5th graders taking 6th grade map m
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
It's a computer adaptive test. There is massive overlap between 5th and 6th grade math curriculum. |
Anonymous
The main problem with the current paradigm MAP-based paradigm is that the test content doesn't go anywhere near testing for capability or motivation for an enriched curriculum. So the very low lottery bar adds more noise to an already noisy process. "Justice" was never on the table for a program that only admits a tiny group of kids and makes them ride a long bus ride if they live far away. The magnet enhanced curriculum should be available to kids (self-service) in every school, and they should do a 1 day a week in-person or virtual pullout for enrichment topics for qualified kids if they can't support a full dedicated class for the school's cohort. |
Anonymous
Exactly the chart has grade level and gives a percent. So, for 5th graders who got score X, they are at percent Y. This would be different for 5th graders who took the 6th-grade test than for 5th graders who took the more straightforward test. The percentage would fairly reflect their knowledge, so it seems perfectly fair. |
Anonymous
Except that the response, above, was to the statement that, "Kids in a 6th grade math class are taking the MAP 6+. It doesn't take a Galaxy Brain to understand.' They aren't in 6th grade math yet. Sure, there's overlap, but they shouldn't be taking MAP 6+ until they are, especially when there is evidence of a temporary decline in score with the shift in the grade level of the test and when that test, unlike the others for this year, is going to be used as an admissions gate to magnet programming. |
Anonymous
It doesn't matter. Magnet admissions is a massive lottery with few winners. Kids whose scores dropped were bouncing the ceiling where the score was basically random (within the range) anyway. If you are that obessee with getting a higher score, grab a middle school math book from the library. |
Anonymous
| Just curious. Does that mean they took Map M - 5 last year in 4th grade? |
Anonymous
Well, it is MAP 3-5, then 6+ The test is adaptive, so by having kids currently in 5th grade take the 6+ test, they are effectively raising the ceiling on the content that those kids could be exposed to. |
Anonymous
Please reconcile these dissonant statements with additional detail so we can more clearly understand your point. The chart shows RIT score percentiles vs. students who took the test in a particular grade, not students who took a particular grade's test. How is it fair if a student in Math 5/6 took the MAP-M 6+ and scored 230 due to the noted adaptive-testing variability at that switchover, but would have scored a 245 on the MAP-M that is given to students in their same grade, but in Math 5 (which we've seen -- just looking at spring scores from the prior year, which track closely to the following year's fall scores). It's also not fair the other way, of course. Students in Math 5 had only been exposed to 4th-grade math (and a week or two of 5th) by the time they take the test that serves as a gate to the magnet. Since scores are highly driven by exposure, that puts them at a disadvantage. MCPS using that kind of back and forth advantage to suggest some kind of overall fairness ("It'll come out in the wash!") simpy is ludicrous and a systemic disservice to individuals. They shouldn't be trying to wrangle MAP into serving a purpose for which it was never intended. They had to[/u] do so for [i]one year at the beginning of the pandemic, since they couldn't administer CogAT and use the prior paradigm, and since the pandemic created such unreliable conditions from which to draw evaluations in the fist place. Even then, they used test scores from multiple testing periods to try to counter the known downdide of the approach. But then they saw it as a cost-savings that might help achieve a demographic goal, which is yet to be seen and rife with uncertainty due to the high gameability of exposure-based testing. And they eliminated the cushion of considering scores across multiple testing periods for the sake of simplifying their work. They need either to adopt an entirely new paradigm or at least to introduce more robust (AND FULLY TRANSPARENT) adjustments to individual conditions. They have time to make the latter happen this year. Or they can continue on their merry way, claiming victory but ignoring the faults, indifferent to the consequences for individual students... |
Anonymous
That child is still above the 85th percentile however. There's no actual harm done because everything above that percentile is a lottery. |
Anonymous
Of course it matters. "It doesn't matter" doesn't follow, logically, from the fact that it's a lottery with few winners (another problem, entirely). And there's the broader consequence of local placement in higher MS math courses, for which MCPS uses the lottery inclusion (for those not selected for the magnet) as the basis for eligibility. MCPS shouldn't be looking to identify need in their system based on who has accessed outside enrichment, whether library or paid prep/tutoring. |
Anonymous
Fifth graders in compacted math took all of fourth grade and half of fifth grade last year. They will take the second half of fifth grade and all of sixth grade this year. Since it is the third week of school, they obviously have not learned any sixth grade math yet, however they were just given the 6+ math test. Apparently you are the one without the galaxy brain. |
Anonymous
|
I alluded to this in another thread, but if MCPS were to simply offer an ELC of sorts for MS students, this would eliminate a lot of the “do or die” high stakes competition + lottery for the MS magnet that has even fewer seats than CES.
It would not take a rocket scientist to teach a MS “ELC” class—most of those teachers currently teaching English for MS I’m sure would be able to step up the rigor. Before ELC was extended to most ESs, CES was a big deal, but now it’s probably preferable to do ELC in your home school because it is not in a higher poverty school. Honestly I’m relieved my kid is not going to their designated CES because the school looks like it’s in a trailer park and my parents would have been alarmed for their grandkid. |
Anonymous
230 on MAP-/ 6+? 245 on MAP 3-5? Why does it matter? What do you think the magnet is going to provide? Students going to TPMS/Clemente under the old system were clearing 245 by 3rd grade and "joining the 300 club" in middle school. (Normal growth on MAP is about 10pts per year) NWEA website says that because the test is untimed, gifted kids often score higher than their instructional level due to their intelligence and problem solving skills. K-2 kids are scoring so high above instructional level that they get stuck only when they see notation that is introduced years later, rendering solvable problems impossible. MCPS decided to randomize magnet attendance. Now it's randomized. Parents hoping to squeeze their kid in by scraping over the lowered bar on a good day, aren't helping their kids. Their kids will struggle with the enhanced material. Especially if it means putting the kid on a long bus ride that could be spent learning instead. |
Anonymous
You're forgetting the local norming that occurs. The curoff from a low-FARMS school would fall between those numbers. Or consider it this way: what if a student who would have gotten a 230 (92nd %ile for fall of 5th grade) from a FARMS-tranche school for which that %ile would qualify got a 220 (77th %ile) for which that %ile wouldn't qualify because of the variability that seems inherent in the move to the 6+ test? You seem to be ignoring the specifics in an effort to justify an approach that fails when it comes to those specifics. |
Anonymous
You appear to believe that magnet programming only can provide benefit for the tippy-top, and are ignoring the gameability of MAP scores with outside enrichment. I reject the one -- there are far more who would benefit than they provide seats -- and find the other -- a system that disproportionately accrues benefit to the already-haves instead of making the effort to identify ability with better tools -- abhorrent. I'm not sure why you're defending such a system instead of looking to improve it. Use a better identification paradigm, then allocate the $ (and back that up with whatever taxes are needed) to make true magnet-type programming available locally and equally accessible, whatever the local cohort may be. Stand and deliver. |