CES letters?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Back in the day almost every child that was at DC's CES class had scores in the 230s and low 240s. They teacher shared the scores. One child had even higher! |
Anonymous
Could've been a 5th grade class. Even if it was a 4th grade class, that means as 3rd graders, they likely scored 10-15 points less, so in the 220s or even 210s as 3rd graders. Not so different from now. |
Anonymous
Sounds like the cutoff at our low FARMS schools was in the mid 90's percentiles based on conversations I've had with parents at our school. So not 98th/99th percentile to get into the pool - closer to 95th/96th. |
Anonymous
Actually quite different from now. I think you're reading too much into PP's post and that they meant that those 230s and 240s were scores when the kids were in 3rd grade. But if you're right, and they had 210s or 220 in 3rd grade, they wouldn't have even qualified for the CES lottery pool this year at most low FARMs schools, so kudos to MCPS for raising the bar so high. |
Anonymous
I feel like others addressed the implausibility of this in my absence, but look... I think you might be the same person who was actually backing me up on another thread about how poorly worded and unclear the MCPS site is about the term "locally-normed." That's still true! But even in that thread, I noted it doesn't JUST say "local norms are locally normed in a local normy kind of way." It also states that local norms are based on school FARMS rates (and maybe, arguably, something else SES-related— although probably just FARMS). That there are tiers of schools and they're separated by FARMS rates. And it then says 85th percentile+ within those groups/tiers. I can’t prove that there’s absolutely no way they’re doing what you’re suggesting they might be doing— but you have even less proof. I totally agree it’s not as clear as it could be, but it’s also not as though they give zero guidelines that they would have to be actively flouting. That’s #1. #2 is that you have tiny bits of pure (and unreliable and unfalsifiable) anecdote and you’re using that along with your preconceived notions to draw conclusions that are frankly, kind of wild. Not impossible, but definitely not supported by fact. Incompetence, incidental errors or some error in self-reporting is far more likely. Maybe that should be #1. Imagining what could be true, completely unconnected to any real data, is kind of the definition of conjecture— and the opposite of Occam’s Razor. I noticed a bunch of other people are having this problem-- drawing conclusions from this thread. Folks, there could be plenty of kids closer to 85th percentile nationally (210s) who were randomly selected. But they're likely to be from less academically anxious, UMC/white families than the ones who frequent DCUM and particularly would be likely to self-selectively respond to this thread. The critical thinking skills in this thread among parents about their "gifted" kids... #3 is what others have noted-- that it is no small thing to have a school where the 1.5% nationally makes up 15% within one school. It’s 10x the national number. That’s essentially almost never a thing in a random public school, even in the wealthiest neighborhood. Time and time again, it’s been proven that MoCo, one of the wealthiest, most educated places in the US, does not have public school students who test, on average, far, far above national average test scores. Nor is the distribution of test scores wildly different here than in the US as a whole. That would necessarily imply that we also have an unusual number of extremely low-performing students, and we do not. Now, it’s true that some individual schools have many more “above average” students than others. But. You’re not proposing schools with, say, 50% or 75% more very high scoring kids. You’re proposing schools with 900% more. Now, this is an example, so hopefully no one gets too excited. But let’s say there is a school where the kids ALL test above the national average. The lowest test score is ~50th percentile. If it also has a distribution similar to almost any other school, the top quarter will be in the 87.5th percentile nationally. The top 4% will be in the 98th+ percentile nationally. To have a school who doesn’t have a highly unusual percentage of kids clustered implausibly at the very very *very* top and still has about 15% of its students score in the top ~1.5% nationally, you’d be looking at a school where no one scores below about the 90th percentile. Or else, like I said, you’d have to have a school with an even higher percentage of extremely high scorers (95++ percentile nationally) and then highly unusual patterns among the rest of the students. And you’re saying there’s a school— or multiple schools— that are like this. That just absolutely beggars belief. Class and race privilege gives kids more of a floor than anything else. Not all of the kids, but on average. It can help modestly increase the percentage of high scorers, but not what you’re proposing. You may see many fewer “below average” kids in a privileged area, but you don’t suddenly see TEN TIMES the “geniuses” based on class and race privilege. It’s just not plausible. |
Anonymous
I’ve read this a few times and have no idea what your point is, but it seems pretty clear that at some low FARMS schools, a student needed to be in the 95th+ percentile to qualify for the lottery. That’s not the 98/99 percentile like whatever boogeyman you’re trying to prove wrong posited, so maybe you’re right? I don’t know. Just sayin’ that it’s not like the hurdle was 85th percentile for high FARMS schools and just a mere 5 points higher for low FARMS schools. Seems more like 85th percentile for mid FARMS, 75th for high FARMS and 95th for low FARMS. |
Anonymous
My daughter scored in the 95th percentile in her MAP-R and did not qualify for the pool. Straight A's in reading, writing and social studies, high instructional reading level, etc. etc. We're in a W feeder. Tell me why it's just not plausible? Do you think MCPS made a mistake somehow? Seriously, I'd love to know because we were pretty surprised that, according to MCPS, our DD doesn't belong in the pool and doesn't deserve enrichment next year. |
Anonymous
What boogeyman? The PP I was responding to (you?) said "98th/99th." I was responding to that-- as did a lot of other posters. And no, what you just said (75/85/95) does not follow, unless there are an equal number of kids in those groups AND unless there's a pretty strict and even between high and low FARMS and low and high scores. That's not how math and statistics work. You're just making wild guesses and proclaiming them obvious and logical. Have a blessed day. |
Anonymous
Well, what I said was not plausible was that low FARMS schools had a top 15% that was in the top 1-2% nationally. And I explained why that's implausible above. But I do think it's unlikely that MCPS created an extremely high standard for rich white schools to put their thumb on the schools. In your case, there are any number of more likely explanations, probably in about this order: -They give great weight to IEPs, ESOL, etc. or some other factor and it's producing skewed (or rather, less skewed) results -- without actually being related to ridiculously high MAP percentiles -MCPS made a mistake -Relatedly, were missing info they shouldn't have been -There's some other factor you are I are forgetting -You misunderstood the letter, you misremembered or misread her scores or grades, etc. Or are even lying. I'm sure you're not lying or mistaken-- but even that is still a more likely explanation than one made up of whole cloth by a PP based on the tiny, non-representative sample in this thread. |
Anonymous
Jeez, thumb on the scales, not schools. And my previous comment is missing the word correlations or something. Well, off to bed for me. |
Anonymous
"you are I?" Oy! Good night! |
Anonymous
| Current CES parent here. My kid qualified for the lottery last year and got a spot too. MAP-R was in the 94th percentile. Score was nowhere near the 230-240 range. I am now questioning whether he even belongs in CES. |
Anonymous
You people have lost the plot. |
Anonymous
Well, how is he doing so far? |
Anonymous
Doing just fine. He is thriving in this program. |