MCPS to ban redshirting?

[Anonymous]

About time. Age norm the MAP scores while you are at it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:About time. Age norm the MAP scores while you are at it.

MAP scores have always been age-normed.
This is why from a point of view of testing, red-shirted kids don't necessarily have an academic advantage.

[Anonymous]

I would fully support this. As a teacher it is common to see well off, usually white kids redshirted while low income usually not white kids are sent on time. It just makes the achievement gap worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:About time. Age norm the MAP scores while you are at it.

MAP scores have always been age-normed.
This is why from a point of view of testing, red-shirted kids don't necessarily have an academic advantage.

No MAP is not age-normed. Not for MCPS anyway. If you look at the cogat test reports it shows the percentile of your child considering the scores for children of X number of years and months. For MAP testing, it just shows your child as benchmarked against the district and grade level means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Enrollment is falling so they need to get these kids enrolled as quickly as possible because some funding is based on overall enrollment. Banning redshirting would briefly slow the decline so it would make sense as a stop-gap to preserve funding.

Eh those are the kids most likely to opt for private instead

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would fully support this. As a teacher it is common to see well off, usually white kids redshirted while low income usually not white kids are sent on time. It just makes the achievement gap worse.

+1. One family I knew literally had their kid induced on August 30 so they wouldn’t have to pay for an extra year of daycare. Redshirting may be valid in some cases but it’s nearly always something privileged parents do.

[Anonymous]

DC was definitely not ready for K at first access and might have been an issue in the classroom. Redshirting alleviated that ahead of time and guaranteed a better K year for everyone, including the other kids and their families. DC went on to be very successful and hasn't taken any advantages (or attention, or sports positions) away from anyone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DC was definitely not ready for K at first access and might have been an issue in the classroom. Redshirting alleviated that ahead of time and guaranteed a better K year for everyone, including the other kids and their families. DC went on to be very successful and hasn't taken any advantages (or attention, or sports positions) away from anyone else.

You sound both privileged and oblivious. You were not in the classroom at all times or in any position to know what resources your child took up or took away from others. And the fact that he was "very successful" could be due to the fact that he was a year older than many other kids in his class who went through their schooling following the prescribed norms for entrance year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:About time. Age norm the MAP scores while you are at it.

MAP scores have always been age-normed.
This is why from a point of view of testing, red-shirted kids don't necessarily have an academic advantage.

No MAP is not age-normed. Not for MCPS anyway. If you look at the cogat test reports it shows the percentile of your child considering the scores for children of X number of years and months. For MAP testing, it just shows your child as benchmarked against the district and grade level means.

+1 This annoyed me. My kid is one of the youngest in their class, and CES slots are assigned solely based on MAP scores, and not COGAT scores which control for age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:About time. Age norm the MAP scores while you are at it.

MAP scores have always been age-normed.
This is why from a point of view of testing, red-shirted kids don't necessarily have an academic advantage.

No MAP is not age-normed. Not for MCPS anyway. If you look at the cogat test reports it shows the percentile of your child considering the scores for children of X number of years and months. For MAP testing, it just shows your child as benchmarked against the district and grade level means.

+1 This annoyed me. My kid is one of the youngest in their class, and CES slots are assigned solely based on MAP scores, and not COGAT scores which control for age.

They are not assigned based on MAP scores. It’s not like those who score well have an especially good chance of getting in. They throw anyone in the 85th oercentile (locally normed) into a lottery.

It’s not a good system, and it would be improved by using CogAt, but the real problem is that the lottery threshold is too low.

[Anonymous]

We are at a B-CC feeder and the summer boys tend to redshirt. It’s pretty common.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:About time. Age norm the MAP scores while you are at it.

MAP scores have always been age-normed.
This is why from a point of view of testing, red-shirted kids don't necessarily have an academic advantage.

No MAP is not age-normed. Not for MCPS anyway. If you look at the cogat test reports it shows the percentile of your child considering the scores for children of X number of years and months. For MAP testing, it just shows your child as benchmarked against the district and grade level means.

+1 This annoyed me. My kid is one of the youngest in their class, and CES slots are assigned solely based on MAP scores, and not COGAT scores which control for age.

They are not assigned based on MAP scores. It’s not like those who score well have an especially good chance of getting in. They throw anyone in the 85th oercentile (locally normed) into a lottery.

It’s not a good system, and it would be improved by using CogAt, but the real problem is that the lottery threshold is too low.

No one knows what the cutoff thresholds are for CES-they're not disclosed, but in low-FARMs schools, it's rumored to be in the low to mid-90s, not 85%. And yes, that can be a meaningful gap to bridge when you have a young student, and a kid who is 18 months older...and assess them as if they're exactly the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In my old district it was common for parents to have their kids repeat 5th grade in order to have a year of growth and experience advantage for sports in middle school and HS.

That wouldn't work here in MCPS because MCPS has a rule where any kid who turns 19 prior to August 31st is ineligible to play sports that year.

Red shifted kids would not be 19 in school. They'll turn 18 the summer before school starts. Turning 19 would be a whole extra year

[Anonymous]

*shirted

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:About time. Age norm the MAP scores while you are at it.

MAP scores have always been age-normed.
This is why from a point of view of testing, red-shirted kids don't necessarily have an academic advantage.

No MAP is not age-normed. Not for MCPS anyway. If you look at the cogat test reports it shows the percentile of your child considering the scores for children of X number of years and months. For MAP testing, it just shows your child as benchmarked against the district and grade level means.

+1 This annoyed me. My kid is one of the youngest in their class, and CES slots are assigned solely based on MAP scores, and not COGAT scores which control for age.

They are not assigned based on MAP scores. It’s not like those who score well have an especially good chance of getting in. They throw anyone in the 85th oercentile (locally normed) into a lottery.

It’s not a good system, and it would be improved by using CogAt, but the real problem is that the lottery threshold is too low.

No one knows what the cutoff thresholds are for CES-they're not disclosed, but in low-FARMs schools, it's rumored to be in the low to mid-90s, not 85%. And yes, that can be a meaningful gap to bridge when you have a young student, and a kid who is 18 months older...and assess them as if they're exactly the same.

It’s always 85th oercentile locally normed — it is the National oercentile that shifts.