Takoma Park MS Magnet - 25 inbound seats?

[Anonymous]

The chart shows that the test scores of 5th grade students feeding into Frost, Hoover, Pyle, cabin John( in the West) and SSIMs and Sligo ( in the East) point to large numbers of students who are highly able in reading and math. So we should see large numbers of students from these middle school clusters in our middle school magnets. They do not have information on takoma or eastern for some reason. It is highly likely that the 5th grade kids zoned for Takoma Park have a large cohort of highly able kids as the demographics are very similar to SSIMs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The chart shows that the test scores of 5th grade students feeding into Frost, Hoover, Pyle, cabin John( in the West) and SSIMs and Sligo ( in the East) point to large numbers of students who are highly able in reading and math. So we should see large numbers of students from these middle school clusters in our middle school magnets. They do not have information on takoma or eastern for some reason. It is highly likely that the 5th grade kids zoned for Takoma Park have a large cohort of highly able kids as the demographics are very similar to SSIMs

Sorry. Here is the chart
https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/schools/msmagnet/about/MS%20Magnet%20Field%20Test%20Data%20by%20Sending%20MS.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
This chart?
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/s...20Data%20by%20Sending%20MS.pdf


I'm glad that someone found the char. I knew that SSIM was high.

To be fair though the columns showing #s highly able by MAP scores are the numbers AFTER the scores have been adjusted by FARMS. If I am in a school with low FARMS I need to achieve a much higher score to be included in the highly able category. For example, I could score a 85% on MAP M or R at SSIM and Sligo and get into the bucker but if I move over to Pyle or Frost I have to score a 98%. PARCC was not adjusted and this is why you see such a strange pattern with large numbers being in highly able by MAP but much lower number scoring high on PARCC and vice versa.

This data does not make the case though for retaining special accommodations for TPMS though as there are many OOB schools ranging from SSIM to Cabin John with gifted or highly able kids. I've argued that if there are any set aside spots that they should be open to the entire DCC. From a fairness perspective, they should be open to all OOB students.


Cognat wasn't adjusted either and the number of eligible students at SSIMS, for example, is consistent across each of the testing categories.

Correct Cognat wasn't adjusted and SSIM did well with 62. It didn't score as high as Pyle, Frost or Hoover but it did have 2 more eligible kids than Cabin John (60).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This chart?
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/s...20Data%20by%20Sending%20MS.pdf


I'm glad that someone found the char. I knew that SSIM was high.

To be fair though the columns showing #s highly able by MAP scores are the numbers AFTER the scores have been adjusted by FARMS. If I am in a school with low FARMS I need to achieve a much higher score to be included in the highly able category. For example, I could score a 85% on MAP M or R at SSIM and Sligo and get into the bucker but if I move over to Pyle or Frost I have to score a 98%. PARCC was not adjusted and this is why you see such a strange pattern with large numbers being in highly able by MAP but much lower number scoring high on PARCC and vice versa.

This data does not make the case though for retaining special accommodations for TPMS though as there are many OOB schools ranging from SSIM to Cabin John with gifted or highly able kids. I've argued that if there are any set aside spots that they should be open to the entire DCC. From a fairness perspective, they should be open to all OOB students.


Cognat wasn't adjusted either and the number of eligible students at SSIMS, for example, is consistent across each of the testing categories.

Correct Cognat wasn't adjusted and SSIM did well with 62. It didn't score as high as Pyle, Frost or Hoover but it did have 2 more eligible kids than Cabin John (60).

However, there were more SS MS students with high MAP-M scores than those other schools which is directly on point for a STEM magnet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm glad that someone found the char. I knew that SSIM was high.

To be fair though the columns showing #s highly able by MAP scores are the numbers AFTER the scores have been adjusted by FARMS. If I am in a school with low FARMS I need to achieve a much higher score to be included in the highly able category. For example, I could score a 85% on MAP M or R at SSIM and Sligo and get into the bucker but if I move over to Pyle or Frost I have to score a 98%. PARCC was not adjusted and this is why you see such a strange pattern with large numbers being in highly able by MAP but much lower number scoring high on PARCC and vice versa.

This data does not make the case though for retaining special accommodations for TPMS though as there are many OOB schools ranging from SSIM to Cabin John with gifted or highly able kids. I've argued that if there are any set aside spots that they should be open to the entire DCC. From a fairness perspective, they should be open to all OOB students.

Special accommodations.

It's already been explained to that poster that there is no special accommodation they simply choose to be ignorant.

The reality is TPMS in boundary students have had enriched math starting in first-grade and many are lightyears ahead of their counterparts in other schools. My youngest, for example, @PBES scored in the low 250s on their winter MAP-M. I expect they'll be 30-40 points higher by fall of 5th grade. I doubt there are many kids out of boundary at that level even with Dr. Li's help. My oldest went through TPMS magnet and is currently at Blair SMCS.

[Anonymous]

The chart leaves out school size. Looks like Pyle is 1550, Frost about 1100, Cabin John about 950, SS about 1050, TP about 1000.

[Anonymous]

OK so SSIM and Cabin John are about equal rather than SSIM being 2 ahead of Cabin John. SSIM is still good.

Is anyone wondering though with this data how the cohort criteria makes any sense. MCPS said that schools with more than 20 cohorts had very few admits because they had a cohort at their home school. There are no schools with fewer than 20 cohort kids. What gives?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
This chart?
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/s...20Data%20by%20Sending%20MS.pdf


I'm glad that someone found the char. I knew that SSIM was high.

To be fair though the columns showing #s highly able by MAP scores are the numbers AFTER the scores have been adjusted by FARMS. If I am in a school with low FARMS I need to achieve a much higher score to be included in the highly able category. For example, I could score a 85% on MAP M or R at SSIM and Sligo and get into the bucker but if I move over to Pyle or Frost I have to score a 98%. PARCC was not adjusted and this is why you see such a strange pattern with large numbers being in highly able by MAP but much lower number scoring high on PARCC and vice versa.

This data does not make the case though for retaining special accommodations for TPMS though as there are many OOB schools ranging from SSIM to Cabin John with gifted or highly able kids. I've argued that if there are any set aside spots that they should be open to the entire DCC. From a fairness perspective, they should be open to all OOB students.


Cognat wasn't adjusted either and the number of eligible students at SSIMS, for example, is consistent across each of the testing categories.


Correct Cognat wasn't adjusted and SSIM did well with 62. It didn't score as high as Pyle, Frost or Hoover but it did have 2 more eligible kids than Cabin John (60).


However, there were more SS MS students with high MAP-M scores than those other schools which is directly on point for a STEM magnet.

No, read the above paragraphs. MAP scores in this table had already been adjusted. The cut offs to be in the bucket of highly able for Map M, Map R were adjusted to factor in FARMS rate. The cut off range for SS is lower than the schools with few FARMS kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OK so SSIM and Cabin John are about equal rather than SSIM being 2 ahead of Cabin John. SSIM is still good.

Is anyone wondering though with this data how the cohort criteria makes any sense. MCPS said that schools with more than 20 cohorts had very few admits because they had a cohort at their home school. There are no schools with fewer than 20 cohort kids. What gives?

I have posted about this multiple times in the last few months

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OK so SSIM and Cabin John are about equal rather than SSIM being 2 ahead of Cabin John. SSIM is still good.

Is anyone wondering though with this data how the cohort criteria makes any sense. MCPS said that schools with more than 20 cohorts had very few admits because they had a cohort at their home school. There are no schools with fewer than 20 cohort kids. What gives?

It is curious. The other thing that springs to mind is if there are that many high-performing kids they seriously need to add more magnets or beef up the enriched classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK so SSIM and Cabin John are about equal rather than SSIM being 2 ahead of Cabin John. SSIM is still good.

Is anyone wondering though with this data how the cohort criteria makes any sense. MCPS said that schools with more than 20 cohorts had very few admits because they had a cohort at their home school. There are no schools with fewer than 20 cohort kids. What gives?

It is curious. The other thing that springs to mind is if there are that many high-performing kids they seriously need to add more magnets or beef up the enriched classes.

Also what is “highly able” per MCPS. I would argue that to be a good candidate for the Magnet programs you should be in the 95th percentile for at least two of the COGAT tests. Admitting students who are in the 85th percentile risks the integrity of the program. The bar should of course be lower for the enriched classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
This chart?
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/s...20Data%20by%20Sending%20MS.pdf


I'm glad that someone found the char. I knew that SSIM was high.

To be fair though the columns showing #s highly able by MAP scores are the numbers AFTER the scores have been adjusted by FARMS. If I am in a school with low FARMS I need to achieve a much higher score to be included in the highly able category. For example, I could score a 85% on MAP M or R at SSIM and Sligo and get into the bucker but if I move over to Pyle or Frost I have to score a 98%. PARCC was not adjusted and this is why you see such a strange pattern with large numbers being in highly able by MAP but much lower number scoring high on PARCC and vice versa.

This data does not make the case though for retaining special accommodations for TPMS though as there are many OOB schools ranging from SSIM to Cabin John with gifted or highly able kids. I've argued that if there are any set aside spots that they should be open to the entire DCC. From a fairness perspective, they should be open to all OOB students.


Cognat wasn't adjusted either and the number of eligible students at SSIMS, for example, is consistent across each of the testing categories.


Correct Cognat wasn't adjusted and SSIM did well with 62. It didn't score as high as Pyle, Frost or Hoover but it did have 2 more eligible kids than Cabin John (60).


However, there were more SS MS students with high MAP-M scores than those other schools which is directly on point for a STEM magnet.

No, read the above paragraphs. MAP scores in this table had already been adjusted. The cut offs to be in the bucket of highly able for Map M, Map R were adjusted to factor in FARMS rate. The cut off range for SS is lower than the schools with few FARMS kids.

Many incorrectly assume that schools with higher averages on standardized test have higher performing students when more often than not these schools simply have fewer low-income students.

In another thread, one poster performed a more nuanced analysis to isolate for socioeconomic differences across MCPS high-schools. Their point was that simple averages are meaningless since they mainly tell us about an area's demographic makeup not how well kids with similar backgrounds perform. Further, schools like the W’s get this artificial boost because their gerrymandered boundaries contain few low-income students. The SAT averages for several schools for a common demographic cohort provides a more accurate picture of how similar students perform at these schools.

Blair 1326
Walter Johnson 1275
Wooton 1262
Poolesville 1259
Churchill 1257

https://montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/shared...c_Perf%20Class%20of%202017.pdf

[Anonymous]

Oh good lord not this nonsense again. Other posters have pointed out numerous times that your SAT data doesn't match any official or published source. Its a subset of white kids at Blair probably all from CAPS and SMAC. It isn't accurate and you know it. Are you the poster who is being rude to everyone on the thread questioning why TPMS has set aside seats?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh good lord not this nonsense again. Other posters have pointed out numerous times that your SAT data doesn't match any official or published source. Its a subset of white kids at Blair probably all from CAPS and SMAC. It isn't accurate and you know it. Are you the poster who is being rude to everyone on the thread questioning why TPMS has set aside seats?

How could those kids be in a magnet? I thought it was all Asian?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh good lord not this nonsense again. Other posters have pointed out numerous times that your SAT data doesn't match any official or published source. Its a subset of white kids at Blair probably all from CAPS and SMAC. It isn't accurate and you know it. Are you the poster who is being rude to everyone on the thread questioning why TPMS has set aside seats?

Comparing cohorts with similar SES seems like a smart way to understand how students with similar SES perform at these schools with significantly different FARMS rates and demographics.