What is the real reason MCPS uses Lottery for Middle School Magnet Program

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It is not clear at all. Lottery is just the final step. We need to know what criteria they use to put the kids in the lottery pool. Do they even consider academic performance? What is the cutoff percentile? or Are they just look at the race of the students? Are there any quotas being set for specific race to be included in the lottery pool? There are so many questions that we do not know answers to. It also appears that you are very clear on the process. Can you enlighten us parents with your wisdom?

I think the lottery is a terrible strategy, but they've answered many of these questions in the past.

Yes, they consider report cards. For CES and Humanities, they need to see As in the previous year's report cards in ELA. For TPMS, they want As in Math.

The cut-off percentile for MAP is 85th percentile.

They do not consider race.

Right. We all got all that. So how does the FARMS status or IEP/504 factor in? Do those students get into the pool with different grades or MAP scores? If they don’t, how is that status being factored in with the lottery?

MAP scores are locally normed, so it is 85th percentile of students within each "tier" of schools.

This is conjecture. MCPS has have never confirmed what “local norming” means.

It's implicit, but if you're going to nitpick every detail to cry foul sure we can't be sure what any works mean...

True, everyone with any sense understands the concept of local normong, but the crazies want to always split hairs. It wouldn't matter what MCPS said. It would never be enough for them.

I actually don’t understand it because MCPS has never explained it. I don’t have a dog in this fight but I continually see people saying how MCPS has clearly explained everything and yet this is a critical piece of the criteria and they in fact have not explained it at all.

Bump. Can anyone provide a credible reference explaining how MCPS conducts “local norning”?

I think they just use a local norm.

Great, now define local.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It is not clear at all. Lottery is just the final step. We need to know what criteria they use to put the kids in the lottery pool. Do they even consider academic performance? What is the cutoff percentile? or Are they just look at the race of the students? Are there any quotas being set for specific race to be included in the lottery pool? There are so many questions that we do not know answers to. It also appears that you are very clear on the process. Can you enlighten us parents with your wisdom?

I think the lottery is a terrible strategy, but they've answered many of these questions in the past.

Yes, they consider report cards. For CES and Humanities, they need to see As in the previous year's report cards in ELA. For TPMS, they want As in Math.

The cut-off percentile for MAP is 85th percentile.

They do not consider race.

Right. We all got all that. So how does the FARMS status or IEP/504 factor in? Do those students get into the pool with different grades or MAP scores? If they don’t, how is that status being factored in with the lottery?

MAP scores are locally normed, so it is 85th percentile of students within each "tier" of schools.

This is conjecture. MCPS has have never confirmed what “local norming” means.

It's implicit, but if you're going to nitpick every detail to cry foul sure we can't be sure what any works mean...

True, everyone with any sense understands the concept of local normong, but the crazies want to always split hairs. It wouldn't matter what MCPS said. It would never be enough for them.

I actually don’t understand it because MCPS has never explained it. I don’t have a dog in this fight but I continually see people saying how MCPS has clearly explained everything and yet this is a critical piece of the criteria and they in fact have not explained it at all.

Bump. Can anyone provide a credible reference explaining how MCPS conducts “local norning”?

I think they just use a local norm.

Great, now define local.

as the PP poster said anyone with sense would understand local norming. we don't define such things. it just is....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It is not clear at all. Lottery is just the final step. We need to know what criteria they use to put the kids in the lottery pool. Do they even consider academic performance? What is the cutoff percentile? or Are they just look at the race of the students? Are there any quotas being set for specific race to be included in the lottery pool? There are so many questions that we do not know answers to. It also appears that you are very clear on the process. Can you enlighten us parents with your wisdom?

I think the lottery is a terrible strategy, but they've answered many of these questions in the past.

Yes, they consider report cards. For CES and Humanities, they need to see As in the previous year's report cards in ELA. For TPMS, they want As in Math.

The cut-off percentile for MAP is 85th percentile.

They do not consider race.

Right. We all got all that. So how does the FARMS status or IEP/504 factor in? Do those students get into the pool with different grades or MAP scores? If they don’t, how is that status being factored in with the lottery?

MAP scores are locally normed, so it is 85th percentile of students within each "tier" of schools.

This is conjecture. MCPS has have never confirmed what “local norming” means.

It's implicit, but if you're going to nitpick every detail to cry foul sure we can't be sure what any works mean...

True, everyone with any sense understands the concept of local normong, but the crazies want to always split hairs. It wouldn't matter what MCPS said. It would never be enough for them.

I actually don’t understand it because MCPS has never explained it. I don’t have a dog in this fight but I continually see people saying how MCPS has clearly explained everything and yet this is a critical piece of the criteria and they in fact have not explained it at all.

Bump. Can anyone provide a credible reference explaining how MCPS conducts “local norning”?

I think they just use a local norm.

Great, now define local.

as the PP poster said anyone with sense would understand local norming. we don't define such things. it just is....

It just is... Local to the individual school or MCPS or something else?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It is not clear at all. Lottery is just the final step. We need to know what criteria they use to put the kids in the lottery pool. Do they even consider academic performance? What is the cutoff percentile? or Are they just look at the race of the students? Are there any quotas being set for specific race to be included in the lottery pool? There are so many questions that we do not know answers to. It also appears that you are very clear on the process. Can you enlighten us parents with your wisdom?

I think the lottery is a terrible strategy, but they've answered many of these questions in the past.

Yes, they consider report cards. For CES and Humanities, they need to see As in the previous year's report cards in ELA. For TPMS, they want As in Math.

The cut-off percentile for MAP is 85th percentile.

They do not consider race.

Right. We all got all that. So how does the FARMS status or IEP/504 factor in? Do those students get into the pool with different grades or MAP scores? If they don’t, how is that status being factored in with the lottery?

MAP scores are locally normed, so it is 85th percentile of students within each "tier" of schools.

This is conjecture. MCPS has have never confirmed what “local norming” means.

It's implicit, but if you're going to nitpick every detail to cry foul sure we can't be sure what any works mean...

True, everyone with any sense understands the concept of local normong, but the crazies want to always split hairs. It wouldn't matter what MCPS said. It would never be enough for them.

I actually don’t understand it because MCPS has never explained it. I don’t have a dog in this fight but I continually see people saying how MCPS has clearly explained everything and yet this is a critical piece of the criteria and they in fact have not explained it at all.

Bump. Can anyone provide a credible reference explaining how MCPS conducts “local norning”?

I think they just use a local norm.

Great, now define local.

They use the local norm which is the norm for kids assigned to a local school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know what is the real reason MCPS BOE uses lottery for CES program?
Why can't it be the consistency of performance against benchmarks in elementary school? and/or likewise consistency of performance in middle school for highschool magnet program

Are they using Lottery for selection into sports and games teams as well instead of performance benchmarks? or is the lottery exclusive for academic programs?

They should do the lottery like the Power Ball. Audited and right in front of cameras publically broadcasted, LOL. Otherwise, I guess they get to choose who gets in.

And this is how you kill a great program...make it a lottery.

I guess if you think it's great being able to game admissions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It is not clear at all. Lottery is just the final step. We need to know what criteria they use to put the kids in the lottery pool. Do they even consider academic performance? What is the cutoff percentile? or Are they just look at the race of the students? Are there any quotas being set for specific race to be included in the lottery pool? There are so many questions that we do not know answers to. It also appears that you are very clear on the process. Can you enlighten us parents with your wisdom?

I think the lottery is a terrible strategy, but they've answered many of these questions in the past.

Yes, they consider report cards. For CES and Humanities, they need to see As in the previous year's report cards in ELA. For TPMS, they want As in Math.

The cut-off percentile for MAP is 85th percentile.

They do not consider race.

Right. We all got all that. So how does the FARMS status or IEP/504 factor in? Do those students get into the pool with different grades or MAP scores? If they don’t, how is that status being factored in with the lottery?

MAP scores are locally normed, so it is 85th percentile of students within each "tier" of schools.

This is conjecture. MCPS has have never confirmed what “local norming” means.

It's implicit, but if you're going to nitpick every detail to cry foul sure we can't be sure what any works mean...

True, everyone with any sense understands the concept of local normong, but the crazies want to always split hairs. It wouldn't matter what MCPS said. It would never be enough for them.

I actually don’t understand it because MCPS has never explained it. I don’t have a dog in this fight but I continually see people saying how MCPS has clearly explained everything and yet this is a critical piece of the criteria and they in fact have not explained it at all.

Bump. Can anyone provide a credible reference explaining how MCPS conducts “local norning”?

I think they just use a local norm.

Great, now define local.

as the PP poster said anyone with sense would understand local norming. we don't define such things. it just is....

LOL. Absolutely ridiculous that no one can explain what it is and how it’s conducted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know what is the real reason MCPS BOE uses lottery for CES program?
Why can't it be the consistency of performance against benchmarks in elementary school? and/or likewise consistency of performance in middle school for highschool magnet program

Are they using Lottery for selection into sports and games teams as well instead of performance benchmarks? or is the lottery exclusive for academic programs?

Seriously, the lottery should be held in a public setting instead of a lottery selection shrouded in mystery. Applicant submits application. Receives a raffle ticket. You put your ticket in the bowl (or elect to let them put the ticket in the bowl for you). They shake it up and let some kids pick it. Easy Peasy and everyone knows it is fair.

[Anonymous]

MCPS makes things clear as mud, to be sure.

Local norms for us mean that the percentile score is based on the population of same-grade sutdents in the system from schools with somewhat similar demographic characteristics (FARMS or ever-FARMS, language learners, etc.). For elementary, I think there may be 3 such tranches of schools, and I don't think it's cluster-based, though one might expect some similarities within a cluster that would see elementaries tend to fall into the same local norming tranche.

The basic idea is that a naturally GT kid from a high-FARMS/high-ELL area may not have the circumstances (presence of cohort, access to tutoring, etc.) at their school to facilitate exposure to material that would positively influence raw test scores in the same way that a GT kid from a low-FARMS/low-ELL area might. Presuming that the objective is to identify the innate ability (not the achievement level) when determining who might benefit most from magnet placement, local norming can make sense.

It can also be taken too far, if driven by another agenda. Making the specifics of MCPS's local norming practice public would go a long way towards silencing the critics -- as long as the specifics don't indicate that another agenda is in play.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know what is the real reason MCPS BOE uses lottery for CES program?
Why can't it be the consistency of performance against benchmarks in elementary school? and/or likewise consistency of performance in middle school for highschool magnet program

Are they using Lottery for selection into sports and games teams as well instead of performance benchmarks? or is the lottery exclusive for academic programs?

Seriously, the lottery should be held in a public setting instead of a lottery selection shrouded in mystery. Applicant submits application. Receives a raffle ticket. You put your ticket in the bowl (or elect to let them put the ticket in the bowl for you). They shake it up and let some kids pick it. Easy Peasy and everyone knows it is fair.

Lottery exclusively applied for academics so that certain groups can be reduced. You know those kids who work too hard and whose immigrant parents care too much about education. Screw those uppities. You won't replace us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MCPS makes things clear as mud, to be sure.

Local norms for us mean that the percentile score is based on the population of same-grade sutdents in the system from schools with somewhat similar demographic characteristics (FARMS or ever-FARMS, language learners, etc.). For elementary, I think there may be 3 such tranches of schools, and I don't think it's cluster-based, though one might expect some similarities within a cluster that would see elementaries tend to fall into the same local norming tranche.

The basic idea is that a naturally GT kid from a high-FARMS/high-ELL area may not have the circumstances (presence of cohort, access to tutoring, etc.) at their school to facilitate exposure to material that would positively influence raw test scores in the same way that a GT kid from a low-FARMS/low-ELL area might. Presuming that the objective is to identify the innate ability (not the achievement level) when determining who might benefit most from magnet placement, local norming can make sense.

It can also be taken too far, if driven by another agenda. Making the specifics of MCPS's local norming practice public would go a long way towards silencing the critics -- as long as the specifics don't indicate that another agenda is in play.

First thoughtful comments in weeks...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MCPS makes things clear as mud, to be sure.

Local norms for us mean that the percentile score is based on the population of same-grade sutdents in the system from schools with somewhat similar demographic characteristics (FARMS or ever-FARMS, language learners, etc.). For elementary, I think there may be 3 such tranches of schools, and I don't think it's cluster-based, though one might expect some similarities within a cluster that would see elementaries tend to fall into the same local norming tranche.

The basic idea is that a naturally GT kid from a high-FARMS/high-ELL area may not have the circumstances (presence of cohort, access to tutoring, etc.) at their school to facilitate exposure to material that would positively influence raw test scores in the same way that a GT kid from a low-FARMS/low-ELL area might. Presuming that the objective is to identify the innate ability (not the achievement level) when determining who might benefit most from magnet placement, local norming can make sense.

It can also be taken too far, if driven by another agenda. Making the specifics of MCPS's local norming practice public would go a long way towards silencing the critics -- as long as the specifics don't indicate that another agenda is in play.

+1 Transparency is critical so that we all understand what the goals are and what the process is. Unfortunately, some drags the race into the conversation and divert the whole thing to the point the discussion becomes unproductive

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS makes things clear as mud, to be sure.

Local norms for us mean that the percentile score is based on the population of same-grade sutdents in the system from schools with somewhat similar demographic characteristics (FARMS or ever-FARMS, language learners, etc.). For elementary, I think there may be 3 such tranches of schools, and I don't think it's cluster-based, though one might expect some similarities within a cluster that would see elementaries tend to fall into the same local norming tranche.

The basic idea is that a naturally GT kid from a high-FARMS/high-ELL area may not have the circumstances (presence of cohort, access to tutoring, etc.) at their school to facilitate exposure to material that would positively influence raw test scores in the same way that a GT kid from a low-FARMS/low-ELL area might. Presuming that the objective is to identify the innate ability (not the achievement level) when determining who might benefit most from magnet placement, local norming can make sense.

It can also be taken too far, if driven by another agenda. Making the specifics of MCPS's local norming practice public would go a long way towards silencing the critics -- as long as the specifics don't indicate that another agenda is in play.

+1 Transparency is critical so that we all understand what the goals are and what the process is. Unfortunately, some drags the race into the conversation and divert the whole thing to the point the discussion becomes unproductive

A lot of culture warriors on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It is not clear at all. Lottery is just the final step. We need to know what criteria they use to put the kids in the lottery pool. Do they even consider academic performance? What is the cutoff percentile? or Are they just look at the race of the students? Are there any quotas being set for specific race to be included in the lottery pool? There are so many questions that we do not know answers to. It also appears that you are very clear on the process. Can you enlighten us parents with your wisdom?

I think the lottery is a terrible strategy, but they've answered many of these questions in the past.

Yes, they consider report cards. For CES and Humanities, they need to see As in the previous year's report cards in ELA. For TPMS, they want As in Math.

The cut-off percentile for MAP is 85th percentile.

They do not consider race.

Right. We all got all that. So how does the FARMS status or IEP/504 factor in? Do those students get into the pool with different grades or MAP scores? If they don’t, how is that status being factored in with the lottery?

MAP scores are locally normed, so it is 85th percentile of students within each "tier" of schools.

This is conjecture. MCPS has have never confirmed what “local norming” means.

It's implicit, but if you're going to nitpick every detail to cry foul sure we can't be sure what any works mean...

True, everyone with any sense understands the concept of local normong, but the crazies want to always split hairs. It wouldn't matter what MCPS said. It would never be enough for them.

I actually don’t understand it because MCPS has never explained it. I don’t have a dog in this fight but I continually see people saying how MCPS has clearly explained everything and yet this is a critical piece of the criteria and they in fact have not explained it at all.

Bump. Can anyone provide a credible reference explaining how MCPS conducts “local norning”?

I think they just use a local norm.

Great, now define local.

as the PP poster said anyone with sense would understand local norming. we don't define such things. it just is....

LOL. Absolutely ridiculous that no one can explain what it is and how it’s conducted.

If you can't understand it you are clearly unfit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS makes things clear as mud, to be sure.

Local norms for us mean that the percentile score is based on the population of same-grade sutdents in the system from schools with somewhat similar demographic characteristics (FARMS or ever-FARMS, language learners, etc.). For elementary, I think there may be 3 such tranches of schools, and I don't think it's cluster-based, though one might expect some similarities within a cluster that would see elementaries tend to fall into the same local norming tranche.

The basic idea is that a naturally GT kid from a high-FARMS/high-ELL area may not have the circumstances (presence of cohort, access to tutoring, etc.) at their school to facilitate exposure to material that would positively influence raw test scores in the same way that a GT kid from a low-FARMS/low-ELL area might. Presuming that the objective is to identify the innate ability (not the achievement level) when determining who might benefit most from magnet placement, local norming can make sense.

It can also be taken too far, if driven by another agenda. Making the specifics of MCPS's local norming practice public would go a long way towards silencing the critics -- as long as the specifics don't indicate that another agenda is in play.

+1 Transparency is critical so that we all understand what the goals are and what the process is. Unfortunately, some drags the race into the conversation and divert the whole thing to the point the discussion becomes unproductive

A lot of culture warriors on DCUM.

It's one or two paid astroturfers always stirring up trouble.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS makes things clear as mud, to be sure.

Local norms for us mean that the percentile score is based on the population of same-grade sutdents in the system from schools with somewhat similar demographic characteristics (FARMS or ever-FARMS, language learners, etc.). For elementary, I think there may be 3 such tranches of schools, and I don't think it's cluster-based, though one might expect some similarities within a cluster that would see elementaries tend to fall into the same local norming tranche.

The basic idea is that a naturally GT kid from a high-FARMS/high-ELL area may not have the circumstances (presence of cohort, access to tutoring, etc.) at their school to facilitate exposure to material that would positively influence raw test scores in the same way that a GT kid from a low-FARMS/low-ELL area might. Presuming that the objective is to identify the innate ability (not the achievement level) when determining who might benefit most from magnet placement, local norming can make sense.

It can also be taken too far, if driven by another agenda. Making the specifics of MCPS's local norming practice public would go a long way towards silencing the critics -- as long as the specifics don't indicate that another agenda is in play.

+1 Transparency is critical so that we all understand what the goals are and what the process is. Unfortunately, some drags the race into the conversation and divert the whole thing to the point the discussion becomes unproductive

A lot of culture warriors on DCUM.

It's one or two paid astroturfers always stirring up trouble.

I'm becoming more and more certain that someone is paying money to keep this yarn spinning. It doesn't make sense otherwise. Must have something to do with the lawsuit(s). Here we are in the middle of a pandemic with some serious issues that trouble the entire school population. But an issue for a few hundred students (frankly a few dozen) is getting as much traffic as discussion around a pandemic that concern every single MCPS family. And this isn't even the first thread about middle school magnets!

This conversation IS IMPORTANT - but the fact that this thread gets this much traffic in this environment is odd