Middle school magnet lottery cutoffs finally revealed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Responding to MPIAs from MCCPTA's Gifted Education Committee, MCPS finally revealed middle school magnet lottery cutoffs.

(1) MCPS divides all elementary schools into 5 groups based on FARMS:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/120BRtShXf9_kQcNvKSxHKG4nJhnyTjL7/view?fbclid=IwAR1hrS0Ar1xsi_W8Ew3ow3Zz6aE84gkeAVZTu08rz_33TCvXCfTSRLDtX_w

low
low moderate
moderate
moderate high
high

(2) MCPS uses different cutoffs for these 5 groups:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1e0Szg2jJ8F1rL2BZSqCV1fb_R1gLwaRl/view?fbclid=IwAR36sMGZsbuKGYKnvEj9f5B2o0ioaZeiaZ7YQJLJVxPxP_m-Jr9-tUG5wq8

The cutoffs are national normed percentile (= 85% locally normed)

Math
low 93%
low moderate 92%
moderate 84%
moderate high 65%
high 60%

Humanites
low 92%
low moderate 92%
moderate 88%
moderate high 76%
high 70%


This means in a low-FARMS school, one needs 93%/92% to enter lottery.
In a high-FARMS school, one needs 60%/70% to enter lottery.

You can score 60% in math and 70% in reading to go to Takoma Park and Eastern magnets.

What percentage of the kids at a high-farms school have 70%+?

At least 60-70% of the students in high farms would have the scores to make the cut off

No. It's saying kids who attend high farms schools and score at least 70%ile on the test are in-pool.

It's not the same as scoring 99%ile, but at a lot of high farms schools the barriers to learning and achievement are greater, so what MCPS is saying is that a kid who scores 70%ile at a high farms schools, at age 8, demonstrates the same potential academically as a kid who scores a 95%ile at a W feeder. Which having been at both, I do think sounds fair.

If you hate this I can see that. But it's equitable. Equitable measures being introduced may mean that certain people's odds change. I don't take issues with this, but I do think a blind lottery post-cutoff is a mistake. It is meaningful to have teachers weigh in on things, and the outcomes for equity can be increased without resorting to straight up lottery. In the end though, what MCPS needs is increased access to enrichment for way more children, and perhaps they should consider re-adding a selective process for these more selective cohorts of highly capable kids (and yes, my kid was admitted to two of those in the past, so I can speak to the quality - they were/are excellent).

+2 I'll add that folks on this very site were claiming within recent memory that a 99th percentile kid couldn't possibly be expected to learn alongside a 95th percentile kid.

While I do think that 60th percentile is too low, I'd note that the schools in that category are among the absolute poorest in the district. It is not, as previously assumed, every single Title I school. It's the schools where the overwhelming majority of kids are living in poverty and/or have experienced trauma. Scoring a 70th percentile under those circumstances may well demonstrate more potential than a kid scoring in the 93rd percentile with every advantage possible.

+3

I teach in one of these MS magnets. We also see more resilience and innovation in the students coming from higher FARMS schools.

That’s nice, but this isn’t a resilience magnet. It’s a gifted magnet.

[Anonymous]

We live in a county that is highly segreated by housing costs. I see no problem with the way MCPS has set up their selection process, I just wish there were more spots for deserving and needy students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Responding to MPIAs from MCCPTA's Gifted Education Committee, MCPS finally revealed middle school magnet lottery cutoffs.

(1) MCPS divides all elementary schools into 5 groups based on FARMS:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/120BRtShXf9_kQcNvKSxHKG4nJhnyTjL7/view?fbclid=IwAR1hrS0Ar1xsi_W8Ew3ow3Zz6aE84gkeAVZTu08rz_33TCvXCfTSRLDtX_w

low
low moderate
moderate
moderate high
high

(2) MCPS uses different cutoffs for these 5 groups:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1e0Szg2jJ8F1rL2BZSqCV1fb_R1gLwaRl/view?fbclid=IwAR36sMGZsbuKGYKnvEj9f5B2o0ioaZeiaZ7YQJLJVxPxP_m-Jr9-tUG5wq8

The cutoffs are national normed percentile (= 85% locally normed)

Math
low 93%
low moderate 92%
moderate 84%
moderate high 65%
high 60%

Humanites
low 92%
low moderate 92%
moderate 88%
moderate high 76%
high 70%


This means in a low-FARMS school, one needs 93%/92% to enter lottery.
In a high-FARMS school, one needs 60%/70% to enter lottery.

You can score 60% in math and 70% in reading to go to Takoma Park and Eastern magnets.

What percentage of the kids at a high-farms school have 70%+?

At least 60-70% of the students in high farms would have the scores to make the cut off

No. It's saying kids who attend high farms schools and score at least 70%ile on the test are in-pool.

It's not the same as scoring 99%ile, but at a lot of high farms schools the barriers to learning and achievement are greater, so what MCPS is saying is that a kid who scores 70%ile at a high farms schools, at age 8, demonstrates the same potential academically as a kid who scores a 95%ile at a W feeder. Which having been at both, I do think sounds fair.

If you hate this I can see that. But it's equitable. Equitable measures being introduced may mean that certain people's odds change. I don't take issues with this, but I do think a blind lottery post-cutoff is a mistake. It is meaningful to have teachers weigh in on things, and the outcomes for equity can be increased without resorting to straight up lottery. In the end though, what MCPS needs is increased access to enrichment for way more children, and perhaps they should consider re-adding a selective process for these more selective cohorts of highly capable kids (and yes, my kid was admitted to two of those in the past, so I can speak to the quality - they were/are excellent).

+2 I'll add that folks on this very site were claiming within recent memory that a 99th percentile kid couldn't possibly be expected to learn alongside a 95th percentile kid.

While I do think that 60th percentile is too low, I'd note that the schools in that category are among the absolute poorest in the district. It is not, as previously assumed, every single Title I school. It's the schools where the overwhelming majority of kids are living in poverty and/or have experienced trauma. Scoring a 70th percentile under those circumstances may well demonstrate more potential than a kid scoring in the 93rd percentile with every advantage possible.

+3

I teach in one of these MS magnets. We also see more resilience and innovation in the students coming from higher FARMS schools.

That’s nice, but this isn’t a resilience magnet. It’s a gifted magnet.

What do you think determines giftedness for the purpose of MCPS programs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We live in a county that is highly segreated by housing costs. I see no problem with the way MCPS has set up their selection process, I just wish there were more spots for deserving and needy students.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Responding to MPIAs from MCCPTA's Gifted Education Committee, MCPS finally revealed middle school magnet lottery cutoffs.

(1) MCPS divides all elementary schools into 5 groups based on FARMS:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/120BRtShXf9_kQcNvKSxHKG4nJhnyTjL7/view?fbclid=IwAR1hrS0Ar1xsi_W8Ew3ow3Zz6aE84gkeAVZTu08rz_33TCvXCfTSRLDtX_w

low
low moderate
moderate
moderate high
high

(2) MCPS uses different cutoffs for these 5 groups:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1e0Szg2jJ8F1rL2BZSqCV1fb_R1gLwaRl/view?fbclid=IwAR36sMGZsbuKGYKnvEj9f5B2o0ioaZeiaZ7YQJLJVxPxP_m-Jr9-tUG5wq8

The cutoffs are national normed percentile (= 85% locally normed)

Math
low 93%
low moderate 92%
moderate 84%
moderate high 65%
high 60%

Humanites
low 92%
low moderate 92%
moderate 88%
moderate high 76%
high 70%


This means in a low-FARMS school, one needs 93%/92% to enter lottery.
In a high-FARMS school, one needs 60%/70% to enter lottery.

You can score 60% in math and 70% in reading to go to Takoma Park and Eastern magnets.

What percentage of the kids at a high-farms school have 70%+?

At least 60-70% of the students in high farms would have the scores to make the cut off

No. It's saying kids who attend high farms schools and score at least 70%ile on the test are in-pool.

It's not the same as scoring 99%ile, but at a lot of high farms schools the barriers to learning and achievement are greater, so what MCPS is saying is that a kid who scores 70%ile at a high farms schools, at age 8, demonstrates the same potential academically as a kid who scores a 95%ile at a W feeder. Which having been at both, I do think sounds fair.

If you hate this I can see that. But it's equitable. Equitable measures being introduced may mean that certain people's odds change. I don't take issues with this, but I do think a blind lottery post-cutoff is a mistake. It is meaningful to have teachers weigh in on things, and the outcomes for equity can be increased without resorting to straight up lottery. In the end though, what MCPS needs is increased access to enrichment for way more children, and perhaps they should consider re-adding a selective process for these more selective cohorts of highly capable kids (and yes, my kid was admitted to two of those in the past, so I can speak to the quality - they were/are excellent).

+2 I'll add that folks on this very site were claiming within recent memory that a 99th percentile kid couldn't possibly be expected to learn alongside a 95th percentile kid.

While I do think that 60th percentile is too low, I'd note that the schools in that category are among the absolute poorest in the district. It is not, as previously assumed, every single Title I school. It's the schools where the overwhelming majority of kids are living in poverty and/or have experienced trauma. Scoring a 70th percentile under those circumstances may well demonstrate more potential than a kid scoring in the 93rd percentile with every advantage possible.

+3

I teach in one of these MS magnets. We also see more resilience and innovation in the students coming from higher FARMS schools.

That’s nice, but this isn’t a resilience magnet. It’s a gifted magnet.

What do you think determines giftedness for the purpose of MCPS programs?

Well the actual criteria they use are multiple measures including grades, MAP scores, etc. There is no weight given to personal characteristics such as resilience in their process. I actually think many traditionally highly gifted learners get frustrated at times if something is suddenly difficult, and may not have developed much resilience by 6th grade because they had an easier time quickly grasping concepts in general. I personally think the cogat was the better tool in finding what I consider to be highly gifted children, much better than report card grades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We live in a county that is highly segreated by housing costs. I see no problem with the way MCPS has set up their selection process, I just wish there were more spots for deserving and needy students.

Gifted and Talented students are just like ESOL and special ed students. They need special services tailored to their special needs, including a more challenging curriculum aiming at the top 1-2% of the population.

A lottery with 60% and 93% cutoffs will not identify those students with special needs.

A student at 60% does not need a curriculum aiming at the top 1-2%.

[Anonymous]

Can I enroll my kid in a high-farms MS and then test in to magnet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Responding to MPIAs from MCCPTA's Gifted Education Committee, MCPS finally revealed middle school magnet lottery cutoffs.

(1) MCPS divides all elementary schools into 5 groups based on FARMS:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/120BRtShXf9_kQcNvKSxHKG4nJhnyTjL7/view?fbclid=IwAR1hrS0Ar1xsi_W8Ew3ow3Zz6aE84gkeAVZTu08rz_33TCvXCfTSRLDtX_w

low
low moderate
moderate
moderate high
high

(2) MCPS uses different cutoffs for these 5 groups:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1e0Szg2jJ8F1rL2BZSqCV1fb_R1gLwaRl/view?fbclid=IwAR36sMGZsbuKGYKnvEj9f5B2o0ioaZeiaZ7YQJLJVxPxP_m-Jr9-tUG5wq8

The cutoffs are national normed percentile (= 85% locally normed)

Math
low 93%
low moderate 92%
moderate 84%
moderate high 65%
high 60%

Humanites
low 92%
low moderate 92%
moderate 88%
moderate high 76%
high 70%


This means in a low-FARMS school, one needs 93%/92% to enter lottery.
In a high-FARMS school, one needs 60%/70% to enter lottery.

You can score 60% in math and 70% in reading to go to Takoma Park and Eastern magnets.

What percentage of the kids at a high-farms school have 70%+?

At least 60-70% of the students in high farms would have the scores to make the cut off

No. It's saying kids who attend high farms schools and score at least 70%ile on the test are in-pool.

It's not the same as scoring 99%ile, but at a lot of high farms schools the barriers to learning and achievement are greater, so what MCPS is saying is that a kid who scores 70%ile at a high farms schools, at age 8, demonstrates the same potential academically as a kid who scores a 95%ile at a W feeder. Which having been at both, I do think sounds fair.

If you hate this I can see that. But it's equitable. Equitable measures being introduced may mean that certain people's odds change. I don't take issues with this, but I do think a blind lottery post-cutoff is a mistake. It is meaningful to have teachers weigh in on things, and the outcomes for equity can be increased without resorting to straight up lottery. In the end though, what MCPS needs is increased access to enrichment for way more children, and perhaps they should consider re-adding a selective process for these more selective cohorts of highly capable kids (and yes, my kid was admitted to two of those in the past, so I can speak to the quality - they were/are excellent).

+2 I'll add that folks on this very site were claiming within recent memory that a 99th percentile kid couldn't possibly be expected to learn alongside a 95th percentile kid.

While I do think that 60th percentile is too low, I'd note that the schools in that category are among the absolute poorest in the district. It is not, as previously assumed, every single Title I school. It's the schools where the overwhelming majority of kids are living in poverty and/or have experienced trauma. Scoring a 70th percentile under those circumstances may well demonstrate more potential than a kid scoring in the 93rd percentile with every advantage possible.

+3

I teach in one of these MS magnets. We also see more resilience and innovation in the students coming from higher FARMS schools.

If you actually teach at one of these MS magnets you would also know that a surprising number of these students left the program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Responding to MPIAs from MCCPTA's Gifted Education Committee, MCPS finally revealed middle school magnet lottery cutoffs.

(1) MCPS divides all elementary schools into 5 groups based on FARMS:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/120BRtShXf9_kQcNvKSxHKG4nJhnyTjL7/view?fbclid=IwAR1hrS0Ar1xsi_W8Ew3ow3Zz6aE84gkeAVZTu08rz_33TCvXCfTSRLDtX_w

low
low moderate
moderate
moderate high
high

(2) MCPS uses different cutoffs for these 5 groups:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1e0Szg2jJ8F1rL2BZSqCV1fb_R1gLwaRl/view?fbclid=IwAR36sMGZsbuKGYKnvEj9f5B2o0ioaZeiaZ7YQJLJVxPxP_m-Jr9-tUG5wq8

The cutoffs are national normed percentile (= 85% locally normed)

Math
low 93%
low moderate 92%
moderate 84%
moderate high 65%
high 60%

Humanites
low 92%
low moderate 92%
moderate 88%
moderate high 76%
high 70%


This means in a low-FARMS school, one needs 93%/92% to enter lottery.
In a high-FARMS school, one needs 60%/70% to enter lottery.

You can score 60% in math and 70% in reading to go to Takoma Park and Eastern magnets.

What percentage of the kids at a high-farms school have 70%+?

At least 60-70% of the students in high farms would have the scores to make the cut off

No. It's saying kids who attend high farms schools and score at least 70%ile on the test are in-pool.

It's not the same as scoring 99%ile, but at a lot of high farms schools the barriers to learning and achievement are greater, so what MCPS is saying is that a kid who scores 70%ile at a high farms schools, at age 8, demonstrates the same potential academically as a kid who scores a 95%ile at a W feeder. Which having been at both, I do think sounds fair.

If you hate this I can see that. But it's equitable. Equitable measures being introduced may mean that certain people's odds change. I don't take issues with this, but I do think a blind lottery post-cutoff is a mistake. It is meaningful to have teachers weigh in on things, and the outcomes for equity can be increased without resorting to straight up lottery. In the end though, what MCPS needs is increased access to enrichment for way more children, and perhaps they should consider re-adding a selective process for these more selective cohorts of highly capable kids (and yes, my kid was admitted to two of those in the past, so I can speak to the quality - they were/are excellent).

+2 I'll add that folks on this very site were claiming within recent memory that a 99th percentile kid couldn't possibly be expected to learn alongside a 95th percentile kid.

While I do think that 60th percentile is too low, I'd note that the schools in that category are among the absolute poorest in the district. It is not, as previously assumed, every single Title I school. It's the schools where the overwhelming majority of kids are living in poverty and/or have experienced trauma. Scoring a 70th percentile under those circumstances may well demonstrate more potential than a kid scoring in the 93rd percentile with every advantage possible.

+3

I teach in one of these MS magnets. We also see more resilience and innovation in the students coming from higher FARMS schools.

If you actually teach at one of these MS magnets you would also know that a surprising number of these students left the program.

Is there data to back this up?

[Anonymous]

Is anyone else struck by the question of whether this system is especially unfair for a FARMS kid at one of the low FARMS schools?

Is there some literature out there that indicates that the burdens of poverty are different for a FARMS kid at a low-FARMS school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Responding to MPIAs from MCCPTA's Gifted Education Committee, MCPS finally revealed middle school magnet lottery cutoffs.

(1) MCPS divides all elementary schools into 5 groups based on FARMS:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/120BRtShXf9_kQcNvKSxHKG4nJhnyTjL7/view?fbclid=IwAR1hrS0Ar1xsi_W8Ew3ow3Zz6aE84gkeAVZTu08rz_33TCvXCfTSRLDtX_w

low
low moderate
moderate
moderate high
high

(2) MCPS uses different cutoffs for these 5 groups:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1e0Szg2jJ8F1rL2BZSqCV1fb_R1gLwaRl/view?fbclid=IwAR36sMGZsbuKGYKnvEj9f5B2o0ioaZeiaZ7YQJLJVxPxP_m-Jr9-tUG5wq8

The cutoffs are national normed percentile (= 85% locally normed)

Math
low 93%
low moderate 92%
moderate 84%
moderate high 65%
high 60%

Humanites
low 92%
low moderate 92%
moderate 88%
moderate high 76%
high 70%


This means in a low-FARMS school, one needs 93%/92% to enter lottery.
In a high-FARMS school, one needs 60%/70% to enter lottery.

You can score 60% in math and 70% in reading to go to Takoma Park and Eastern magnets.

What percentage of the kids at a high-farms school have 70%+?

At least 60-70% of the students in high farms would have the scores to make the cut off

No. It's saying kids who attend high farms schools and score at least 70%ile on the test are in-pool.

It's not the same as scoring 99%ile, but at a lot of high farms schools the barriers to learning and achievement are greater, so what MCPS is saying is that a kid who scores 70%ile at a high farms schools, at age 8, demonstrates the same potential academically as a kid who scores a 95%ile at a W feeder. Which having been at both, I do think sounds fair.

If you hate this I can see that. But it's equitable. Equitable measures being introduced may mean that certain people's odds change. I don't take issues with this, but I do think a blind lottery post-cutoff is a mistake. It is meaningful to have teachers weigh in on things, and the outcomes for equity can be increased without resorting to straight up lottery. In the end though, what MCPS needs is increased access to enrichment for way more children, and perhaps they should consider re-adding a selective process for these more selective cohorts of highly capable kids (and yes, my kid was admitted to two of those in the past, so I can speak to the quality - they were/are excellent).

+2 I'll add that folks on this very site were claiming within recent memory that a 99th percentile kid couldn't possibly be expected to learn alongside a 95th percentile kid.

While I do think that 60th percentile is too low, I'd note that the schools in that category are among the absolute poorest in the district. It is not, as previously assumed, every single Title I school. It's the schools where the overwhelming majority of kids are living in poverty and/or have experienced trauma. Scoring a 70th percentile under those circumstances may well demonstrate more potential than a kid scoring in the 93rd percentile with every advantage possible.

+3

I teach in one of these MS magnets. We also see more resilience and innovation in the students coming from higher FARMS schools.

That’s nice, but this isn’t a resilience magnet. It’s a gifted magnet.

What do you think determines giftedness for the purpose of MCPS programs?

Well the actual criteria they use are multiple measures including grades, MAP scores, etc. There is no weight given to personal characteristics such as resilience in their process. I actually think many traditionally highly gifted learners get frustrated at times if something is suddenly difficult, and may not have developed much resilience by 6th grade because they had an easier time quickly grasping concepts in general. I personally think the cogat was the better tool in finding what I consider to be highly gifted children, much better than report card grades.

This. Once gifted students are accepted and in the classroom, resilience matters an awful lot in what they get out of the experience. So many are being truly challenged for the first time. Some cannot handle it. The less resilient students cry in class or shut down and refuse to work from fear of failure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Responding to MPIAs from MCCPTA's Gifted Education Committee, MCPS finally revealed middle school magnet lottery cutoffs.

(1) MCPS divides all elementary schools into 5 groups based on FARMS:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/120BRtShXf9_kQcNvKSxHKG4nJhnyTjL7/view?fbclid=IwAR1hrS0Ar1xsi_W8Ew3ow3Zz6aE84gkeAVZTu08rz_33TCvXCfTSRLDtX_w

low
low moderate
moderate
moderate high
high

(2) MCPS uses different cutoffs for these 5 groups:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1e0Szg2jJ8F1rL2BZSqCV1fb_R1gLwaRl/view?fbclid=IwAR36sMGZsbuKGYKnvEj9f5B2o0ioaZeiaZ7YQJLJVxPxP_m-Jr9-tUG5wq8

The cutoffs are national normed percentile (= 85% locally normed)

Math
low 93%
low moderate 92%
moderate 84%
moderate high 65%
high 60%

Humanites
low 92%
low moderate 92%
moderate 88%
moderate high 76%
high 70%


This means in a low-FARMS school, one needs 93%/92% to enter lottery.
In a high-FARMS school, one needs 60%/70% to enter lottery.

You can score 60% in math and 70% in reading to go to Takoma Park and Eastern magnets.

What percentage of the kids at a high-farms school have 70%+?

At least 60-70% of the students in high farms would have the scores to make the cut off

No. It's saying kids who attend high farms schools and score at least 70%ile on the test are in-pool.

It's not the same as scoring 99%ile, but at a lot of high farms schools the barriers to learning and achievement are greater, so what MCPS is saying is that a kid who scores 70%ile at a high farms schools, at age 8, demonstrates the same potential academically as a kid who scores a 95%ile at a W feeder. Which having been at both, I do think sounds fair.

If you hate this I can see that. But it's equitable. Equitable measures being introduced may mean that certain people's odds change. I don't take issues with this, but I do think a blind lottery post-cutoff is a mistake. It is meaningful to have teachers weigh in on things, and the outcomes for equity can be increased without resorting to straight up lottery. In the end though, what MCPS needs is increased access to enrichment for way more children, and perhaps they should consider re-adding a selective process for these more selective cohorts of highly capable kids (and yes, my kid was admitted to two of those in the past, so I can speak to the quality - they were/are excellent).

+2 I'll add that folks on this very site were claiming within recent memory that a 99th percentile kid couldn't possibly be expected to learn alongside a 95th percentile kid.

While I do think that 60th percentile is too low, I'd note that the schools in that category are among the absolute poorest in the district. It is not, as previously assumed, every single Title I school. It's the schools where the overwhelming majority of kids are living in poverty and/or have experienced trauma. Scoring a 70th percentile under those circumstances may well demonstrate more potential than a kid scoring in the 93rd percentile with every advantage possible.

+3

I teach in one of these MS magnets. We also see more resilience and innovation in the students coming from higher FARMS schools.

That’s nice, but this isn’t a resilience magnet. It’s a gifted magnet.

What do you think determines giftedness for the purpose of MCPS programs?

Well the actual criteria they use are multiple measures including grades, MAP scores, etc. There is no weight given to personal characteristics such as resilience in their process. I actually think many traditionally highly gifted learners get frustrated at times if something is suddenly difficult, and may not have developed much resilience by 6th grade because they had an easier time quickly grasping concepts in general. I personally think the cogat was the better tool in finding what I consider to be highly gifted children, much better than report card grades.

This. Once gifted students are accepted and in the classroom, resilience matters an awful lot in what they get out of the experience. So many are being truly challenged for the first time. Some cannot handle it. The less resilient students cry in class or shut down and refuse to work from fear of failure.

Most highly gifted children need help with perfectionist tendencies. Teaching strategies to handle this should be part of the gifted curriculum. Having resilience is great, but the programs should be selecting children who need challenges & teaching strategies that differ from a normal classroom. Honestly, highly gifted programs are for kids with special needs. The problem has become that normal classroom teaching isn’t challenging most kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys. Let me say this to you another way.

The students from the highest FARMS schools needed a MAP score of 213 in 5th grade to get into the lottery pool. Let me put this in perspective for you. My recently graduated 5th grader had 217 as a 6 year old 1st grader. We do not supplement and he clearly did not have enough math background or knowledge to enter into a gifted math middle school program at that time! That score is nowhere close to the gifted range for a 5th grader no matter what their SES or circumstances. At this point, they might as well enter all students into the lottery because these thresholds are absolutely ridiculous.

It wasn't the same test. The test that 1st graders take is different from the test that 5th graders take. The scores aren't comparable.

60th percentile literally means 40 percent of students scored higher. Why on earth would a very limited seat program designed for the most gifted learners think that a student who understood content less well than 40 percent of students would be the appropriate candidate for this limited resource?

So, the 60th percentile figure is national, not local. So, a kid in the 60th percentile at one of those 5 or so absolutely highest needs schools in the district represent the top 15 percent of their school. By the same token, the kids above the 93rd percentile at the wealthiest schools in the county represent the top 15 percent of their schools.

I understand all of that. I am still of the opinion that the lowest threshold from any school should be higher than a 60th percentile nationally, particularly because the program is so small and is not available to all the students whose data suggests they need accelerated and enriched rigor and pacing.

I think the strongest argument was made by a PP who said that the kid who really suffers is the 90th percentile kid at a high FARMS school who should be picked because they are really outliers but instead has bad luck and the classmate who is scoring at the 60th percentile gets to go the magnet leaving that 90th percentile kid with peers who are nowhere close to them.

+100

And worse i don't see anyone making a federal case on behalf of that kid. Most of the parents at the high FARMS schools don't have the time or money to lawyer up like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Responding to MPIAs from MCCPTA's Gifted Education Committee, MCPS finally revealed middle school magnet lottery cutoffs.

(1) MCPS divides all elementary schools into 5 groups based on FARMS:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/120BRtShXf9_kQcNvKSxHKG4nJhnyTjL7/view?fbclid=IwAR1hrS0Ar1xsi_W8Ew3ow3Zz6aE84gkeAVZTu08rz_33TCvXCfTSRLDtX_w

low
low moderate
moderate
moderate high
high

(2) MCPS uses different cutoffs for these 5 groups:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1e0Szg2jJ8F1rL2BZSqCV1fb_R1gLwaRl/view?fbclid=IwAR36sMGZsbuKGYKnvEj9f5B2o0ioaZeiaZ7YQJLJVxPxP_m-Jr9-tUG5wq8

The cutoffs are national normed percentile (= 85% locally normed)

Math
low 93%
low moderate 92%
moderate 84%
moderate high 65%
high 60%

Humanites
low 92%
low moderate 92%
moderate 88%
moderate high 76%
high 70%


This means in a low-FARMS school, one needs 93%/92% to enter lottery.
In a high-FARMS school, one needs 60%/70% to enter lottery.

You can score 60% in math and 70% in reading to go to Takoma Park and Eastern magnets.

What percentage of the kids at a high-farms school have 70%+?

At least 60-70% of the students in high farms would have the scores to make the cut off

No. It's saying kids who attend high farms schools and score at least 70%ile on the test are in-pool.

It's not the same as scoring 99%ile, but at a lot of high farms schools the barriers to learning and achievement are greater, so what MCPS is saying is that a kid who scores 70%ile at a high farms schools, at age 8, demonstrates the same potential academically as a kid who scores a 95%ile at a W feeder. Which having been at both, I do think sounds fair.

If you hate this I can see that. But it's equitable. Equitable measures being introduced may mean that certain people's odds change. I don't take issues with this, but I do think a blind lottery post-cutoff is a mistake. It is meaningful to have teachers weigh in on things, and the outcomes for equity can be increased without resorting to straight up lottery. In the end though, what MCPS needs is increased access to enrichment for way more children, and perhaps they should consider re-adding a selective process for these more selective cohorts of highly capable kids (and yes, my kid was admitted to two of those in the past, so I can speak to the quality - they were/are excellent).

+2 I'll add that folks on this very site were claiming within recent memory that a 99th percentile kid couldn't possibly be expected to learn alongside a 95th percentile kid.

While I do think that 60th percentile is too low, I'd note that the schools in that category are among the absolute poorest in the district. It is not, as previously assumed, every single Title I school. It's the schools where the overwhelming majority of kids are living in poverty and/or have experienced trauma. Scoring a 70th percentile under those circumstances may well demonstrate more potential than a kid scoring in the 93rd percentile with every advantage possible.

+3

I teach in one of these MS magnets. We also see more resilience and innovation in the students coming from higher FARMS schools.

That’s nice, but this isn’t a resilience magnet. It’s a gifted magnet.

NP. I’d love to hear more about the magnet teacher’s experience with kids coming from higher FARMs schools being more innovative. That’s obviously a component of giftedness, and one of the most important ones in my work experience. I wouldn’t dump on resilience as a factor either, again based on real world experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We live in a county that is highly segreated by housing costs. I see no problem with the way MCPS has set up their selection process, I just wish there were more spots for deserving and needy students.

Gifted and Talented students are just like ESOL and special ed students. They need special services tailored to their special needs, including a more challenging curriculum aiming at the top 1-2% of the population.

A lottery with 60% and 93% cutoffs will not identify those students with special needs.

A student at 60% does not need a curriculum aiming at the top 1-2%.

Well, no. Federal law sees them as different.