MAP percentile cutoff for MS magnet lottery?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They could also change the FARMS bands. I think one year they had 5 and then they changed it to 3. There's a lot of ways to manipulate the numbers to get your desired result.

The one strength I need to give them credit for is their amazing ability to manipulate the data to produce their desired results. Heaven forbid they give every student the same test (which they do) and use the data itself to determine who is best prepared for the program. No, they must come up with very complex algorithms to allocate seats away from students with outlier performance and toward students with mediocre scores.

That's because MAP performance is influenced largely by exposure, while they seek expoaure-neutral ability for magnet programs while utilizing MAP for expedience. It is far from the fidelity to capability sought (in many ways), but, when implemented correctly, local norming is a recommended practice to try to account for that disconnect, where teachers in low-FARMS schools are more routinely able to manage cohorts to provide enrichment/exposure to those able than those in high-FARMS schools. This is independent of any more socio-political aim, but it could very well serve that purpoae, as well.

Cue the diingenuous CogAT-is-more-gameable-than-MAP poster...

I mean, the curriculum is supposed to be the same across all schools in primary grades. If kids are not being exposed to the same curricular material, and that is influencing students’ standardized test performance, I think the solution is to work on fixing that inequity rather than manipulate scores based on low expectations for students at higher FARMS schools.

The curriculum is the same. I think one difference is the amount that many of the wealthier families spend on tutoring and outside enrichment, which tilts things in their favor. Adjusting the scores to reflect differences in privilege seems like a reasonable concession to fairness.

I personally think this is overblown on dcum. Most of the folks I know who hire tutors for younger elementary grades are doing so for struggling students at or below grade level, who would not be in the percentiles above the lottery threshold. I also think chronic absenteeism is a bigger factor than people think. If kids are not physically in the classroom as often, they are definitely not exposed to as much learning. But that shifts the blame to parents whose early elementary students are chronic absentees, so it’s an unpopular truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with using MAP from what we've seen is that the small number of more middle class or wealthier kids at high FARMS schools will be at an advantage over the kids who are actually FARMS so you are missing the actual smart kids with a lot of potential.

I know Cogat is not perfect but it would capture more of those outlier smart kids who with the influence of strong peers and strong teachers could be really successful.

I would bet anything the local norming if you use Cogat would be unnecessary or at least nowhere as intense as it is for MAP. There would be more of an even distribution throughout the county.

The idea is that those kids don't get the exposure that their equally-able peers at low-FARMS schools get, so the local norming adjusts for that. Those more directly disadvantaged are boosted by the lower percentile threshold allowed for those receiving services, including individual FARMS designation. A FARMS student at a moderate-FARMS school might get in with a 73rd national percentile score, where their non-FARMS classmate might need to hit the 88th percentile. It ain't perfect, of course.

The idea is a mix of 2 things: they want to tilt the demographic mix to get more non-Asian PoC, and they want kids who lack a local cohort to go to a school with a cohort. FARMS is a proxy for PoC and local cohort performance. It’s not about identifying high potential students who somehow avoided learning the grade-level material in their home school but would magically learn more by skipping a year of math and joining an accelerated class.

That's a strange and twusted view on this. It would be more accurate to say they want to ensure that all residents have a shot at these programs not just ones from a few wealthy schools.

There is nothing controversial in that post. It's just facts that have been stated by MCPS and the Boe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The kids we know who got in to the MS magnets from those high FARMS schools are mostly white and they are from middle class or upper middle class families.

You know upper middle class white kids being admitted to middle school magnets from schools like Leleck Elementary, which has a 95% farms rate?

Because those are the schools that are in the highest farms bracket, schools were there are almost no kids who don't receive free and reduced lunch.

...or Watkins Mill ES, which has so few white kids that they don't even show up in the school demographic count?

I'd really encourage you to look at the list of schools deemed "high FARMS" because it is much shorter than you seem to think it is. Actually mixed income schools that might have some middle class kids are in other brackets, which are much larger than the "high FARMS" bracket.

Not from that school because those kids would go to Clemente and King rather than the other MS magnets but the several kids that are coming from clusters like Odessa Shannon do not appear to be FARMS. Using Odsessa Shannon as an example and not referring to specific kids from specific schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They could also change the FARMS bands. I think one year they had 5 and then they changed it to 3. There's a lot of ways to manipulate the numbers to get your desired result.

The one strength I need to give them credit for is their amazing ability to manipulate the data to produce their desired results. Heaven forbid they give every student the same test (which they do) and use the data itself to determine who is best prepared for the program. No, they must come up with very complex algorithms to allocate seats away from students with outlier performance and toward students with mediocre scores.

That's because MAP performance is influenced largely by exposure, while they seek expoaure-neutral ability for magnet programs while utilizing MAP for expedience. It is far from the fidelity to capability sought (in many ways), but, when implemented correctly, local norming is a recommended practice to try to account for that disconnect, where teachers in low-FARMS schools are more routinely able to manage cohorts to provide enrichment/exposure to those able than those in high-FARMS schools. This is independent of any more socio-political aim, but it could very well serve that purpoae, as well.

Cue the diingenuous CogAT-is-more-gameable-than-MAP poster...

I mean, the curriculum is supposed to be the same across all schools in primary grades. If kids are not being exposed to the same curricular material, and that is influencing students’ standardized test performance, I think the solution is to work on fixing that inequity rather than manipulate scores based on low expectations for students at higher FARMS schools.

The curriculum is the same. I think one difference is the amount that many of the wealthier families spend on tutoring and outside enrichment, which tilts things in their favor. Adjusting the scores to reflect differences in privilege seems like a reasonable concession to fairness.

I personally think this is overblown on dcum. Most of the folks I know who hire tutors for younger elementary grades are doing so for struggling students at or below grade level, who would not be in the percentiles above the lottery threshold. I also think chronic absenteeism is a bigger factor than people think. If kids are not physically in the classroom as often, they are definitely not exposed to as much learning. But that shifts the blame to parents whose early elementary students are chronic absentees, so it’s an unpopular truth.

Not overblown. A substitute was speaking about 40+ kids getting to Cold Spring an hour-plus early for intensive Math supplementation. I'm guessing that might be a club as opposed to something provided directly by MCPS, but these kids aren't struggling with the MCPS curriculum.

For the schools/classes with absentees, the teacher has to go back over things when they are in to keep those kids as on-track as possible. That takes instructional time away from those in the class with good attendance. Less exposure for those chronically absent, sure, but also less for any in the class.

[Anonymous]

Isn't the 60% the floor. Why assume that's what the FARMS kids are getting. It could still be a bunch of 90+ kids. That's just the range. Maybe 60 gets them to a reasonable pool and other schools get there at 95?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn't the 60% the floor. Why assume that's what the FARMS kids are getting. It could still be a bunch of 90+ kids. That's just the range. Maybe 60 gets them to a reasonable pool and other schools get there at 95?

It’a one pool. Your likelihood of getting picked is the same for all people placed in the pool; a 60th percentile student in the pool has the same probability of getting a spot as a 99th percentile student in the pool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They could also change the FARMS bands. I think one year they had 5 and then they changed it to 3. There's a lot of ways to manipulate the numbers to get your desired result.

The one strength I need to give them credit for is their amazing ability to manipulate the data to produce their desired results. Heaven forbid they give every student the same test (which they do) and use the data itself to determine who is best prepared for the program. No, they must come up with very complex algorithms to allocate seats away from students with outlier performance and toward students with mediocre scores.

That's because MAP performance is influenced largely by exposure, while they seek expoaure-neutral ability for magnet programs while utilizing MAP for expedience. It is far from the fidelity to capability sought (in many ways), but, when implemented correctly, local norming is a recommended practice to try to account for that disconnect, where teachers in low-FARMS schools are more routinely able to manage cohorts to provide enrichment/exposure to those able than those in high-FARMS schools. This is independent of any more socio-political aim, but it could very well serve that purpoae, as well.

Cue the diingenuous CogAT-is-more-gameable-than-MAP poster...

I mean, the curriculum is supposed to be the same across all schools in primary grades. If kids are not being exposed to the same curricular material, and that is influencing students’ standardized test performance, I think the solution is to work on fixing that inequity rather than manipulate scores based on low expectations for students at higher FARMS schools.

The curriculum is the same. I think one difference is the amount that many of the wealthier families spend on tutoring and outside enrichment, which tilts things in their favor. Adjusting the scores to reflect differences in privilege seems like a reasonable concession to fairness.

I personally think this is overblown on dcum. Most of the folks I know who hire tutors for younger elementary grades are doing so for struggling students at or below grade level, who would not be in the percentiles above the lottery threshold. I also think chronic absenteeism is a bigger factor than people think. If kids are not physically in the classroom as often, they are definitely not exposed to as much learning. But that shifts the blame to parents whose early elementary students are chronic absentees, so it’s an unpopular truth.

Not overblown. A substitute was speaking about 40+ kids getting to Cold Spring an hour-plus early for intensive Math supplementation. I'm guessing that might be a club as opposed to something provided directly by MCPS, but these kids aren't struggling with the MCPS curriculum.

For the schools/classes with absentees, the teacher has to go back over things when they are in to keep those kids as on-track as possible. That takes instructional time away from those in the class with good attendance. Less exposure for those chronically absent, sure, but also less for any in the class.

I think there are a few specific communities where math supplementation is common. But in real life, I think it’s way less common countywide. Just like everyone on dcum is in the 99th percentile and in the magnets. This isn’t really true in real life. It is a myth that most MC/UMC are doing lots of tutoring/supplementing of non-struggling students. I hear many more people asking for less homework, more play and outdoor time, etc. in my MC/UMC community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The kids we know who got in to the MS magnets from those high FARMS schools are mostly white and they are from middle class or upper middle class families.

You know upper middle class white kids being admitted to middle school magnets from schools like Leleck Elementary, which has a 95% farms rate?

Because those are the schools that are in the highest farms bracket, schools were there are almost no kids who don't receive free and reduced lunch.

...or Watkins Mill ES, which has so few white kids that they don't even show up in the school demographic count?

I'd really encourage you to look at the list of schools deemed "high FARMS" because it is much shorter than you seem to think it is. Actually mixed income schools that might have some middle class kids are in other brackets, which are much larger than the "high FARMS" bracket.

Not from that school because those kids would go to Clemente and King rather than the other MS magnets but the several kids that are coming from clusters like Odessa Shannon do not appear to be FARMS. Using Odsessa Shannon as an example and not referring to specific kids from specific schools.

But Odessa Shannon is a middle school, and the "brackets" are by elementary school feeder. Only one of the three elementary schools that feeds into Odessa Shannon is "high FARMS" and the other two are not. That school (Kemp Mill) is almost 90 percent FARMS and fewer than 5 percent of the kids in the school are white.

So, again, it is hard to imagine you know several kids coming out of a designated high FARMS school that are white and upper middle class, as you claim.

Just admit you were wrong. It's fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn't the 60% the floor. Why assume that's what the FARMS kids are getting. It could still be a bunch of 90+ kids. That's just the range. Maybe 60 gets them to a reasonable pool and other schools get there at 95?

I think part of the problem is the terrible scarcity of seats at the magnets and the sense that they provide something considerably different/better than that provided at the home school. Getting a good pool is great. Serving that entire pool is better.

Related, if MCPS is using the same pool to provide acceleration or enrichment locally, it's pretty difficult to see someone hitting the 94th percentile at one place not being offered classes that meet them where they are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't the 60% the floor. Why assume that's what the FARMS kids are getting. It could still be a bunch of 90+ kids. That's just the range. Maybe 60 gets them to a reasonable pool and other schools get there at 95?

I think part of the problem is the terrible scarcity of seats at the magnets and the sense that they provide something considerably different/better than that provided at the home school. Getting a good pool is great. Serving that entire pool is better.

Related, if MCPS is using the same pool to provide acceleration or enrichment locally, it's pretty difficult to see someone hitting the 94th percentile at one place not being offered classes that meet them where they are.

Home school options aren't nearly as good as magnet options. Magnet AIM is harder than regular AIM; there aren't even any enriched English and science classes at the home school. And some schools now place everyone into HIGH, rather than just the kids who qualify, watering it down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The kids we know who got in to the MS magnets from those high FARMS schools are mostly white and they are from middle class or upper middle class families.

You know upper middle class white kids being admitted to middle school magnets from schools like Leleck Elementary, which has a 95% farms rate?

Because those are the schools that are in the highest farms bracket, schools were there are almost no kids who don't receive free and reduced lunch.

...or Watkins Mill ES, which has so few white kids that they don't even show up in the school demographic count?

I'd really encourage you to look at the list of schools deemed "high FARMS" because it is much shorter than you seem to think it is. Actually mixed income schools that might have some middle class kids are in other brackets, which are much larger than the "high FARMS" bracket.

Not from that school because those kids would go to Clemente and King rather than the other MS magnets but the several kids that are coming from clusters like Odessa Shannon do not appear to be FARMS. Using Odsessa Shannon as an example and not referring to specific kids from specific schools.

But Odessa Shannon is a middle school, and the "brackets" are by elementary school feeder. Only one of the three elementary schools that feeds into Odessa Shannon is "high FARMS" and the other two are not. That school (Kemp Mill) is almost 90 percent FARMS and fewer than 5 percent of the kids in the school are white.

So, again, it is hard to imagine you know several kids coming out of a designated high FARMS school that are white and upper middle class, as you claim.

Just admit you were wrong. It's fine.

It sounds like you don't have a kids at a magnet because if you did you'd know it's true. The middle school was just an example because no one wants to name and out specific elementary school students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They could also change the FARMS bands. I think one year they had 5 and then they changed it to 3. There's a lot of ways to manipulate the numbers to get your desired result.

The one strength I need to give them credit for is their amazing ability to manipulate the data to produce their desired results. Heaven forbid they give every student the same test (which they do) and use the data itself to determine who is best prepared for the program. No, they must come up with very complex algorithms to allocate seats away from students with outlier performance and toward students with mediocre scores.

That's because MAP performance is influenced largely by exposure, while they seek expoaure-neutral ability for magnet programs while utilizing MAP for expedience. It is far from the fidelity to capability sought (in many ways), but, when implemented correctly, local norming is a recommended practice to try to account for that disconnect, where teachers in low-FARMS schools are more routinely able to manage cohorts to provide enrichment/exposure to those able than those in high-FARMS schools. This is independent of any more socio-political aim, but it could very well serve that purpoae, as well.

Cue the diingenuous CogAT-is-more-gameable-than-MAP poster...

I mean, the curriculum is supposed to be the same across all schools in primary grades. If kids are not being exposed to the same curricular material, and that is influencing students’ standardized test performance, I think the solution is to work on fixing that inequity rather than manipulate scores based on low expectations for students at higher FARMS schools.

The curriculum is the same. I think one difference is the amount that many of the wealthier families spend on tutoring and outside enrichment, which tilts things in their favor. Adjusting the scores to reflect differences in privilege seems like a reasonable concession to fairness.

I personally think this is overblown on dcum. Most of the folks I know who hire tutors for younger elementary grades are doing so for struggling students at or below grade level, who would not be in the percentiles above the lottery threshold. I also think chronic absenteeism is a bigger factor than people think. If kids are not physically in the classroom as often, they are definitely not exposed to as much learning. But that shifts the blame to parents whose early elementary students are chronic absentees, so it’s an unpopular truth.

Not overblown. A substitute was speaking about 40+ kids getting to Cold Spring an hour-plus early for intensive Math supplementation. I'm guessing that might be a club as opposed to something provided directly by MCPS, but these kids aren't struggling with the MCPS curriculum.

For the schools/classes with absentees, the teacher has to go back over things when they are in to keep those kids as on-track as possible. That takes instructional time away from those in the class with good attendance. Less exposure for those chronically absent, sure, but also less for any in the class.

I think there are a few specific communities where math supplementation is common. But in real life, I think it’s way less common countywide. Just like everyone on dcum is in the 99th percentile and in the magnets. This isn’t really true in real life. It is a myth that most MC/UMC are doing lots of tutoring/supplementing of non-struggling students. I hear many more people asking for less homework, more play and outdoor time, etc. in my MC/UMC community.

This and I'm not sure supplementation is "common" anywhere. If anything everyone in our area is obsessed with sports. They spend all their time on that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The kids we know who got in to the MS magnets from those high FARMS schools are mostly white and they are from middle class or upper middle class families.

You know upper middle class white kids being admitted to middle school magnets from schools like Leleck Elementary, which has a 95% farms rate?

Because those are the schools that are in the highest farms bracket, schools were there are almost no kids who don't receive free and reduced lunch.

...or Watkins Mill ES, which has so few white kids that they don't even show up in the school demographic count?

I'd really encourage you to look at the list of schools deemed "high FARMS" because it is much shorter than you seem to think it is. Actually mixed income schools that might have some middle class kids are in other brackets, which are much larger than the "high FARMS" bracket.

Not from that school because those kids would go to Clemente and King rather than the other MS magnets but the several kids that are coming from clusters like Odessa Shannon do not appear to be FARMS. Using Odsessa Shannon as an example and not referring to specific kids from specific schools.

But Odessa Shannon is a middle school, and the "brackets" are by elementary school feeder. Only one of the three elementary schools that feeds into Odessa Shannon is "high FARMS" and the other two are not. That school (Kemp Mill) is almost 90 percent FARMS and fewer than 5 percent of the kids in the school are white.

So, again, it is hard to imagine you know several kids coming out of a designated high FARMS school that are white and upper middle class, as you claim.

Just admit you were wrong. It's fine.

It sounds like you don't have a kids at a magnet because if you did you'd know it's true. The middle school was just an example because no one wants to name and out specific elementary school students.

I do have kids at a magnet, one admitted pre-lottery and one after. I also had some visibility on who from my child's (moderate high FARMS) school was admitted, and the issue wasn't that only "UMC white kids" got in, it's that "UMC white kids" were the only ones that accepted the slots. Working class kids and kids of color were way less likely to accept the slot, which is something I'd be curious for MCPS to look at. Why are these kids turning down magnet MS slots?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They could also change the FARMS bands. I think one year they had 5 and then they changed it to 3. There's a lot of ways to manipulate the numbers to get your desired result.

The one strength I need to give them credit for is their amazing ability to manipulate the data to produce their desired results. Heaven forbid they give every student the same test (which they do) and use the data itself to determine who is best prepared for the program. No, they must come up with very complex algorithms to allocate seats away from students with outlier performance and toward students with mediocre scores.

That's because MAP performance is influenced largely by exposure, while they seek expoaure-neutral ability for magnet programs while utilizing MAP for expedience. It is far from the fidelity to capability sought (in many ways), but, when implemented correctly, local norming is a recommended practice to try to account for that disconnect, where teachers in low-FARMS schools are more routinely able to manage cohorts to provide enrichment/exposure to those able than those in high-FARMS schools. This is independent of any more socio-political aim, but it could very well serve that purpoae, as well.

Cue the diingenuous CogAT-is-more-gameable-than-MAP poster...

I mean, the curriculum is supposed to be the same across all schools in primary grades. If kids are not being exposed to the same curricular material, and that is influencing students’ standardized test performance, I think the solution is to work on fixing that inequity rather than manipulate scores based on low expectations for students at higher FARMS schools.

The curriculum is the same. I think one difference is the amount that many of the wealthier families spend on tutoring and outside enrichment, which tilts things in their favor. Adjusting the scores to reflect differences in privilege seems like a reasonable concession to fairness.

I personally think this is overblown on dcum. Most of the folks I know who hire tutors for younger elementary grades are doing so for struggling students at or below grade level, who would not be in the percentiles above the lottery threshold. I also think chronic absenteeism is a bigger factor than people think. If kids are not physically in the classroom as often, they are definitely not exposed to as much learning. But that shifts the blame to parents whose early elementary students are chronic absentees, so it’s an unpopular truth.

Not overblown. A substitute was speaking about 40+ kids getting to Cold Spring an hour-plus early for intensive Math supplementation. I'm guessing that might be a club as opposed to something provided directly by MCPS, but these kids aren't struggling with the MCPS curriculum.

For the schools/classes with absentees, the teacher has to go back over things when they are in to keep those kids as on-track as possible. That takes instructional time away from those in the class with good attendance. Less exposure for those chronically absent, sure, but also less for any in the class.

I think there are a few specific communities where math supplementation is common. But in real life, I think it’s way less common countywide. Just like everyone on dcum is in the 99th percentile and in the magnets. This isn’t really true in real life. It is a myth that most MC/UMC are doing lots of tutoring/supplementing of non-struggling students. I hear many more people asking for less homework, more play and outdoor time, etc. in my MC/UMC community.

This and I'm not sure supplementation is "common" anywhere. If anything everyone in our area is obsessed with sports. They spend all their time on that.

Someone is filling classrooms at AoPS and RSM and Chinese School and Ivy League Center and all the rest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They could also change the FARMS bands. I think one year they had 5 and then they changed it to 3. There's a lot of ways to manipulate the numbers to get your desired result.

The one strength I need to give them credit for is their amazing ability to manipulate the data to produce their desired results. Heaven forbid they give every student the same test (which they do) and use the data itself to determine who is best prepared for the program. No, they must come up with very complex algorithms to allocate seats away from students with outlier performance and toward students with mediocre scores.

That's because MAP performance is influenced largely by exposure, while they seek expoaure-neutral ability for magnet programs while utilizing MAP for expedience. It is far from the fidelity to capability sought (in many ways), but, when implemented correctly, local norming is a recommended practice to try to account for that disconnect, where teachers in low-FARMS schools are more routinely able to manage cohorts to provide enrichment/exposure to those able than those in high-FARMS schools. This is independent of any more socio-political aim, but it could very well serve that purpoae, as well.

Cue the diingenuous CogAT-is-more-gameable-than-MAP poster...

I mean, the curriculum is supposed to be the same across all schools in primary grades. If kids are not being exposed to the same curricular material, and that is influencing students’ standardized test performance, I think the solution is to work on fixing that inequity rather than manipulate scores based on low expectations for students at higher FARMS schools.

The curriculum is the same. I think one difference is the amount that many of the wealthier families spend on tutoring and outside enrichment, which tilts things in their favor. Adjusting the scores to reflect differences in privilege seems like a reasonable concession to fairness.

I personally think this is overblown on dcum. Most of the folks I know who hire tutors for younger elementary grades are doing so for struggling students at or below grade level, who would not be in the percentiles above the lottery threshold. I also think chronic absenteeism is a bigger factor than people think. If kids are not physically in the classroom as often, they are definitely not exposed to as much learning. But that shifts the blame to parents whose early elementary students are chronic absentees, so it’s an unpopular truth.

Not overblown. A substitute was speaking about 40+ kids getting to Cold Spring an hour-plus early for intensive Math supplementation. I'm guessing that might be a club as opposed to something provided directly by MCPS, but these kids aren't struggling with the MCPS curriculum.

That was a miscommunication.