How common is a math or reading MAP score at the 99th percentile in this area?

[Anonymous]

I think everyone is missing the elephant in the room. If there truly are so many kids 95+, why doesn't MCPS just convert whole classes to additional CES and Magnet Programs at Home Schools? That way everyone wins? Who says there can't be two or three magnet programs and a CES program at every home school? Or if there really aren't enough kids at a home school, then bus them to the nearest CES program with capacity?

The fact is that any child 90% or above should be in a CES program of some form or another, and any child 98% or above should be in a Magnet program. If there are that many kids, then make that many programs. That would be a better use of money than some of the truly nonsensical ideas I've seen posted on this website.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think everyone is missing the elephant in the room. If there truly are so many kids 95+, why doesn't MCPS just convert whole classes to additional CES and Magnet Programs at Home Schools? That way everyone wins? Who says there can't be two or three magnet programs and a CES program at every home school? Or if there really aren't enough kids at a home school, then bus them to the nearest CES program with capacity?

The fact is that any child 90% or above should be in a CES program of some form or another, and any child 98% or above should be in a Magnet program. If there are that many kids, then make that many programs. That would be a better use of money than some of the truly nonsensical ideas I've seen posted on this website.

These are good questions that a lot of people have. I have not ever heard an official response.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trying to understand what your saying here, but the net effect is that MCPS effectively destroyed the Magnet Program. It's nothing more than CES-program-level kids just with better perks.

I'm more interested in how many kids admitted to magnet were MCPS staff kids less than 95 percentile.

Trying to stir up trouble again?

Is there trouble to stir up? Are we admitting something?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trying to understand what your saying here, but the net effect is that MCPS effectively destroyed the Magnet Program. It's nothing more than CES-program-level kids just with better perks.

I'm more interested in how many kids admitted to magnet were MCPS staff kids less than 95 percentile.

Trying to stir up trouble again?

Is there trouble to stir up? Are we admitting something?

I don't think that's an issue, but I do think the vast majority this year are below 95% simply because of MCPS statements that they used 85% cutoff for establishing a pool from which they selected random candidates. A lot of these kids would have trouble with IM next year let alone a magnet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think everyone is missing the elephant in the room. If there truly are so many kids 95+, why doesn't MCPS just convert whole classes to additional CES and Magnet Programs at Home Schools? That way everyone wins? Who says there can't be two or three magnet programs and a CES program at every home school? Or if there really aren't enough kids at a home school, then bus them to the nearest CES program with capacity?

The fact is that any child 90% or above should be in a CES program of some form or another, and any child 98% or above should be in a Magnet program. If there are that many kids, then make that many programs. That would be a better use of money than some of the truly nonsensical ideas I've seen posted on this website.

I hear there's as many a 5% in the 95%+ range! Seriously MCPS numbers are very similar to national. People like to kid themselves that we're special but the data they publish shows were pretty average.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think everyone is missing the elephant in the room. If there truly are so many kids 95+, why doesn't MCPS just convert whole classes to additional CES and Magnet Programs at Home Schools? That way everyone wins? Who says there can't be two or three magnet programs and a CES program at every home school? Or if there really aren't enough kids at a home school, then bus them to the nearest CES program with capacity?

The fact is that any child 90% or above should be in a CES program of some form or another, and any child 98% or above should be in a Magnet program. If there are that many kids, then make that many programs. That would be a better use of money than some of the truly nonsensical ideas I've seen posted on this website.

I hear there's as many a 5% in the 95%+ range! Seriously MCPS numbers are very similar to national. People like to kid themselves that we're special but the data they publish shows were pretty average.

Also the magnet is about 85%+ these days anyway. 95% kids are a rarity since the majority fall in the 85%-90% range.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A baseline of lower scores HAS to be established to account for students with special needs, FARM, etc. It's been there for years. And to a certain extent, this process is self-selecting. A family is unlikely to uproot their child and send them to such a program unless they believed they would both benefit and succeed in it. And I know families who have turned down a magnet program because it wasn't in their wheelhouse. Also, as a magnet teacher has written on this and other threads, the quality of the cohorts has actually improved since MCPS opened up the process to all 5th graders (and not just those are aware of the programs), regardless of the lower baseline. The self-reporting of scores previously posted is indicative. The lottery selects for higher scorers like mine who reads at the end of high school level.

Exactly the lottery pool was limited to kids in the top 15% but since these scores fall on a bell curve most of the selected candidates are closer to 15% than 1%.

+1 I think this year's selection process was both sub-optimal and the best we were going to get under the pandemic circumstances. Without the CogAT, there was really not a good way to find the "true" top 5% (or whatever). MAP tells you how much material a child has been exposed to, but that's not really a reliable indicator of potential. Grades tell you whether a child tries hard in the class they are in, but not whether they really need a different environment entirely.

I hope they don't keep the lottery, but I also don't think it's part of some nefarious plot to dismantle the magnets. It was a weird year, and a lottery was the best of bad solutions.

Not to say that it’s right or wrong, but I think 85% for lottery probably optimizes selection for racial and economic diversity.

I honestly just don’t understand why they don’t create more centers/magnets. Student population is rising but not the number of county-wide seats. What is rising is the number of in-boundary center seats, which is another story.

If they drop the cutoff to 0% it will do that even more!

[Anonymous]

As a student, when I was in 5th grade, I got 267(math). I did work hard. I need to know if it is a good score because no one will talk about them with me. Any suggestions?

[Anonymous]

(The same person who wrote above) And the test also wasn't that hard. I got 99th percentile, and so did my siblings. I think it's pretty common.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:(The same person who wrote above) And the test also wasn't that hard. I got 99th percentile, and so did my siblings. I think it's pretty common.

If you are really that good at math you can also understand what a percentile is and what 99th means and therefore understand whether it’s “pretty common”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A baseline of lower scores HAS to be established to account for students with special needs, FARM, etc. It's been there for years. And to a certain extent, this process is self-selecting. A family is unlikely to uproot their child and send them to such a program unless they believed they would both benefit and succeed in it. And I know families who have turned down a magnet program because it wasn't in their wheelhouse. Also, as a magnet teacher has written on this and other threads, the quality of the cohorts has actually improved since MCPS opened up the process to all 5th graders (and not just those are aware of the programs), regardless of the lower baseline. The self-reporting of scores previously posted is indicative. The lottery selects for higher scorers like mine who reads at the end of high school level.

I have no doubt that the quality went up with universal screening but am skeptical about next year's class. Yes, they'll be bright kids, but the lottery will rarely select the top 1%-2%.I know we'd like to think this is based on merit but maybe that was never the goal.

Correct. Having rigorous academic programs for the top 1%-2% of students is only a (small) part of the societal reason for magnet schools, especially when a not insignificant fraction of those 1%er students are at that level due to heavy investment by their parents. For the county, with a myriad of social goals associated with magnet schools. opening up to the top 15% and assigning randomly is a win-win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Likely to be admitted to a gifted program? Or just like everyone else so fine in general ed?

According to MCPS their MAP score median is about 1.5% higher than national.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trying to understand what your saying here, but the net effect is that MCPS effectively destroyed the Magnet Program. It's nothing more than CES-program-level kids just with better perks.

I'm more interested in how many kids admitted to magnet were MCPS staff kids less than 95 percentile.

Trying to stir up trouble again?

Is there trouble to stir up? Are we admitting something?

I don't think that's an issue, but I do think the vast majority this year are below 95% simply because of MCPS statements that they used 85% cutoff for establishing a pool from which they selected random candidates. A lot of these kids would have trouble with IM next year let alone a magnet.

Yes, if selected randomly only 1 in 15 would be in the top 1%

[Anonymous]

Is it hard to improve if your MAP score is high (maybe like 260?)

[Anonymous]

Is it easy to grow when your MAP score is high (maybe around like 260)?