MAP-R scores for MS humanities magnet lottery?

[Anonymous]

Any folks here willing to share some MAP-R scores that did and didn't make the MS humanities magnet lottery this year? DC can be a little inconsistent and so I'm trying to understand the zone.

I have a strong understanding of the use of norming and FARMS bands, and of the lottery process itself, so I know that the numbers are necessarily going to vary. Can we ballpark?

[Anonymous]

There's usually a big "who got in?" post around the time results come out. It's been a little bit less active since they moved to a lottery, but try this one: https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1180361.page

[Anonymous]

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1077029.page

It is from FY22, but the number can't be too different I think.

[Anonymous]

Above 235.

[Anonymous]

That's so low. Before the lottery it used to be 250s

[Anonymous]

242, in lottery at a low FARMS school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Above 235.

My 3rd grader who wasn't picked for their local CES scored 233.

[Anonymous]

270 - accepted for the lottery, but not chosen by the fates.

[Anonymous]

My oldest is in K so I’m only beginning to wrap my head around these programs. What was the rationale for making it a lottery?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My oldest is in K so I’m only beginning to wrap my head around these programs. What was the rationale for making it a lottery?

Previously, they used CogAT, but the test's owner wouldn't let them give it during the pandemic, so the lottery was born.

It's not an actual lottery. To be in the pool, a student has to be in the top 15 percent of their school. Selection from the pool is random.

At low FARMS schools, the top 15% might equate to the top 5% nationally, but at a high FARMS school, it's something like the top 40%.

Prior to the lottery students were usually in the top 1%. IMO, this just underscores that these programs could be greatly expanded. There's no reason a qualified student should have access to this kind of programming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My oldest is in K so I’m only beginning to wrap my head around these programs. What was the rationale for making it a lottery?

Criteria-based programs had been rank-order selection based on a number of factors with an unknown precise heuristic. Factors included CogAT, which attempts to provide an ability-related metric to balance other standardized tests (like MAP) which are more dependent on exposure. They also included teacher recommendations.

The selection paradigm, with whatever changes adopted over the years, was under constant criticism (some probably more deserved, some less). This was, more or less, ever increasing, as program spaces were relatively static, while the student population increased. There always were families of those not selected who wanted them to have been selected, and some would appeal, with associated burden on the system.

MCPS, meanwhile, followed a semi-national anti-focused-GT-programming trend, redefining scope (e.g., elementary Highly Gifted Centers became Centers for Enriched Studies, with nominally reduced scope, and, as noted, did not have seats keep up with demand). The idea appeared to be to serve more of the GT population locally. However, that was not as easy where only a few students were identified.

That did not match well with rising equity concerns, and there was a shift towards modifying the strict rank-ordering to allow outliers without a local cohort to attend these programs. Consideration of individual or community factors (e.g., FARMS status and school FARMS rate) that might mask identification of relative ability also became more prevalent.

Then came the pamdemic. Proper administration of CogAT was seen as an impossibility. Loss of the ability-related metric and unreliability of other criteria, due to remote testing, differential reaction to the new learning experience and the like, along with the above trends, saw them decide to cast a wide net for identification of those who might benefit from magnet programming, and, with the extraordinary operational and fiscal constraints making any fine tuning infeasible, utilize an unweighted lottery to offer seats.

That was during the 2020-21 school year for 2021-22 placement. While there was then a return to in-person learning, MCPS, whether due to continuing operational constraints that would make creating a new paradigm difficult among other high-importance initiatives, to relative satisfaction with the reported results or to a combination of these two, decided to keep the lottery paradigm for three years, tightening up some of the criteria for being in the lottery pool (mostly making the criteria all need to be met rather than any one criterion). That still included adjustments meant to address, to a degree and imprecisely, equity considerations (e.g., for FARMS/FARMS rate, but also for IEPs, 504s and EML designation).

There continue to be criticisms of this approach. Not having an ability-related metric (despite a return to relatively normal operation, but, then, there is so much testing, already), too broad an identifying score range (though FARMS-rate local norming can make that too narrow at lower FARMS schools), etc. MCPS is supposed to conduct a review, but that is focused more on whether the first class through under the lottery did OK than on whether the selection paradigm is appropriate (i.e., not missing those able) or whether local enrichment programming alternatives to magnets for those not getting a lottery spot are adequate (much less equivalent).

They always could change the paradigm -- there was that identification adjustment after the first year and minor tweaks afterward, and they were going to re-introduce CogAT in trial fashion (but not for this purpose). It doesn't seem likely at the moment, however.