Middle school magnets - criteria-based

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:TPMS actually got more than 25. They participated in the first 100 lottery, then the 25 reserved.

That isn't how it works. They are put in a separate draw. Out-of-bounds seats are for out of bounds only, just as in-bounds seats are for in bounds only.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:TPMS actually got more than 25. They participated in the first 100 lottery, then the 25 reserved.

How do you know? It's not like the seats invitations with a sign on them that say "In Bounds Spot"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TPMS actually got more than 25. They participated in the first 100 lottery, then the 25 reserved.

How do you know? It's not like the seats invitations with a sign on them that say "In Bounds Spot"

When they started the lottery, it seemed like they got a lot less than 25, but not like I'm privy to the data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think MCPS has about 12,000 kids per grade so if you take 15% of that you get 1800. 100 spots for 1800 kids is 5.6 percent of those IN THE POOL. Very low odds.

Not that this back-of-the envelope approach is wrong for this kind of discussion, but there are 75 seats at Clemente for upcounty (25 of those are catchment-reserved, or at least used to be as of last year), and not all of the top 15% of scorers meet the other criteria. Assuming it's more like top 13%, removing the RCMS and TPMS in-bounds populations and using 150 out-of-bounds seats, one gets an estimate of 150 / ((12000 - 500) * 0.13) ~ 10% chance for out-of-bounds pool qualifiers to get in.

I didn't realize that was the likelihood of acceptance. So low!

What would be interesting to see is outcomes measurements across these programs. How do they perform compared to other pool qualifiers who didn't get a spot, on say, a variety of metrics? Also, how do they compare to out-of-bounds interest-based lotteries like Argyle, Loiderman, Parkland ? Does standards based lotteries necessarily bring a better outcome that interest based lotteries?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:TPMS actually got more than 25. They participated in the first 100 lottery, then the 25 reserved.

Says who? Where do you get that info? TBH, I doubt there are many more than 25 in the pool looking at the numbers. Anyone here in bound for TPMS and in the pool but didn’t win the lottery? I don’t know of any. My own kid was in the pool and got a spot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think MCPS has about 12,000 kids per grade so if you take 15% of that you get 1800. 100 spots for 1800 kids is 5.6 percent of those IN THE POOL. Very low odds.

Not that this back-of-the envelope approach is wrong for this kind of discussion, but there are 75 seats at Clemente for upcounty (25 of those are catchment-reserved, or at least used to be as of last year), and not all of the top 15% of scorers meet the other criteria. Assuming it's more like top 13%, removing the RCMS and TPMS in-bounds populations and using 150 out-of-bounds seats, one gets an estimate of 150 / ((12000 - 500) * 0.13) ~ 10% chance for out-of-bounds pool qualifiers to get in.

I didn't realize that was the likelihood of acceptance. So low!

What would be interesting to see is outcomes measurements across these programs. How do they perform compared to other pool qualifiers who didn't get a spot, on say, a variety of metrics? Also, how do they compare to out-of-bounds interest-based lotteries like Argyle, Loiderman, Parkland ? Does standards based lotteries necessarily bring a better outcome that interest based lotteries?

I don't know whether MCPS is tracking this information, and it would be complicated by the fact that they've changed the admissions process several times in the last 5 years, but I agree that it would be interesting to look at outcomes for kids who were in-pool but not selected via lottery versus kids who were in-pool and got lucky. The problem is that I'm not sure what metric you would use. Grades? MAP scores? Selective high school admissions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TPMS actually got more than 25. They participated in the first 100 lottery, then the 25 reserved.

Says who? Where do you get that info? TBH, I doubt there are many more than 25 in the pool looking at the numbers. Anyone here in bound for TPMS and in the pool but didn’t win the lottery? I don’t know of any. My own kid was in the pool and got a spot.

I know several kids who were inbounds and in the pool and didn't get in, including one kid who was a wild outlier by any standards. It was just back luck, but it absolutely happens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just got an email from TPMS that my kid is in!! Notification letters are also on ParentVue, which is great because our mail had not arrived.

Kid was in the pool for both lotteries, accepted at TPMS which is his home school.

I think a certain percentage of spots at TPMS are reserved for home school students. I am not sure if it's the same for Eastern.

25 are set aside for those in the TPMS catchment, so there is something of a separate lottery for them (same criteria, different pool). I think the ratio of seats to total MS population ends up being about 3 times greater.

That sounds really wrong. The odds of getting in have to be significantly higher.
TPMS has roughly 380 kids in each grade each year. If the top 15 percent are in the pool that's 57 kids. If there are 25 inbound set-aside seats that's a 44 percent chance of getting in!

Your math is wrong. That 380 per grade (I thought it was 400) includes the magnet kids, 100 of whom are from outside the TPMS area.

The math isn't wrong but just forgot to back out the magnet kids which makes it even more likely that in bounds kids from TPMS will get in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TPMS actually got more than 25. They participated in the first 100 lottery, then the 25 reserved.

Says who? Where do you get that info? TBH, I doubt there are many more than 25 in the pool looking at the numbers. Anyone here in bound for TPMS and in the pool but didn’t win the lottery? I don’t know of any. My own kid was in the pool and got a spot.

I know several kids who were inbounds and in the pool and didn't get in, including one kid who was a wild outlier by any standards. It was just back luck, but it absolutely happens.

Which year is this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just got an email from TPMS that my kid is in!! Notification letters are also on ParentVue, which is great because our mail had not arrived.

Kid was in the pool for both lotteries, accepted at TPMS which is his home school.

I think a certain percentage of spots at TPMS are reserved for home school students. I am not sure if it's the same for Eastern.

25 are set aside for those in the TPMS catchment, so there is something of a separate lottery for them (same criteria, different pool). I think the ratio of seats to total MS population ends up being about 3 times greater.

That sounds really wrong. The odds of getting in have to be significantly higher.
TPMS has roughly 380 kids in each grade each year. If the top 15 percent are in the pool that's 57 kids. If there are 25 inbound set-aside seats that's a 44 percent chance of getting in!

Your math is wrong. That 380 per grade (I thought it was 400) includes the magnet kids, 100 of whom are from outside the TPMS area.

The math isn't wrong but just forgot to back out the magnet kids which makes it even more likely that in bounds kids from TPMS will get in.

Er forgetting to remove 100 kid means your math is wrong!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just got an email from TPMS that my kid is in!! Notification letters are also on ParentVue, which is great because our mail had not arrived.

Kid was in the pool for both lotteries, accepted at TPMS which is his home school.

I think a certain percentage of spots at TPMS are reserved for home school students. I am not sure if it's the same for Eastern.

25 are set aside for those in the TPMS catchment, so there is something of a separate lottery for them (same criteria, different pool). I think the ratio of seats to total MS population ends up being about 3 times greater.

That sounds really wrong. The odds of getting in have to be significantly higher.
TPMS has roughly 380 kids in each grade each year. If the top 15 percent are in the pool that's 57 kids. If there are 25 inbound set-aside seats that's a 44 percent chance of getting in!

You'd need to back out the 100 non-catchment magnet seats, so 25 of 280, or about 9 percent of the overall catchment population gets in. That compares to 100 seats there for over 7000 6th grade students from the rest of the lower portion of the county, closer to 1.5 percent of the population. So it's about 6 times more likely to end up in the magnet if you are within the TPMS bounds. That's without considering the relative proportions of those who might qualify based on grades, reading level and locally-normed MAP percentiles (the result is less than the top 15% of MAP scorers). Your estimate of an over 44% chance for pool qualifiers may be on the low side.

As a PP said, it was done that way to make TP a more attractive place to buy back when the program was set up. Problem is, a good portion of the SFH area in TP already was desirable, and was the most likely place for folks magnet-hunting to land. I think it's also outlived its purpose. Politics. What's really a shame, though, is that they didn't expand the program to meet the need, or even to keep pace with population growth.

The set aside for Eastern was smaller (12), but King and Clemente had 25 in-catchment reserved seats to compare with only 50 for out-of-catchment. A real head-scratcher was the set-aside for Potomac for the Chinese Immersion program. Did they need their area made more attractive?
Was it to assuage the already-well-to-do about the influx of hoi palloi from out-of-bounds? Those with outsized influence get everything...

Interesting discussion. You are right about taking out the magnet kids so you have more like 280 TPMS kids in-bounds. 15 percent of that is 42 kids. 25 spots for 42 kids in the lottery means that 60 percent get in. Could this be correct? 60 percent of kids in the TPMS catchment area with lottery qualifying scores get into the magnet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TPMS actually got more than 25. They participated in the first 100 lottery, then the 25 reserved.

Says who? Where do you get that info? TBH, I doubt there are many more than 25 in the pool looking at the numbers. Anyone here in bound for TPMS and in the pool but didn’t win the lottery? I don’t know of any. My own kid was in the pool and got a spot.

I know several kids who were inbounds and in the pool and didn't get in, including one kid who was a wild outlier by any standards. It was just back luck, but it absolutely happens.

Which year is this?

The first year of the lottery at least I know there were several exceptional in-boundary kids that were passed over. It's the nature of lotteries. They don't guarantee that the most qualified are picked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just got an email from TPMS that my kid is in!! Notification letters are also on ParentVue, which is great because our mail had not arrived.

Kid was in the pool for both lotteries, accepted at TPMS which is his home school.

I think a certain percentage of spots at TPMS are reserved for home school students. I am not sure if it's the same for Eastern.

25 are set aside for those in the TPMS catchment, so there is something of a separate lottery for them (same criteria, different pool). I think the ratio of seats to total MS population ends up being about 3 times greater.

That sounds really wrong. The odds of getting in have to be significantly higher.
TPMS has roughly 380 kids in each grade each year. If the top 15 percent are in the pool that's 57 kids. If there are 25 inbound set-aside seats that's a 44 percent chance of getting in!

You'd need to back out the 100 non-catchment magnet seats, so 25 of 280, or about 9 percent of the overall catchment population gets in. That compares to 100 seats there for over 7000 6th grade students from the rest of the lower portion of the county, closer to 1.5 percent of the population. So it's about 6 times more likely to end up in the magnet if you are within the TPMS bounds. That's without considering the relative proportions of those who might qualify based on grades, reading level and locally-normed MAP percentiles (the result is less than the top 15% of MAP scorers). Your estimate of an over 44% chance for pool qualifiers may be on the low side.

As a PP said, it was done that way to make TP a more attractive place to buy back when the program was set up. Problem is, a good portion of the SFH area in TP already was desirable, and was the most likely place for folks magnet-hunting to land. I think it's also outlived its purpose. Politics. What's really a shame, though, is that they didn't expand the program to meet the need, or even to keep pace with population growth.

The set aside for Eastern was smaller (12), but King and Clemente had 25 in-catchment reserved seats to compare with only 50 for out-of-catchment. A real head-scratcher was the set-aside for Potomac for the Chinese Immersion program. Did they need their area made more attractive?
Was it to assuage the already-well-to-do about the influx of hoi palloi from out-of-bounds? Those with outsized influence get everything...

Interesting discussion. You are right about taking out the magnet kids so you have more like 280 TPMS kids in-bounds. 15 percent of that is 42 kids. 25 spots for 42 kids in the lottery means that 60 percent get in. Could this be correct? 60 percent of kids in the TPMS catchment area with lottery qualifying scores get into the magnet?

No that's not right. Look at the at a glance #s. It's more than 280.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TPMS actually got more than 25. They participated in the first 100 lottery, then the 25 reserved.

Says who? Where do you get that info? TBH, I doubt there are many more than 25 in the pool looking at the numbers. Anyone here in bound for TPMS and in the pool but didn’t win the lottery? I don’t know of any. My own kid was in the pool and got a spot.

I know several kids who were inbounds and in the pool and didn't get in, including one kid who was a wild outlier by any standards. It was just back luck, but it absolutely happens.

Which year is this?

This year's 6th graders, so second year of the lottery. It is just a lottery, so I don't think the child's parents assumed any nefarious intent, but there are absolutely in-bounds kids who are highly qualified and not getting slots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think MCPS has about 12,000 kids per grade so if you take 15% of that you get 1800. 100 spots for 1800 kids is 5.6 percent of those IN THE POOL. Very low odds.

Not that this back-of-the envelope approach is wrong for this kind of discussion, but there are 75 seats at Clemente for upcounty (25 of those are catchment-reserved, or at least used to be as of last year), and not all of the top 15% of scorers meet the other criteria. Assuming it's more like top 13%, removing the RCMS and TPMS in-bounds populations and using 150 out-of-bounds seats, one gets an estimate of 150 / ((12000 - 500) * 0.13) ~ 10% chance for out-of-bounds pool qualifiers to get in.

I didn't realize that was the likelihood of acceptance. So low!

What would be interesting to see is outcomes measurements across these programs. How do they perform compared to other pool qualifiers who didn't get a spot, on say, a variety of metrics? Also, how do they compare to out-of-bounds interest-based lotteries like Argyle, Loiderman, Parkland ? Does standards based lotteries necessarily bring a better outcome that interest based lotteries?

I don't know whether MCPS is tracking this information, and it would be complicated by the fact that they've changed the admissions process several times in the last 5 years, but I agree that it would be interesting to look at outcomes for kids who were in-pool but not selected via lottery versus kids who were in-pool and got lucky. The problem is that I'm not sure what metric you would use. Grades? MAP scores? Selective high school admissions?

-absolute and relative change on MAP scores
-mean MAP scores
-pre and post Cogat - absolute and relative change
-selective high school admissions rate
-maybe something like SSAT, pre and post absolute and relative change

As a former middle school/high school magnet student myself, I'd posit that there's actually no significant difference in outcomes for at least the ability based lotteries, at least as it's currently devised. Most of kids' outcomes are from the parents, not because of trips to Florida or Mission Possible or SRPs. But I know that's an unpopular opinion