The impact of IEP or 504 plan on magnet program selection

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Under the current magnet pool construction paradigm, both for CES and criteria-based MS magnets, there is an adjustment to the MAP score criteria for students receiving services -- EML/ESOL, FARMS, IEP and 504. Instead of needing a locally normed 85th %ile score, a locally normed 70th %ile is required.

With a significant proportion of IEPs & 504s coming from those with the means to identify, formally, conditions and pursue associated accommodations, this is one of the ways that MCPS has left the magnet selection system vulnerable to gaming. That's not to say it is a principal reason that MCPS might push back on a designation; it's more of an afterthought, if even that.

The timing of designation vs. applicability to magnet lottery pool creation (or appeal) is unclear. There are also the other criteria (grades, reading level), and the whole paradigm could always change -- there is some possibility of that this coming year with a review scheduled for this spring.

This 70th percentile claim is a guess, no where has such info been confirmed or published. In fact I know a kid with a 504 plan and 92nd percentile nationally that didn’t get in the lottery. Pretty sick even on a moderate farms school that’s about 70th percentile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Under the current magnet pool construction paradigm, both for CES and criteria-based MS magnets, there is an adjustment to the MAP score criteria for students receiving services -- EML/ESOL, FARMS, IEP and 504. Instead of needing a locally normed 85th %ile score, a locally normed 70th %ile is required.

With a significant proportion of IEPs & 504s coming from those with the means to identify, formally, conditions and pursue associated accommodations, this is one of the ways that MCPS has left the magnet selection system vulnerable to gaming. That's not to say it is a principal reason that MCPS might push back on a designation; it's more of an afterthought, if even that.

The timing of designation vs. applicability to magnet lottery pool creation (or appeal) is unclear. There are also the other criteria (grades, reading level), and the whole paradigm could always change -- there is some possibility of that this coming year with a review scheduled for this spring.

This 70th percentile claim is a guess, no where has such info been confirmed or published. In fact I know a kid with a 504 plan and 92nd percentile nationally that didn’t get in the lottery. Pretty sick even on a moderate farms school that’s about 70th percentile.

OP here, we have 99% Map M. Just worried that he could be not picked just because of the IEP or 504.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just make sure your kid can keep up with the work and wants to do it. Some kids with IEPs do great in the magnets, while others have a hard time because of the workload/ executive functioning skills. I am not sure how TPMS is, but it is hard at Eastern to modify the assignments or reduce workload. And Eastern has tons of group work, so your kiddo needs to be comfortable working in groups and knowing others are relying on them to make deadlines.

Mother of a kid with a 504 plan who went through Eastern magnet. I don't agree that it's hard to modify assignments or reduce workload at Eastern. TBH, at the time, what we found was that there was a school-wide culture of disability discrimination at all levels at Eastern. Once we reached out to the MCPS associate superintendent for special education noting factually Eastern's non-compliance with 504 law, requested accommodations were provided within 24 hours. This was 5+ years back and most (but not all) of the leadership and teachers engaging in that behavior have left.

I also disagree with the idea that the high degree of group work makes Eastern unsuitable with kids who need accommodation. IME, group work means that kids naturally accommodate each others strengths and weaknesses - someone has difficulty writing but is good at computer graphics and film-editing, but another kid writes easily and well - jobs are divided accordingly. Also, kids were graded on their portion of a task, so where one kid didn't do his/her job, other kids weren't dinged for it, IME.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Under the current magnet pool construction paradigm, both for CES and criteria-based MS magnets, there is an adjustment to the MAP score criteria for students receiving services -- EML/ESOL, FARMS, IEP and 504. Instead of needing a locally normed 85th %ile score, a locally normed 70th %ile is required.

With a significant proportion of IEPs & 504s coming from those with the means to identify, formally, conditions and pursue associated accommodations, this is one of the ways that MCPS has left the magnet selection system vulnerable to gaming. That's not to say it is a principal reason that MCPS might push back on a designation; it's more of an afterthought, if even that.

The timing of designation vs. applicability to magnet lottery pool creation (or appeal) is unclear. There are also the other criteria (grades, reading level), and the whole paradigm could always change -- there is some possibility of that this coming year with a review scheduled for this spring.

This 70th percentile claim is a guess, no where has such info been confirmed or published. In fact I know a kid with a 504 plan and 92nd percentile nationally that didn’t get in the lottery. Pretty sick even on a moderate farms school that’s about 70th percentile.

It's not 70th percentile nationally; it's 70th percentile locally normed; that could be higher or lower than 70th percentile nationally depending on the FARMs rate of the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Under the current magnet pool construction paradigm, both for CES and criteria-based MS magnets, there is an adjustment to the MAP score criteria for students receiving services -- EML/ESOL, FARMS, IEP and 504. Instead of needing a locally normed 85th %ile score, a locally normed 70th %ile is required.

With a significant proportion of IEPs & 504s coming from those with the means to identify, formally, conditions and pursue associated accommodations, this is one of the ways that MCPS has left the magnet selection system vulnerable to gaming. That's not to say it is a principal reason that MCPS might push back on a designation; it's more of an afterthought, if even that.

The timing of designation vs. applicability to magnet lottery pool creation (or appeal) is unclear. There are also the other criteria (grades, reading level), and the whole paradigm could always change -- there is some possibility of that this coming year with a review scheduled for this spring.

This 70th percentile claim is a guess, no where has such info been confirmed or published. In fact I know a kid with a 504 plan and 92nd percentile nationally that didn’t get in the lottery. Pretty sure even on a moderate farms school that’s about 70th percentile.

It's not 70th percentile nationally; it's 70th percentile locally normed; that could be higher or lower than 70th percentile nationally depending on the FARMs rate of the school.

I didn’t say it was 70th nationally. Please read my post again. However I did say that the 70th percentile cut off for kids with IEPs was fabricated, because it was and also is not borne out by experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Under the current magnet pool construction paradigm, both for CES and criteria-based MS magnets, there is an adjustment to the MAP score criteria for students receiving services -- EML/ESOL, FARMS, IEP and 504. Instead of needing a locally normed 85th %ile score, a locally normed 70th %ile is required.

With a significant proportion of IEPs & 504s coming from those with the means to identify, formally, conditions and pursue associated accommodations, this is one of the ways that MCPS has left the magnet selection system vulnerable to gaming. That's not to say it is a principal reason that MCPS might push back on a designation; it's more of an afterthought, if even that.

The timing of designation vs. applicability to magnet lottery pool creation (or appeal) is unclear. There are also the other criteria (grades, reading level), and the whole paradigm could always change -- there is some possibility of that this coming year with a review scheduled for this spring.

This 70th percentile claim is a guess, no where has such info been confirmed or published. In fact I know a kid with a 504 plan and 92nd percentile nationally that didn’t get in the lottery. Pretty sure even on a moderate farms school that’s about 70th percentile.

It's not 70th percentile nationally; it's 70th percentile locally normed; that could be higher or lower than 70th percentile nationally depending on the FARMs rate of the school.

I didn’t say it was 70th nationally. Please read my post again. However I did say that the 70th percentile cut off for kids with IEPs was fabricated, because it was and also is not borne out by experience.

It is not fabricated. I know because they mistakenly didn't consider my child's plan, and we appealed, and he were moved into the wait pool - and they said that for my kid the percentile should have been the 70th, which is how he got into the pool. He would not have made it at the 85th percentile locally normed.

I am not the person who cited the 70th percentile earlier. It sounds like that may have come through an MPIA filing. But I am confident that the 70th percentile figure is correct based on our experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Under the current magnet pool construction paradigm, both for CES and criteria-based MS magnets, there is an adjustment to the MAP score criteria for students receiving services -- EML/ESOL, FARMS, IEP and 504. Instead of needing a locally normed 85th %ile score, a locally normed 70th %ile is required.

With a significant proportion of IEPs & 504s coming from those with the means to identify, formally, conditions and pursue associated accommodations, this is one of the ways that MCPS has left the magnet selection system vulnerable to gaming. That's not to say it is a principal reason that MCPS might push back on a designation; it's more of an afterthought, if even that.

The timing of designation vs. applicability to magnet lottery pool creation (or appeal) is unclear. There are also the other criteria (grades, reading level), and the whole paradigm could always change -- there is some possibility of that this coming year with a review scheduled for this spring.

This 70th percentile claim is a guess, no where has such info been confirmed or published. In fact I know a kid with a 504 plan and 92nd percentile nationally that didn’t get in the lottery. Pretty sure even on a moderate farms school that’s about 70th percentile.

It's not 70th percentile nationally; it's 70th percentile locally normed; that could be higher or lower than 70th percentile nationally depending on the FARMs rate of the school.

I didn’t say it was 70th nationally. Please read my post again. However I did say that the 70th percentile cut off for kids with IEPs was fabricated, because it was and also is not borne out by experience.

It is not fabricated. I know because they mistakenly didn't consider my child's plan, and we appealed, and he were moved into the wait pool - and they said that for my kid the percentile should have been the 70th, which is how he got into the pool. He would not have made it at the 85th percentile locally normed.

I am not the person who cited the 70th percentile earlier. It sounds like that may have come through an MPIA filing. But I am confident that the 70th percentile figure is correct based on our experience.

I know multiple other people whose kids have IEPs and weren’t put in the pool but must have been above 70th. So either it’s wrong or they didn’t apply it. To anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Under the current magnet pool construction paradigm, both for CES and criteria-based MS magnets, there is an adjustment to the MAP score criteria for students receiving services -- EML/ESOL, FARMS, IEP and 504. Instead of needing a locally normed 85th %ile score, a locally normed 70th %ile is required.

With a significant proportion of IEPs & 504s coming from those with the means to identify, formally, conditions and pursue associated accommodations, this is one of the ways that MCPS has left the magnet selection system vulnerable to gaming. That's not to say it is a principal reason that MCPS might push back on a designation; it's more of an afterthought, if even that.

The timing of designation vs. applicability to magnet lottery pool creation (or appeal) is unclear. There are also the other criteria (grades, reading level), and the whole paradigm could always change -- there is some possibility of that this coming year with a review scheduled for this spring.

This 70th percentile claim is a guess, no where has such info been confirmed or published. In fact I know a kid with a 504 plan and 92nd percentile nationally that didn’t get in the lottery. Pretty sure even on a moderate farms school that’s about 70th percentile.

It's not 70th percentile nationally; it's 70th percentile locally normed; that could be higher or lower than 70th percentile nationally depending on the FARMs rate of the school.

I didn’t say it was 70th nationally. Please read my post again. However I did say that the 70th percentile cut off for kids with IEPs was fabricated, because it was and also is not borne out by experience.

It is not fabricated. I know because they mistakenly didn't consider my child's plan, and we appealed, and he were moved into the wait pool - and they said that for my kid the percentile should have been the 70th, which is how he got into the pool. He would not have made it at the 85th percentile locally normed.

I am not the person who cited the 70th percentile earlier. It sounds like that may have come through an MPIA filing. But I am confident that the 70th percentile figure is correct based on our experience.

I just looked at the MPIA document, and it explicitly says that the same norms are applied.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Under the current magnet pool construction paradigm, both for CES and criteria-based MS magnets, there is an adjustment to the MAP score criteria for students receiving services -- EML/ESOL, FARMS, IEP and 504. Instead of needing a locally normed 85th %ile score, a locally normed 70th %ile is required.

With a significant proportion of IEPs & 504s coming from those with the means to identify, formally, conditions and pursue associated accommodations, this is one of the ways that MCPS has left the magnet selection system vulnerable to gaming. That's not to say it is a principal reason that MCPS might push back on a designation; it's more of an afterthought, if even that.

The timing of designation vs. applicability to magnet lottery pool creation (or appeal) is unclear. There are also the other criteria (grades, reading level), and the whole paradigm could always change -- there is some possibility of that this coming year with a review scheduled for this spring.

This 70th percentile claim is a guess, no where has such info been confirmed or published. In fact I know a kid with a 504 plan and 92nd percentile nationally that didn’t get in the lottery. Pretty sure even on a moderate farms school that’s about 70th percentile.

It's not 70th percentile nationally; it's 70th percentile locally normed; that could be higher or lower than 70th percentile nationally depending on the FARMs rate of the school.

I didn’t say it was 70th nationally. Please read my post again. However I did say that the 70th percentile cut off for kids with IEPs was fabricated, because it was and also is not borne out by experience.

It is not fabricated. I know because they mistakenly didn't consider my child's plan, and we appealed, and he were moved into the wait pool - and they said that for my kid the percentile should have been the 70th, which is how he got into the pool. He would not have made it at the 85th percentile locally normed.

I am not the person who cited the 70th percentile earlier. It sounds like that may have come through an MPIA filing. But I am confident that the 70th percentile figure is correct based on our experience.

I know multiple other people whose kids have IEPs and weren’t put in the pool but must have been above 70th. So either it’s wrong or they didn’t apply it. To anyone.

DP, and they do absolutely use a 70th percentile local norm for those students. But they also take a second look for anyone who meets the threshold to confirm they can provide the services in the IEP or accommodations in the 504. If they cannot, they will then remove the child from the pool. My child has a 504 and was in the pool. I also know kids with IEPs who were in the pool and also matriculated. But your friend’s child may have had something in the IEP that could not be provided or accommodated within the program. Or maybe you go to a low poverty school and the kid was like 80th percentile nationally, but due to the volume of high scores in that band, was locally normed to 69 percent or something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Under the current magnet pool construction paradigm, both for CES and criteria-based MS magnets, there is an adjustment to the MAP score criteria for students receiving services -- EML/ESOL, FARMS, IEP and 504. Instead of needing a locally normed 85th %ile score, a locally normed 70th %ile is required.

With a significant proportion of IEPs & 504s coming from those with the means to identify, formally, conditions and pursue associated accommodations, this is one of the ways that MCPS has left the magnet selection system vulnerable to gaming. That's not to say it is a principal reason that MCPS might push back on a designation; it's more of an afterthought, if even that.

The timing of designation vs. applicability to magnet lottery pool creation (or appeal) is unclear. There are also the other criteria (grades, reading level), and the whole paradigm could always change -- there is some possibility of that this coming year with a review scheduled for this spring.

This 70th percentile claim is a guess, no where has such info been confirmed or published. In fact I know a kid with a 504 plan and 92nd percentile nationally that didn’t get in the lottery. Pretty sure even on a moderate farms school that’s about 70th percentile.

It's not 70th percentile nationally; it's 70th percentile locally normed; that could be higher or lower than 70th percentile nationally depending on the FARMs rate of the school.

I didn’t say it was 70th nationally. Please read my post again. However I did say that the 70th percentile cut off for kids with IEPs was fabricated, because it was and also is not borne out by experience.

It is not fabricated. I know because they mistakenly didn't consider my child's plan, and we appealed, and he were moved into the wait pool - and they said that for my kid the percentile should have been the 70th, which is how he got into the pool. He would not have made it at the 85th percentile locally normed.

I am not the person who cited the 70th percentile earlier. It sounds like that may have come through an MPIA filing. But I am confident that the 70th percentile figure is correct based on our experience.

I know multiple other people whose kids have IEPs and weren’t put in the pool but must have been above 70th. So either it’s wrong or they didn’t apply it. To anyone.

DP, and they do absolutely use a 70th percentile local norm for those students. But they also take a second look for anyone who meets the threshold to confirm they can provide the services in the IEP or accommodations in the 504. If they cannot, they will then remove the child from the pool. My child has a 504 and was in the pool. I also know kids with IEPs who were in the pool and also matriculated. But your friend’s child may have had something in the IEP that could not be provided or accommodated within the program. Or maybe you go to a low poverty school and the kid was like 80th percentile nationally, but due to the volume of high scores in that band, was locally normed to 69 percent or something.

See post above that confirms that the same local norms are applied. Ergo you are incorrect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Under the current magnet pool construction paradigm, both for CES and criteria-based MS magnets, there is an adjustment to the MAP score criteria for students receiving services -- EML/ESOL, FARMS, IEP and 504. Instead of needing a locally normed 85th %ile score, a locally normed 70th %ile is required.

With a significant proportion of IEPs & 504s coming from those with the means to identify, formally, conditions and pursue associated accommodations, this is one of the ways that MCPS has left the magnet selection system vulnerable to gaming. That's not to say it is a principal reason that MCPS might push back on a designation; it's more of an afterthought, if even that.

The timing of designation vs. applicability to magnet lottery pool creation (or appeal) is unclear. There are also the other criteria (grades, reading level), and the whole paradigm could always change -- there is some possibility of that this coming year with a review scheduled for this spring.

This 70th percentile claim is a guess, no where has such info been confirmed or published. In fact I know a kid with a 504 plan and 92nd percentile nationally that didn’t get in the lottery. Pretty sure even on a moderate farms school that’s about 70th percentile.

It's not 70th percentile nationally; it's 70th percentile locally normed; that could be higher or lower than 70th percentile nationally depending on the FARMs rate of the school.

I didn’t say it was 70th nationally. Please read my post again. However I did say that the 70th percentile cut off for kids with IEPs was fabricated, because it was and also is not borne out by experience.

It is not fabricated. I know because they mistakenly didn't consider my child's plan, and we appealed, and he were moved into the wait pool - and they said that for my kid the percentile should have been the 70th, which is how he got into the pool. He would not have made it at the 85th percentile locally normed.

I am not the person who cited the 70th percentile earlier. It sounds like that may have come through an MPIA filing. But I am confident that the 70th percentile figure is correct based on our experience.

I know multiple other people whose kids have IEPs and weren’t put in the pool but must have been above 70th. So either it’s wrong or they didn’t apply it. To anyone.

DP, and they do absolutely use a 70th percentile local norm for those students. But they also take a second look for anyone who meets the threshold to confirm they can provide the services in the IEP or accommodations in the 504. If they cannot, they will then remove the child from the pool. My child has a 504 and was in the pool. I also know kids with IEPs who were in the pool and also matriculated. But your friend’s child may have had something in the IEP that could not be provided or accommodated within the program. Or maybe you go to a low poverty school and the kid was like 80th percentile nationally, but due to the volume of high scores in that band, was locally normed to 69 percent or something.

See post above that confirms that the same local norms are applied. Ergo you are incorrect.

Just because you believe it and posted it doesn’t make it true. I assure you it was published. I think it was in a presentation made during a BOE meeting last year but can’t recall. There are multiple posters who are not me who are also aware of the 70th threshold.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Under the current magnet pool construction paradigm, both for CES and criteria-based MS magnets, there is an adjustment to the MAP score criteria for students receiving services -- EML/ESOL, FARMS, IEP and 504. Instead of needing a locally normed 85th %ile score, a locally normed 70th %ile is required.

With a significant proportion of IEPs & 504s coming from those with the means to identify, formally, conditions and pursue associated accommodations, this is one of the ways that MCPS has left the magnet selection system vulnerable to gaming. That's not to say it is a principal reason that MCPS might push back on a designation; it's more of an afterthought, if even that.

The timing of designation vs. applicability to magnet lottery pool creation (or appeal) is unclear. There are also the other criteria (grades, reading level), and the whole paradigm could always change -- there is some possibility of that this coming year with a review scheduled for this spring.

This 70th percentile claim is a guess, no where has such info been confirmed or published. In fact I know a kid with a 504 plan and 92nd percentile nationally that didn’t get in the lottery. Pretty sick even on a moderate farms school that’s about 70th percentile.

See the slide marked 15/45, box 1, 4th bullet:

https://www2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/siteassets/district/boe/meetings/memorandum/09/uploadedfiles/boe/meetings/memorandum/230119-ap-capstone-magnet-prog-12-06-2022-01-c-d-e-bd.pdf

It says 70th percentile local norm for students receiving services instead of 85th percentile.

This was a follow-up to BOE questions, either in December of 2022 or January of 2023 (date of the memo is 1/19/23). I don't think it was ever discussed at a meeting, and it may have been posted some time later. These kinds of follow-ups don't always appear on the boarddocs site, and, since the BOE makes the meeting videos their record (no official written transcript, no separate files with full content of presentations made, etc.), it's one of the ways information of interest might get buried, intentionally or not.

I'd almost think that this was overlooked by MCPS, since they have been so reluctant to provide the full specifics of the paradigm, especially that 15 percentile accommodation for those receiving services (maybe a third or so of the population?). If you look through the whole set of slides, there are other places where it more ambiguously is mentioned, though the slides for the various programs are all in nearly the same format. Someone at a lower level preparing the slides might have put the full info in there, with someone higher up editing that to hold that specific piece of info out but missing this one slide. There's at least one copy/paste error, too -- mention of MAP-M instead of MAP-R on the literacy slide; it's not that that's terrible or anything, just that it might show something done in a bit of haste. While the 70 slipped through only on that one slide, I'd strongly think that this was the paradigm across the board for all of the elementary & middle school criteria-based decisions.

As an aside, I'm not suggesting that an accommodation is inappropriate. I do think that the heuristic would be better if more finely tuned, given the limitations of the measures they have (e.g., MAP) and the varied characteristics of the student population that might justify adjustment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Under the current magnet pool construction paradigm, both for CES and criteria-based MS magnets, there is an adjustment to the MAP score criteria for students receiving services -- EML/ESOL, FARMS, IEP and 504. Instead of needing a locally normed 85th %ile score, a locally normed 70th %ile is required.

With a significant proportion of IEPs & 504s coming from those with the means to identify, formally, conditions and pursue associated accommodations, this is one of the ways that MCPS has left the magnet selection system vulnerable to gaming. That's not to say it is a principal reason that MCPS might push back on a designation; it's more of an afterthought, if even that.

The timing of designation vs. applicability to magnet lottery pool creation (or appeal) is unclear. There are also the other criteria (grades, reading level), and the whole paradigm could always change -- there is some possibility of that this coming year with a review scheduled for this spring.

This 70th percentile claim is a guess, no where has such info been confirmed or published. In fact I know a kid with a 504 plan and 92nd percentile nationally that didn’t get in the lottery. Pretty sick even on a moderate farms school that’s about 70th percentile.

See the slide marked 15/45, box 1, 4th bullet:

https://www2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/siteassets/district/boe/meetings/memorandum/09/uploadedfiles/boe/meetings/memorandum/230119-ap-capstone-magnet-prog-12-06-2022-01-c-d-e-bd.pdf

It says 70th percentile local norm for students receiving services instead of 85th percentile.

This was a follow-up to BOE questions, either in December of 2022 or January of 2023 (date of the memo is 1/19/23). I don't think it was ever discussed at a meeting, and it may have been posted some time later. These kinds of follow-ups don't always appear on the boarddocs site, and, since the BOE makes the meeting videos their record (no official written transcript, no separate files with full content of presentations made, etc.), it's one of the ways information of interest might get buried, intentionally or not.

I'd almost think that this was overlooked by MCPS, since they have been so reluctant to provide the full specifics of the paradigm, especially that 15 percentile accommodation for those receiving services (maybe a third or so of the population?). If you look through the whole set of slides, there are other places where it more ambiguously is mentioned, though the slides for the various programs are all in nearly the same format. Someone at a lower level preparing the slides might have put the full info in there, with someone higher up editing that to hold that specific piece of info out but missing this one slide. There's at least one copy/paste error, too -- mention of MAP-M instead of MAP-R on the literacy slide; it's not that that's terrible or anything, just that it might show something done in a bit of haste. While the 70 slipped through only on that one slide, I'd strongly think that this was the paradigm across the board for all of the elementary & middle school criteria-based decisions.

As an aside, I'm not suggesting that an accommodation is inappropriate. I do think that the heuristic would be better if more finely tuned, given the limitations of the measures they have (e.g., MAP) and the varied characteristics of the student population that might justify adjustment.

Thank you for digging this up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Under the current magnet pool construction paradigm, both for CES and criteria-based MS magnets, there is an adjustment to the MAP score criteria for students receiving services -- EML/ESOL, FARMS, IEP and 504. Instead of needing a locally normed 85th %ile score, a locally normed 70th %ile is required.

With a significant proportion of IEPs & 504s coming from those with the means to identify, formally, conditions and pursue associated accommodations, this is one of the ways that MCPS has left the magnet selection system vulnerable to gaming. That's not to say it is a principal reason that MCPS might push back on a designation; it's more of an afterthought, if even that.

The timing of designation vs. applicability to magnet lottery pool creation (or appeal) is unclear. There are also the other criteria (grades, reading level), and the whole paradigm could always change -- there is some possibility of that this coming year with a review scheduled for this spring.

This 70th percentile claim is a guess, no where has such info been confirmed or published. In fact I know a kid with a 504 plan and 92nd percentile nationally that didn’t get in the lottery. Pretty sick even on a moderate farms school that’s about 70th percentile.

See the slide marked 15/45, box 1, 4th bullet:

https://www2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/siteassets/district/boe/meetings/memorandum/09/uploadedfiles/boe/meetings/memorandum/230119-ap-capstone-magnet-prog-12-06-2022-01-c-d-e-bd.pdf

It says 70th percentile local norm for students receiving services instead of 85th percentile.

This was a follow-up to BOE questions, either in December of 2022 or January of 2023 (date of the memo is 1/19/23). I don't think it was ever discussed at a meeting, and it may have been posted some time later. These kinds of follow-ups don't always appear on the boarddocs site, and, since the BOE makes the meeting videos their record (no official written transcript, no separate files with full content of presentations made, etc.), it's one of the ways information of interest might get buried, intentionally or not.

I'd almost think that this was overlooked by MCPS, since they have been so reluctant to provide the full specifics of the paradigm, especially that 15 percentile accommodation for those receiving services (maybe a third or so of the population?). If you look through the whole set of slides, there are other places where it more ambiguously is mentioned, though the slides for the various programs are all in nearly the same format. Someone at a lower level preparing the slides might have put the full info in there, with someone higher up editing that to hold that specific piece of info out but missing this one slide. There's at least one copy/paste error, too -- mention of MAP-M instead of MAP-R on the literacy slide; it's not that that's terrible or anything, just that it might show something done in a bit of haste. While the 70 slipped through only on that one slide, I'd strongly think that this was the paradigm across the board for all of the elementary & middle school criteria-based decisions.

As an aside, I'm not suggesting that an accommodation is inappropriate. I do think that the heuristic would be better if more finely tuned, given the limitations of the measures they have (e.g., MAP) and the varied characteristics of the student population that might justify adjustment.

I asked that question of MCPS and they said it is not correct. Maybe an error in the presentation?

[Anonymous]

Hang on, the presentation references CES. I asked about middle school magnets and 70 percent is not correct. They have not shared any different cut off re MS.