Middle school lottery
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| can you apply from private school? |
Anonymous
| For private school https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/specialprograms/middle has a link about how to apply |
Anonymous
It's top 15% in your school's SES band, but otherwise yes. One additional note is that the "bands" are not equally sized. The highest FARMS category (with the 70% national cut-off) is only a few schools, not even all of the Title I schools in MCPS. Given the profiles at those schools, the lower cut-off feels pretty defensible. These are schools with FARMS rates of over 80 percent and where another 10 percent or so are probably FARMS-eligible but too afraid to apply. If a kid can come out of that situation at above a 70 percent nationally normed score, I think it's very likely that they have a ton of untapped potential that won't be met at their home MS. |
Anonymous
Every DCUM kid is 99th percentile. Some are more 99th than others. |
Anonymous
Since the lottery picks from the top 15% only 1 in 15 are in the 99th percentile these days. |
Anonymous
No they aren’t, and they are not in real life either. 99th percentile scores are as unusual as you’d expect and my kids teachers have never acted like they are a dime a dozen like implied here. |
Anonymous
If so, it's possible that the low-FARMS band has scores such that 90th percentile nationally is under 70th percentile for that band (local norming). |
Anonymous
"If you know where to look" is a bit of a problem for MCPS and similar organizations. Also, where is the public information that provides the locally normed percentiles for the various FARMS-rate tranches this year? Where are the criteria-based MS lottery pool specific adjustments noted for those receiving services, so we don't need to guess that it is 70th %ile locally normed like was noted for the CES lottery (in a very difficult to find document that required a BOE question to evidence in the first place)? |
Anonymous
They tiptoed around the adjustment for those receiving services in their response to the MCCPTA public info request, suggesting it was the "same process" but not noting the adjusted criteria. Then they didn't respond to follow-up questions when asked to clarify. And that data they did share was from 2 years back. The locally normed percentiles may have changed, undermining that as a basis for such an appeal, but one can't know without their being forthright with the information. |
Anonymous
Well I'd like to hope they've adjusted their criteria based on data since the first lottery year had fairly high attrition. |
Anonymous
And it’s also more likely that the claims of a cut off that is based on a guess are completely wrong and just a guess. |
Anonymous
Insufferable. What part of "But the parallels are so direct as to make 70th a very reasonable guess." did you misinterpret? And one has a hard time reading your second paragraph without reducing it to the forecast "No, it's not." (with no backing data/citation). Again, happy to be shown it is different from that posited. It should be about providing everyone with a clear picture. |
Anonymous
|
Of course, MAP scores will vary every time the test is administered because the tests themselves are different, never mind the inherent uncertainties of student performance. A student with (for example) a MAP-M of 225 could take the MAP again tomorrow and score 219 or 227. So knowing what the exact numerical cutoff for the MS lottery was this year (whether for each FARMS band, for each ES, or for some other population segment) isn't going to help anyone plan for next year. Same with percentages: that imaginary MAP-M of 225 could place a student at 73% or 62% or 98% depending on how the other test-takers scored on that individual test administration.
"Top 15%" is often kicked around as the lottery stat for MCPS, and that's probably not a bad ballpark just for thought-experiment purposes, but since everyone else's performance is an unknown, it's very hard to guess whether any given student (unless they are truly off the charts) is eligible for the lottery pool prior to notification. The best advice I have is to feed DC a great breakfast on MAP days, make sure they earn those required A grades in the appropriate subjects, and then forget about the entire thing until the notifications come down. There are appeals processes that you can use if you think a mistake has been made, so you can use the intervening time to learn about those. |
Anonymous
The score variation noted is true, along with the uncertainty about anything that might be termed planning, but that doesn't mean there is no value in MCPS providing detailed disclosure of the past & current criteria, including cutoffs resulting from local norming. The appeals process would be truer to its presumed purpose of all of that was clearly understood by both appellant and potential reviewers, including the BOE. Also of public interest would be the number of appeals, the proportion of those that were successful, the de-identified nature of successful & unsuccessful appeals, and the resulting measures taken by MCPS to support those successfully appealing. Hiding the information suggests that MCPS wishes to quash both appeals and any critique that might be brought to the attention of oversight bodies (e.g., the BOE). That seems to have been MCPS's modus operandi for many issues. The most prominent, recently, brought down the Superintendent. It's a shame that the nature of that, bad as it was, drew action where similarly handled issues (important, themselves, though of considerably different nature) remain unaddressed. |
Anonymous
|
An overly robust appeals process verges very close to an application process after the fact, which is exactly what MCPS is trying to avoid at this level.
Appealing on the grounds of actual errors made is one thing; appealing because someone thinks (for example) that the grade 5 teacher was overly hard in awarding a B grade in first-quarter writing is a slippery slope. I'm not saying that parents and guardians wouldn't want to go to bat for their kids, only that it is not in the interest of a system operating on this scale to introduce back-scrutiny at this level. Major questions of equity would also arise. |