How common is a math or reading MAP score at the 99th percentile in this area?

[Anonymous]

It’s a meaningless comparison. From the first page some kid in 5th grade scores 295 on MAP-M which would put him in the 99 percentile for 12 graders. But it’s a mystery how that equivalence is determined, what is the pool if questions, if the test is the same etc.

It’s worth noting that 1% of the 12 graders would get 5 on AP Calculus BC and AP Statistics, 800 on the math portion of SAT etc. These would be meaningful comparisons, but somehow they happen far less often that what you’d expect from matching MAP scores.

It’s just a way for parents to find some evidence that their kid is an outlier genius even if it doesn’t matter for anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading this you might get depressed. I think a lot of people here exaggerate both on how commonplace high scores are, but also on what any of that means.

For one, the tails of these exams are not predictive of anything. In other words, 97% is not that meaningfully different from 99% and definitely not 99.75%. Its also a terrible test altogether because it measures exposures to various materials, not innate logical or reasoning skills.

My kids were 98/99 percentile in math/reading depending on year They got into CES, magnet middle and magnet high schools. We live in a low FARMs area *and* we are Asian (so should be a double whammy on acceptances but obviously not). We didn't enrich at all. It was all fine. Also, the kids with the highest MAP M scores in 8th grade were not necessarily the best Multivariate students so it's just one test folks with questionable utility.

I am not Asian, but one of my children went through these programs. My younger one might. They're equally smart, but with the lotteries and all today, I'm not all that optimistic since it's more about DEI than test scores now.

My DC didn’t qualify for the lottery with a MAP-R score in the 97th percentile because the 97th percentile nationwide wasn’t within the top 15% of MCPS test takers in our low FARMs cohort of schools. So the MCPS-wide mean might be only 2 points or whatever higher than the national norm but among the low FARMS schools, being in the 98/99th percentile is pretty commonplace.

Except according to the data acquired by MCCPTA the lowest FARMS school the top 15% was at the 95%.

Was the qualifying score for high FARMS schools equally impacted? If it took being in the 95th+ percentile in the low FARMS school to be among the top 15% of the cohort, does a kid need something like a 70-75th percentile score in order to be in the top 15% of the highest FARMS cohort?

The MCCPTA data that they released to the FB group showed 95%+ in the top 15% at low FARMS, 92% in top 15% at moderately low FARMS, and 60% was in top 15% for high FARMS.

And for which year and for which magnet program (CES, MS Math/Science/CS or MS Humamities) were those data released to MCCPTA GEC and then posted on the FB group?

The most recent data was for CES and MS. Magnets. By all means, join the group and read it yourself

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s a meaningless comparison. From the first page some kid in 5th grade scores 295 on MAP-M which would put him in the 99 percentile for 12 graders. But it’s a mystery how that equivalence is determined, what is the pool if questions, if the test is the same etc.

It’s worth noting that 1% of the 12 graders would get 5 on AP Calculus BC and AP Statistics, 800 on the math portion of SAT etc. These would be meaningful comparisons, but somehow they happen far less often that what you’d expect from matching MAP scores.

It’s just a way for parents to find some evidence that their kid is an outlier genius even if it doesn’t matter for anything.

It actually wouldn't since 5th grade MAP-M is a different test than the one 12th graders take.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s a meaningless comparison. From the first page some kid in 5th grade scores 295 on MAP-M which would put him in the 99 percentile for 12 graders. But it’s a mystery how that equivalence is determined, what is the pool if questions, if the test is the same etc.

It’s worth noting that 1% of the 12 graders would get 5 on AP Calculus BC and AP Statistics, 800 on the math portion of SAT etc. These would be meaningful comparisons, but somehow they happen far less often that what you’d expect from matching MAP scores.

It’s just a way for parents to find some evidence that their kid is an outlier genius even if it doesn’t matter for anything.

It actually wouldn't since 5th grade MAP-M is a different test than the one 12th graders take.

Down thread there are other instances of higher grades (6+), but yeah, that’s what I’m saying, it’s a meaningless comparison.

Only time it might be useful is for some math placement decisions like Algebra in early grades, other than that it’s just bragging rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading this you might get depressed. I think a lot of people here exaggerate both on how commonplace high scores are, but also on what any of that means.

For one, the tails of these exams are not predictive of anything. In other words, 97% is not that meaningfully different from 99% and definitely not 99.75%. Its also a terrible test altogether because it measures exposures to various materials, not innate logical or reasoning skills.

My kids were 98/99 percentile in math/reading depending on year They got into CES, magnet middle and magnet high schools. We live in a low FARMs area *and* we are Asian (so should be a double whammy on acceptances but obviously not). We didn't enrich at all. It was all fine. Also, the kids with the highest MAP M scores in 8th grade were not necessarily the best Multivariate students so it's just one test folks with questionable utility.

I am not Asian, but one of my children went through these programs. My younger one might. They're equally smart, but with the lotteries and all today, I'm not all that optimistic since it's more about DEI than test scores now.

My DC didn’t qualify for the lottery with a MAP-R score in the 97th percentile because the 97th percentile nationwide wasn’t within the top 15% of MCPS test takers in our low FARMs cohort of schools. So the MCPS-wide mean might be only 2 points or whatever higher than the national norm but among the low FARMS schools, being in the 98/99th percentile is pretty commonplace.

Except according to the data acquired by MCCPTA the lowest FARMS school the top 15% was at the 95%.

Was the qualifying score for high FARMS schools equally impacted? If it took being in the 95th+ percentile in the low FARMS school to be among the top 15% of the cohort, does a kid need something like a 70-75th percentile score in order to be in the top 15% of the highest FARMS cohort?

The MCCPTA data that they released to the FB group showed 95%+ in the top 15% at low FARMS, 92% in top 15% at moderately low FARMS, and 60% was in top 15% for high FARMS.

And for which year and for which magnet program (CES, MS Math/Science/CS or MS Humamities) were those data released to MCCPTA GEC and then posted on the FB group?

The most recent data was for CES and MS. Magnets. By all means, join the group and read it yourself

Already there, and the "most recent data" you cite isn't for this year or last.

The MPIA response is titled "FY22-435 Responsive Document.pdf" -- the 21-22 school year, during which the selections for the entering 22-23 CES and criteria-based MS magnet classes were drawn. That's from MAPs taken 2 academic years back, and it shows only the MS criteria, which, for low-FARMS schools, were 93rd %ile and 92nd %ile for MAP-M and MAP-R, respectively (again, from 2 years ago). The only mention of 95th %ile was anecdotal, in that the GEC lead knew of those this past year who were in the 95th %ile but excluded, which points to the fact that the locally normed 85th %ile used for cutoff changes from year to year and was higher last year (at least at low-FARMS schools) than in the year prior.

There is another document posted, an info report to the BOE from January of this year (addressing, but not in great detail, some BOE questions from the 12/6/22 meeting), which summarizes the regional and countywide program admissions process. The only new information, there, was that the adjustment for students receiving services (individual with an EML or FARMS designation, a 504 or an IEP) for the CES was a locally normed 70th %ile MAP-R (instead of a locally normed 85th %ile); the fact that there was an adjustment for students receiving services for the criteria-based MS programs also was noted, but without a hard # (it seems like 70th %ile might be a good guess though). No actual cutoffs (RIT or %ile) for the various FARMS-rate tranches were given.

There is no detailed info on what those by-FARMS-rate-tranche percentile cutoffs used during last year's magnet selection process for this year's entering classes ended up being (aside from the "locally normed 85th %ile"). Certainly none for this year -- MCPS may have the data, but won't be sending notices for a couple of weeks, yet, for criteria-based MS programs and a couple of months for CES.

If you have a specific link to cite, have at it. I'd be happy to know updated info if it were available. If it's something in the FB group, you could cite the particular conversation so that folks who join could find it. Anything not marked internal (and I don't think there's anything on the FB group that would have that restriction) could be copied/shared.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading this you might get depressed. I think a lot of people here exaggerate both on how commonplace high scores are, but also on what any of that means.

For one, the tails of these exams are not predictive of anything. In other words, 97% is not that meaningfully different from 99% and definitely not 99.75%. Its also a terrible test altogether because it measures exposures to various materials, not innate logical or reasoning skills.

My kids were 98/99 percentile in math/reading depending on year They got into CES, magnet middle and magnet high schools. We live in a low FARMs area *and* we are Asian (so should be a double whammy on acceptances but obviously not). We didn't enrich at all. It was all fine. Also, the kids with the highest MAP M scores in 8th grade were not necessarily the best Multivariate students so it's just one test folks with questionable utility.

I am not Asian, but one of my children went through these programs. My younger one might. They're equally smart, but with the lotteries and all today, I'm not all that optimistic since it's more about DEI than test scores now.

My DC didn’t qualify for the lottery with a MAP-R score in the 97th percentile because the 97th percentile nationwide wasn’t within the top 15% of MCPS test takers in our low FARMs cohort of schools. So the MCPS-wide mean might be only 2 points or whatever higher than the national norm but among the low FARMS schools, being in the 98/99th percentile is pretty commonplace.

Except according to the data acquired by MCCPTA the lowest FARMS school the top 15% was at the 95%.

Was the qualifying score for high FARMS schools equally impacted? If it took being in the 95th+ percentile in the low FARMS school to be among the top 15% of the cohort, does a kid need something like a 70-75th percentile score in order to be in the top 15% of the highest FARMS cohort?

The MCCPTA data that they released to the FB group showed 95%+ in the top 15% at low FARMS, 92% in top 15% at moderately low FARMS, and 60% was in top 15% for high FARMS.

And for which year and for which magnet program (CES, MS Math/Science/CS or MS Humamities) were those data released to MCCPTA GEC and then posted on the FB group?

The most recent data was for CES and MS. Magnets. By all means, join the group and read it yourself

Already there, and the "most recent data" you cite isn't for this year or last.

The MPIA response is titled "FY22-435 Responsive Document.pdf" -- the 21-22 school year, during which the selections for the entering 22-23 CES and criteria-based MS magnet classes were drawn. That's from MAPs taken 2 academic years back, and it shows only the MS criteria, which, for low-FARMS schools, were 93rd %ile and 92nd %ile for MAP-M and MAP-R, respectively (again, from 2 years ago). The only mention of 95th %ile was anecdotal, in that the GEC lead knew of those this past year who were in the 95th %ile but excluded, which points to the fact that the locally normed 85th %ile used for cutoff changes from year to year and was higher last year (at least at low-FARMS schools) than in the year prior.

There is another document posted, an info report to the BOE from January of this year (addressing, but not in great detail, some BOE questions from the 12/6/22 meeting), which summarizes the regional and countywide program admissions process. The only new information, there, was that the adjustment for students receiving services (individual with an EML or FARMS designation, a 504 or an IEP) for the CES was a locally normed 70th %ile MAP-R (instead of a locally normed 85th %ile); the fact that there was an adjustment for students receiving services for the criteria-based MS programs also was noted, but without a hard # (it seems like 70th %ile might be a good guess though). No actual cutoffs (RIT or %ile) for the various FARMS-rate tranches were given.

There is no detailed info on what those by-FARMS-rate-tranche percentile cutoffs used during last year's magnet selection process for this year's entering classes ended up being (aside from the "locally normed 85th %ile"). Certainly none for this year -- MCPS may have the data, but won't be sending notices for a couple of weeks, yet, for criteria-based MS programs and a couple of months for CES.

If you have a specific link to cite, have at it. I'd be happy to know updated info if it were available. If it's something in the FB group, you could cite the particular conversation so that folks who join could find it. Anything not marked internal (and I don't think there's anything on the FB group that would have that restriction) could be copied/shared.

Well, judging by the data the county shares through the parent portal, there's 0 reason to believe there's much change in the last year since the county average appears stable relative to the national average.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading this you might get depressed. I think a lot of people here exaggerate both on how commonplace high scores are, but also on what any of that means.

For one, the tails of these exams are not predictive of anything. In other words, 97% is not that meaningfully different from 99% and definitely not 99.75%. Its also a terrible test altogether because it measures exposures to various materials, not innate logical or reasoning skills.

My kids were 98/99 percentile in math/reading depending on year They got into CES, magnet middle and magnet high schools. We live in a low FARMs area *and* we are Asian (so should be a double whammy on acceptances but obviously not). We didn't enrich at all. It was all fine. Also, the kids with the highest MAP M scores in 8th grade were not necessarily the best Multivariate students so it's just one test folks with questionable utility.

I am not Asian, but one of my children went through these programs. My younger one might. They're equally smart, but with the lotteries and all today, I'm not all that optimistic since it's more about DEI than test scores now.

My DC didn’t qualify for the lottery with a MAP-R score in the 97th percentile because the 97th percentile nationwide wasn’t within the top 15% of MCPS test takers in our low FARMs cohort of schools. So the MCPS-wide mean might be only 2 points or whatever higher than the national norm but among the low FARMS schools, being in the 98/99th percentile is pretty commonplace.

Except according to the data acquired by MCCPTA the lowest FARMS school the top 15% was at the 95%.

Was the qualifying score for high FARMS schools equally impacted? If it took being in the 95th+ percentile in the low FARMS school to be among the top 15% of the cohort, does a kid need something like a 70-75th percentile score in order to be in the top 15% of the highest FARMS cohort?

The MCCPTA data that they released to the FB group showed 95%+ in the top 15% at low FARMS, 92% in top 15% at moderately low FARMS, and 60% was in top 15% for high FARMS.

And for which year and for which magnet program (CES, MS Math/Science/CS or MS Humamities) were those data released to MCCPTA GEC and then posted on the FB group?

The most recent data was for CES and MS. Magnets. By all means, join the group and read it yourself

Already there, and the "most recent data" you cite isn't for this year or last.

The MPIA response is titled "FY22-435 Responsive Document.pdf" -- the 21-22 school year, during which the selections for the entering 22-23 CES and criteria-based MS magnet classes were drawn. That's from MAPs taken 2 academic years back, and it shows only the MS criteria, which, for low-FARMS schools, were 93rd %ile and 92nd %ile for MAP-M and MAP-R, respectively (again, from 2 years ago). The only mention of 95th %ile was anecdotal, in that the GEC lead knew of those this past year who were in the 95th %ile but excluded, which points to the fact that the locally normed 85th %ile used for cutoff changes from year to year and was higher last year (at least at low-FARMS schools) than in the year prior.

There is another document posted, an info report to the BOE from January of this year (addressing, but not in great detail, some BOE questions from the 12/6/22 meeting), which summarizes the regional and countywide program admissions process. The only new information, there, was that the adjustment for students receiving services (individual with an EML or FARMS designation, a 504 or an IEP) for the CES was a locally normed 70th %ile MAP-R (instead of a locally normed 85th %ile); the fact that there was an adjustment for students receiving services for the criteria-based MS programs also was noted, but without a hard # (it seems like 70th %ile might be a good guess though). No actual cutoffs (RIT or %ile) for the various FARMS-rate tranches were given.

There is no detailed info on what those by-FARMS-rate-tranche percentile cutoffs used during last year's magnet selection process for this year's entering classes ended up being (aside from the "locally normed 85th %ile"). Certainly none for this year -- MCPS may have the data, but won't be sending notices for a couple of weeks, yet, for criteria-based MS programs and a couple of months for CES.

If you have a specific link to cite, have at it. I'd be happy to know updated info if it were available. If it's something in the FB group, you could cite the particular conversation so that folks who join could find it. Anything not marked internal (and I don't think there's anything on the FB group that would have that restriction) could be copied/shared.

Well, judging by the data the county shares through the parent portal, there's 0 reason to believe there's much change in the last year since the county average appears stable relative to the national average.

Definitely would go by the shared data and not accept that it's higher this year because someone on DCUM said so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading this you might get depressed. I think a lot of people here exaggerate both on how commonplace high scores are, but also on what any of that means.

For one, the tails of these exams are not predictive of anything. In other words, 97% is not that meaningfully different from 99% and definitely not 99.75%. Its also a terrible test altogether because it measures exposures to various materials, not innate logical or reasoning skills.

My kids were 98/99 percentile in math/reading depending on year They got into CES, magnet middle and magnet high schools. We live in a low FARMs area *and* we are Asian (so should be a double whammy on acceptances but obviously not). We didn't enrich at all. It was all fine. Also, the kids with the highest MAP M scores in 8th grade were not necessarily the best Multivariate students so it's just one test folks with questionable utility.

I am not Asian, but one of my children went through these programs. My younger one might. They're equally smart, but with the lotteries and all today, I'm not all that optimistic since it's more about DEI than test scores now.

My DC didn’t qualify for the lottery with a MAP-R score in the 97th percentile because the 97th percentile nationwide wasn’t within the top 15% of MCPS test takers in our low FARMs cohort of schools. So the MCPS-wide mean might be only 2 points or whatever higher than the national norm but among the low FARMS schools, being in the 98/99th percentile is pretty commonplace.

Except according to the data acquired by MCCPTA the lowest FARMS school the top 15% was at the 95%.

Was the qualifying score for high FARMS schools equally impacted? If it took being in the 95th+ percentile in the low FARMS school to be among the top 15% of the cohort, does a kid need something like a 70-75th percentile score in order to be in the top 15% of the highest FARMS cohort?

The MCCPTA data that they released to the FB group showed 95%+ in the top 15% at low FARMS, 92% in top 15% at moderately low FARMS, and 60% was in top 15% for high FARMS.

And for which year and for which magnet program (CES, MS Math/Science/CS or MS Humamities) were those data released to MCCPTA GEC and then posted on the FB group?

The most recent data was for CES and MS. Magnets. By all means, join the group and read it yourself

Already there, and the "most recent data" you cite isn't for this year or last.

The MPIA response is titled "FY22-435 Responsive Document.pdf" -- the 21-22 school year, during which the selections for the entering 22-23 CES and criteria-based MS magnet classes were drawn. That's from MAPs taken 2 academic years back, and it shows only the MS criteria, which, for low-FARMS schools, were 93rd %ile and 92nd %ile for MAP-M and MAP-R, respectively (again, from 2 years ago). The only mention of 95th %ile was anecdotal, in that the GEC lead knew of those this past year who were in the 95th %ile but excluded, which points to the fact that the locally normed 85th %ile used for cutoff changes from year to year and was higher last year (at least at low-FARMS schools) than in the year prior.

There is another document posted, an info report to the BOE from January of this year (addressing, but not in great detail, some BOE questions from the 12/6/22 meeting), which summarizes the regional and countywide program admissions process. The only new information, there, was that the adjustment for students receiving services (individual with an EML or FARMS designation, a 504 or an IEP) for the CES was a locally normed 70th %ile MAP-R (instead of a locally normed 85th %ile); the fact that there was an adjustment for students receiving services for the criteria-based MS programs also was noted, but without a hard # (it seems like 70th %ile might be a good guess though). No actual cutoffs (RIT or %ile) for the various FARMS-rate tranches were given.

There is no detailed info on what those by-FARMS-rate-tranche percentile cutoffs used during last year's magnet selection process for this year's entering classes ended up being (aside from the "locally normed 85th %ile"). Certainly none for this year -- MCPS may have the data, but won't be sending notices for a couple of weeks, yet, for criteria-based MS programs and a couple of months for CES.

If you have a specific link to cite, have at it. I'd be happy to know updated info if it were available. If it's something in the FB group, you could cite the particular conversation so that folks who join could find it. Anything not marked internal (and I don't think there's anything on the FB group that would have that restriction) could be copied/shared.

Well, judging by the data the county shares through the parent portal, there's 0 reason to believe there's much change in the last year since the county average appears stable relative to the national average.

Definitely would go by the shared data and not accept that it's higher this year because someone on DCUM said so.

Except that there is no shared data for last year or this...

[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:Reading this you might get depressed. I think a lot of people here exaggerate both on how commonplace high scores are, but also on what any of that means.

For one, the tails of these exams are not predictive of anything. In other words, 97% is not that meaningfully different from 99% and definitely not 99.75%. Its also a terrible test altogether because it measures exposures to various materials, not innate logical or reasoning skills.

My kids were 98/99 percentile in math/reading depending on year They got into CES, magnet middle and magnet high schools. We live in a low FARMs area *and* we are Asian (so should be a double whammy on acceptances but obviously not). We didn't enrich at all. It was all fine. Also, the kids with the highest MAP M scores in 8th grade were not necessarily the best Multivariate students so it's just one test folks with questionable utility.

I am not Asian, but one of my children went through these programs. My younger one might. They're equally smart, but with the lotteries and all today, I'm not all that optimistic since it's more about DEI than test scores now.

My DC didn’t qualify for the lottery with a MAP-R score in the 97th percentile because the 97th percentile nationwide wasn’t within the top 15% of MCPS test takers in our low FARMs cohort of schools. So the MCPS-wide mean might be only 2 points or whatever higher than the national norm but among the low FARMS schools, being in the 98/99th percentile is pretty commonplace.

Except according to the data acquired by MCCPTA the lowest FARMS school the top 15% was at the 95%.

Was the qualifying score for high FARMS schools equally impacted? If it took being in the 95th+ percentile in the low FARMS school to be among the top 15% of the cohort, does a kid need something like a 70-75th percentile score in order to be in the top 15% of the highest FARMS cohort?

The MCCPTA data that they released to the FB group showed 95%+ in the top 15% at low FARMS, 92% in top 15% at moderately low FARMS, and 60% was in top 15% for high FARMS.

And for which year and for which magnet program (CES, MS Math/Science/CS or MS Humamities) were those data released to MCCPTA GEC and then posted on the FB group?

The most recent data was for CES and MS. Magnets. By all means, join the group and read it yourself

Already there, and the "most recent data" you cite isn't for this year or last.

The MPIA response is titled "FY22-435 Responsive Document.pdf" -- the 21-22 school year, during which the selections for the entering 22-23 CES and criteria-based MS magnet classes were drawn. That's from MAPs taken 2 academic years back, and it shows only the MS criteria, which, for low-FARMS schools, were 93rd %ile and 92nd %ile for MAP-M and MAP-R, respectively (again, from 2 years ago). The only mention of 95th %ile was anecdotal, in that the GEC lead knew of those this past year who were in the 95th %ile but excluded, which points to the fact that the locally normed 85th %ile used for cutoff changes from year to year and was higher last year (at least at low-FARMS schools) than in the year prior.

There is another document posted, an info report to the BOE from January of this year (addressing, but not in great detail, some BOE questions from the 12/6/22 meeting), which summarizes the regional and countywide program admissions process. The only new information, there, was that the adjustment for students receiving services (individual with an EML or FARMS designation, a 504 or an IEP) for the CES was a locally normed 70th %ile MAP-R (instead of a locally normed 85th %ile); the fact that there was an adjustment for students receiving services for the criteria-based MS programs also was noted, but without a hard # (it seems like 70th %ile might be a good guess though). No actual cutoffs (RIT or %ile) for the various FARMS-rate tranches were given.

There is no detailed info on what those by-FARMS-rate-tranche percentile cutoffs used during last year's magnet selection process for this year's entering classes ended up being (aside from the "locally normed 85th %ile"). Certainly none for this year -- MCPS may have the data, but won't be sending notices for a couple of weeks, yet, for criteria-based MS programs and a couple of months for CES.

If you have a specific link to cite, have at it. I'd be happy to know updated info if it were available. If it's something in the FB group, you could cite the particular conversation so that folks who join could find it. Anything not marked internal (and I don't think there's anything on the FB group that would have that restriction) could be copied/shared.

Well, judging by the data the county shares through the parent portal, there's 0 reason to believe there's much change in the last year since the county average appears stable relative to the national average.

Definitely would go by the shared data and not accept that it's higher this year because someone on DCUM said so.

Except that there is no shared data for last year or this...

Yes, but we can tell it doesn't much vary YoY so I would stick with what they posted last year.

[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:Reading this you might get depressed. I think a lot of people here exaggerate both on how commonplace high scores are, but also on what any of that means.

For one, the tails of these exams are not predictive of anything. In other words, 97% is not that meaningfully different from 99% and definitely not 99.75%. Its also a terrible test altogether because it measures exposures to various materials, not innate logical or reasoning skills.

My kids were 98/99 percentile in math/reading depending on year They got into CES, magnet middle and magnet high schools. We live in a low FARMs area *and* we are Asian (so should be a double whammy on acceptances but obviously not). We didn't enrich at all. It was all fine. Also, the kids with the highest MAP M scores in 8th grade were not necessarily the best Multivariate students so it's just one test folks with questionable utility.

I am not Asian, but one of my children went through these programs. My younger one might. They're equally smart, but with the lotteries and all today, I'm not all that optimistic since it's more about DEI than test scores now.

My DC didn’t qualify for the lottery with a MAP-R score in the 97th percentile because the 97th percentile nationwide wasn’t within the top 15% of MCPS test takers in our low FARMs cohort of schools. So the MCPS-wide mean might be only 2 points or whatever higher than the national norm but among the low FARMS schools, being in the 98/99th percentile is pretty commonplace.

Except according to the data acquired by MCCPTA the lowest FARMS school the top 15% was at the 95%.

Was the qualifying score for high FARMS schools equally impacted? If it took being in the 95th+ percentile in the low FARMS school to be among the top 15% of the cohort, does a kid need something like a 70-75th percentile score in order to be in the top 15% of the highest FARMS cohort?

The MCCPTA data that they released to the FB group showed 95%+ in the top 15% at low FARMS, 92% in top 15% at moderately low FARMS, and 60% was in top 15% for high FARMS.

And for which year and for which magnet program (CES, MS Math/Science/CS or MS Humamities) were those data released to MCCPTA GEC and then posted on the FB group?

The most recent data was for CES and MS. Magnets. By all means, join the group and read it yourself

Already there, and the "most recent data" you cite isn't for this year or last.

The MPIA response is titled "FY22-435 Responsive Document.pdf" -- the 21-22 school year, during which the selections for the entering 22-23 CES and criteria-based MS magnet classes were drawn. That's from MAPs taken 2 academic years back, and it shows only the MS criteria, which, for low-FARMS schools, were 93rd %ile and 92nd %ile for MAP-M and MAP-R, respectively (again, from 2 years ago). The only mention of 95th %ile was anecdotal, in that the GEC lead knew of those this past year who were in the 95th %ile but excluded, which points to the fact that the locally normed 85th %ile used for cutoff changes from year to year and was higher last year (at least at low-FARMS schools) than in the year prior.

There is another document posted, an info report to the BOE from January of this year (addressing, but not in great detail, some BOE questions from the 12/6/22 meeting), which summarizes the regional and countywide program admissions process. The only new information, there, was that the adjustment for students receiving services (individual with an EML or FARMS designation, a 504 or an IEP) for the CES was a locally normed 70th %ile MAP-R (instead of a locally normed 85th %ile); the fact that there was an adjustment for students receiving services for the criteria-based MS programs also was noted, but without a hard # (it seems like 70th %ile might be a good guess though). No actual cutoffs (RIT or %ile) for the various FARMS-rate tranches were given.

There is no detailed info on what those by-FARMS-rate-tranche percentile cutoffs used during last year's magnet selection process for this year's entering classes ended up being (aside from the "locally normed 85th %ile"). Certainly none for this year -- MCPS may have the data, but won't be sending notices for a couple of weeks, yet, for criteria-based MS programs and a couple of months for CES.

If you have a specific link to cite, have at it. I'd be happy to know updated info if it were available. If it's something in the FB group, you could cite the particular conversation so that folks who join could find it. Anything not marked internal (and I don't think there's anything on the FB group that would have that restriction) could be copied/shared.

Well, judging by the data the county shares through the parent portal, there's 0 reason to believe there's much change in the last year since the county average appears stable relative to the national average.

Definitely would go by the shared data and not accept that it's higher this year because someone on DCUM said so.

Except that there is no shared data for last year or this...

Yes, but we can tell it doesn't much vary YoY so I would stick with what they posted last year.

Perhaps they've tightened the threshold from top 15% to top 10%. That would make more sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s a meaningless comparison. From the first page some kid in 5th grade scores 295 on MAP-M which would put him in the 99 percentile for 12 graders. But it’s a mystery how that equivalence is determined, what is the pool if questions, if the test is the same etc.

It’s worth noting that 1% of the 12 graders would get 5 on AP Calculus BC and AP Statistics, 800 on the math portion of SAT etc. These would be meaningful comparisons, but somehow they happen far less often that what you’d expect from matching MAP scores.

It’s just a way for parents to find some evidence that their kid is an outlier genius even if it doesn’t matter for anything.

The only mystery is why people don't believe the numbers published by the test creator. High schoolers in USA aren't excellent at math. The test has a ceiling at Algebra 2, similar to SAT. A 300 on the MAP is similar to a perfect score on the SAT Math, but doesn't have a time limit.

Kids in middle school studying honors algebra 2, studying math at home or at enrichment schools, with fresh memories of geometry,
are at the Geometry and Algebra level of 99%ile 12 graders who who aren't focused on math.
A 12 th grader squeaking by precalc or calc has often forgot geometry and algebra they have learned.

[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:Reading this you might get depressed. I think a lot of people here exaggerate both on how commonplace high scores are, but also on what any of that means.

For one, the tails of these exams are not predictive of anything. In other words, 97% is not that meaningfully different from 99% and definitely not 99.75%. Its also a terrible test altogether because it measures exposures to various materials, not innate logical or reasoning skills.

My kids were 98/99 percentile in math/reading depending on year They got into CES, magnet middle and magnet high schools. We live in a low FARMs area *and* we are Asian (so should be a double whammy on acceptances but obviously not). We didn't enrich at all. It was all fine. Also, the kids with the highest MAP M scores in 8th grade were not necessarily the best Multivariate students so it's just one test folks with questionable utility.

I am not Asian, but one of my children went through these programs. My younger one might. They're equally smart, but with the lotteries and all today, I'm not all that optimistic since it's more about DEI than test scores now.

My DC didn’t qualify for the lottery with a MAP-R score in the 97th percentile because the 97th percentile nationwide wasn’t within the top 15% of MCPS test takers in our low FARMs cohort of schools. So the MCPS-wide mean might be only 2 points or whatever higher than the national norm but among the low FARMS schools, being in the 98/99th percentile is pretty commonplace.

Except according to the data acquired by MCCPTA the lowest FARMS school the top 15% was at the 95%.

Was the qualifying score for high FARMS schools equally impacted? If it took being in the 95th+ percentile in the low FARMS school to be among the top 15% of the cohort, does a kid need something like a 70-75th percentile score in order to be in the top 15% of the highest FARMS cohort?

The MCCPTA data that they released to the FB group showed 95%+ in the top 15% at low FARMS, 92% in top 15% at moderately low FARMS, and 60% was in top 15% for high FARMS.

And for which year and for which magnet program (CES, MS Math/Science/CS or MS Humamities) were those data released to MCCPTA GEC and then posted on the FB group?

The most recent data was for CES and MS. Magnets. By all means, join the group and read it yourself

Already there, and the "most recent data" you cite isn't for this year or last.

The MPIA response is titled "FY22-435 Responsive Document.pdf" -- the 21-22 school year, during which the selections for the entering 22-23 CES and criteria-based MS magnet classes were drawn. That's from MAPs taken 2 academic years back, and it shows only the MS criteria, which, for low-FARMS schools, were 93rd %ile and 92nd %ile for MAP-M and MAP-R, respectively (again, from 2 years ago). The only mention of 95th %ile was anecdotal, in that the GEC lead knew of those this past year who were in the 95th %ile but excluded, which points to the fact that the locally normed 85th %ile used for cutoff changes from year to year and was higher last year (at least at low-FARMS schools) than in the year prior.

There is another document posted, an info report to the BOE from January of this year (addressing, but not in great detail, some BOE questions from the 12/6/22 meeting), which summarizes the regional and countywide program admissions process. The only new information, there, was that the adjustment for students receiving services (individual with an EML or FARMS designation, a 504 or an IEP) for the CES was a locally normed 70th %ile MAP-R (instead of a locally normed 85th %ile); the fact that there was an adjustment for students receiving services for the criteria-based MS programs also was noted, but without a hard # (it seems like 70th %ile might be a good guess though). No actual cutoffs (RIT or %ile) for the various FARMS-rate tranches were given.

There is no detailed info on what those by-FARMS-rate-tranche percentile cutoffs used during last year's magnet selection process for this year's entering classes ended up being (aside from the "locally normed 85th %ile"). Certainly none for this year -- MCPS may have the data, but won't be sending notices for a couple of weeks, yet, for criteria-based MS programs and a couple of months for CES.

If you have a specific link to cite, have at it. I'd be happy to know updated info if it were available. If it's something in the FB group, you could cite the particular conversation so that folks who join could find it. Anything not marked internal (and I don't think there's anything on the FB group that would have that restriction) could be copied/shared.

Well, judging by the data the county shares through the parent portal, there's 0 reason to believe there's much change in the last year since the county average appears stable relative to the national average.

Definitely would go by the shared data and not accept that it's higher this year because someone on DCUM said so.

Except that there is no shared data for last year or this...

Yes, but we can tell it doesn't much vary YoY so I would stick with what they posted last year.

Man, I wish the US populace was better educated in Stats, even at a basic level.

A lack of significant change in the average isn't necessarily indicative of a lack of change among subgroups. Movement at the high end can have happened without much, if any, change to the mean, if there were corresponding changes in the other direction for elements of the grade outside the top. It wouldn't change the median, at all, if the change only happened at the top.

What MCPS folks said, when asked, was that there was higher performance on MAP at the high end last year than the year before. Go ask them if you don't believe it, but stop shilling, in effect, for a "nothing to see here" interpretation of the fact that they didn't make the numbers public.

[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:Reading this you might get depressed. I think a lot of people here exaggerate both on how commonplace high scores are, but also on what any of that means.

For one, the tails of these exams are not predictive of anything. In other words, 97% is not that meaningfully different from 99% and definitely not 99.75%. Its also a terrible test altogether because it measures exposures to various materials, not innate logical or reasoning skills.

My kids were 98/99 percentile in math/reading depending on year They got into CES, magnet middle and magnet high schools. We live in a low FARMs area *and* we are Asian (so should be a double whammy on acceptances but obviously not). We didn't enrich at all. It was all fine. Also, the kids with the highest MAP M scores in 8th grade were not necessarily the best Multivariate students so it's just one test folks with questionable utility.

I am not Asian, but one of my children went through these programs. My younger one might. They're equally smart, but with the lotteries and all today, I'm not all that optimistic since it's more about DEI than test scores now.

My DC didn’t qualify for the lottery with a MAP-R score in the 97th percentile because the 97th percentile nationwide wasn’t within the top 15% of MCPS test takers in our low FARMs cohort of schools. So the MCPS-wide mean might be only 2 points or whatever higher than the national norm but among the low FARMS schools, being in the 98/99th percentile is pretty commonplace.

Except according to the data acquired by MCCPTA the lowest FARMS school the top 15% was at the 95%.

Was the qualifying score for high FARMS schools equally impacted? If it took being in the 95th+ percentile in the low FARMS school to be among the top 15% of the cohort, does a kid need something like a 70-75th percentile score in order to be in the top 15% of the highest FARMS cohort?

The MCCPTA data that they released to the FB group showed 95%+ in the top 15% at low FARMS, 92% in top 15% at moderately low FARMS, and 60% was in top 15% for high FARMS.

And for which year and for which magnet program (CES, MS Math/Science/CS or MS Humamities) were those data released to MCCPTA GEC and then posted on the FB group?

The most recent data was for CES and MS. Magnets. By all means, join the group and read it yourself

Already there, and the "most recent data" you cite isn't for this year or last.

The MPIA response is titled "FY22-435 Responsive Document.pdf" -- the 21-22 school year, during which the selections for the entering 22-23 CES and criteria-based MS magnet classes were drawn. That's from MAPs taken 2 academic years back, and it shows only the MS criteria, which, for low-FARMS schools, were 93rd %ile and 92nd %ile for MAP-M and MAP-R, respectively (again, from 2 years ago). The only mention of 95th %ile was anecdotal, in that the GEC lead knew of those this past year who were in the 95th %ile but excluded, which points to the fact that the locally normed 85th %ile used for cutoff changes from year to year and was higher last year (at least at low-FARMS schools) than in the year prior.

There is another document posted, an info report to the BOE from January of this year (addressing, but not in great detail, some BOE questions from the 12/6/22 meeting), which summarizes the regional and countywide program admissions process. The only new information, there, was that the adjustment for students receiving services (individual with an EML or FARMS designation, a 504 or an IEP) for the CES was a locally normed 70th %ile MAP-R (instead of a locally normed 85th %ile); the fact that there was an adjustment for students receiving services for the criteria-based MS programs also was noted, but without a hard # (it seems like 70th %ile might be a good guess though). No actual cutoffs (RIT or %ile) for the various FARMS-rate tranches were given.

There is no detailed info on what those by-FARMS-rate-tranche percentile cutoffs used during last year's magnet selection process for this year's entering classes ended up being (aside from the "locally normed 85th %ile"). Certainly none for this year -- MCPS may have the data, but won't be sending notices for a couple of weeks, yet, for criteria-based MS programs and a couple of months for CES.

If you have a specific link to cite, have at it. I'd be happy to know updated info if it were available. If it's something in the FB group, you could cite the particular conversation so that folks who join could find it. Anything not marked internal (and I don't think there's anything on the FB group that would have that restriction) could be copied/shared.

Well, judging by the data the county shares through the parent portal, there's 0 reason to believe there's much change in the last year since the county average appears stable relative to the national average.

Definitely would go by the shared data and not accept that it's higher this year because someone on DCUM said so.

Except that there is no shared data for last year or this...

Yes, but we can tell it doesn't much vary YoY so I would stick with what they posted last year.

Man, I wish the US populace was better educated in Stats, even at a basic level.

A lack of significant change in the average isn't necessarily indicative of a lack of change among subgroups. Movement at the high end can have happened without much, if any, change to the mean, if there were corresponding changes in the other direction for elements of the grade outside the top. It wouldn't change the median, at all, if the change only happened at the top.

What MCPS folks said, when asked, was that there was higher performance on MAP at the high end last year than the year before. Go ask them if you don't believe it, but stop shilling, in effect, for a "nothing to see here" interpretation of the fact that they didn't make the numbers public.

Sigh. Why is DCUM so invested in “everyone’s so smart, we’re all 99th percentile”. The data suggest otherwise no matter how you want to try to dice it.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:Reading this you might get depressed. I think a lot of people here exaggerate both on how commonplace high scores are, but also on what any of that means.

For one, the tails of these exams are not predictive of anything. In other words, 97% is not that meaningfully different from 99% and definitely not 99.75%. Its also a terrible test altogether because it measures exposures to various materials, not innate logical or reasoning skills.

My kids were 98/99 percentile in math/reading depending on year They got into CES, magnet middle and magnet high schools. We live in a low FARMs area *and* we are Asian (so should be a double whammy on acceptances but obviously not). We didn't enrich at all. It was all fine. Also, the kids with the highest MAP M scores in 8th grade were not necessarily the best Multivariate students so it's just one test folks with questionable utility.

I am not Asian, but one of my children went through these programs. My younger one might. They're equally smart, but with the lotteries and all today, I'm not all that optimistic since it's more about DEI than test scores now.

My DC didn’t qualify for the lottery with a MAP-R score in the 97th percentile because the 97th percentile nationwide wasn’t within the top 15% of MCPS test takers in our low FARMs cohort of schools. So the MCPS-wide mean might be only 2 points or whatever higher than the national norm but among the low FARMS schools, being in the 98/99th percentile is pretty commonplace.

Except according to the data acquired by MCCPTA the lowest FARMS school the top 15% was at the 95%.

Was the qualifying score for high FARMS schools equally impacted? If it took being in the 95th+ percentile in the low FARMS school to be among the top 15% of the cohort, does a kid need something like a 70-75th percentile score in order to be in the top 15% of the highest FARMS cohort?

The MCCPTA data that they released to the FB group showed 95%+ in the top 15% at low FARMS, 92% in top 15% at moderately low FARMS, and 60% was in top 15% for high FARMS.

And for which year and for which magnet program (CES, MS Math/Science/CS or MS Humamities) were those data released to MCCPTA GEC and then posted on the FB group?

The most recent data was for CES and MS. Magnets. By all means, join the group and read it yourself

Already there, and the "most recent data" you cite isn't for this year or last.

The MPIA response is titled "FY22-435 Responsive Document.pdf" -- the 21-22 school year, during which the selections for the entering 22-23 CES and criteria-based MS magnet classes were drawn. That's from MAPs taken 2 academic years back, and it shows only the MS criteria, which, for low-FARMS schools, were 93rd %ile and 92nd %ile for MAP-M and MAP-R, respectively (again, from 2 years ago). The only mention of 95th %ile was anecdotal, in that the GEC lead knew of those this past year who were in the 95th %ile but excluded, which points to the fact that the locally normed 85th %ile used for cutoff changes from year to year and was higher last year (at least at low-FARMS schools) than in the year prior.

There is another document posted, an info report to the BOE from January of this year (addressing, but not in great detail, some BOE questions from the 12/6/22 meeting), which summarizes the regional and countywide program admissions process. The only new information, there, was that the adjustment for students receiving services (individual with an EML or FARMS designation, a 504 or an IEP) for the CES was a locally normed 70th %ile MAP-R (instead of a locally normed 85th %ile); the fact that there was an adjustment for students receiving services for the criteria-based MS programs also was noted, but without a hard # (it seems like 70th %ile might be a good guess though). No actual cutoffs (RIT or %ile) for the various FARMS-rate tranches were given.

There is no detailed info on what those by-FARMS-rate-tranche percentile cutoffs used during last year's magnet selection process for this year's entering classes ended up being (aside from the "locally normed 85th %ile"). Certainly none for this year -- MCPS may have the data, but won't be sending notices for a couple of weeks, yet, for criteria-based MS programs and a couple of months for CES.

If you have a specific link to cite, have at it. I'd be happy to know updated info if it were available. If it's something in the FB group, you could cite the particular conversation so that folks who join could find it. Anything not marked internal (and I don't think there's anything on the FB group that would have that restriction) could be copied/shared.

Well, judging by the data the county shares through the parent portal, there's 0 reason to believe there's much change in the last year since the county average appears stable relative to the national average.

Definitely would go by the shared data and not accept that it's higher this year because someone on DCUM said so.

Except that there is no shared data for last year or this...

Yes, but we can tell it doesn't much vary YoY so I would stick with what they posted last year.

Man, I wish the US populace was better educated in Stats, even at a basic level.

A lack of significant change in the average isn't necessarily indicative of a lack of change among subgroups. Movement at the high end can have happened without much, if any, change to the mean, if there were corresponding changes in the other direction for elements of the grade outside the top. It wouldn't change the median, at all, if the change only happened at the top.

What MCPS folks said, when asked, was that there was higher performance on MAP at the high end last year than the year before. Go ask them if you don't believe it, but stop shilling, in effect, for a "nothing to see here" interpretation of the fact that they didn't make the numbers public.

Sigh. Why is DCUM so invested in “everyone’s so smart, we’re all 99th percentile”. The data suggest otherwise no matter how you want to try to dice it.

Fantastic strawman hyperbole and mischaracterization to try a meaningless deflection, there. I made no such claim, and wouldn't.

Meanwhile, it appears that nobody is able to make a concrete citation of locally-normed MAP cutoffs for criteria-based magnet decisions for last year.

[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:Reading this you might get depressed. I think a lot of people here exaggerate both on how commonplace high scores are, but also on what any of that means.

For one, the tails of these exams are not predictive of anything. In other words, 97% is not that meaningfully different from 99% and definitely not 99.75%. Its also a terrible test altogether because it measures exposures to various materials, not innate logical or reasoning skills.

My kids were 98/99 percentile in math/reading depending on year They got into CES, magnet middle and magnet high schools. We live in a low FARMs area *and* we are Asian (so should be a double whammy on acceptances but obviously not). We didn't enrich at all. It was all fine. Also, the kids with the highest MAP M scores in 8th grade were not necessarily the best Multivariate students so it's just one test folks with questionable utility.

I am not Asian, but one of my children went through these programs. My younger one might. They're equally smart, but with the lotteries and all today, I'm not all that optimistic since it's more about DEI than test scores now.

My DC didn’t qualify for the lottery with a MAP-R score in the 97th percentile because the 97th percentile nationwide wasn’t within the top 15% of MCPS test takers in our low FARMs cohort of schools. So the MCPS-wide mean might be only 2 points or whatever higher than the national norm but among the low FARMS schools, being in the 98/99th percentile is pretty commonplace.

Except according to the data acquired by MCCPTA the lowest FARMS school the top 15% was at the 95%.

Was the qualifying score for high FARMS schools equally impacted? If it took being in the 95th+ percentile in the low FARMS school to be among the top 15% of the cohort, does a kid need something like a 70-75th percentile score in order to be in the top 15% of the highest FARMS cohort?

The MCCPTA data that they released to the FB group showed 95%+ in the top 15% at low FARMS, 92% in top 15% at moderately low FARMS, and 60% was in top 15% for high FARMS.

And for which year and for which magnet program (CES, MS Math/Science/CS or MS Humamities) were those data released to MCCPTA GEC and then posted on the FB group?

The most recent data was for CES and MS. Magnets. By all means, join the group and read it yourself

Already there, and the "most recent data" you cite isn't for this year or last.

The MPIA response is titled "FY22-435 Responsive Document.pdf" -- the 21-22 school year, during which the selections for the entering 22-23 CES and criteria-based MS magnet classes were drawn. That's from MAPs taken 2 academic years back, and it shows only the MS criteria, which, for low-FARMS schools, were 93rd %ile and 92nd %ile for MAP-M and MAP-R, respectively (again, from 2 years ago). The only mention of 95th %ile was anecdotal, in that the GEC lead knew of those this past year who were in the 95th %ile but excluded, which points to the fact that the locally normed 85th %ile used for cutoff changes from year to year and was higher last year (at least at low-FARMS schools) than in the year prior.

There is another document posted, an info report to the BOE from January of this year (addressing, but not in great detail, some BOE questions from the 12/6/22 meeting), which summarizes the regional and countywide program admissions process. The only new information, there, was that the adjustment for students receiving services (individual with an EML or FARMS designation, a 504 or an IEP) for the CES was a locally normed 70th %ile MAP-R (instead of a locally normed 85th %ile); the fact that there was an adjustment for students receiving services for the criteria-based MS programs also was noted, but without a hard # (it seems like 70th %ile might be a good guess though). No actual cutoffs (RIT or %ile) for the various FARMS-rate tranches were given.

There is no detailed info on what those by-FARMS-rate-tranche percentile cutoffs used during last year's magnet selection process for this year's entering classes ended up being (aside from the "locally normed 85th %ile"). Certainly none for this year -- MCPS may have the data, but won't be sending notices for a couple of weeks, yet, for criteria-based MS programs and a couple of months for CES.

If you have a specific link to cite, have at it. I'd be happy to know updated info if it were available. If it's something in the FB group, you could cite the particular conversation so that folks who join could find it. Anything not marked internal (and I don't think there's anything on the FB group that would have that restriction) could be copied/shared.

Well, judging by the data the county shares through the parent portal, there's 0 reason to believe there's much change in the last year since the county average appears stable relative to the national average.

Definitely would go by the shared data and not accept that it's higher this year because someone on DCUM said so.

Except that there is no shared data for last year or this...

Yes, but we can tell it doesn't much vary YoY so I would stick with what they posted last year.

Man, I wish the US populace was better educated in Stats, even at a basic level.

A lack of significant change in the average isn't necessarily indicative of a lack of change among subgroups. Movement at the high end can have happened without much, if any, change to the mean, if there were corresponding changes in the other direction for elements of the grade outside the top. It wouldn't change the median, at all, if the change only happened at the top.

What MCPS folks said, when asked, was that there was higher performance on MAP at the high end last year than the year before. Go ask them if you don't believe it, but stop shilling, in effect, for a "nothing to see here" interpretation of the fact that they didn't make the numbers public.

If there were a statistically significant change in the order that is being claimed here (without any data), it would impact that average.