CES letters?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone point me to the actual measures being used? I have a friend who got their letter that their kid didn't even make the lottery, but based on reading level, grades and MAP definitely should have. We keep talking about 75th %ile but now I cant find where that is.

I know what the general measures are because I got our letter, but I'm trying to find specifics. This process is SO opaque.

I hear you. Our daughter was in the 95th MAP-R percentile, straight A's, always multiple grade levels above in reading/lexile level and wasn't even chosen for the pool either, which seems to cut against this FAQ that was added on 3/29 to the FAQs on MCPS's CES website:

"What data was used to review Grade 3 students for needing enriched services in Grade 4?

Multiple measures including Grade 3 marking period 2 report cards, locally-normed percentile ranks for the winter 2022 Measures of Adequate Progress in Reading (MAP-R), instructional reading level and student services including: special education services, ESOL- English for Speakers of Other Languages, Section 504 accommodations plan and Free and Reduced-priced Meals. Students who meet the following academic criteria will receive enriched literacy services in Grade 4:

-Grade 3 Marking Period 2 Reading ‘A’ and
-Grade 3 Marking Period 2 Writing or Social Studies ‘A’
-Reading level ‘On’ or ‘Above’
-85th Percentile Local Norm on MAP- R

The enriched literacy services may be delivered at your student’s current school or in a regional CES program. Students who meet the academic criteria will be placed into a lottery pool for potential placement in a CES program. Placement in the regional CES program is by lottery only."

The only thing we can think of is that our "locally normed" MAP-R might be astronomically high.

I would call AEI on that one - 95% is very high not to make pool.

Yeah, we're in the same boat. 97% Fall and 95% Winter MAP-R, straight As, etc, but at a very high SES school, so maybe it's the "locally normed" factor. We weren't planning on sending our kid to CES anyway but I would have expected her to at least make the pool??

Look even a high SES school isn't going to be too far off national norms. The pool was like the 75%. I imagine it's possible to miss that maybe at 85% national but at 95% I would have to say highly unlikely.

Not in pool means no guarantee for ELC, so I would follow-up with AEI to get clarification on this. 95/97 not in pool seems extreme

Viewing the system through an anti-racist lens, I could see a scenario where MCPS sets the bar exceptionally high at high SES/low FARMs schools (i.e., 98/99% MAP-R) in order to drive down the number of kids from those schools who get into the pool in an effort to boost the chances of kids from low SES/high FARMS schools to get into CES.

Not PP. This would be fine with me, but there's no indication that's what's happening this year, and though the MCPS language is squishy, your proposal? conjecture? is explicitly not what's happening. And based on what I know about last year (very limited) it's not what happened last year.

What info do you have to support this?

...the fact that they said the bar was at 75 or 85% locally normed? Again, the language is a little squishy, but all I mean is that *from what is publicly available and implied, if not stated*, that MCPS did not "set the bar" at 98-99% for high SES schools. That implies, to me, some sneaky intentionality that's not in evidence. Like they saw that locally-normed 85% at some W feeder was 90% nationally and they decided that would send too many W feeder kids to the CES, so they just said eff it and "set the bar" at 99%.

Besides not being in evidence, I don't believe there is an ES in MCPS where 15% or 25% of kids score in the 99th percentile nationally. Unless someone presents credible evidence otherwise, I'd say that if one exists, it would be a statistical outlier among decades of such classes and schools.

So you know what "locally normed" means, how exactly? From that update MCPS released a few weeks ago that basically said that "locally normed means we norm scores locally, which entails taking scores and norming them for each school, on a local basis". Locally normed is not defined anywhere and I don't think it *implies* anything close to what you think it does. Why is it so far-fetched to think that MCPS took the average high FARMS school and saw that 85th percentile yielded, say, the top 10% of kids and then set the bar at low FARMS schools at whatever percentile yielded the top 10% of kids there. I can tell you for a fact that at my DD's low FARMS/high SES elementary school that getting a 90th or 95th percentile on a MAP test is not that special, so I could see how a 98th/99th percentile would be required to crack the top 10%.

I'm with you that I'm not necessarily against this approach, but to think it's outlandish to think that MCPS took an anti-racist approach and designed a system to make sure that the same percentage of high FARMS kids get into the pool than low FARMS kids and that this results in setting the bar at the lowest FARMS schools at what some here have called "extreme" or "unlikely" is naive.

I feel like others addressed the implausibility of this in my absence, but look...

I think you might be the same person who was actually backing me up on another thread about how poorly worded and unclear the MCPS site is about the term "locally-normed." That's still true! But even in that thread, I noted it doesn't JUST say "local norms are locally normed in a local normy kind of way." It also states that local norms are based on school FARMS rates (and maybe, arguably, something else SES-related— although probably just FARMS). That there are tiers of schools and they're separated by FARMS rates. And it then says 85th percentile+ within those groups/tiers. I can’t prove that there’s absolutely no way they’re doing what you’re suggesting they might be doing— but you have even less proof. I totally agree it’s not as clear as it could be, but it’s also not as though they give zero guidelines that they would have to be actively flouting.

That’s #1.

#2 is that you have tiny bits of pure (and unreliable and unfalsifiable) anecdote and you’re using that along with your preconceived notions to draw conclusions that are frankly, kind of wild. Not impossible, but definitely not supported by fact. Incompetence, incidental errors or some error in self-reporting is far more likely.

Maybe that should be #1. Imagining what could be true, completely unconnected to any real data, is kind of the definition of conjecture— and the opposite of Occam’s Razor.

I noticed a bunch of other people are having this problem-- drawing conclusions from this thread. Folks, there could be plenty of kids closer to 85th percentile nationally (210s) who were randomly selected. But they're likely to be from less academically anxious, UMC/white families than the ones who frequent DCUM and particularly would be likely to self-selectively respond to this thread. The critical thinking skills in this thread among parents about their "gifted" kids...

#3 is what others have noted-- that it is no small thing to have a school where the 1.5% nationally makes up 15% within one school. It’s 10x the national number. That’s essentially almost never a thing in a random public school, even in the wealthiest neighborhood.

Time and time again, it’s been proven that MoCo, one of the wealthiest, most educated places in the US, does not have public school students who test, on average, far, far above national average test scores. Nor is the distribution of test scores wildly different here than in the US as a whole. That would necessarily imply that we also have an unusual number of extremely low-performing students, and we do not.

Now, it’s true that some individual schools have many more “above average” students than others.

But.

You’re not proposing schools with, say, 50% or 75% more very high scoring kids. You’re proposing schools with 900% more.

Now, this is an example, so hopefully no one gets too excited. But let’s say there is a school where the kids ALL test above the national average. The lowest test score is ~50th percentile. If it also has a distribution similar to almost any other school, the top quarter will be in the 87.5th percentile nationally. The top 4% will be in the 98th+ percentile nationally.

To have a school who doesn’t have a highly unusual percentage of kids clustered implausibly at the very very *very* top and still has about 15% of its students score in the top ~1.5% nationally, you’d be looking at a school where no one scores below about the 90th percentile.

Or else, like I said, you’d have to have a school with an even higher percentage of extremely high scorers (95++ percentile nationally) and then highly unusual patterns among the rest of the students.

And you’re saying there’s a school— or multiple schools— that are like this.

That just absolutely beggars belief.

Class and race privilege gives kids more of a floor than anything else. Not all of the kids, but on average. It can help modestly increase the percentage of high scorers, but not what you’re proposing. You may see many fewer “below average” kids in a privileged area, but you don’t suddenly see TEN TIMES the “geniuses” based on class and race privilege.

It’s just not plausible.

My daughter scored in the 95th percentile in her MAP-R and did not qualify for the pool. Straight A's in reading, writing and social studies, high instructional reading level, etc. etc. We're in a W feeder. Tell me why it's just not plausible? Do you think MCPS made a mistake somehow? Seriously, I'd love to know because we were pretty surprised that, according to MCPS, our DD doesn't belong in the pool and doesn't deserve enrichment next year.

This is why a different PP (me, not the one who did the quoted analysis) suggested you call AEI to find out more details. Reading the analysis above, I am reconvinced that something doesn't feel right about your daughter not being in pool. If your school has ELC, you want your daughter in it. Really, do try to find out the why. Mistakes happen.

[Anonymous]

And then come back and tell us what happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone point me to the actual measures being used? I have a friend who got their letter that their kid didn't even make the lottery, but based on reading level, grades and MAP definitely should have. We keep talking about 75th %ile but now I cant find where that is.

I know what the general measures are because I got our letter, but I'm trying to find specifics. This process is SO opaque.

I hear you. Our daughter was in the 95th MAP-R percentile, straight A's, always multiple grade levels above in reading/lexile level and wasn't even chosen for the pool either, which seems to cut against this FAQ that was added on 3/29 to the FAQs on MCPS's CES website:

"What data was used to review Grade 3 students for needing enriched services in Grade 4?

Multiple measures including Grade 3 marking period 2 report cards, locally-normed percentile ranks for the winter 2022 Measures of Adequate Progress in Reading (MAP-R), instructional reading level and student services including: special education services, ESOL- English for Speakers of Other Languages, Section 504 accommodations plan and Free and Reduced-priced Meals. Students who meet the following academic criteria will receive enriched literacy services in Grade 4:

-Grade 3 Marking Period 2 Reading ‘A’ and
-Grade 3 Marking Period 2 Writing or Social Studies ‘A’
-Reading level ‘On’ or ‘Above’
-85th Percentile Local Norm on MAP- R

The enriched literacy services may be delivered at your student’s current school or in a regional CES program. Students who meet the academic criteria will be placed into a lottery pool for potential placement in a CES program. Placement in the regional CES program is by lottery only."

The only thing we can think of is that our "locally normed" MAP-R might be astronomically high.

I would call AEI on that one - 95% is very high not to make pool.

Yeah, we're in the same boat. 97% Fall and 95% Winter MAP-R, straight As, etc, but at a very high SES school, so maybe it's the "locally normed" factor. We weren't planning on sending our kid to CES anyway but I would have expected her to at least make the pool??

Look even a high SES school isn't going to be too far off national norms. The pool was like the 75%. I imagine it's possible to miss that maybe at 85% national but at 95% I would have to say highly unlikely.

Not in pool means no guarantee for ELC, so I would follow-up with AEI to get clarification on this. 95/97 not in pool seems extreme

Viewing the system through an anti-racist lens, I could see a scenario where MCPS sets the bar exceptionally high at high SES/low FARMs schools (i.e., 98/99% MAP-R) in order to drive down the number of kids from those schools who get into the pool in an effort to boost the chances of kids from low SES/high FARMS schools to get into CES.

Not PP. This would be fine with me, but there's no indication that's what's happening this year, and though the MCPS language is squishy, your proposal? conjecture? is explicitly not what's happening. And based on what I know about last year (very limited) it's not what happened last year.

What info do you have to support this?

...the fact that they said the bar was at 75 or 85% locally normed? Again, the language is a little squishy, but all I mean is that *from what is publicly available and implied, if not stated*, that MCPS did not "set the bar" at 98-99% for high SES schools. That implies, to me, some sneaky intentionality that's not in evidence. Like they saw that locally-normed 85% at some W feeder was 90% nationally and they decided that would send too many W feeder kids to the CES, so they just said eff it and "set the bar" at 99%.

Besides not being in evidence, I don't believe there is an ES in MCPS where 15% or 25% of kids score in the 99th percentile nationally. Unless someone presents credible evidence otherwise, I'd say that if one exists, it would be a statistical outlier among decades of such classes and schools.

So you know what "locally normed" means, how exactly? From that update MCPS released a few weeks ago that basically said that "locally normed means we norm scores locally, which entails taking scores and norming them for each school, on a local basis". Locally normed is not defined anywhere and I don't think it *implies* anything close to what you think it does. Why is it so far-fetched to think that MCPS took the average high FARMS school and saw that 85th percentile yielded, say, the top 10% of kids and then set the bar at low FARMS schools at whatever percentile yielded the top 10% of kids there. I can tell you for a fact that at my DD's low FARMS/high SES elementary school that getting a 90th or 95th percentile on a MAP test is not that special, so I could see how a 98th/99th percentile would be required to crack the top 10%.

I'm with you that I'm not necessarily against this approach, but to think it's outlandish to think that MCPS took an anti-racist approach and designed a system to make sure that the same percentage of high FARMS kids get into the pool than low FARMS kids and that this results in setting the bar at the lowest FARMS schools at what some here have called "extreme" or "unlikely" is naive.

I feel like others addressed the implausibility of this in my absence, but look...

I think you might be the same person who was actually backing me up on another thread about how poorly worded and unclear the MCPS site is about the term "locally-normed." That's still true! But even in that thread, I noted it doesn't JUST say "local norms are locally normed in a local normy kind of way." It also states that local norms are based on school FARMS rates (and maybe, arguably, something else SES-related— although probably just FARMS). That there are tiers of schools and they're separated by FARMS rates. And it then says 85th percentile+ within those groups/tiers. I can’t prove that there’s absolutely no way they’re doing what you’re suggesting they might be doing— but you have even less proof. I totally agree it’s not as clear as it could be, but it’s also not as though they give zero guidelines that they would have to be actively flouting.

That’s #1.

#2 is that you have tiny bits of pure (and unreliable and unfalsifiable) anecdote and you’re using that along with your preconceived notions to draw conclusions that are frankly, kind of wild. Not impossible, but definitely not supported by fact. Incompetence, incidental errors or some error in self-reporting is far more likely.

Maybe that should be #1. Imagining what could be true, completely unconnected to any real data, is kind of the definition of conjecture— and the opposite of Occam’s Razor.

I noticed a bunch of other people are having this problem-- drawing conclusions from this thread. Folks, there could be plenty of kids closer to 85th percentile nationally (210s) who were randomly selected. But they're likely to be from less academically anxious, UMC/white families than the ones who frequent DCUM and particularly would be likely to self-selectively respond to this thread. The critical thinking skills in this thread among parents about their "gifted" kids...

#3 is what others have noted-- that it is no small thing to have a school where the 1.5% nationally makes up 15% within one school. It’s 10x the national number. That’s essentially almost never a thing in a random public school, even in the wealthiest neighborhood.

Time and time again, it’s been proven that MoCo, one of the wealthiest, most educated places in the US, does not have public school students who test, on average, far, far above national average test scores. Nor is the distribution of test scores wildly different here than in the US as a whole. That would necessarily imply that we also have an unusual number of extremely low-performing students, and we do not.

Now, it’s true that some individual schools have many more “above average” students than others.

But.

You’re not proposing schools with, say, 50% or 75% more very high scoring kids. You’re proposing schools with 900% more.

Now, this is an example, so hopefully no one gets too excited. But let’s say there is a school where the kids ALL test above the national average. The lowest test score is ~50th percentile. If it also has a distribution similar to almost any other school, the top quarter will be in the 87.5th percentile nationally. The top 4% will be in the 98th+ percentile nationally.

To have a school who doesn’t have a highly unusual percentage of kids clustered implausibly at the very very *very* top and still has about 15% of its students score in the top ~1.5% nationally, you’d be looking at a school where no one scores below about the 90th percentile.

Or else, like I said, you’d have to have a school with an even higher percentage of extremely high scorers (95++ percentile nationally) and then highly unusual patterns among the rest of the students.

And you’re saying there’s a school— or multiple schools— that are like this.

That just absolutely beggars belief.

Class and race privilege gives kids more of a floor than anything else. Not all of the kids, but on average. It can help modestly increase the percentage of high scorers, but not what you’re proposing. You may see many fewer “below average” kids in a privileged area, but you don’t suddenly see TEN TIMES the “geniuses” based on class and race privilege.

It’s just not plausible.

I’ve read this a few times and have no idea what your point is, but it seems pretty clear that at some low FARMS schools, a student needed to be in the 95th+ percentile to qualify for the lottery. That’s not the 98/99 percentile like whatever boogeyman you’re trying to prove wrong posited, so maybe you’re right? I don’t know. Just sayin’ that it’s not like the hurdle was 85th percentile for high FARMS schools and just a mere 5 points higher for low FARMS schools. Seems more like 85th percentile for mid FARMS, 75th for high FARMS and 95th for low FARMS.

I'm not the PP, and I agree the post is kind of confuddled, but I think the basic point remains. There's just no way, statistically, that the swing is SO big.

We know from previous MCPS emails/explainers that the local norms are not school-specific. So it's not that Carderock kids are compared only to the other 75 kids in the grade or whatever. It's that they are compared against that economic "tier," which includes schools that are not quite as homogenous/privileged. I'd be stunned if the difference was more than 5 points in either direction at any tier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Current CES parent here. My kid qualified for the lottery last year and got a spot too. MAP-R was in the 94th percentile. Score was nowhere near the 230-240 range. I am now questioning whether he even belongs in CES.

Well, how is he doing so far?

Doing just fine. He is thriving in this program.

As to be expected. The CES curriculum wasn't made to enrich just the top 1 percent.

DC has MAP-R of 230+ and was offered a seat at CES. We're in a non-W feeder, non-TItle I, non-Focus school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone point me to the actual measures being used? I have a friend who got their letter that their kid didn't even make the lottery, but based on reading level, grades and MAP definitely should have. We keep talking about 75th %ile but now I cant find where that is.

I know what the general measures are because I got our letter, but I'm trying to find specifics. This process is SO opaque.

I hear you. Our daughter was in the 95th MAP-R percentile, straight A's, always multiple grade levels above in reading/lexile level and wasn't even chosen for the pool either, which seems to cut against this FAQ that was added on 3/29 to the FAQs on MCPS's CES website:

"What data was used to review Grade 3 students for needing enriched services in Grade 4?

Multiple measures including Grade 3 marking period 2 report cards, locally-normed percentile ranks for the winter 2022 Measures of Adequate Progress in Reading (MAP-R), instructional reading level and student services including: special education services, ESOL- English for Speakers of Other Languages, Section 504 accommodations plan and Free and Reduced-priced Meals. Students who meet the following academic criteria will receive enriched literacy services in Grade 4:

-Grade 3 Marking Period 2 Reading ‘A’ and
-Grade 3 Marking Period 2 Writing or Social Studies ‘A’
-Reading level ‘On’ or ‘Above’
-85th Percentile Local Norm on MAP- R

The enriched literacy services may be delivered at your student’s current school or in a regional CES program. Students who meet the academic criteria will be placed into a lottery pool for potential placement in a CES program. Placement in the regional CES program is by lottery only."

The only thing we can think of is that our "locally normed" MAP-R might be astronomically high.

I would call AEI on that one - 95% is very high not to make pool.

Yeah, we're in the same boat. 97% Fall and 95% Winter MAP-R, straight As, etc, but at a very high SES school, so maybe it's the "locally normed" factor. We weren't planning on sending our kid to CES anyway but I would have expected her to at least make the pool??

Look even a high SES school isn't going to be too far off national norms. The pool was like the 75%. I imagine it's possible to miss that maybe at 85% national but at 95% I would have to say highly unlikely.

Not in pool means no guarantee for ELC, so I would follow-up with AEI to get clarification on this. 95/97 not in pool seems extreme

Viewing the system through an anti-racist lens, I could see a scenario where MCPS sets the bar exceptionally high at high SES/low FARMs schools (i.e., 98/99% MAP-R) in order to drive down the number of kids from those schools who get into the pool in an effort to boost the chances of kids from low SES/high FARMS schools to get into CES.

Not PP. This would be fine with me, but there's no indication that's what's happening this year, and though the MCPS language is squishy, your proposal? conjecture? is explicitly not what's happening. And based on what I know about last year (very limited) it's not what happened last year.

What info do you have to support this?

...the fact that they said the bar was at 75 or 85% locally normed? Again, the language is a little squishy, but all I mean is that *from what is publicly available and implied, if not stated*, that MCPS did not "set the bar" at 98-99% for high SES schools. That implies, to me, some sneaky intentionality that's not in evidence. Like they saw that locally-normed 85% at some W feeder was 90% nationally and they decided that would send too many W feeder kids to the CES, so they just said eff it and "set the bar" at 99%.

Besides not being in evidence, I don't believe there is an ES in MCPS where 15% or 25% of kids score in the 99th percentile nationally. Unless someone presents credible evidence otherwise, I'd say that if one exists, it would be a statistical outlier among decades of such classes and schools.

So you know what "locally normed" means, how exactly? From that update MCPS released a few weeks ago that basically said that "locally normed means we norm scores locally, which entails taking scores and norming them for each school, on a local basis". Locally normed is not defined anywhere and I don't think it *implies* anything close to what you think it does. Why is it so far-fetched to think that MCPS took the average high FARMS school and saw that 85th percentile yielded, say, the top 10% of kids and then set the bar at low FARMS schools at whatever percentile yielded the top 10% of kids there. I can tell you for a fact that at my DD's low FARMS/high SES elementary school that getting a 90th or 95th percentile on a MAP test is not that special, so I could see how a 98th/99th percentile would be required to crack the top 10%.

I'm with you that I'm not necessarily against this approach, but to think it's outlandish to think that MCPS took an anti-racist approach and designed a system to make sure that the same percentage of high FARMS kids get into the pool than low FARMS kids and that this results in setting the bar at the lowest FARMS schools at what some here have called "extreme" or "unlikely" is naive.

I feel like others addressed the implausibility of this in my absence, but look...

I think you might be the same person who was actually backing me up on another thread about how poorly worded and unclear the MCPS site is about the term "locally-normed." That's still true! But even in that thread, I noted it doesn't JUST say "local norms are locally normed in a local normy kind of way." It also states that local norms are based on school FARMS rates (and maybe, arguably, something else SES-related— although probably just FARMS). That there are tiers of schools and they're separated by FARMS rates. And it then says 85th percentile+ within those groups/tiers. I can’t prove that there’s absolutely no way they’re doing what you’re suggesting they might be doing— but you have even less proof. I totally agree it’s not as clear as it could be, but it’s also not as though they give zero guidelines that they would have to be actively flouting.

That’s #1.

#2 is that you have tiny bits of pure (and unreliable and unfalsifiable) anecdote and you’re using that along with your preconceived notions to draw conclusions that are frankly, kind of wild. Not impossible, but definitely not supported by fact. Incompetence, incidental errors or some error in self-reporting is far more likely.

Maybe that should be #1. Imagining what could be true, completely unconnected to any real data, is kind of the definition of conjecture— and the opposite of Occam’s Razor.

I noticed a bunch of other people are having this problem-- drawing conclusions from this thread. Folks, there could be plenty of kids closer to 85th percentile nationally (210s) who were randomly selected. But they're likely to be from less academically anxious, UMC/white families than the ones who frequent DCUM and particularly would be likely to self-selectively respond to this thread. The critical thinking skills in this thread among parents about their "gifted" kids...

#3 is what others have noted-- that it is no small thing to have a school where the 1.5% nationally makes up 15% within one school. It’s 10x the national number. That’s essentially almost never a thing in a random public school, even in the wealthiest neighborhood.

Time and time again, it’s been proven that MoCo, one of the wealthiest, most educated places in the US, does not have public school students who test, on average, far, far above national average test scores. Nor is the distribution of test scores wildly different here than in the US as a whole. That would necessarily imply that we also have an unusual number of extremely low-performing students, and we do not.

Now, it’s true that some individual schools have many more “above average” students than others.

But.

You’re not proposing schools with, say, 50% or 75% more very high scoring kids. You’re proposing schools with 900% more.

Now, this is an example, so hopefully no one gets too excited. But let’s say there is a school where the kids ALL test above the national average. The lowest test score is ~50th percentile. If it also has a distribution similar to almost any other school, the top quarter will be in the 87.5th percentile nationally. The top 4% will be in the 98th+ percentile nationally.

To have a school who doesn’t have a highly unusual percentage of kids clustered implausibly at the very very *very* top and still has about 15% of its students score in the top ~1.5% nationally, you’d be looking at a school where no one scores below about the 90th percentile.

Or else, like I said, you’d have to have a school with an even higher percentage of extremely high scorers (95++ percentile nationally) and then highly unusual patterns among the rest of the students.

And you’re saying there’s a school— or multiple schools— that are like this.

That just absolutely beggars belief.

Class and race privilege gives kids more of a floor than anything else. Not all of the kids, but on average. It can help modestly increase the percentage of high scorers, but not what you’re proposing. You may see many fewer “below average” kids in a privileged area, but you don’t suddenly see TEN TIMES the “geniuses” based on class and race privilege.

It’s just not plausible.

I’ve read this a few times and have no idea what your point is, but it seems pretty clear that at some low FARMS schools, a student needed to be in the 95th+ percentile to qualify for the lottery. That’s not the 98/99 percentile like whatever boogeyman you’re trying to prove wrong posited, so maybe you’re right? I don’t know. Just sayin’ that it’s not like the hurdle was 85th percentile for high FARMS schools and just a mere 5 points higher for low FARMS schools. Seems more like 85th percentile for mid FARMS, 75th for high FARMS and 95th for low FARMS.

My kid is in a Title One school. She was in the pool and in the 95 percentile in reading and math (higher in reading but don't remember the exact number). She did not get in to the CES at Drew. She is mixed race.

Just wanted to throw those numbers into the mix!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone point me to the actual measures being used? I have a friend who got their letter that their kid didn't even make the lottery, but based on reading level, grades and MAP definitely should have. We keep talking about 75th %ile but now I cant find where that is.

I know what the general measures are because I got our letter, but I'm trying to find specifics. This process is SO opaque.

I hear you. Our daughter was in the 95th MAP-R percentile, straight A's, always multiple grade levels above in reading/lexile level and wasn't even chosen for the pool either, which seems to cut against this FAQ that was added on 3/29 to the FAQs on MCPS's CES website:

"What data was used to review Grade 3 students for needing enriched services in Grade 4?

Multiple measures including Grade 3 marking period 2 report cards, locally-normed percentile ranks for the winter 2022 Measures of Adequate Progress in Reading (MAP-R), instructional reading level and student services including: special education services, ESOL- English for Speakers of Other Languages, Section 504 accommodations plan and Free and Reduced-priced Meals. Students who meet the following academic criteria will receive enriched literacy services in Grade 4:

-Grade 3 Marking Period 2 Reading ‘A’ and
-Grade 3 Marking Period 2 Writing or Social Studies ‘A’
-Reading level ‘On’ or ‘Above’
-85th Percentile Local Norm on MAP- R

The enriched literacy services may be delivered at your student’s current school or in a regional CES program. Students who meet the academic criteria will be placed into a lottery pool for potential placement in a CES program. Placement in the regional CES program is by lottery only."

The only thing we can think of is that our "locally normed" MAP-R might be astronomically high.

I would call AEI on that one - 95% is very high not to make pool.

Yeah, we're in the same boat. 97% Fall and 95% Winter MAP-R, straight As, etc, but at a very high SES school, so maybe it's the "locally normed" factor. We weren't planning on sending our kid to CES anyway but I would have expected her to at least make the pool??

Look even a high SES school isn't going to be too far off national norms. The pool was like the 75%. I imagine it's possible to miss that maybe at 85% national but at 95% I would have to say highly unlikely.

Not in pool means no guarantee for ELC, so I would follow-up with AEI to get clarification on this. 95/97 not in pool seems extreme

Viewing the system through an anti-racist lens, I could see a scenario where MCPS sets the bar exceptionally high at high SES/low FARMs schools (i.e., 98/99% MAP-R) in order to drive down the number of kids from those schools who get into the pool in an effort to boost the chances of kids from low SES/high FARMS schools to get into CES.

Not PP. This would be fine with me, but there's no indication that's what's happening this year, and though the MCPS language is squishy, your proposal? conjecture? is explicitly not what's happening. And based on what I know about last year (very limited) it's not what happened last year.

What info do you have to support this?

...the fact that they said the bar was at 75 or 85% locally normed? Again, the language is a little squishy, but all I mean is that *from what is publicly available and implied, if not stated*, that MCPS did not "set the bar" at 98-99% for high SES schools. That implies, to me, some sneaky intentionality that's not in evidence. Like they saw that locally-normed 85% at some W feeder was 90% nationally and they decided that would send too many W feeder kids to the CES, so they just said eff it and "set the bar" at 99%.

Besides not being in evidence, I don't believe there is an ES in MCPS where 15% or 25% of kids score in the 99th percentile nationally. Unless someone presents credible evidence otherwise, I'd say that if one exists, it would be a statistical outlier among decades of such classes and schools.

So you know what "locally normed" means, how exactly? From that update MCPS released a few weeks ago that basically said that "locally normed means we norm scores locally, which entails taking scores and norming them for each school, on a local basis". Locally normed is not defined anywhere and I don't think it *implies* anything close to what you think it does. Why is it so far-fetched to think that MCPS took the average high FARMS school and saw that 85th percentile yielded, say, the top 10% of kids and then set the bar at low FARMS schools at whatever percentile yielded the top 10% of kids there. I can tell you for a fact that at my DD's low FARMS/high SES elementary school that getting a 90th or 95th percentile on a MAP test is not that special, so I could see how a 98th/99th percentile would be required to crack the top 10%.

I'm with you that I'm not necessarily against this approach, but to think it's outlandish to think that MCPS took an anti-racist approach and designed a system to make sure that the same percentage of high FARMS kids get into the pool than low FARMS kids and that this results in setting the bar at the lowest FARMS schools at what some here have called "extreme" or "unlikely" is naive.

I feel like others addressed the implausibility of this in my absence, but look...

I think you might be the same person who was actually backing me up on another thread about how poorly worded and unclear the MCPS site is about the term "locally-normed." That's still true! But even in that thread, I noted it doesn't JUST say "local norms are locally normed in a local normy kind of way." It also states that local norms are based on school FARMS rates (and maybe, arguably, something else SES-related— although probably just FARMS). That there are tiers of schools and they're separated by FARMS rates. And it then says 85th percentile+ within those groups/tiers. I can’t prove that there’s absolutely no way they’re doing what you’re suggesting they might be doing— but you have even less proof. I totally agree it’s not as clear as it could be, but it’s also not as though they give zero guidelines that they would have to be actively flouting.

That’s #1.

#2 is that you have tiny bits of pure (and unreliable and unfalsifiable) anecdote and you’re using that along with your preconceived notions to draw conclusions that are frankly, kind of wild. Not impossible, but definitely not supported by fact. Incompetence, incidental errors or some error in self-reporting is far more likely.

Maybe that should be #1. Imagining what could be true, completely unconnected to any real data, is kind of the definition of conjecture— and the opposite of Occam’s Razor.

I noticed a bunch of other people are having this problem-- drawing conclusions from this thread. Folks, there could be plenty of kids closer to 85th percentile nationally (210s) who were randomly selected. But they're likely to be from less academically anxious, UMC/white families than the ones who frequent DCUM and particularly would be likely to self-selectively respond to this thread. The critical thinking skills in this thread among parents about their "gifted" kids...

#3 is what others have noted-- that it is no small thing to have a school where the 1.5% nationally makes up 15% within one school. It’s 10x the national number. That’s essentially almost never a thing in a random public school, even in the wealthiest neighborhood.

Time and time again, it’s been proven that MoCo, one of the wealthiest, most educated places in the US, does not have public school students who test, on average, far, far above national average test scores. Nor is the distribution of test scores wildly different here than in the US as a whole. That would necessarily imply that we also have an unusual number of extremely low-performing students, and we do not.

Now, it’s true that some individual schools have many more “above average” students than others.

But.

You’re not proposing schools with, say, 50% or 75% more very high scoring kids. You’re proposing schools with 900% more.

Now, this is an example, so hopefully no one gets too excited. But let’s say there is a school where the kids ALL test above the national average. The lowest test score is ~50th percentile. If it also has a distribution similar to almost any other school, the top quarter will be in the 87.5th percentile nationally. The top 4% will be in the 98th+ percentile nationally.

To have a school who doesn’t have a highly unusual percentage of kids clustered implausibly at the very very *very* top and still has about 15% of its students score in the top ~1.5% nationally, you’d be looking at a school where no one scores below about the 90th percentile.

Or else, like I said, you’d have to have a school with an even higher percentage of extremely high scorers (95++ percentile nationally) and then highly unusual patterns among the rest of the students.

And you’re saying there’s a school— or multiple schools— that are like this.

That just absolutely beggars belief.

Class and race privilege gives kids more of a floor than anything else. Not all of the kids, but on average. It can help modestly increase the percentage of high scorers, but not what you’re proposing. You may see many fewer “below average” kids in a privileged area, but you don’t suddenly see TEN TIMES the “geniuses” based on class and race privilege.

It’s just not plausible.

I’ve read this a few times and have no idea what your point is, but it seems pretty clear that at some low FARMS schools, a student needed to be in the 95th+ percentile to qualify for the lottery. That’s not the 98/99 percentile like whatever boogeyman you’re trying to prove wrong posited, so maybe you’re right? I don’t know. Just sayin’ that it’s not like the hurdle was 85th percentile for high FARMS schools and just a mere 5 points higher for low FARMS schools. Seems more like 85th percentile for mid FARMS, 75th for high FARMS and 95th for low FARMS.

My kid is in a Title One school. She was in the pool and in the 95 percentile in reading and math (higher in reading but don't remember the exact number). She did not get in to the CES at Drew. She is mixed race.

Just wanted to throw those numbers into the mix!

The sad part is these programs were designed for kids in the 95%+ like yours and the tragic part is they more often than not aren't selected.

[Anonymous]

My child is in a low FARMS (less than ten percent) school in a non-W feeder. 98th percentile in reading, 99th percentile in math, straight As.

Got a seat in the CES.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Current CES parent here. My kid qualified for the lottery last year and got a spot too. MAP-R was in the 94th percentile. Score was nowhere near the 230-240 range. I am now questioning whether he even belongs in CES.

Well, how is he doing so far?

Doing just fine. He is thriving in this program.

So, what... is the problem? Why would you be questioning whether he belongs?

Do people really think that a program designed with ~97-99th percentilers in mind would not be doable for nearly all 90th+ percentilers and the vast majority of 85th percentilers, etc.?

Or are you, PP, saying that while your kid is capable and thriving, you're questioning if he "deserves it?"

It's so hard for me to read this and not be concerned that some folks are so rigidly attached to numbers and status that those things would interfere with their perception of reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Current CES parent here. My kid qualified for the lottery last year and got a spot too. MAP-R was in the 94th percentile. Score was nowhere near the 230-240 range. I am now questioning whether he even belongs in CES.

Well, how is he doing so far?

Doing just fine. He is thriving in this program.

So, what... is the problem? Why would you be questioning whether he belongs?

Do people really think that a program designed with ~97-99th percentilers in mind would not be doable for nearly all 90th+ percentilers and the vast majority of 85th percentilers, etc.?

Or are you, PP, saying that while your kid is capable and thriving, you're questioning if he "deserves it?"

It's so hard for me to read this and not be concerned that some folks are so rigidly attached to numbers and status that those things would interfere with their perception of reality.

Typically, I think it is but some of this depends on the specific teacher. At our CES one of the two teachers had very high expectations and was demanding. The kids learned a lot but here was a lot of pushback from some parents who weren't happy their precious didn't get straight A's or had homework.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Current CES parent here. My kid qualified for the lottery last year and got a spot too. MAP-R was in the 94th percentile. Score was nowhere near the 230-240 range. I am now questioning whether he even belongs in CES.

Well, how is he doing so far?

Doing just fine. He is thriving in this program.

So, what... is the problem? Why would you be questioning whether he belongs?

Do people really think that a program designed with ~97-99th percentilers in mind would not be doable for nearly all 90th+ percentilers and the vast majority of 85th percentilers, etc.?

Or are you, PP, saying that while your kid is capable and thriving, you're questioning if he "deserves it?"

It's so hard for me to read this and not be concerned that some folks are so rigidly attached to numbers and status that those things would interfere with their perception of reality.

Typically, I think it is but some of this depends on the specific teacher. At our CES one of the two teachers had very high expectations and was demanding. The kids learned a lot but here was a lot of pushback from some parents who weren't happy their precious didn't get straight A's or had homework.

Right-- on average is all I meant. I just honestly don't understand the concern from someone whose kid is thriving and doing well. Why would a kid who is thriving and doing well in a situation not "belong?" I'm nonplussed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Current CES parent here. My kid qualified for the lottery last year and got a spot too. MAP-R was in the 94th percentile. Score was nowhere near the 230-240 range. I am now questioning whether he even belongs in CES.

Well, how is he doing so far?

Doing just fine. He is thriving in this program.

So, what... is the problem? Why would you be questioning whether he belongs?

Do people really think that a program designed with ~97-99th percentilers in mind would not be doable for nearly all 90th+ percentilers and the vast majority of 85th percentilers, etc.?

Or are you, PP, saying that while your kid is capable and thriving, you're questioning if he "deserves it?"

It's so hard for me to read this and not be concerned that some folks are so rigidly attached to numbers and status that those things would interfere with their perception of reality.

Typically, I think it is but some of this depends on the specific teacher. At our CES one of the two teachers had very high expectations and was demanding. The kids learned a lot but here was a lot of pushback from some parents who weren't happy their precious didn't get straight A's or had homework.

Right-- on average is all I meant. I just honestly don't understand the concern from someone whose kid is thriving and doing well. Why would a kid who is thriving and doing well in a situation not "belong?" I'm nonplussed.

Because he is not in 99th percentile or has upwards of 230 score on MAP-R. It was just a comment. Its not a ‘concern’ as such.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Current CES parent here. My kid qualified for the lottery last year and got a spot too. MAP-R was in the 94th percentile. Score was nowhere near the 230-240 range. I am now questioning whether he even belongs in CES.

Well, how is he doing so far?

Doing just fine. He is thriving in this program.

So, what... is the problem? Why would you be questioning whether he belongs?

Do people really think that a program designed with ~97-99th percentilers in mind would not be doable for nearly all 90th+ percentilers and the vast majority of 85th percentilers, etc.?

Or are you, PP, saying that while your kid is capable and thriving, you're questioning if he "deserves it?"

It's so hard for me to read this and not be concerned that some folks are so rigidly attached to numbers and status that those things would interfere with their perception of reality.

Typically, I think it is but some of this depends on the specific teacher. At our CES one of the two teachers had very high expectations and was demanding. The kids learned a lot but here was a lot of pushback from some parents who weren't happy their precious didn't get straight A's or had homework.

Right-- on average is all I meant. I just honestly don't understand the concern from someone whose kid is thriving and doing well. Why would a kid who is thriving and doing well in a situation not "belong?" I'm nonplussed.

Because he is not in 99th percentile or has upwards of 230 score on MAP-R. It was just a comment. Its not a ‘concern’ as such.

That also goes to show that scores aren’t that helpful then in selecting the kids? Maybe there was other criteria that is unknown to parents ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has MCPS done away with the 3 tranches of schools for local norming - high, medium and low farms? I just find it hard to believe that if they had to average the top 15% of students across all high SES schools, that the result would be 98/99%. I would totally believe it for individual small schools like Carderock or Bannockburn.

Very doubtful since there is a significant cohort, not too dissimilar, of highly able students in every middle school cluster. In fact, Pyle MS, which is in a high SES area and a W-feeder, has fewer highly able students than you'd expect because so many of their top students are enrolled in private school. This is according to a 2017-2018 survey by MCPS. It's a myth that high SES elementary schools, and W-feeders in general, have significantly more high MAP-scoring students than non-W-feeder elementary schools. And it's certainly a myth that most students in any particular elementary school score 98/99 percentile on MAP.

Not sure what you mean by Pyle because it has by far the highest number of highly able students according to at least one measure according to the only data points MCPS has published. Are you saying they should be even more? I guess if all the private school kids were at the public? I guess that's fair.
https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/schools/msmagnet/about/MS%20Magnet%20Field%20Test%20Data%20by%20Sending%20MS.pdf

[Anonymous]

How does this show it is "by far the most" when several schools (SSIMS, SMS) have higher numbers in virtually every category?

[Anonymous]

The program is designed for 'highly able' students. Highly able students do not necessarily score above 95 percentile. To score above 95 percentile, students often get extra parental help (tutoring, for example). Without the extra parental help, those students might very well have scored 85 percentile. And so the 85 percentile criteria seems to even the playing field for the less advantaged.

Another point of confusion seems to be the cohorting. Schools that don't have a significant cohort cannot progress as fast in their curriculum as schools that do. So this might be a factor as to why your DC wasn't in the pool.