How common is a math or reading MAP score at the 99th percentile in this area?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| Very common and I’m a teacher |
Anonymous
I don't get the need to dismiss MCPS's failing to provide data that they have at their fingertips or the need to undermine the notion that MAP performance may change from year to year. It's not "all the fuss" much more than that and countering you and others (if any) who keep up a dismissive posture on the matter. If it's a fuss to you, just stop posting. For me, and maybe for others, it's an interest in knowing for purposes of advocacy, whether by allowing critique to improve the system, by allowing better informed requests associated with individual students or by some other route. PS -- Isn't it great that an anonymous board allows for sock-puppetry to deflect from reasoned conversation? "Only 99th get in?" Might as well be, "My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who saw Ferris pass out at 31 Flavors last night." I guess it's pretty serious. |
Anonymous
A teacher at a CES? If so, could you comment on whether the curriculum and rigor of the program has changed after MCPS lowered the admission standard so much for kids from some schools and switched to a lottery? |
Anonymous
They didn't fail to provide it. It's maybe a year old. Do you have some reason to believe kids are significantly different one year later? |
Anonymous
Roughly half the students in MCPS are 504/IEP, EML or FARMS. I am unsure what percentage is above 70%, but it can't be insignificant. I imagine the pool today is very different from a few years ago. I'm personally fine with that but it is not the same program because of the cohort. |
Anonymous
I know it's maybe as high as 2.5%! 
|
Anonymous
Great job keeping up the near-political rhetoric, there, ignoring the prior post that laid out what was and was not provided, and failing, yourself to provide information, issuing an asked-and-answered question, instead, to engender doubt about the more substantive post, at least in a casual reader. MCPS failed to provide the information for last year. The information they provided for the year before applied to Fall 2021 MAP tests. There are those last year who did not get placed in the lottery pools who would have gotten in the year before based on their MAP score. One might reasonably deduce that, with no other change to the criteria, the locally normed 85 %ile increased, cutting out those students. MCPS has provided no information that would counter the above. Citing a report of little change in the average MAP score does not counter the above (without additional and considerably more detailed information) due to the nature of the relationship between multiple data points and associated averages. |
Anonymous
I don't doubt that, as you say, the pool and cohort are different. Over the past decades, MCPS hasn't put nearly enough into ensuring that appropriate levels of enriched and accelerated (erstwhile "GT") programming were available to the population of students with associated need. Instead of doing so with their latest approach, they've provided watered-down courses/curricula which are applied to nearly the whole population (e.g., "honors for all") at local schools (doing little to ensure that the nominal enrichments are actually applied with similar rigor across schools), kept magnet program seats ludicrously few and devised a lottery approach that, more than providing the equity-related opportunities they sought, provides a greater opportunity for those with means to game the system. |
Anonymous
Strange, I’ve heard the opposite from teachers who actually administer the tests. |
Anonymous
Recent MCPS data has been published. They also share their district averages, which are, as it turns out, very similar to national norms. You can go with known facts or believe in gossip. This is a simple choice. |
Anonymous
Oh, I go with the facts, not sure why you’d think otherwise. I’ve said so repeatedly on this thread.. I was just pointing out that my conversations with teachers also support the facts. |
Anonymous
Sorry, I meant to support your viewpoint. Now, I can only guess specifics, but based on what we know, a half-dozen out of 100 may score 99% at a low FARMS school. and although this is hardly every kid, but it does exceed national norms. |
Anonymous
Recent MCPS data has been published...where? (Please provide a direct link or specific, easily replicable steps for access.) For which year? About which measures? In what level of detail? If the only new piece of data that is being bandied, here, is an MCPS average, it severely limits the conclusions that might be drawn. It certainly does not allow reliable conclusions about the distributuon or associated changes from year to year. MAP scores call attention for a few reasons. Among them are: -- Pride about high scores, whether about one's child or one's school (this can be misplaced, especially when interpreting it directly as indicative of ability, rather than achievement, and I'd suggest folks keep that to themselves in any case). -- Concern about low scores (while I wouldn't advise ignoring that, and would suggest touching ground with a student's teacher, I'd also cushion this with an understanding of the inherent variability of individual, single-point-in-time scores for such tests, among the reasons for the "misplaced" note, above) -- Interest in subscores and growth (which might guide more individualized teaching; this is among the most appropriate uses of MAP testing, but may not be well implemented across schools and classes) -- Interest in average scores and distributions on a school- or county-wide basis (another relatively appropriate use, as long as large enough data sets are considered, especially longitudinally across several test periods, and evaluated in the light of other, idiosyncratic factors, especially for individual schools) -- Concern about how a student's score might be evaluated as part of MCPS criteria-based decisions such as GT designation, magnet placement and eligibility for enriched/accelerated programming (this is usually the sticky wicket, here and elsewhere; MCPS tries very hard to keep from disclosure of related information because of the high levels of interest in these decisions, given the known limitations of their approaches, both to identification and to programming) |
Anonymous
I think this debate you’re having all depends on where people are coming from. Out our ES - W feeder with low FARMS - I’m not kidding when I say that nearly every parent we talk to about MAP scores reports that their DC got something at or close to 99%. We’re of course self selecting who we discuss this with, but until threads like this one, I assumed that MAP was a fairly easy test to get a 99th percentile on. I’d be genuinely troubled if any of my kids scored less than 95th percentile or so. Not because I think they’re super smart but because my impression is that everyone can score that high. I’m sure there are teachers at our school who would characterize it as pretty common too. District-wide, it’s another story completely. But when people ask “how common is it for x to happen” I think most people answer based on their personal experience and not a nuanced look at the really hard to find data. |
Anonymous
Sure, they didn't publish data from yesterday, but the FB data is recent enough that we can get a clear picture of things. |