores and Cogat subscores differently according to each magnet, and take into account ESOL, FARMS or IEP status. It can also identify cohorts of similarly-scoring students per home middle school, separate the outliers for magnet purposes and group the rest into a list ready to plug into the "advanced" regular programming.

I don't know if they already have an algorithm for magnet selection, but it sure as heck hasn't worked well at all. And that lottery is a complete cop-out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MCPS should hire my husband, or another savvy programmer, who can build them a neat little algorithm to pick out the best student for each magnet

The program can weigh math and reading test scores and Cogat subscores differently according to each magnet, and take into account ESOL, FARMS or IEP status. It can also identify cohorts of similarly-scoring students per home middle school, separate the outliers for magnet purposes and group the rest into a list ready to plug into the "advanced" regular programming.

I don't know if they already have an algorithm for magnet selection, but it sure as heck hasn't worked well at all. And that lottery is a complete cop-out.

You are sweet and new around here. Don't worry, the lottery was not random.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a (hopefully correct) summary of Fall MAP scores reported in this thread so far. Although maybe we are all focusing too much on Fall MAP scores, but there really aren't a lot of other data points to consider.

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

Thanks for compiling PP. It looks like they may have used the 240 cut-off for TPMS. This has been the traditional recommendation line for AIM in 6th, however it is not the Fall test that they usually consider. Interesting.

Add 240 map M and NOT in pool.

There goes another theory! Any Bs in math?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a (hopefully correct) summary of Fall MAP scores reported in this thread so far. Although maybe we are all focusing too much on Fall MAP scores, but there really aren't a lot of other data points to consider.

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

Thanks for compiling PP. It looks like they may have used the 240 cut-off for TPMS. This has been the traditional recommendation line for AIM in 6th, however it is not the Fall test that they usually consider. Interesting.

Add 240 map M and NOT in pool.

There goes another theory! Any Bs in math?

I wonder if they did do cutoffs by each school or type of school (like the CogAT percentiles). 240 is the 98%ile in the Fall, so that is a pretty steep cut-off for a lottery (not saying it shouldn't be steep, but for MCPS that is surprisingly steep).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If these are the cut offs 80% of the kids at our elementary made the pool.

My guess is these pools were huge.

This is what irks me. Why was my DS not in the pool? 98% for math, all A’s on report cards. His past Map Ms have been either 98 or 99. He loves math and is so self motivated, he wanted to compete in math competitions and used to wake up on Saturdays sneaking Khan academy. I know he’s not a genius or anything, but he clearly has a passion for it. What am I missing that kids with percentiles as low as 89 were in the lottery. I’m sorry but that is a huge jump with no other explanation. I don’t see the point in appealing but I would like to know how he missed the cutoff. Thanks a lot MCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If these are the cut offs 80% of the kids at our elementary made the pool.

My guess is these pools were huge.

This is what irks me. Why was my DS not in the pool? 98% for math, all A’s on report cards. His past Map Ms have been either 98 or 99. He loves math and is so self motivated, he wanted to compete in math competitions and used to wake up on Saturdays sneaking Khan academy. I know he’s not a genius or anything, but he clearly has a passion for it. What am I missing that kids with percentiles as low as 89 were in the lottery. I’m sorry but that is a huge jump with no other explanation. I don’t see the point in appealing but I would like to know how he missed the cutoff. Thanks a lot MCPS.

I totally understand your frustration. I've emailed my kid's principal asking if they can explain how the pool decisions were made or if they see anything in my child's profile that would help explain why they weren't in the pool or if an appeal makes any sense. Lack of clarity is incredibly frustrating; ironically, the lottery process was supposed to be a more open and transparent process. I may send MCPS a letter pointing out that it really wasn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If these are the cut offs 80% of the kids at our elementary made the pool.

My guess is these pools were huge.

This is what irks me. Why was my DS not in the pool? 98% for math, all A’s on report cards. His past Map Ms have been either 98 or 99. He loves math and is so self motivated, he wanted to compete in math competitions and used to wake up on Saturdays sneaking Khan academy. I know he’s not a genius or anything, but he clearly has a passion for it. What am I missing that kids with percentiles as low as 89 were in the lottery. I’m sorry but that is a huge jump with no other explanation. I don’t see the point in appealing but I would like to know how he missed the cutoff. Thanks a lot MCPS.

You could contact the woman from AEI listed at the bottom of the mailer to ask the question about the pool. Her phone number and email is in the central office staff directory, and I have always found her to be kind and responsive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If these are the cut offs 80% of the kids at our elementary made the pool.

My guess is these pools were huge.

This is what irks me. Why was my DS not in the pool? 98% for math, all A’s on report cards. His past Map Ms have been either 98 or 99. He loves math and is so self motivated, he wanted to compete in math competitions and used to wake up on Saturdays sneaking Khan academy. I know he’s not a genius or anything, but he clearly has a passion for it. What am I missing that kids with percentiles as low as 89 were in the lottery. I’m sorry but that is a huge jump with no other explanation. I don’t see the point in appealing but I would like to know how he missed the cutoff. Thanks a lot MCPS.

I totally understand your frustration. I've emailed my kid's principal asking if they can explain how the pool decisions were made or if they see anything in my child's profile that would help explain why they weren't in the pool or if an appeal makes any sense. Lack of clarity is incredibly frustrating; ironically, the lottery process was supposed to be a more open and transparent process. I may send MCPS a letter pointing out that it really wasn't.

Thank you for understanding my rant 😊. Please do update this post if you hear back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a (hopefully correct) summary of Fall MAP scores reported in this thread so far. Although maybe we are all focusing too much on Fall MAP scores, but there really aren't a lot of other data points to consider.

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

Thanks for compiling PP. It looks like they may have used the 240 cut-off for TPMS. This has been the traditional recommendation line for AIM in 6th, however it is not the Fall test that they usually consider. Interesting.

Add 240 map M and NOT in pool.

There goes another theory! Any Bs in math?

I wonder if they did do cutoffs by each school or type of school (like the CogAT percentiles). 240 is the 98%ile in the Fall, so that is a pretty steep cut-off for a lottery (not saying it shouldn't be steep, but for MCPS that is surprisingly steep).

I'm really confused by this. I was told that this was a program for kids who were "highly gifted", which is a specific word that refers to kids with scores 3 SD above the mean, or at or above the 99.7th percentile.

98th is a cut off that most school systems use who are claiming to serve kids who are gifted, not highly gifted, since it's the minimum to be considered gifted.

So this isn't a steep cut off.

Is "highly gifted" a misnomer for the program? I ask as a parent of a kid who got in to one, and is "regular gifted" in that area, according to test scores and classroom performance, so I was thinking he'd be in over his head.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MCPS should hire my husband, or another savvy programmer, who can build them a neat little algorithm to pick out the best student for each magnet

The program can weigh math and reading test scores and Cogat subscores differently according to each magnet, and take into account ESOL, FARMS or IEP status. It can also identify cohorts of similarly-scoring students per home middle school, separate the outliers for magnet purposes and group the rest into a list ready to plug into the "advanced" regular programming.

I don't know if they already have an algorithm for magnet selection, but it sure as heck hasn't worked well at all. And that lottery is a complete cop-out.

No matter what system you choose, someone is always going to think it didn't work well if their kid doesn't get in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Starting a new thread to discern what MAP scores (and grades, etc) allowed students to get into the lottery pool, and what scores are held by students accepted to either a Humanities magnet or a STEM magnet.

Please post your child's stats, school, lottery pool and magnet status.

I'll start:

Fall 2020 MAP: 262 math 245 reading (99th %)
Previous MAPs: 98-99th % range
Report card for last two years: all As

School: CES Chevy Chase

Lottery pool status: in pool for Eastern and Takoma Park

Magnet status: not placed in regional program for either.

How are you getting information that they are in-pool or not? I have not heard a peep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS should hire my husband, or another savvy programmer, who can build them a neat little algorithm to pick out the best student for each magnet

The program can weigh math and reading test scores and Cogat subscores differently according to each magnet, and take into account ESOL, FARMS or IEP status. It can also identify cohorts of similarly-scoring students per home middle school, separate the outliers for magnet purposes and group the rest into a list ready to plug into the "advanced" regular programming.

I don't know if they already have an algorithm for magnet selection, but it sure as heck hasn't worked well at all. And that lottery is a complete cop-out.

You are sweet and new around here. Don't worry, the lottery was not random.

Except that it was

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Starting a new thread to discern what MAP scores (and grades, etc) allowed students to get into the lottery pool, and what scores are held by students accepted to either a Humanities magnet or a STEM magnet.

Please post your child's stats, school, lottery pool and magnet status.

I'll start:

Fall 2020 MAP: 262 math 245 reading (99th %)
Previous MAPs: 98-99th % range
Report card for last two years: all As

School: CES Chevy Chase

Lottery pool status: in pool for Eastern and Takoma Park

Magnet status: not placed in regional program for either.

How are you getting information that they are in-pool or not? I have not heard a peep.

A mailer started to arrive yesterday. Rectangular, perforation mailer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fall 2020 MAP: 244 math 240 reading
Report card: straight A's
School: CES Chevy Chase

Lottery pool status: in pool for Eastern and Takoma Park

Magnet status: selected for TPMS but not Eastern

Congrats, although we would have not accepted.

Our kid:
MAP-M: 285
MAP-R: 245
Straight A's for like forever
Not placed in any of the magnets

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS should hire my husband, or another savvy programmer, who can build them a neat little algorithm to pick out the best student for each magnet

The program can weigh math and reading test scores and Cogat subscores differently according to each magnet, and take into account ESOL, FARMS or IEP status. It can also identify cohorts of similarly-scoring students per home middle school, separate the outliers for magnet purposes and group the rest into a list ready to plug into the "advanced" regular programming.

I don't know if they already have an algorithm for magnet selection, but it sure as heck hasn't worked well at all. And that lottery is a complete cop-out.

You are sweet and new around here. Don't worry, the lottery was not random.

Except that it was

Agree - there was a post with lower MAPs from the same CES that was admitted which suggests the lottery was just that.