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

[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:

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.

Except for the data that the county provided last year that is available to the FB group.

[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.

You know what's even less statistically significant? Bogus claims made on DCUM without any evidence.

[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:

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.

Except for the data that the county provided last year that is available to the FB group.

Which, as stated, was data from 2 years ago, not last year or this year. Why repeat the lie?

[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.

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

Wow. Doubling down on the ignorance.

I literally just provided two ways from basic math/stats (lower scores outside the top 15% if using a mean and use of a median), where this would not result in a significant change.

But you do you

[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.

You know what's even less statistically significant? Bogus claims made on DCUM without any evidence.

Great. You don't believe me. That shouldn't keep others from making an educated evaluation of the matter or, gasp!, calling MCPS to find out...

[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:

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.

Except for the data that the county provided last year that is available to the FB group.

Which, as stated, was data from 2 years ago, not last year or this year. Why repeat the lie?

Is there any credible reason to believe it would change significantly in the year since they posted 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:

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.

You know what's even less statistically significant? Bogus claims made on DCUM without any evidence.

Great. You don't believe me. That shouldn't keep others from making an educated evaluation of the matter or, gasp!, calling MCPS to find out...

When I called them, they said I needed to file a FIOR, or I could check the data on FB.

[Anonymous]

I am a fifth grader that knows trigonometry and yes 295 is a very high score in the 100th percentile

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a fifth grader that knows trigonometry and yes 295 is a very high score in the 100th percentile

It's too bad the MAP for grades 2-5 doesn't include trig, but you'll be in luck next year. In fact, around the 290s, they start asking trig questions, and if you're good at it, you might even break 300!

[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:

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.

Except for the data that the county provided last year that is available to the FB group.

Which, as stated, was data from 2 years ago, not last year or this year. Why repeat the lie?

Is there any credible reason to believe it would change significantly in the year since they posted this?

Is there anything you don't approach with a rhetorical bent? What's your interest in denigrating the information provided? Short, question-others-but-provide-no-answer-onesself responses are typically the bailiwick of politicians.

Meanwhile, it isn't as though I've presented that ex cathedra. I've been clear that I'd be happy to know something different if something official was provided. I have, however, provided what we do know, whether from that FB group or elsewhere:

-- MCPS's response to the MCCPTA GEC MPIA gave information from 2021-22, not last year or this.

-- That response showed the locally normed 85th %ile in the Fall of 2021 for MCPS 5th graders in low-FARMS schools was equivalent to the 92nd %ile and 93rd %ile for MAP-R and MAP-M on NWEA 2020 national norms (based, themselves, on sampling from actual MAP testing from 2015 to 2018).

-- An MCPS follow-up document to a BOE question indicates that the adjustment for those receiving services (EML/FARMS/504/IEP) is to lower the relevant MAP score threshold; this was to 70th %ile on 3rd grade Winter MAP-R for consideration for CES, but the %ile adjustments for the criteria-based MS program lottery pools were not specified (though it acknowledged a MAP %ile adjustment was used for those receiving services).

-- MCPS has not provided an update to specify the same percentiles for last year, but anecdotal evidence, as noted by the GEC chair on the FB group and from my own interactions with parents, indicates that the locally normed 85th %ile for Fall MAP-M for last year's MCPS 5th graders at low-FARMS schools was above the 95th %ile on NWEA 2020 norms, as these anecdotal cases included those meeting all the other requirements for inclusion in the Math/Science/CS lottery and a 95th %ile score for students who were not entered into that lottery.

You may not find that credible, and that's your choice. Others may consider it credible or might do their own digging to come to their own conclusion.

[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:

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.

You know what's even less statistically significant? Bogus claims made on DCUM without any evidence.

Great. You don't believe me. That shouldn't keep others from making an educated evaluation of the matter or, gasp!, calling MCPS to find out...

When I called them, they said I needed to file a FIOR, or I could check the data on FB.

I'm not surprised that they said you needed to file an MPIA (essentially MD's version of FOIA) request. They don't want the critique that would come with open data. It's sad that they see it as a frivolous bother instead of as a support to help students & families.

And the data on FB remains that from the FY22 MPIA response, covering only Fall 2021 local norms used to create the pool for the criteria-based MS classes entering last year. It's not like MCPS goes providing that data to the MCCPTA GEC on a recurring basis, despite calls for it to be made public as a matter of course (instead of requiring an MPIA request).

[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:

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.

Except for the data that the county provided last year that is available to the FB group.

Which, as stated, was data from 2 years ago, not last year or this year. Why repeat the lie?

Is there any credible reason to believe it would change significantly in the year since they posted this?

Is there anything you don't approach with a rhetorical bent? What's your interest in denigrating the information provided? Short, question-others-but-provide-no-answer-onesself responses are typically the bailiwick of politicians.

Meanwhile, it isn't as though I've presented that ex cathedra. I've been clear that I'd be happy to know something different if something official was provided. I have, however, provided what we do know, whether from that FB group or elsewhere:

-- MCPS's response to the MCCPTA GEC MPIA gave information from 2021-22, not last year or this.

-- That response showed the locally normed 85th %ile in the Fall of 2021 for MCPS 5th graders in low-FARMS schools was equivalent to the 92nd %ile and 93rd %ile for MAP-R and MAP-M on NWEA 2020 national norms (based, themselves, on sampling from actual MAP testing from 2015 to 2018).

-- An MCPS follow-up document to a BOE question indicates that the adjustment for those receiving services (EML/FARMS/504/IEP) is to lower the relevant MAP score threshold; this was to 70th %ile on 3rd grade Winter MAP-R for consideration for CES, but the %ile adjustments for the criteria-based MS program lottery pools were not specified (though it acknowledged a MAP %ile adjustment was used for those receiving services).

-- MCPS has not provided an update to specify the same percentiles for last year, but anecdotal evidence, as noted by the GEC chair on the FB group and from my own interactions with parents, indicates that the locally normed 85th %ile for Fall MAP-M for last year's MCPS 5th graders at low-FARMS schools was above the 95th %ile on NWEA 2020 norms, as these anecdotal cases included those meeting all the other requirements for inclusion in the Math/Science/CS lottery and a 95th %ile score for students who were not entered into that lottery.

You may not find that credible, and that's your choice. Others may consider it credible or might do their own digging to come to their own conclusion.

At our school I heard only the top kids with 99% are considered unless they have an IEP/EML/FARMS etc.

[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:

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.

You know what's even less statistically significant? Bogus claims made on DCUM without any evidence.

Great. You don't believe me. That shouldn't keep others from making an educated evaluation of the matter or, gasp!, calling MCPS to find out...

When I called them, they said I needed to file a FIOR, or I could check the data on FB.

I'm not surprised that they said you needed to file an MPIA (essentially MD's version of FOIA) request. They don't want the critique that would come with open data. It's sad that they see it as a frivolous bother instead of as a support to help students & families.

And the data on FB remains that from the FY22 MPIA response, covering only Fall 2021 local norms used to create the pool for the criteria-based MS classes entering last year. It's not like MCPS goes providing that data to the MCCPTA GEC on a recurring basis, despite calls for it to be made public as a matter of course (instead of requiring an MPIA request).

I don't get all the fuss. There's no reason to believe that much, if anything, has changed since they released the data.

[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:

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.

Except for the data that the county provided last year that is available to the FB group.

Which, as stated, was data from 2 years ago, not last year or this year. Why repeat the lie?

Is there any credible reason to believe it would change significantly in the year since they posted this?

Is there anything you don't approach with a rhetorical bent? What's your interest in denigrating the information provided? Short, question-others-but-provide-no-answer-onesself responses are typically the bailiwick of politicians.

Meanwhile, it isn't as though I've presented that ex cathedra. I've been clear that I'd be happy to know something different if something official was provided. I have, however, provided what we do know, whether from that FB group or elsewhere:

-- MCPS's response to the MCCPTA GEC MPIA gave information from 2021-22, not last year or this.

-- That response showed the locally normed 85th %ile in the Fall of 2021 for MCPS 5th graders in low-FARMS schools was equivalent to the 92nd %ile and 93rd %ile for MAP-R and MAP-M on NWEA 2020 national norms (based, themselves, on sampling from actual MAP testing from 2015 to 2018).

-- An MCPS follow-up document to a BOE question indicates that the adjustment for those receiving services (EML/FARMS/504/IEP) is to lower the relevant MAP score threshold; this was to 70th %ile on 3rd grade Winter MAP-R for consideration for CES, but the %ile adjustments for the criteria-based MS program lottery pools were not specified (though it acknowledged a MAP %ile adjustment was used for those receiving services).

-- MCPS has not provided an update to specify the same percentiles for last year, but anecdotal evidence, as noted by the GEC chair on the FB group and from my own interactions with parents, indicates that the locally normed 85th %ile for Fall MAP-M for last year's MCPS 5th graders at low-FARMS schools was above the 95th %ile on NWEA 2020 norms, as these anecdotal cases included those meeting all the other requirements for inclusion in the Math/Science/CS lottery and a 95th %ile score for students who were not entered into that lottery.

You may not find that credible, and that's your choice. Others may consider it credible or might do their own digging to come to their own conclusion.

At our school I heard only the top kids with 99% are considered unless they have an IEP/EML/FARMS etc.

Then it must be true!

[Anonymous]

Is there anyone with recent experience in CES since MCPS lowered the admission standard so much for some schools? Curious how that’s impacted the speed and content of curriculum.