Magnet Middle School Thread: MAP scores and results

[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.

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

PP you replied to. My kid had a score in the 260s for math and didn’t get in. I would accept that EASILY if I knew that the magnet was populated by kids with higher scores, since after all a magnet should get the best and brightest. Add a few lower scoring students in exceptional circumstances and you have cohort. But when I see multiple kids get in with scores in the 240s, it’s a little hard to stomach. And apparently it’s not just this year, but every year, so it’s not just because of the lottery.

Hence the need for a better algorithm.

[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.

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

PP you replied to. My kid had a score in the 260s for math and didn’t get in. I would accept that EASILY if I knew that the magnet was populated by kids with higher scores, since after all a magnet should get the best and brightest. Add a few lower scoring students in exceptional circumstances and you have cohort. But when I see multiple kids get in with scores in the 240s, it’s a little hard to stomach. And apparently it’s not just this year, but every year, so it’s not just because of the lottery.

Hence the need for a better algorithm.

When my white kid with 99th+ percentile scores was waitlisted for CES we appealed. Kid was eventually accepted. At the open house there was child running around bragging about a 91% score. Child was in an 'Under Represented Group'. At the school, my kid was a minority. The other kid was at their home school and was in the majority. They dropped out of the program within three months and went back to standard classes. The seat wasn't filled until the following year.

[Anonymous]

I would like to say, as the frustrated parent of a kid who got into a magnet where I don't think they belong at all, and not into the magnet that might have served them well, that I think that one simple thing they could do, is ask parents who know which magnet they want to select it.

They could think of it as each kid who is "in pool" gets 2 spots in the lottery. You can put them both in one pool, or one in each. If a kid or parent doesn't pick, then they get one in each.

To be clear, I'm not complaining that my didn't get into the one we wanted. I understand it was random. I just think the fact that they got into one that we're going to decline is a waste of time in the process. Someone else should have gotten that offer.

[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).

As they said MAP is one of several factors that are weighed there's likely not a hard cutoff but a score that is derived from a combination of those things that determines pool eligibility.

[Anonymous]

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

This. For good or ill...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

This. For good or ill...

Well duh, if your child gets in then you’re not going to be here complaining. What we want to see is transparency. I get the lottery but what I don’t get is how they were selected into the lottery, it’s wildly varied. And the parents have a right to know why their high scoring kids were not even considered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

This. For good or ill...

I think the only people that might think this system works well are a few of the parents whose kid got in and even then many still seem to think a system based on objective merit would be more fair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

This. For good or ill...

I think the only people that might think this system works well are a few of the parents whose kid got in and even then many still seem to think a system based on objective merit would be more fair.

Exactly. Months ago I was telling my friend that I hated this lottery idea, because it would upset me to think that my child had taken a spot from a higher-scoring child. Well the opposite happened. No one is happy with a lottery system, and frankly MCPS wouldn't have been too put out to come up with a merit-based system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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).

As they said MAP is one of several factors that are weighed there's likely not a hard cutoff but a score that is derived from a combination of those things that determines pool eligibility.

No Bs, all As in every subject and yes 240 is a 98% and he was not even in the pool. He goes to a focus school. Clearly there was no “cutoff.” And no I am not lying or making up the numbers. His 3rd grade Cogat was 99%. MCPS seems to have some secret formula of who gets in the pool and who doesn’t.

[Anonymous]

Fall 2020 MAP: 248 math 230 reading
Report card: straight A's
School: W ES (non-CES)
Female

Lottery pool status: in pool for Eastern and Takoma Park

Magnet status: Not selected for Eastern nor Takoma Park

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, my principal had no insights or information on how kids were selected for the pool. I think I will email the person listed as the contacts for this process to let them know that their new "transparent' lottery process is not so transparent.

[Anonymous]

Has anyone's kid been in pool for one but not the other?

My kid got into one but not the other, but was in pool for both. I didn't expect my kid to be in pool for the one he got into, he's got pretty divergent scores. But now, I'm wondering if maybe there was only one pool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

As they said MAP is one of several factors that are weighed there's likely not a hard cutoff but a score that is derived from a combination of those things that determines pool eligibility.

No Bs, all As in every subject and yes 240 is a 98% and he was not even in the pool. He goes to a focus school. Clearly there was no “cutoff.” And no I am not lying or making up the numbers. His 3rd grade Cogat was 99%. MCPS seems to have some secret formula of who gets in the pool and who doesn’t.

Of course there isn't a hard cut-off they considered a number of factors of which the MAP was just one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone's kid been in pool for one but not the other?

My kid got into one but not the other, but was in pool for both. I didn't expect my kid to be in pool for the one he got into, he's got pretty divergent scores. But now, I'm wondering if maybe there was only one pool.

People have posted their kids was in one and not the other. One parent even posted their kid was in both ended up being selected for the one in which they're much less qualified, but this is the nature of a lottery.

[Anonymous]

Probably no need to be upset if your DC did not get in one of the magnets and you live far way. It does look like that the magnet teachers will have to slow down and cover less materials to make sure most of the kids can follow. The difference between magnets and regular schools aren't that big anymore to justify a long commute.