Middle school lottery
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
I was responding to your initial statement at the beginning of this thread that it IS 70th percentile. Again, it’s incorrect. I could just as easily state that it’s 82nd percentile nationally and one B is acceptable rather than all As. That’s also a guess. |
Anonymous
|
The appeal process may not need to be more robust. However, hiding information applicable to that process serves only those who wish to keep it most manipulable by insiders, antithetical to an equitable framework. That same mentality of obfuscation, ostensibly in the interests of efficient service to society, has propped up many an inequitable social paradigm.
To reduce the incidence of appeals while justly serving students, it would be far better to have criteria with robust heuristics, more flexible to heterogeneous conditions and the uncertainties inherent to many a single criterion, meanwhile making the information plainly known and easily accessible. That would support appeals in the interests of those individual students whose edge cases may not be well represented in the chosen paradigm, and that's the kind of thing that promotes equity (not to mention improves community relations/perceptions). Slippery slope arguments have also long plagued advocates of equitable outcomes. That hard-grading 5th grade teacher? Perhaps nobly seeking to instill appreciation for rigor and effort in a local student population that too often is disserved with low expectatIon? That points out a flaw in MCPS's current inflexible criteria, one better addressed with heuristics designed to accommodate such apples-to-oranges situations with better fidelity to identification of ability. Or, perhaps, it might encourage MCPS to promote relative uniformity in grading, which also would tend toward greater equitability. The issue of different versions of MAP-M being administered among 5th graders was addressed, at least to some semblance of a reasonable degree. Other well identified heterogeneous underlying conditions, more endemic and unalterable, likewise should see accomodation in the criteria. That for those receiving services is the lone example we have, and it was monolothic. Are all IEPs indicative of similar impediment to getting higher MAP RIT scores? Does a 504 represent a similar impediment to an EML designation, and similarly in both Math and Reading? Aren't IEPs and 504s more likely to be obtained by those with greater means? Doesn't that, paired with FARMS and EML designations being predominant among those with much lower means, result in a barbell distribution of the criteria accommodation, presenting inflexible criteria cliffs that squeeze those in the middle who might have closely related situations (or in the case of IEP/504, those possibly more severe but unpursued due to lack of extensive means)? Again, a more flexible identification paradigm, perhaps utilizing tools oft-cited as better representative of ability than achievement/exposure, perhaps not, would better serve equity goals. Simply saying it's a slippery slope undercuts any effort to make appeals or pursue better paradigms even when the edge-case/difference-based arguments and related solutions might be fairly plain on their face. That kind of ploy has been used by entrenched interests for centuries to keep others in their place. Our children deserve better. |
Anonymous
Funny. Why not, then, reply to that earlier post? No, you replied to the post with the more explicit caveat of reasonable guess. A post which provided a rationale for that deduction and a citation. Even the earlier post provided reasonable equivocation, given its relative brevity: "what appears to be a 70th percentile locally normed MAP score instead of 85th." The reply to that one was a "No, it's not"-type vacuous post that engendered the more detailed response.
And here we have yet another vacuous "No, it's not." You could state it's 82nd or 78th or 45th. You present no basis for doing so, whereas I have for 70th. Some guesses are educated. Throwing in "one B is acceptable" is a red herring. Nowhere did I suggest that and nowhere have I found such suggested by MCPS documentation... ...unlike the lower MAP percentile. That information, though guarded previously, made its way, at least partially, into the referenced presentation. Why you dispute my nuanced and caveated inference, there, with claims that it is untrue, rather than allowing for its reasonable possibility, is unclear. Are you suggesting MCPS should be keeping it to themselves? |
Anonymous
| Is it known roughly the number who qualify v. number of available spots? |
Anonymous
You are truly insufferable. You should reread the entire thread where you repeatedly argued with me and only me, and understand why I was continuing to push back against your repeated BS speculation on this 70 percent claim. A claim that you’ve put all over DCUM in this and other threads and repeatedly presented as fact. Waiting for you to make another lengthy and unnecessarily hostile, illogical response, (which I shall now ignore) but for the sake of other readers I want to make sure that they understand that your guess is just that and basically something you’ve pulled out of your backside. |
Anonymous
Your repeatedly insinuating that I am perpetuating a falsehood is simply, itself, a bald-faced lie that you masquerade as truth, providing no substantiation with your "push back", and unfortunately, like so many in recent years, simply repeat in the hope that that repetition convinces others. I've presented the thought as a reasonable guess in the face of the void of that information coming from MCPS, supported by reference to their own BOE response document that: shows a 70th percentile locally normed MAP score as the accommodation for the CES lottery pool for those receiving services (FARMS, EML, IEP, 504), and notes a lower threshold, without a number, but in a nearly identical manner/graphic, when that same response document then refers to the criteria-based MS magnet lottery pools. That thought has not been presented as gospel truth, but has been presented with explanation of the associated presumptions and disseminated so that others might have that information, if interested. Certainly, they can draw their own conclusions. Your shrill mischaracterizations, themselves unfortunate echoes of modern "debate" so full of logical fallacy and bereft of considered response, do not help in that regard. |