Middle school magnet lottery cutoffs finally revealed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Responding to MPIAs from MCCPTA's Gifted Education Committee, MCPS finally revealed middle school magnet lottery cutoffs.

(1) MCPS divides all elementary schools into 5 groups based on FARMS:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/120BRtShXf9_kQcNvKSxHKG4nJhnyTjL7/view?fbclid=IwAR1hrS0Ar1xsi_W8Ew3ow3Zz6aE84gkeAVZTu08rz_33TCvXCfTSRLDtX_w

low
low moderate
moderate
moderate high
high

(2) MCPS uses different cutoffs for these 5 groups:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1e0Szg2jJ8F1rL2BZSqCV1fb_R1gLwaRl/view?fbclid=IwAR36sMGZsbuKGYKnvEj9f5B2o0ioaZeiaZ7YQJLJVxPxP_m-Jr9-tUG5wq8

The cutoffs are national normed percentile (= 85% locally normed)

Math
low 93%
low moderate 92%
moderate 84%
moderate high 65%
high 60%

Humanites
low 92%
low moderate 92%
moderate 88%
moderate high 76%
high 70%


This means in a low-FARMS school, one needs 93%/92% to enter lottery.
In a high-FARMS school, one needs 60%/70% to enter lottery.

You can score 60% in math and 70% in reading to go to Takoma Park and Eastern magnets.

What percentage of the kids at a high-farms school have 70%+?

At least 60-70% of the students in high farms would have the scores to make the cut off

No. It's saying kids who attend high farms schools and score at least 70%ile on the test are in-pool.

It's not the same as scoring 99%ile, but at a lot of high farms schools the barriers to learning and achievement are greater, so what MCPS is saying is that a kid who scores 70%ile at a high farms schools, at age 8, demonstrates the same potential academically as a kid who scores a 95%ile at a W feeder. Which having been at both, I do think sounds fair.

If you hate this I can see that. But it's equitable. Equitable measures being introduced may mean that certain people's odds change. I don't take issues with this, but I do think a blind lottery post-cutoff is a mistake. It is meaningful to have teachers weigh in on things, and the outcomes for equity can be increased without resorting to straight up lottery. In the end though, what MCPS needs is increased access to enrichment for way more children, and perhaps they should consider re-adding a selective process for these more selective cohorts of highly capable kids (and yes, my kid was admitted to two of those in the past, so I can speak to the quality - they were/are excellent).

+2 I'll add that folks on this very site were claiming within recent memory that a 99th percentile kid couldn't possibly be expected to learn alongside a 95th percentile kid.

While I do think that 60th percentile is too low, I'd note that the schools in that category are among the absolute poorest in the district. It is not, as previously assumed, every single Title I school. It's the schools where the overwhelming majority of kids are living in poverty and/or have experienced trauma. Scoring a 70th percentile under those circumstances may well demonstrate more potential than a kid scoring in the 93rd percentile with every advantage possible.

Or it may not. Likely someone looked at the score distribution from these schools and said "that's the top x%," sure. But it is hard to say that it's equity without some deeper dive into the data and surrounding circumstances, which I doubt MCPS did. That said, someone leaked this data from the MCCPTA g/t listserv pretty darn fast. Take, tsk.

Really? This is the hill you want to die on? This is who you are?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Responding to MPIAs from MCCPTA's Gifted Education Committee, MCPS finally revealed middle school magnet lottery cutoffs.

(1) MCPS divides all elementary schools into 5 groups based on FARMS:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/120BRtShXf9_kQcNvKSxHKG4nJhnyTjL7/view?fbclid=IwAR1hrS0Ar1xsi_W8Ew3ow3Zz6aE84gkeAVZTu08rz_33TCvXCfTSRLDtX_w

low
low moderate
moderate
moderate high
high

(2) MCPS uses different cutoffs for these 5 groups:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1e0Szg2jJ8F1rL2BZSqCV1fb_R1gLwaRl/view?fbclid=IwAR36sMGZsbuKGYKnvEj9f5B2o0ioaZeiaZ7YQJLJVxPxP_m-Jr9-tUG5wq8

The cutoffs are national normed percentile (= 85% locally normed)

Math
low 93%
low moderate 92%
moderate 84%
moderate high 65%
high 60%

Humanites
low 92%
low moderate 92%
moderate 88%
moderate high 76%
high 70%


This means in a low-FARMS school, one needs 93%/92% to enter lottery.
In a high-FARMS school, one needs 60%/70% to enter lottery.

You can score 60% in math and 70% in reading to go to Takoma Park and Eastern magnets.

What percentage of the kids at a high-farms school have 70%+?

At least 60-70% of the students in high farms would have the scores to make the cut off

No. It's saying kids who attend high farms schools and score at least 70%ile on the test are in-pool.

It's not the same as scoring 99%ile, but at a lot of high farms schools the barriers to learning and achievement are greater, so what MCPS is saying is that a kid who scores 70%ile at a high farms schools, at age 8, demonstrates the same potential academically as a kid who scores a 95%ile at a W feeder. Which having been at both, I do think sounds fair.

If you hate this I can see that. But it's equitable. Equitable measures being introduced may mean that certain people's odds change. I don't take issues with this, but I do think a blind lottery post-cutoff is a mistake. It is meaningful to have teachers weigh in on things, and the outcomes for equity can be increased without resorting to straight up lottery. In the end though, what MCPS needs is increased access to enrichment for way more children, and perhaps they should consider re-adding a selective process for these more selective cohorts of highly capable kids (and yes, my kid was admitted to two of those in the past, so I can speak to the quality - they were/are excellent).

+2 I'll add that folks on this very site were claiming within recent memory that a 99th percentile kid couldn't possibly be expected to learn alongside a 95th percentile kid.

While I do think that 60th percentile is too low, I'd note that the schools in that category are among the absolute poorest in the district. It is not, as previously assumed, every single Title I school. It's the schools where the overwhelming majority of kids are living in poverty and/or have experienced trauma. Scoring a 70th percentile under those circumstances may well demonstrate more potential than a kid scoring in the 93rd percentile with every advantage possible.

So at a high FARMS school where there is maybe just one kid with scores in the 90th percentile - that kid will always get picked in the lottery? They are the only one with "high" scores so they get picked right away.

But then it really isn't a lottery. Which REALLY, REALLY sucks for that one super smart kid in one of the high FARMS schools. They might not get to go because the lottery picks a classmate that scored much lower.

I feel way worse for them than I do for the kid with two or three dozen classmates scoring in the top 10%. At least they have a cohort pf classmates that won't drag them down in life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No. It's saying kids who attend high farms schools and score at least 70%ile on the test are in-pool.

It's not the same as scoring 99%ile, but at a lot of high farms schools the barriers to learning and achievement are greater, so what MCPS is saying is that a kid who scores 70%ile at a high farms schools, at age 8, demonstrates the same potential academically as a kid who scores a 95%ile at a W feeder. Which having been at both, I do think sounds fair.

If you hate this I can see that. But it's equitable. Equitable measures being introduced may mean that certain people's odds change. I don't take issues with this, but I do think a blind lottery post-cutoff is a mistake. It is meaningful to have teachers weigh in on things, and the outcomes for equity can be increased without resorting to straight up lottery. In the end though, what MCPS needs is increased access to enrichment for way more children, and perhaps they should consider re-adding a selective process for these more selective cohorts of highly capable kids (and yes, my kid was admitted to two of those in the past, so I can speak to the quality - they were/are excellent).

Do you teach the same math to a 95% student and a 60% student in the same class?

I don't know. I can probably guess that the curriculum will not be as rigorous for all as it was 5 years ago, because the cohort will be less accelerated on the whole. I assume the lessons will be the same for the whole class, meaning the answer to your question is yes. But again, the point is that after the initial beginning of school year ramp-up (there always is one) MCPS predicts that the 95%ile kid and 65%ile kid are equally capable, and that within this new environment, should achieve similarly. I think that is a fair assessment.

To be fair, my kid is a 95-99% kid. Hardly has to try, at least not until recently. They're in a competitive middle school magnet and while we fight about minor struggles (example: hey study for your retake, which they ace after spending 20 minutes on studying) I know many other families in the magnet with equally high scoring kids who work SO SO HARD and get Bs and Cs. So test scores are not the end all be all that people think they are. They measure how well someone takes tests, and sometimes correlate to other things, but they don't really predict success on the whole in these programs, which is why they are supposed to be used as cut offs and not sole indicators of admission-worthiness.

THIS. Thank you for your thoughtful response.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this is equity sh*t right?

Absolutely, but even worse, it makes students with the highest scores, who DO NOT win the lottery, feel really terrible about themselves. This was my daughter's situation a couple of years ago.
I am against the lottery, even if the cut-off was similar at all schools, just because it's not a fair system. You can't have a large range of scores that are entered into a hat, then pick a lower scorer over a higher scorer. You could possibly do this if the hat was all 99% and above, maaaybe? But it's really frustrating when a 90th percentile gets in, and the 99th percentile doesn't. There is a big difference in critical thinking between those two scores. DD has always had scores within the 99th percentile. Kids like her are why magnets were created. And yet she has to go to her home school, where I had to fight to get her into an advanced math class, because we're in a cluster that doesn't like accelerating students, even though she did well on her placement test and found the class really easy.

In general, we are happy with MCPS, but this particular part of it really maddening.

Look, I'm in the same boat as you with a rising sixth grader who has consistently scored in the 99th percentile, went to CES, and didn't get selected from the lottery. And yes, it sucks, but it's definitely not any less fair than our kids getting in because they happen to have been born into families with the resources to support them.

And the fact that she has someone in her life who 1) knows how to and 2) is willing to fight to get her into advanced math is a pretty good indicator that she will be OK in her home school. Not all students have that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Responding to MPIAs from MCCPTA's Gifted Education Committee, MCPS finally revealed middle school magnet lottery cutoffs.

(1) MCPS divides all elementary schools into 5 groups based on FARMS:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/120BRtShXf9_kQcNvKSxHKG4nJhnyTjL7/view?fbclid=IwAR1hrS0Ar1xsi_W8Ew3ow3Zz6aE84gkeAVZTu08rz_33TCvXCfTSRLDtX_w

low
low moderate
moderate
moderate high
high

(2) MCPS uses different cutoffs for these 5 groups:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1e0Szg2jJ8F1rL2BZSqCV1fb_R1gLwaRl/view?fbclid=IwAR36sMGZsbuKGYKnvEj9f5B2o0ioaZeiaZ7YQJLJVxPxP_m-Jr9-tUG5wq8

The cutoffs are national normed percentile (= 85% locally normed)

Math
low 93%
low moderate 92%
moderate 84%
moderate high 65%
high 60%

Humanites
low 92%
low moderate 92%
moderate 88%
moderate high 76%
high 70%


This means in a low-FARMS school, one needs 93%/92% to enter lottery.
In a high-FARMS school, one needs 60%/70% to enter lottery.

You can score 60% in math and 70% in reading to go to Takoma Park and Eastern magnets.

What percentage of the kids at a high-farms school have 70%+?

At least 60-70% of the students in high farms would have the scores to make the cut off

Citation for this, please?

Since the median for the county is 70%, I'm skeptical.

[Anonymous]

What is the point? It's so watered down at this point that there is basically no GT programming. And they are doing an awful job of meeting gifted kids' needs at their home schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this is equity sh*t right?

Absolutely, but even worse, it makes students with the highest scores, who DO NOT win the lottery, feel really terrible about themselves. This was my daughter's situation a couple of years ago.
I am against the lottery, even if the cut-off was similar at all schools, just because it's not a fair system. You can't have a large range of scores that are entered into a hat, then pick a lower scorer over a higher scorer. You could possibly do this if the hat was all 99% and above, maaaybe? But it's really frustrating when a 90th percentile gets in, and the 99th percentile doesn't. There is a big difference in critical thinking between those two scores. DD has always had scores within the 99th percentile. Kids like her are why magnets were created. And yet she has to go to her home school, where I had to fight to get her into an advanced math class, because we're in a cluster that doesn't like accelerating students, even though she did well on her placement test and found the class really easy.

In general, we are happy with MCPS, but this particular part of it really maddening.

Look, I'm in the same boat as you with a rising sixth grader who has consistently scored in the 99th percentile, went to CES, and didn't get selected from the lottery. And yes, it sucks, but it's definitely not any less fair than our kids getting in because they happen to have been born into families with the resources to support them.

And the fact that she has someone in her life who 1) knows how to and 2) is willing to fight to get her into advanced math is a pretty good indicator that she will be OK in her home school. Not all students have that.

My 5th grader who scored in 280s on their MAPs which is 30 points over the 99th percentile wasn't selected, but several kids from the CES with much lower stats were.

I'm not into turning this into a hunger games competition or making it a windfall for the prep industry either.

They just need to increase the number of seats so kids who score in the top 2% who are interested in these programs can participate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Responding to MPIAs from MCCPTA's Gifted Education Committee, MCPS finally revealed middle school magnet lottery cutoffs.

(1) MCPS divides all elementary schools into 5 groups based on FARMS:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/120BRtShXf9_kQcNvKSxHKG4nJhnyTjL7/view?fbclid=IwAR1hrS0Ar1xsi_W8Ew3ow3Zz6aE84gkeAVZTu08rz_33TCvXCfTSRLDtX_w

low
low moderate
moderate
moderate high
high

(2) MCPS uses different cutoffs for these 5 groups:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1e0Szg2jJ8F1rL2BZSqCV1fb_R1gLwaRl/view?fbclid=IwAR36sMGZsbuKGYKnvEj9f5B2o0ioaZeiaZ7YQJLJVxPxP_m-Jr9-tUG5wq8

The cutoffs are national normed percentile (= 85% locally normed)

Math
low 93%
low moderate 92%
moderate 84%
moderate high 65%
high 60%

Humanites
low 92%
low moderate 92%
moderate 88%
moderate high 76%
high 70%


This means in a low-FARMS school, one needs 93%/92% to enter lottery.
In a high-FARMS school, one needs 60%/70% to enter lottery.

You can score 60% in math and 70% in reading to go to Takoma Park and Eastern magnets.

What percentage of the kids at a high-farms school have 70%+?

At least 60-70% of the students in high farms would have the scores to make the cut off

No. It's saying kids who attend high farms schools and score at least 70%ile on the test are in-pool.

It's not the same as scoring 99%ile, but at a lot of high farms schools the barriers to learning and achievement are greater, so what MCPS is saying is that a kid who scores 70%ile at a high farms schools, at age 8, demonstrates the same potential academically as a kid who scores a 95%ile at a W feeder. Which having been at both, I do think sounds fair.

If you hate this I can see that. But it's equitable. Equitable measures being introduced may mean that certain people's odds change. I don't take issues with this, but I do think a blind lottery post-cutoff is a mistake. It is meaningful to have teachers weigh in on things, and the outcomes for equity can be increased without resorting to straight up lottery. In the end though, what MCPS needs is increased access to enrichment for way more children, and perhaps they should consider re-adding a selective process for these more selective cohorts of highly capable kids (and yes, my kid was admitted to two of those in the past, so I can speak to the quality - they were/are excellent).

+2 I'll add that folks on this very site were claiming within recent memory that a 99th percentile kid couldn't possibly be expected to learn alongside a 95th percentile kid.

While I do think that 60th percentile is too low, I'd note that the schools in that category are among the absolute poorest in the district. It is not, as previously assumed, every single Title I school. It's the schools where the overwhelming majority of kids are living in poverty and/or have experienced trauma. Scoring a 70th percentile under those circumstances may well demonstrate more potential than a kid scoring in the 93rd percentile with every advantage possible.

So at a high FARMS school where there is maybe just one kid with scores in the 90th percentile - that kid will always get picked in the lottery? They are the only one with "high" scores so they get picked right away.

But then it really isn't a lottery. Which REALLY, REALLY sucks for that one super smart kid in one of the high FARMS schools. They might not get to go because the lottery picks a classmate that scored much lower.

I feel way worse for them than I do for the kid with two or three dozen classmates scoring in the top 10%. At least they have a cohort pf classmates that won't drag them down in life.

I think all children should have an opportunity to participate in more challenging/rigorous 'magnet-level' course work. But, since MCPS can't accommodate all students who could/want to participate, we ended up with a system that (at least previously) rewarded children who had the resources and parent advocates (through no fault of their own) to gain entry to these programs while children without those resources or parent advocates (also through no fault of their own) were less likely to gain entry.

I applaud MCPS's attempt to make the program more equitable, but I do understand why some parents will be upset about these changes. I hope that MCPS can find a way to provide these types of courses and activities to more children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is the point? It's so watered down at this point that there is basically no GT programming. And they are doing an awful job of meeting gifted kids' needs at their home schools.

Both my kids went through these programs. One before the lottery and one with the lotery. The program is unchanged since there are far more kids who can do the work than seats.

[Anonymous]

They take the top 15th perent for each cohort of schools. So in math, for the highest FARM schools, the top 15 percent are scoring nationally a the 60th percentile or higher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is the point? It's so watered down at this point that there is basically no GT programming. And they are doing an awful job of meeting gifted kids' needs at their home schools.

Depends on the school. Some don't have the resources for their GT kids. Frequently because their hands are full with the troubled kids from troubled homes.

Thank goodness a few of those GT kids get a chance to go to a magnet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this is equity sh*t right?

Absolutely, but even worse, it makes students with the highest scores, who DO NOT win the lottery, feel really terrible about themselves. This was my daughter's situation a couple of years ago.
I am against the lottery, even if the cut-off was similar at all schools, just because it's not a fair system. You can't have a large range of scores that are entered into a hat, then pick a lower scorer over a higher scorer. You could possibly do this if the hat was all 99% and above, maaaybe? But it's really frustrating when a 90th percentile gets in, and the 99th percentile doesn't. There is a big difference in critical thinking between those two scores. DD has always had scores within the 99th percentile. Kids like her are why magnets were created. And yet she has to go to her home school, where I had to fight to get her into an advanced math class, because we're in a cluster that doesn't like accelerating students, even though she did well on her placement test and found the class really easy.

In general, we are happy with MCPS, but this particular part of it really maddening.

Look, I'm in the same boat as you with a rising sixth grader who has consistently scored in the 99th percentile, went to CES, and didn't get selected from the lottery. And yes, it sucks, but it's definitely not any less fair than our kids getting in because they happen to have been born into families with the resources to support them.

And the fact that she has someone in her life who 1) knows how to and 2) is willing to fight to get her into advanced math is a pretty good indicator that she will be OK in her home school. Not all students have that.

My 5th grader who scored in 280s on their MAPs which is 30 points over the 99th percentile wasn't selected, but several kids from the CES with much lower stats were.

I'm not into turning this into a hunger games competition or making it a windfall for the prep industry either.

They just need to increase the number of seats so kids who score in the top 2% who are interested in these programs can participate.

Yes, that's going to happen, because test scores aren't a gold standard indicator of which kids most need those seats. They definitely need to increase the number of seats, but not just for the top 2%. They need to have enough seats for all kids who can do the work. That's a huge lift, but it should be the goal.

[Anonymous]

You guys. Let me say this to you another way.

The students from the highest FARMS schools needed a MAP score of 213 in 5th grade to get into the lottery pool. Let me put this in perspective for you. My recently graduated 5th grader had 217 as a 6 year old 1st grader. We do not supplement and he clearly did not have enough math background or knowledge to enter into a gifted math middle school program at that time! That score is nowhere close to the gifted range for a 5th grader no matter what their SES or circumstances. At this point, they might as well enter all students into the lottery because these thresholds are absolutely ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You guys. Let me say this to you another way.

The students from the highest FARMS schools needed a MAP score of 213 in 5th grade to get into the lottery pool. Let me put this in perspective for you. My recently graduated 5th grader had 217 as a 6 year old 1st grader. We do not supplement and he clearly did not have enough math background or knowledge to enter into a gifted math middle school program at that time! That score is nowhere close to the gifted range for a 5th grader no matter what their SES or circumstances. At this point, they might as well enter all students into the lottery because these thresholds are absolutely ridiculous.

Apologies, but I'm just not willing to take your anecdotal experiences as data. If you're argument is that students from the highest FARMS schools who achieve those scores are not able to succeed in the magnet program, then you're going to need something beyond what you claim your first grader scored on their MAP test one time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this is equity sh*t right?

Absolutely, but even worse, it makes students with the highest scores, who DO NOT win the lottery, feel really terrible about themselves. This was my daughter's situation a couple of years ago.
I am against the lottery, even if the cut-off was similar at all schools, just because it's not a fair system. You can't have a large range of scores that are entered into a hat, then pick a lower scorer over a higher scorer. You could possibly do this if the hat was all 99% and above, maaaybe? But it's really frustrating when a 90th percentile gets in, and the 99th percentile doesn't. There is a big difference in critical thinking between those two scores. DD has always had scores within the 99th percentile. Kids like her are why magnets were created. And yet she has to go to her home school, where I had to fight to get her into an advanced math class, because we're in a cluster that doesn't like accelerating students, even though she did well on her placement test and found the class really easy.

In general, we are happy with MCPS, but this particular part of it really maddening.

Look, I'm in the same boat as you with a rising sixth grader who has consistently scored in the 99th percentile, went to CES, and didn't get selected from the lottery. And yes, it sucks, but it's definitely not any less fair than our kids getting in because they happen to have been born into families with the resources to support them.

And the fact that she has someone in her life who 1) knows how to and 2) is willing to fight to get her into advanced math is a pretty good indicator that she will be OK in her home school. Not all students have that.

My 5th grader who scored in 280s on their MAPs which is 30 points over the 99th percentile wasn't selected, but several kids from the CES with much lower stats were.

I'm not into turning this into a hunger games competition or making it a windfall for the prep industry either.

They just need to increase the number of seats so kids who score in the top 2% who are interested in these programs can participate.

Same and agree.