MAP Tests and Magnet Selection

[Anonymous]

My 5th grader just took MAP-R and his friends were discussing their scores. It seems that its very common for students to drop a few points randomly. Some kids started with higher fall scores and ended up with a lower spring scores. Others did better in winter and some did better in spring. The test doesn’t seem very useful for magnet lottery placement. Just wanted to share this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My 5th grader just took MAP-R and his friends were discussing their scores. It seems that its very common for students to drop a few points randomly. Some kids started with higher fall scores and ended up with a lower spring scores. Others did better in winter and some did better in spring. The test doesn’t seem very useful for magnet lottery placement. Just wanted to share this.

Yes, it’s just one test, and their scores can bounce around. Makes no sense to tie magnet selection to this. But the magnet programs in general increasingly seem to make no sense in light of other decisions mcps makes (see ELC thread).

[Anonymous]

Do they use 5th grade fall score?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do they use 5th grade fall score?

Yes they use 5th grader fall score.

[Anonymous]

My kids' scores often drop in the winter then bounce way up in spring.

[Anonymous]

Yup, it becomes increasingly illogical to put some much weight on MAP as kids progress in coursework.

My kids 7th grade MAP-M score dropped 15 points between fall and spring. This is my kid who regularly gets 99 pctile on MAP-M. They said it was because a lot of the material that was covered in MAP was stuff from "long ago," and that their accelerated middle school math class is covering material that isn't covered on MAP-M. Doesn't mean that it's good that they've forgotten the older material, but it's just one reason that it's difficult to put so much weight on that test.

[Anonymous]

I think it also bounces more if your kid is near the top of the range than it does if your kid is more in the middle.

[Anonymous]

Some years, my DC starts off with a really high score in the fall, which then dips in the winter and slightly rebounds in the spring. Other years, he begins with a score about 10 points lower in the fall, shows no change in the winter, and then improves significantly in the spring. His friends’ scores also fluctuate unpredictably. This kind of inconsistency shows why this test should never have been used for magnet school lotteries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yup, it becomes increasingly illogical to put some much weight on MAP as kids progress in coursework.

My kids 7th grade MAP-M score dropped 15 points between fall and spring. This is my kid who regularly gets 99 pctile on MAP-M. They said it was because a lot of the material that was covered in MAP was stuff from "long ago," and that their accelerated middle school math class is covering material that isn't covered on MAP-M. Doesn't mean that it's good that they've forgotten the older material, but it's just one reason that it's difficult to put so much weight on that test.

Sounds like the test did a good job showing that your child is struggling in their class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some years, my DC starts off with a really high score in the fall, which then dips in the winter and slightly rebounds in the spring. Other years, he begins with a score about 10 points lower in the fall, shows no change in the winter, and then improves significantly in the spring. His friends’ scores also fluctuate unpredictably. This kind of inconsistency shows why this test should never have been used for magnet school lotteries.

Not really. It shows that your kid isn’t a good candidate for the magnets. The magnet programs are tough and consistency is important. There’s room for some fluctuation but not if it means going below 99th.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My 5th grader just took MAP-R and his friends were discussing their scores. It seems that its very common for students to drop a few points randomly. Some kids started with higher fall scores and ended up with a lower spring scores. Others did better in winter and some did better in spring. The test doesn’t seem very useful for magnet lottery placement. Just wanted to share this.

What do you suggest instead? The COGat or other similar test would be more useful than MAP scores and what was used before COVID.

They need to use some kind of test because teacher recommendations and grades can be biased.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some years, my DC starts off with a really high score in the fall, which then dips in the winter and slightly rebounds in the spring. Other years, he begins with a score about 10 points lower in the fall, shows no change in the winter, and then improves significantly in the spring. His friends’ scores also fluctuate unpredictably. This kind of inconsistency shows why this test should never have been used for magnet school lotteries.

Not really. It shows that your kid isn’t a good candidate for the magnets. The magnet programs are tough and consistency is important. There’s room for some fluctuation but not if it means going below 99th.

DP.

Even if it were true that magnets only should take 99th, MAP is the wrong test. Given its purpose and construction, it would be at best a supporting data point in the identification, better via other means, of those most capable, which is the population for whom magnets principally should be available.

And the post seems unnecessarily mean-spirited. Who is to say that the variation PP noted for their DC wasn't all within the 99th? (Again, not that 99th MAP is a proper magnet litmus.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some years, my DC starts off with a really high score in the fall, which then dips in the winter and slightly rebounds in the spring. Other years, he begins with a score about 10 points lower in the fall, shows no change in the winter, and then improves significantly in the spring. His friends’ scores also fluctuate unpredictably. This kind of inconsistency shows why this test should never have been used for magnet school lotteries.

Not really. It shows that your kid isn’t a good candidate for the magnets. The magnet programs are tough and consistency is important. There’s room for some fluctuation but not if it means going below 99th.

DP.

Even if it were true that magnets only should take 99th, MAP is the wrong test. Given its purpose and construction, it would be at best a supporting data point in the identification, better via other means, of those most capable, which is the population for whom magnets principally should be available.

And the post seems unnecessarily mean-spirited. Who is to say that the variation PP noted for their DC wasn't all within the 99th? (Again, not that 99th MAP is a proper magnet litmus.)

It wasn’t. She wouldn’t have been complaining here if it was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some years, my DC starts off with a really high score in the fall, which then dips in the winter and slightly rebounds in the spring. Other years, he begins with a score about 10 points lower in the fall, shows no change in the winter, and then improves significantly in the spring. His friends’ scores also fluctuate unpredictably. This kind of inconsistency shows why this test should never have been used for magnet school lotteries.

Not really. It shows that your kid isn’t a good candidate for the magnets. The magnet programs are tough and consistency is important. There’s room for some fluctuation but not if it means going below 99th.

DP.

Even if it were true that magnets only should take 99th, MAP is the wrong test. Given its purpose and construction, it would be at best a supporting data point in the identification, better via other means, of those most capable, which is the population for whom magnets principally should be available.

And the post seems unnecessarily mean-spirited. Who is to say that the variation PP noted for their DC wasn't all within the 99th? (Again, not that 99th MAP is a proper magnet litmus.)

It wasn’t. She wouldn’t have been complaining here if it was.

I wasn’t complaining. Just trying to point how unreliable the scores are for magnet placement, given such variations. In fact, my kid was selected for the magnet program.

But many of the selected students were not in the 99th percentile, they were 95th or 94th and now they are in the 89th or 87th. It’s concerning that the score cutoffs vary by cluster—it makes no sense for a student in the 99th percentile to be grouped with others scoring in the 75th to 85th percentile.

Additionally, several students who barely met the cutoff in the fall have since seen their scores decline. This raises the question: if the selection had been based on winter or spring scores instead of fall, the resulting group of students would likely be very different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some years, my DC starts off with a really high score in the fall, which then dips in the winter and slightly rebounds in the spring. Other years, he begins with a score about 10 points lower in the fall, shows no change in the winter, and then improves significantly in the spring. His friends’ scores also fluctuate unpredictably. This kind of inconsistency shows why this test should never have been used for magnet school lotteries.

Not really. It shows that your kid isn’t a good candidate for the magnets. The magnet programs are tough and consistency is important. There’s room for some fluctuation but not if it means going below 99th.

DP.

Even if it were true that magnets only should take 99th, MAP is the wrong test. Given its purpose and construction, it would be at best a supporting data point in the identification, better via other means, of those most capable, which is the population for whom magnets principally should be available.

And the post seems unnecessarily mean-spirited. Who is to say that the variation PP noted for their DC wasn't all within the 99th? (Again, not that 99th MAP is a proper magnet litmus.)

It wasn’t. She wouldn’t have been complaining here if it was.

I wasn’t complaining. Just trying to point how unreliable the scores are for magnet placement, given such variations. In fact, my kid was selected for the magnet program.

But many of the selected students were not in the 99th percentile, they were 95th or 94th and now they are in the 89th or 87th. It’s concerning that the score cutoffs vary by cluster—it makes no sense for a student in the 99th percentile to be grouped with others scoring in the 75th to 85th percentile.

Additionally, several students who barely met the cutoff in the fall have since seen their scores decline. This raises the question: if the selection had been based on winter or spring scores instead of fall, the resulting group of students would likely be very different.

100%!!