5th graders taking 6th grade map m

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m guessing there will be a separate lottery for the CM students and the regular, each being in the top 15 percentile in each group? Otherwise it’s apples and oranges and wouldn’t make sense. This is pure speculation—I have no idea how this will affect the lottery.

Not really; NWEA RIT scores have percentages based on grade level. I haven't seen data for 5th graders taking the 6th grade test but it likely exists and can be applied.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They started doing this in spring of last year. I think it's the same across the county. The 6+ test is better for kids in a county where most kids are above national averagem

It was done only in the spring and only for kids enrolled in 5/6. For fall and winter, the ES MAP was used.

OP, I think this will put kids in 5/6 taking the MS test at a disadvantage for the math/sci/computer sci magnet. My kids score (which was admittedly very high on the ES test) dropped more than 20 points. I would reach out to central office about this.

What was the percentile change? Dropping from 99+ to 95 won't change lottery eligibility.

There isn't a huge cohort of kids who are bad at math it has parents gunning for the magnet. The striver parents already have their kids in CM 5/6. The others don't want their kids to get on a bus so they skip Math 6 and Math 7.

If all the kids at their school take the same test, they would likely still be in the top 15% locally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My child is in fifth grade and taking compacted math. He took the grade 6 map test this week. Does anyone know how this will affect placement into middle school magnets? How will they compare those who took the 6th grade test against those who took the 5th grade test?

This is all part of an MCPS conspiracy to help justify sending lower-performing students to the magnets over the high-scoring students. They know there is a correlation between affluence and standardized test scores so the is one of the ways they can improve selection diversity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They started doing this in spring of last year. I think it's the same across the county. The 6+ test is better for kids in a county where most kids are above national averagem

It was done only in the spring and only for kids enrolled in 5/6. For fall and winter, the ES MAP was used.

OP, I think this will put kids in 5/6 taking the MS test at a disadvantage for the math/sci/computer sci magnet. My kids score (which was admittedly very high on the ES test) dropped more than 20 points. I would reach out to central office about this.

What was the percentile change? Dropping from 99+ to 95 won't change lottery eligibility.

There isn't a huge cohort of kids who are bad at math it has parents gunning for the magnet. The striver parents already have their kids in CM 5/6. The others don't want their kids to get on a bus so they skip Math 6 and Math 7.

If all the kids at their school take the same test, they would likely still be in the top 15% locally.

They don’t all take the same test. Kids in math 5 take the easier version.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m guessing there will be a separate lottery for the CM students and the regular, each being in the top 15 percentile in each group? Otherwise it’s apples and oranges and wouldn’t make sense. This is pure speculation—I have no idea how this will affect the lottery.

Not really; NWEA RIT scores have percentages based on grade level. I haven't seen data for 5th graders taking the 6th grade test but it likely exists and can be applied.

I see, so they could take the top 15% pooling together the 2 tests, and that might pull down some of the CM students because—in taking the harder test—they will be disadvantaged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My child is in fifth grade and taking compacted math. He took the grade 6 map test this week. Does anyone know how this will affect placement into middle school magnets? How will they compare those who took the 6th grade test against those who took the 5th grade test?

This is all part of an MCPS conspiracy to help justify sending lower-performing students to the magnets over the high-scoring students. They know there is a correlation between affluence and standardized test scores so the is one of the ways they can improve selection diversity.

+1. They even say in all of their meetings that their goal for the magnets is to achieve proportionality from a race/ethnicity perspective. Meaning that the racial make up of the students in the magnets mirrors the racial make up of the students county-wide. But this ignores all of the data they present that clearly shows that certain racial groups are overwhelmingly testing and performing very very below grade level in aggregate. Until they intervene and remediate that reality at earlier grades, you do not have students prepared for these programs in equal ratios to their proportions in the system. And it’s incredible also, because the process of selecting students is supposed to be race blind! Their agenda isn’t to serve the biggest outliers or the kids without a cohort. Their agenda is to manipulate the admissions to demonstrate momentum toward racial proportionality. I would encourage them to actually work harder to improve their teaching methods in earlier grades because clearly a student’s race or ethnicity is not determinative of giftedness or ability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m guessing there will be a separate lottery for the CM students and the regular, each being in the top 15 percentile in each group? Otherwise it’s apples and oranges and wouldn’t make sense. This is pure speculation—I have no idea how this will affect the lottery.

Not really; NWEA RIT scores have percentages based on grade level. I haven't seen data for 5th graders taking the 6th grade test but it likely exists and can be applied.

I see, so they could take the top 15% pooling together the 2 tests, and that might pull down some of the CM students because—in taking the harder test—they will be disadvantaged.

I have a current 5th grader in compacted math who took the 6+ MAP, so have actual skin in the game, and I'm not bothered by this. MAP is an exposure-based test, so the kids in compacted math have an advantage over the kids in Math 5 this year. I don't think MCPS is intentionally "balancing the scales" but I do recognize that my child has any number of advantages (compacted math, regular night's sleep, healthy breakfast). If they have a slight disadvantage in taking a harder test, it isn't the end of the world.

[Anonymous]

So there is one MAP test for fifth graders and another MAP test for 6th graders and up?

What does exposure based test mean? Kids need to answer questions about lots of things that they haven’t seen yet?

[Anonymous]

I have a current 6th grader who was in math 5/6 last year and took the 6th grade map in the spring. Her score dropped 15 points and her percentile went from 99 to 93. I think this was typical in her compacted math class. This would still have put her in the lottery but it’s also a score from spring when they had finished most of 6th grade math.

I’m surprised they didn’t just wait until the winter MAP for the switch this year.

[Anonymous]

Do you think there is a chance they are only considering students in compacted math for the math/science magnet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you think there is a chance they are only considering students in compacted math for the math/science magnet?

No, stop it.
Kids in a 6th grade math class are taking the MAP 6+.
It doesn't take a Galaxy Brain to understand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m guessing there will be a separate lottery for the CM students and the regular, each being in the top 15 percentile in each group? Otherwise it’s apples and oranges and wouldn’t make sense. This is pure speculation—I have no idea how this will affect the lottery.

Not really; NWEA RIT scores have percentages based on grade level. I haven't seen data for 5th graders taking the 6th grade test but it likely exists and can be applied.

NWEA doesn't differentiate percentile based on which version of the test is given, relying on the adaptive nature of the test to produce a continuum of RIT scores. That may work when considering averages across large populations or, to some degree, when looking at a longitudinal series of tests for an individual. However, there appears to be high individual variation seen at single test points when adding higher-level questions to the mix (such as at the grade 6+ version of the test). This showcases the infidelity to underlying ability/achievement of these kinds of tests when utilizing a single-point-in-time score (beyond any concern related to utilization of single data points as litmus tests for such decisions) -- the adaptive algorithm might present something it considers, say, 7th-grade level, which the student might not know, and then will "shift down" even if the student knows other sub-subject content at that or a higher level, which then doesn't get tested in the first place.

Yes, I know that adaptive tests may throw more than one question in at a particular level to counter this tendency, but, given the relatively few questions asked/short time allocated for these "untimed" tests and the 4 sub-subject areas covered, MAP doesn't really achieve adequate statistical certainty for an individual. This is among the reasons that, when not for a testing period used for selection criteria, families shouldn't worry too much about a one-off lower MAP score than expected. At the same time, families that can coach their children on test-taking skills (that tend to optimize expression of mastered content) create a distinct advantage towards selection.

It's not as if MAP is a terrible tool. It can be quite good as a guide for teaching if not relied upon in the absence of good classroom observation, and broad results (county-wide or school-wide averages, where that variation can be viewed though a proper stochastic lens) can help evaluate, say, curricular effectiveness. It's just a poor choice to be used in placement decisions (especially absent other system-independent measures) as MCPS does for their magnets.

By the way, those kids taking Math 5/6? MCPS also does not take their more rigorous course of study into account when reviewing the grade litmus used for inclusion in the criteria-based Math/Science/Computer Science magnet middle school lottery pool (and local-school AIM placement). This is only another of the several things that contribute to their approach failing to distinguish apples from oranges (and nectarines, and pears, and...).

Presuming no change from last year (they won't have OSA review until this coming spring), a student needs to get an A this quarter whether taking Math 5 or Math 5/6. That's along with an A in Science, an ON/ABV report card reading level, and hitting the required FARMS-rate-based, locally-normed MAP %ile, the currently used tables for which can be found, here:

resources.njgifted.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/2020-NWEA-Math-Norms.pdf

There are adjustments MCPS makes on an individual basis for IEP, 504, EML and FARMS (collectively, "students receiving services"), but they do not reveal what these adjustments entail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So there is one MAP test for fifth graders and another MAP test for 6th graders and up?

What does exposure based test mean? Kids need to answer questions about lots of things that they haven’t seen yet?

It tests basic questions from the non-honors curriculum. It doesn't have hard / tricky problems that use less knowledge. So, for a common example, a highly able kid might score lower because they have never seen the division symbol even though they could solve a division word problem using their own strategy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you think there is a chance they are only considering students in compacted math for the math/science magnet?

No, stop it.
Kids in a 6th grade math class are taking the MAP 6+.
It doesn't take a Galaxy Brain to understand.

Except that those in Math 5/6 haven't yet encountered 6th grade math. They'll be covering 5th grade content through December.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My child is in fifth grade and taking compacted math. He took the grade 6 map test this week. Does anyone know how this will affect placement into middle school magnets? How will they compare those who took the 6th grade test against those who took the 5th grade test?

This is all part of an MCPS conspiracy to help justify sending lower-performing students to the magnets over the high-scoring students. They know there is a correlation between affluence and standardized test scores so the is one of the ways they can improve selection diversity.

+1. They even say in all of their meetings that their goal for the magnets is to achieve proportionality from a race/ethnicity perspective. Meaning that the racial make up of the students in the magnets mirrors the racial make up of the students county-wide. But this ignores all of the data they present that clearly shows that certain racial groups are overwhelmingly testing and performing very very below grade level in aggregate. Until they intervene and remediate that reality at earlier grades, you do not have students prepared for these programs in equal ratios to their proportions in the system. And it’s incredible also, because the process of selecting students is supposed to be race blind! Their agenda isn’t to serve the biggest outliers or the kids without a cohort. Their agenda is to manipulate the admissions to demonstrate momentum toward racial proportionality. I would encourage them to actually work harder to improve their teaching methods in earlier grades because clearly a student’s race or ethnicity is not determinative of giftedness or ability.

To this and the point above about statistical uncertainty for individual scores, the data that OSA will use to review the selection criteria and present to the BOE almost certainly will be exlusively aggregate, reducing the uncertainty across the whole test-taking poulation, but not evidencing the underlying uncertainty (and likely injustices) when applying the selection methodology to individuals. If so, the review would tend to support continuation of the current paradigm more than it otherwise should.