Takoma Park MS Magnet - 25 inbound seats?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
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

Nice!

[Anonymous]

[Post New]04/26/2019 16:19 Subject: Re:Takoma Park MS Magnet - 25 inbound seats? [Up]
Anonymous



Anonymous wrote:

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


Nice!

You know that this data is not accurate. The link that you attached doesn't even work. On other thread you have provided a link to a non-official file not located on the county or state's website. Where is your fake file?

[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).

In addition to the chart though its interesting to look at the summary from the Office of Shared Accountability on the score range that was admitted to TPMS. It is much broader and lower than in years past.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

[Post New]04/26/2019 16:19 Subject: Re:Takoma Park MS Magnet - 25 inbound seats? [Up]
Anonymous



Anonymous wrote:

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


Nice!

You know that this data is not accurate. The link that you attached doesn't even work. On other thread you have provided a link to a non-official file not located on the county or state's website. Where is your fake file?

Here's the link to the MCPS data that says otherwise. Enjoy

https://montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/2017/1771102HS%20Princ_SAT%20Partic_Perf%20Class%20of%202017.pdf

[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).

In addition to the chart though its interesting to look at the summary from the Office of Shared Accountability on the score range that was admitted to TPMS. It is much broader and lower than in years past.

It's much higher than years past because they screened 10x the number of students.

[Anonymous]

OK so Blair is 1174. I don't see why this is something to brag about or why its relevant on a thread about inbound seats for TPMS.

[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).


In addition to the chart though its interesting to look at the summary from the Office of Shared Accountability on the score range that was admitted to TPMS. It is much broader and lower than in years past.


It's much higher than years past because they screened 10x the number of students.

Except it isn't at all. It should be but only 80% of the invitees are above 95% on COGAT. This number should be in the high 90s not down to 95%. There should be 20% there scoring 80%-94%. 1/3 of the invitees didn't even get a 5 on PARRC.

[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).


In addition to the chart though its interesting to look at the summary from the Office of Shared Accountability on the score range that was admitted to TPMS. It is much broader and lower than in years past.


It's much higher than years past because they screened 10x the number of students.

Except it isn't at all. It should be but only 80% of the invitees are above 95% on COGAT. This number should be in the high 90s not down to 95%. There should be 20% there scoring 80%-94%. 1/3 of the invitees didn't even get a 5 on PARRC.

Can you provide a citation for this data that actually works?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Can you provide a citation for this data that actually works?

Don't think they can because of universal screening was a game changer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Except it isn't at all. It should be but only 80% of the invitees are above 95% on COGAT. This number should be in the high 90s not down to 95%. There should be 20% there scoring 80%-94%. 1/3 of the invitees didn't even get a 5 on PARRC.

Link, please?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Except it isn't at all. It should be but only 80% of the invitees are above 95% on COGAT. This number should be in the high 90s not down to 95%. There should be 20% there scoring 80%-94%. 1/3 of the invitees didn't even get a 5 on PARRC.

Link, please?

It's simply a belief held by some people, but there's no hard data supporting it.

[Anonymous]

Here is the summary identifying the level of academic performance for both the CES programs and TPMS and Eastern. The PP is correct in the lower numbers and broader range of academic performance of tests. You can't determine how many kids scored 95% vs 99% because MCPS lumps then into a larger group - most likely to obscure that they are falling closer to 95% than 99%. PARCC score below 5 etc.

https://montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/2019/Enriched%20and%20Accelerated%2028Jan2019%20FINAL.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is the summary identifying the level of academic performance for both the CES programs and TPMS and Eastern. The PP is correct in the lower numbers and broader range of academic performance of tests. You can't determine how many kids scored 95% vs 99% because MCPS lumps then into a larger group - most likely to obscure that they are falling closer to 95% than 99%. PARCC score below 5 etc.

https://montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/2019/Enriched%20and%20Accelerated%2028Jan2019%20FINAL.pdf

Again your premise rests on a broad and unproven assumption, "well my belief would be true but MCPS if they showed us the info".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is the summary identifying the level of academic performance for both the CES programs and TPMS and Eastern. The PP is correct in the lower numbers and broader range of academic performance of tests. You can't determine how many kids scored 95% vs 99% because MCPS lumps then into a larger group - most likely to obscure that they are falling closer to 95% than 99%. PARCC score below 5 etc.

https://montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/2019/Enriched%20and%20Accelerated%2028Jan2019%20FINAL.pdf

Shorter PP: This data would prove that I'm right, if it showed what I think it ought to show.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is the summary identifying the level of academic performance for both the CES programs and TPMS and Eastern. The PP is correct in the lower numbers and broader range of academic performance of tests. You can't determine how many kids scored 95% vs 99% because MCPS lumps then into a larger group - most likely to obscure that they are falling closer to 95% than 99%. PARCC score below 5 etc.

https://montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/2019/Enriched%20and%20Accelerated%2028Jan2019%20FINAL.pdf

Shorter PP: This data would prove that I'm right, if it showed what I think it ought to show.

If only the data existed outside of your imagination...