MAP percentile cutoff for MS magnet lottery?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is a massive difference. I knew it was big but a child who is 93rd percentile in math is not at all the same as a child who is 60th percentile in math. I support a lot of what MCPS is trying to do with equity but a child who is 60th percentile in math does not need to be in a math magnet.

I completely agree. 60th isn’t even ballpark.

+1
It just waters down the magnet and stresses out kids who are in no way prepared for them level of rigor. I mean these are kids who wouldn’t get into AIM at their home school but are expected to do even higher level math at the magnet? That is not serving anyone.

FWIW my anxious kid with a 6th grade MAP in the 270s is finding it a challenge and is convinced most of the other kids are more advanced than they are. No evidence of kids out of their depth.

[Anonymous]

Only a small fraction of schools are Title 1 (60+ percentile) so i wouldn't lose sleep over it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is a massive difference. I knew it was big but a child who is 93rd percentile in math is not at all the same as a child who is 60th percentile in math. I support a lot of what MCPS is trying to do with equity but a child who is 60th percentile in math does not need to be in a math magnet.

I completely agree. 60th isn’t even ballpark.

+1
It just waters down the magnet and stresses out kids who are in no way prepared for them level of rigor. I mean these are kids who wouldn’t get into AIM at their home school but are expected to do even higher level math at the magnet? That is not serving anyone.

FWIW my anxious kid with a 6th grade MAP in the 270s is finding it a challenge and is convinced most of the other kids are more advanced than they are. No evidence of kids out of their depth.

Given that a kid in the high 99th percentile is finding it challenging, don’t think it’s an appropriate program for a kid 30 percentile points if more lower.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need to bring back the Cogat which is not based on achievement but on potential.

Yes, it was so easy to prep kids for this and made it much easier to game.

Get thee away from me, misuse-of-MAP-apologist!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is a massive difference. I knew it was big but a child who is 93rd percentile in math is not at all the same as a child who is 60th percentile in math. I support a lot of what MCPS is trying to do with equity but a child who is 60th percentile in math does not need to be in a math magnet.

I completely agree. 60th isn’t even ballpark.

+1
It just waters down the magnet and stresses out kids who are in no way prepared for them level of rigor. I mean these are kids who wouldn’t get into AIM at their home school but are expected to do even higher level math at the magnet? That is not serving anyone.

FWIW my anxious kid with a 6th grade MAP in the 270s is finding it a challenge and is convinced most of the other kids are more advanced than they are. No evidence of kids out of their depth.

Your child may have anxiety issues unrelated to math, since your child is already achieving most of the objectives of Algebra and Geometry.

Which part is challenging, the math or the computer science or some other part?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need to bring back the Cogat which is not based on achievement but on potential.

Yes, it was so easy to prep kids for this and made it much easier to game.

Game what?
The cutoffs are so low that almost anyone who attended Compacted Math (andany who don't) qualifies for the lottery

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is a massive difference. I knew it was big but a child who is 93rd percentile in math is not at all the same as a child who is 60th percentile in math. I support a lot of what MCPS is trying to do with equity but a child who is 60th percentile in math does not need to be in a math magnet.

I completely agree. 60th isn’t even ballpark.

It depends. With programs like CES, similar SES schools are typically grouped to the same centers.

You'd think they can see where this was successful and not and refine the percentiles accordingly.

For example, I have a kid at TPMS magnet. I do not have access to the data, but it seems like each year, they've refined the process to improve the selection. The first year there was a fairly high attrition rate because the process was frankly kind of bad especially from the high FARMS schools.

How do you refine a lottery?

The program is refining by: low FARMS students declining to attended, and the program softening to accommodate the less able/prepared students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is a massive difference. I knew it was big but a child who is 93rd percentile in math is not at all the same as a child who is 60th percentile in math. I support a lot of what MCPS is trying to do with equity but a child who is 60th percentile in math does not need to be in a math magnet.

I completely agree. 60th isn’t even ballpark.

+1
It just waters down the magnet and stresses out kids who are in no way prepared for them level of rigor. I mean these are kids who wouldn’t get into AIM at their home school but are expected to do even higher level math at the magnet? That is not serving anyone.

FWIW my anxious kid with a 6th grade MAP in the 270s is finding it a challenge and is convinced most of the other kids are more advanced than they are. No evidence of kids out of their depth.

Your child may have anxiety issues unrelated to math, since your child is already achieving most of the objectives of Algebra and Geometry.

Which part is challenging, the math or the computer science or some other part?

Math. Sounds like the teacher isn’t that great TBH, so my child hasn’t managed to follow everything..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know MCPS doesn’t publicize this info, but does anyone know the approximate cutoff for MAP scores to be placed in the lottery pools for the MS magnets like Eastern/TPMS/Clemente etc?

95th? 90th?

Thanks!

The percentiles given in prior posts, which can be seen as the ballpark estimate you requested, have been for a past year, 2021-22, per the MCPS response to the MCCPTA GEC request. Within the current lottery eligibility criteria, the percentile can (and did) change a bit each year for each school based on:

1) Whether the school's FARMS rate changed enough to put them in a new local-norming group (e.g., from low-moderate FARMS to low FARMS), and

2) The locally normed 85th percentile RIT score for that group. These also can be different between MAP-R, for the Humanities magnet, and MAP-M, for the Math magnet.

A change in the first factor likely would make more of a difference than a change in the second. They also could go with a higher locally normed target percentile (e.g., 90th instead of 85th).

There is a referenced, but unspecified, lower local norm threshold for students receiving services (individual FARMS, IEP, 504, EML); board docs indicate it was 70th percentile for the CES lottery last year, but doesn't specify the MS lottery percentile.

The precise answers aren't yet established for this year, and probably won't be made known by MCPS even when they are without an MPIA request.

For reference, local norming takes the percentage of students in the grade across the county who score at least at the target national percentile, per 2020 NWEA norms (norms won't be updated for another 2 years), and then identifies the RIT score met or exceeded for each local-norming FARMS-rate group by the same percentage of students in that grade at schools within that group.

[Anonymous]

They could also change the FARMS bands. I think one year they had 5 and then they changed it to 3. There's a lot of ways to manipulate the numbers to get your desired result.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need to bring back the Cogat which is not based on achievement but on potential.

Yes, it was so easy to prep kids for this and made it much easier to game.

Game what?
The cutoffs are so low that almost anyone who attended Compacted Math (andany who don't) qualifies for the lottery

Not necessarily true. At our low-FARMS elementary school only a handful of the probably 30 kids in compacted math qualified for the lottery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They could also change the FARMS bands. I think one year they had 5 and then they changed it to 3. There's a lot of ways to manipulate the numbers to get your desired result.

The one strength I need to give them credit for is their amazing ability to manipulate the data to produce their desired results. Heaven forbid they give every student the same test (which they do) and use the data itself to determine who is best prepared for the program. No, they must come up with very complex algorithms to allocate seats away from students with outlier performance and toward students with mediocre scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is a massive difference. I knew it was big but a child who is 93rd percentile in math is not at all the same as a child who is 60th percentile in math. I support a lot of what MCPS is trying to do with equity but a child who is 60th percentile in math does not need to be in a math magnet.

I completely agree. 60th isn’t even ballpark.

It depends. With programs like CES, similar SES schools are typically grouped to the same centers.

You'd think they can see where this was successful and not and refine the percentiles accordingly.

For example, I have a kid at TPMS magnet. I do not have access to the data, but it seems like each year, they've refined the process to improve the selection. The first year there was a fairly high attrition rate because the process was frankly kind of bad especially from the high FARMS schools.

How do you refine a lottery?

The program is refining by: low FARMS students declining to attended, and the program softening to accommodate the less able/prepared students.

I have a kid in the program now and one at Blair SMSC who went through it a few years ago. The program hasn't softened at all. There was even a fairly high attrition these past two years since they began the lottery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know MCPS doesn’t publicize this info, but does anyone know the approximate cutoff for MAP scores to be placed in the lottery pools for the MS magnets like Eastern/TPMS/Clemente etc?

95th? 90th?

Thanks!

The percentiles given in prior posts, which can be seen as the ballpark estimate you requested, have been for a past year, 2021-22, per the MCPS response to the MCCPTA GEC request. Within the current lottery eligibility criteria, the percentile can (and did) change a bit each year for each school based on:

1) Whether the school's FARMS rate changed enough to put them in a new local-norming group (e.g., from low-moderate FARMS to low FARMS), and

2) The locally normed 85th percentile RIT score for that group. These also can be different between MAP-R, for the Humanities magnet, and MAP-M, for the Math magnet.

A change in the first factor likely would make more of a difference than a change in the second. They also could go with a higher locally normed target percentile (e.g., 90th instead of 85th).

There is a referenced, but unspecified, lower local norm threshold for students receiving services (individual FARMS, IEP, 504, EML); board docs indicate it was 70th percentile for the CES lottery last year, but doesn't specify the MS lottery percentile.

The precise answers aren't yet established for this year, and probably won't be made known by MCPS even when they are without an MPIA request.

For reference, local norming takes the percentage of students in the grade across the county who score at least at the target national percentile, per 2020 NWEA norms (norms won't be updated for another 2 years), and then identifies the RIT score met or exceeded for each local-norming FARMS-rate group by the same percentage of students in that grade at schools within that group.

If I were to guess, they've been massaging these values every year to improve the process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They could also change the FARMS bands. I think one year they had 5 and then they changed it to 3. There's a lot of ways to manipulate the numbers to get your desired result.

Actually, I think that we all speculated that there were three because we thought it would go title one, focus schools, everyone else. When the freedom of information request finally went in, it turns out there were five and our speculation had been wrong all along.

I was also surprised to see how few schools were in the highest FARMS band. These are not mixed income schools, they are schools were almost every single kid qualifies for free and reduced meals. I think it alleviates some of the complaints about middle class families in high needs schools scooping up all of the spots.