Magnet Middle School Thread: MAP scores and results

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid in CES got into eastern. Are the MAP scores on the paper? I don’t see them anywhere. They won’t be going. It’s way too far away. Hope one of your kids gets the spot!

We'd appreciate it if you could share the stats for your child. Fall 2020 MAP scores in particular.

I would be happy to provide, but I don’t know how to find them. When my older was in 5th, the paper had her scores on it, this one doesn’t. Is it on ParentVUE somewhere?

Okay I found them.

In pool for Eastern and got in, not in pool for takoma.
Map reading was 239 (98%) in fall
Math was 232 (93%) but had always gotten 97-99% in past. DL has not worked well, tendencies towards ADD).

Is she by any chance categorized by MCPS as ESOL, FARMS, or does she have an IEP?
I ask because while these are perfectly decent scores, Fall 2020 MAPs are significantly below what some other students have, and some not only were not selected in the lottery, but some ***were not even in the pool***
To me this means MCPS weighed prior MAP scores significantly.

This is an extremely rude post. Plenty of people have posted about scores in the 98 and 93 percentile and got wait listed. Why pick on this person? It seems you are jealous her kids got in without even trying. Frankly she should keep the spot just to spite you.

NP. What's so rude about it? Those scores are extremely low compared to kids who were rejected in previous years. People are just trying to figure out why their child did not get in the pool with higher scores. It could be MCPS used geography or sending elementary or MS. No one knows so she's just asking other questions.
It's unhinged how you jump to conclusions and then to tell someone to take a spot to spite another person.

That may be true but this year it's not about their scores. It's a lottery so makes perfect sense that more kids with lower scores will get selected since there are more of them.

[Anonymous]

Just borrow the buzz word from another thread: the magnet selection process is certainly a sh#!tshow. It follows that the programs themselves would become more or less a sh#!tshow too. Good job, MCPS!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid in CES got into eastern. Are the MAP scores on the paper? I don’t see them anywhere. They won’t be going. It’s way too far away. Hope one of your kids gets the spot!

We'd appreciate it if you could share the stats for your child. Fall 2020 MAP scores in particular.

I would be happy to provide, but I don’t know how to find them. When my older was in 5th, the paper had her scores on it, this one doesn’t. Is it on ParentVUE somewhere?

Okay I found them.

In pool for Eastern and got in, not in pool for takoma.
Map reading was 239 (98%) in fall
Math was 232 (93%) but had always gotten 97-99% in past. DL has not worked well, tendencies towards ADD).

Is she by any chance categorized by MCPS as ESOL, FARMS, or does she have an IEP?
I ask because while these are perfectly decent scores, Fall 2020 MAPs are significantly below what some other students have, and some not only were not selected in the lottery, but some ***were not even in the pool***
To me this means MCPS weighed prior MAP scores significantly.

This is an extremely rude post. Plenty of people have posted about scores in the 98 and 93 percentile and got wait listed. Why pick on this person? It seems you are jealous her kids got in without even trying. Frankly she should keep the spot just to spite you.

NP. What's so rude about it? Those scores are extremely low compared to kids who were rejected in previous years. People are just trying to figure out why their child did not get in the pool with higher scores. It could be MCPS used geography or sending elementary or MS. No one knows so she's just asking other questions.
It's unhinged how you jump to conclusions and then to tell someone to take a spot to spite another person.

That may be true but this year it's not about their scores. It's a lottery so makes perfect sense that more kids with lower scores will get selected since there are more of them.

You’re missing the point, we get it that it’s a lottery and some kids with lower scores get in. The question is how does the pool work, it doesn’t appear to be consistent in terms of MAP scores. The PP is trying to figure out whether old MAP tests were weighted more. Why is it that some scores in the 98-99 percentiles were not even in the pool while others with lower percentiles were. This has nothing to do with the lottery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid in CES got into eastern. Are the MAP scores on the paper? I don’t see them anywhere. They won’t be going. It’s way too far away. Hope one of your kids gets the spot!

We'd appreciate it if you could share the stats for your child. Fall 2020 MAP scores in particular.

I would be happy to provide, but I don’t know how to find them. When my older was in 5th, the paper had her scores on it, this one doesn’t. Is it on ParentVUE somewhere?

Okay I found them.

In pool for Eastern and got in, not in pool for takoma.
Map reading was 239 (98%) in fall
Math was 232 (93%) but had always gotten 97-99% in past. DL has not worked well, tendencies towards ADD).

Is she by any chance categorized by MCPS as ESOL, FARMS, or does she have an IEP?
I ask because while these are perfectly decent scores, Fall 2020 MAPs are significantly below what some other students have, and some not only were not selected in the lottery, but some ***were not even in the pool***
To me this means MCPS weighed prior MAP scores significantly.

This is an extremely rude post. Plenty of people have posted about scores in the 98 and 93 percentile and got wait listed. Why pick on this person? It seems you are jealous her kids got in without even trying. Frankly she should keep the spot just to spite you.

NP. What's so rude about it? Those scores are extremely low compared to kids who were rejected in previous years. People are just trying to figure out why their child did not get in the pool with higher scores. It could be MCPS used geography or sending elementary or MS. No one knows so she's just asking other questions.
It's unhinged how you jump to conclusions and then to tell someone to take a spot to spite another person.

That may be true but this year it's not about their scores. It's a lottery so makes perfect sense that more kids with lower scores will get selected since there are more of them.

You’re missing the point, we get it that it’s a lottery and some kids with lower scores get in. The question is how does the pool work, it doesn’t appear to be consistent in terms of MAP scores. The PP is trying to figure out whether old MAP tests were weighted more. Why is it that some scores in the 98-99 percentiles were not even in the pool while others with lower percentiles were. This has nothing to do with the lottery.

I’m the pp who posted my child’s scores here. I wasn’t insulted at all. I was surprised my kid got in also. I do think it must have been based on prior MAP scores, which have historically been much higher for them.

FWIW we didn’t take the spot, released it right away so it can hopefully go to someone who will love it there!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid in CES got into eastern. Are the MAP scores on the paper? I don’t see them anywhere. They won’t be going. It’s way too far away. Hope one of your kids gets the spot!

We'd appreciate it if you could share the stats for your child. Fall 2020 MAP scores in particular.

I would be happy to provide, but I don’t know how to find them. When my older was in 5th, the paper had her scores on it, this one doesn’t. Is it on ParentVUE somewhere?

Okay I found them.

In pool for Eastern and got in, not in pool for takoma.
Map reading was 239 (98%) in fall
Math was 232 (93%) but had always gotten 97-99% in past. DL has not worked well, tendencies towards ADD).

Is she by any chance categorized by MCPS as ESOL, FARMS, or does she have an IEP?
I ask because while these are perfectly decent scores, Fall 2020 MAPs are significantly below what some other students have, and some not only were not selected in the lottery, but some ***were not even in the pool***
To me this means MCPS weighed prior MAP scores significantly.

This is an extremely rude post. Plenty of people have posted about scores in the 98 and 93 percentile and got wait listed. Why pick on this person? It seems you are jealous her kids got in without even trying. Frankly she should keep the spot just to spite you.

NP. What's so rude about it? Those scores are extremely low compared to kids who were rejected in previous years. People are just trying to figure out why their child did not get in the pool with higher scores. It could be MCPS used geography or sending elementary or MS. No one knows so she's just asking other questions.
It's unhinged how you jump to conclusions and then to tell someone to take a spot to spite another person.

That may be true but this year it's not about their scores. It's a lottery so makes perfect sense that more kids with lower scores will get selected since there are more of them.

You’re missing the point, we get it that it’s a lottery and some kids with lower scores get in. The question is how does the pool work, it doesn’t appear to be consistent in terms of MAP scores. The PP is trying to figure out whether old MAP tests were weighted more. Why is it that some scores in the 98-99 percentiles were not even in the pool while others with lower percentiles were. This has nothing to do with the lottery.

I’m the pp who posted my child’s scores here. I wasn’t insulted at all. I was surprised my kid got in also. I do think it must have been based on prior MAP scores, which have historically been much higher for them.

FWIW we didn’t take the spot, released it right away so it can hopefully go to someone who will love it there!

MAP scores were one of several data points. It is possible to have a lower score and be in the pool. Perhaps, they had better grades than the other kid or were on FARMS etc. The letter from MCPS said the WL would be lottery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid in CES got into eastern. Are the MAP scores on the paper? I don’t see them anywhere. They won’t be going. It’s way too far away. Hope one of your kids gets the spot!

We'd appreciate it if you could share the stats for your child. Fall 2020 MAP scores in particular.

I would be happy to provide, but I don’t know how to find them. When my older was in 5th, the paper had her scores on it, this one doesn’t. Is it on ParentVUE somewhere?

Okay I found them.

In pool for Eastern and got in, not in pool for takoma.
Map reading was 239 (98%) in fall
Math was 232 (93%) but had always gotten 97-99% in past. DL has not worked well, tendencies towards ADD).

Is she by any chance categorized by MCPS as ESOL, FARMS, or does she have an IEP?
I ask because while these are perfectly decent scores, Fall 2020 MAPs are significantly below what some other students have, and some not only were not selected in the lottery, but some ***were not even in the pool***
To me this means MCPS weighed prior MAP scores significantly.

This is an extremely rude post. Plenty of people have posted about scores in the 98 and 93 percentile and got wait listed. Why pick on this person? It seems you are jealous her kids got in without even trying. Frankly she should keep the spot just to spite you.

NP. What's so rude about it? Those scores are extremely low compared to kids who were rejected in previous years. People are just trying to figure out why their child did not get in the pool with higher scores. It could be MCPS used geography or sending elementary or MS. No one knows so she's just asking other questions.
It's unhinged how you jump to conclusions and then to tell someone to take a spot to spite another person.

That may be true but this year it's not about their scores. It's a lottery so makes perfect sense that more kids with lower scores will get selected since there are more of them.

You’re missing the point, we get it that it’s a lottery and some kids with lower scores get in. The question is how does the pool work, it doesn’t appear to be consistent in terms of MAP scores. The PP is trying to figure out whether old MAP tests were weighted more. Why is it that some scores in the 98-99 percentiles were not even in the pool while others with lower percentiles were. This has nothing to do with the lottery.

I’m the pp who posted my child’s scores here. I wasn’t insulted at all. I was surprised my kid got in also. I do think it must have been based on prior MAP scores, which have historically been much higher for them.

FWIW we didn’t take the spot, released it right away so it can hopefully go to someone who will love it there!

MAP scores were one of several data points. It is possible to have a lower score and be in the pool. Perhaps, they had better grades than the other kid or were on FARMS etc. The letter from MCPS said the WL would be lottery.

My kid (of the above scores) isn’t on FARM but will attend a middle school with a high FARMs rates and lower test scores...so maybe it’s because of the cohort?

[Anonymous]

Although nobody knows what they did, it seems likely that they had a similar number of seats per home MS as previous years to ensure that kids even at less wealthy schools have a strong peer cohort and since there is a well documented correlation between affluence and test scores it's a safe bet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You’re missing the point, we get it that it’s a lottery and some kids with lower scores get in. The question is how does the pool work, it doesn’t appear to be consistent in terms of MAP scores. The PP is trying to figure out whether old MAP tests were weighted more. Why is it that some scores in the 98-99 percentiles were not even in the pool while others with lower percentiles were. This has nothing to do with the lottery.

I’m the pp who posted my child’s scores here. I wasn’t insulted at all. I was surprised my kid got in also. I do think it must have been based on prior MAP scores, which have historically been much higher for them.

FWIW we didn’t take the spot, released it right away so it can hopefully go to someone who will love it there!

MAP scores were one of several data points. It is possible to have a lower score and be in the pool. Perhaps, they had better grades than the other kid or were on FARMS etc. The letter from MCPS said the WL would be lottery.

My kid (of the above scores) isn’t on FARM but will attend a middle school with a high FARMs rates and lower test scores...so maybe it’s because of the cohort?

DP -- cohort doesn't matter this year, according to communications from the MCPS office, although it certainly has in the past. As to the question above about why some high-scoring kids weren't in the pool -- in my kid's case (as I've posted before) it was because of "missing" grades on the report card. I asked a couple of people in the MCPS offices pretty pointedly about whether there were other criteria for the pool this year beyond what they published (MAP, report card grades, reading levels) and was told that there weren't. There weren't actually that many reports here on DCUM of high-scoring kids who didn't end up in the pool (although only a few won the lottery for selection). Sounds like the PP's kid had a history of high MAP scores, and presumably high grades, and was therefore in the pool; once in the pool, it's just a lottery system without consideration of home school or cohorts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My kid (of the above scores) isn’t on FARM but will attend a middle school with a high FARMs rates and lower test scores...so maybe it’s because of the cohort?

DP -- cohort doesn't matter this year, according to communications from the MCPS office, although it certainly has in the past. As to the question above about why some high-scoring kids weren't in the pool -- in my kid's case (as I've posted before) it was because of "missing" grades on the report card. I asked a couple of people in the MCPS offices pretty pointedly about whether there were other criteria for the pool this year beyond what they published (MAP, report card grades, reading levels) and was told that there weren't. There weren't actually that many reports here on DCUM of high-scoring kids who didn't end up in the pool (although only a few won the lottery for selection). Sounds like the PP's kid had a history of high MAP scores, and presumably high grades, and was therefore in the pool; once in the pool, it's just a lottery system without consideration of home school or cohorts.

Cohort could have come into play if the cutoff scores to get into the lottery differed by sending school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Although nobody knows what they did, it seems likely that they had a similar number of seats per home MS as previous years to ensure that kids even at less wealthy schools have a strong peer cohort and since there is a well documented correlation between affluence and test scores it's a safe bet.

I would tend to agree that it would be multiple lotteries for seats set aside from each feeder MS. How they set those seats aside? Who knows, but my suspicion is that they would just set aside a fixed number like 5 from each of the 10 or so MSs that feed into Eastern/TPMS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My kid (of the above scores) isn’t on FARM but will attend a middle school with a high FARMs rates and lower test scores...so maybe it’s because of the cohort?

DP -- cohort doesn't matter this year, according to communications from the MCPS office, although it certainly has in the past. As to the question above about why some high-scoring kids weren't in the pool -- in my kid's case (as I've posted before) it was because of "missing" grades on the report card. I asked a couple of people in the MCPS offices pretty pointedly about whether there were other criteria for the pool this year beyond what they published (MAP, report card grades, reading levels) and was told that there weren't. There weren't actually that many reports here on DCUM of high-scoring kids who didn't end up in the pool (although only a few won the lottery for selection). Sounds like the PP's kid had a history of high MAP scores, and presumably high grades, and was therefore in the pool; once in the pool, it's just a lottery system without consideration of home school or cohorts.

Cohort could have come into play if the cutoff scores to get into the lottery differed by sending school.

They almost certainly did because they did this in the past for CES and MS magnets - although final selection was not lottery - and a PP says they said as much in a presentation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My kid (of the above scores) isn’t on FARM but will attend a middle school with a high FARMs rates and lower test scores...so maybe it’s because of the cohort?

DP -- cohort doesn't matter this year, according to communications from the MCPS office, although it certainly has in the past. As to the question above about why some high-scoring kids weren't in the pool -- in my kid's case (as I've posted before) it was because of "missing" grades on the report card. I asked a couple of people in the MCPS offices pretty pointedly about whether there were other criteria for the pool this year beyond what they published (MAP, report card grades, reading levels) and was told that there weren't. There weren't actually that many reports here on DCUM of high-scoring kids who didn't end up in the pool (although only a few won the lottery for selection). Sounds like the PP's kid had a history of high MAP scores, and presumably high grades, and was therefore in the pool; once in the pool, it's just a lottery system without consideration of home school or cohorts.

Cohort could have come into play if the cutoff scores to get into the lottery differed by sending school.

There were no hard cutoffs. The MAP was one of several criteria.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My kid (of the above scores) isn’t on FARM but will attend a middle school with a high FARMs rates and lower test scores...so maybe it’s because of the cohort?

DP -- cohort doesn't matter this year, according to communications from the MCPS office, although it certainly has in the past. As to the question above about why some high-scoring kids weren't in the pool -- in my kid's case (as I've posted before) it was because of "missing" grades on the report card. I asked a couple of people in the MCPS offices pretty pointedly about whether there were other criteria for the pool this year beyond what they published (MAP, report card grades, reading levels) and was told that there weren't. There weren't actually that many reports here on DCUM of high-scoring kids who didn't end up in the pool (although only a few won the lottery for selection). Sounds like the PP's kid had a history of high MAP scores, and presumably high grades, and was therefore in the pool; once in the pool, it's just a lottery system without consideration of home school or cohorts.

Cohort could have come into play if the cutoff scores to get into the lottery differed by sending school.

They almost certainly did because they did this in the past for CES and MS magnets - although final selection was not lottery - and a PP says they said as much in a presentation.

It says quite clearly that a lottery is used to select from the pool. I suspect there was a pool for each home MS but selection was without any doubt random. The numbers in this thread bear it out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although nobody knows what they did, it seems likely that they had a similar number of seats per home MS as previous years to ensure that kids even at less wealthy schools have a strong peer cohort and since there is a well documented correlation between affluence and test scores it's a safe bet.

I would tend to agree that it would be multiple lotteries for seats set aside from each feeder MS. How they set those seats aside? Who knows, but my suspicion is that they would just set aside a fixed number like 5 from each of the 10 or so MSs that feed into Eastern/TPMS.

This.
It's unlikely they didn't balance for middle school or elementary. This is not the same as using cohort. This is about making sure each elementary or middle school is represented.

In the past they used cohort by middle school and representation by elementary so they were two different layers of the selection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My kid (of the above scores) isn’t on FARM but will attend a middle school with a high FARMs rates and lower test scores...so maybe it’s because of the cohort?

DP -- cohort doesn't matter this year, according to communications from the MCPS office, although it certainly has in the past. As to the question above about why some high-scoring kids weren't in the pool -- in my kid's case (as I've posted before) it was because of "missing" grades on the report card. I asked a couple of people in the MCPS offices pretty pointedly about whether there were other criteria for the pool this year beyond what they published (MAP, report card grades, reading levels) and was told that there weren't. There weren't actually that many reports here on DCUM of high-scoring kids who didn't end up in the pool (although only a few won the lottery for selection). Sounds like the PP's kid had a history of high MAP scores, and presumably high grades, and was therefore in the pool; once in the pool, it's just a lottery system without consideration of home school or cohorts.

Cohort could have come into play if the cutoff scores to get into the lottery differed by sending school.

They almost certainly did because they did this in the past for CES and MS magnets - although final selection was not lottery - and a PP says they said as much in a presentation.

It says quite clearly that a lottery is used to select from the pool. I suspect there was a pool for each home MS but selection was without any doubt random. The numbers in this thread bear it out.

One good example was two kids CCCES were both in the pool, but the one with lower scores was selected.