Magnet Middle School Thread: MAP scores and results

[Anonymous]

Who is going to make the public records request to get the information on how MCPS figured out the pool?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Do you know this for a fact or is it just speculation? If so can you provide a link?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Do you know this for a fact or is it just speculation? If so can you provide a link?

Nobody knows anything. Guess why? Because the district keeps it a secret.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Do you know this for a fact or is it just speculation? If so can you provide a link?

Nobody knows anything. Guess why? Because the district keeps it a secret.

We know they selected applicants using a lottery from a pool. Students were likely selected for and from the pool by home MS cohort.

[Anonymous]

I wish they’d be transparent about their process. If they said we try to take the top x percent of each school when that gives you a better gauge. Usually strong performing peers are friends with other strong performers. If you think you are number 5/400 and they take 1 percent well you know you are probably rejected or on WL.

The not knowing causes so much anxiety.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Do you know this for a fact or is it just speculation? If so can you provide a link?

Nobody knows anything. Guess why? Because the district keeps it a secret.

We know they selected applicants using a lottery from a pool. Students were likely selected for and from the pool by home MS cohort.

And this is where it gets tricky. Because if it is one pool, then there is a good probability that a random lottery could lead them to select a class of 90 boys and 10 girls or 95 white and 5 non-white, etc. These results would be untenable. Therefore, they would need to try to create backstops to decrease the random chance of these outcomes occurring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wish they’d be transparent about their process. If they said we try to take the top x percent of each school when that gives you a better gauge. Usually strong performing peers are friends with other strong performers. If you think you are number 5/400 and they take 1 percent well you know you are probably rejected or on WL.

The not knowing causes so much anxiety.

They were completely transparent about it this year. They said it would be a lottery and it is a lottery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish they’d be transparent about their process. If they said we try to take the top x percent of each school when that gives you a better gauge. Usually strong performing peers are friends with other strong performers. If you think you are number 5/400 and they take 1 percent well you know you are probably rejected or on WL.

The not knowing causes so much anxiety.

They were completely transparent about it this year. They said it would be a lottery and it is a lottery.

Obtuse response. It was a lottery, but they potentially "adjusted" the pool for participation in the lottery in non-transparent ways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish they’d be transparent about their process. If they said we try to take the top x percent of each school when that gives you a better gauge. Usually strong performing peers are friends with other strong performers. If you think you are number 5/400 and they take 1 percent well you know you are probably rejected or on WL.

The not knowing causes so much anxiety.

They were completely transparent about it this year. They said it would be a lottery and it is a lottery.

They said they'd hold a lottery and they held a lottery. Seems clear to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish they’d be transparent about their process. If they said we try to take the top x percent of each school when that gives you a better gauge. Usually strong performing peers are friends with other strong performers. If you think you are number 5/400 and they take 1 percent well you know you are probably rejected or on WL.

The not knowing causes so much anxiety.

They were completely transparent about it this year. They said it would be a lottery and it is a lottery.

Obtuse response. It was a lottery, but they potentially "adjusted" the pool for participation in the lottery in non-transparent ways.

Little point in winging about it now.

[Anonymous]

Probably a weighted lottery. Certain characteristics and school locations would give a child more chances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Little point in winging about it now.

Whinging. MCPS was winging it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Probably a weighted lottery. Certain characteristics and school locations would give a child more chances.

No doubt pool selection was weighted, but all evidence suggests the lottery was random. Multiple reports on this thread of kids with lower scores from the same ES being selected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably a weighted lottery. Certain characteristics and school locations would give a child more chances.

No doubt pool selection was weighted, but all evidence suggests the lottery was random. Multiple reports on this thread of kids with lower scores from the same ES being selected.

NOTHING is ever completely random in MCPS. The pool selection was absolutely weighted by numerous factors, and my guess is the lottery was conducted in a way to maintain some gender balance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably a weighted lottery. Certain characteristics and school locations would give a child more chances.

No doubt pool selection was weighted, but all evidence suggests the lottery was random. Multiple reports on this thread of kids with lower scores from the same ES being selected.

NOTHING is ever completely random in MCPS. The pool selection was absolutely weighted by numerous factors, and my guess is the lottery was conducted in a way to maintain some gender balance.

I have no inside knowledge, but let's say it was weighted for gender. Would that be bad?