TPMS MAP-M scores

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here, my intent was not to prove that my kid or others selected to TPMS are the brightest, my point was to let know about my observations of this cohort that got selected through a changed process and all sorts of assumptions were made in the spring how the magnet selection is watered down to get certain kids in to the program and thus the magnet class will not be as smart as it has been in the previous years. Though my DC was selected I had all these assumptions too an wondered if it makes sense to join TPMS. I have no such concerns anymore . I haven’t seen the program to be less challenging, in Math, Science or Comp science. One comment my DC made was that longer periods and odd even schedule is way better than the regular schedule. Lot gets done. All are smart so challenge is always there to be at the leading edge. Science projects, science bowl, math count, AMC are all with in the school curriculum rather than parents extra effort as I did for my older one.
One thing DC likes is the diversity in this school.
Yes, totally agree that more such programs are needed in the county. A couple of these programs are too less.

good for you to have peace of mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here, my intent was not to prove that my kid or others selected to TPMS are the brightest, my point was to let know about my observations of this cohort that got selected through a changed process and all sorts of assumptions were made in the spring how the magnet selection is watered down to get certain kids in to the program and thus the magnet class will not be as smart as it has been in the previous years. Though my DC was selected I had all these assumptions too an wondered if it makes sense to join TPMS. I have no such concerns anymore . I haven’t seen the program to be less challenging, in Math, Science or Comp science. One comment my DC made was that longer periods and odd even schedule is way better than the regular schedule. Lot gets done. All are smart so challenge is always there to be at the leading edge. Science projects, science bowl, math count, AMC are all with in the school curriculum rather than parents extra effort as I did for my older one.
One thing DC likes is the diversity in this school.
Yes, totally agree that more such programs are needed in the county. A couple of these programs are too less.

good for you to have peace of mind.

Looks like you are more in need of peace- why this post made you lose your mind?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, did MCPS share these MAP scores or did you personally ask everyone you know at TPMS?

Don't be so insecure. People on this board do not think your particular child is unworthy. There have always been far fewer spots than deserving children. Not to mention the program has never truly been about serving the smartest children. It was created to keep white students in the eastern downcounty schools. The selection process is now being revised so the program can be a tool to reduce the achievement gap.

My kids were tested 2 and 4 years ago and did not get in despite having Map-M scores that were in the high 270s. They also scored slightly higher than the median of those admitted on the entrance test (MCPS used to send the median scores on each section of the test of those admitted to the magnet). The process was not transparent then, and it is not transparent now.

There is a distinct difference between the magnet curriculum and home school curriculums. People feel like their kids could benefit from the magnet curriculum, but have no access to it despite having various test scores that label them advanced and/or gifted amongst their peers.

Your child was lucky and got a spot (luck has always been part of the process, not just ability). There are hundreds of additional kids who could benefit from a magnet program and have no access to it. This is why people are mad. MCPS should absolutely create more spots in the magnet programs (and create a program in the western part of downcounty). They won't, because, it is not going to help the achievement gap, and it will increase the demographic imbalance in these programs.

I agree, it has always been the case that there are more kids who could benefit from the program than spaces available. The difference now is that more students from across the ENTIRE county are benefitting from the program. The other difference is that for most of the strong students who did not get a space due to space, they do have other intellectual peers at their home schools and opportunities to engage in deeper discussions, more more quickly through curriculum and learn with other students who think like them. In the past, many of the strong students who weren't selected were in schools where there were only a few other students working on similar levels and there was little opportunity for in depth discussion or working with similar level peers on a project.

Many on DCUM have said that the new process has created lower performing cohorts in the magnets and that some of the students there are "non-deserving" or less-deserving than their students. I applaud the OP for sharing his/her experiences and sharing that the cohort seems similarly strong even with a slightly different process in place, although I also agree with the PP that luck has always been a part of the process in addition to ability and there have always been many deserving students who did not have access to the magnets due to parents not understanding the process or not completing the application.

It's unfortunate that the number of seats hasn't changed in the magnets even though other efforts have been made to increase access/number of students considered. However to say it's now unfair and wasn't unfair before is just not accurate. There have always strong students who did not have access to the magnets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, did MCPS share these MAP scores or did you personally ask everyone you know at TPMS?

Don't be so insecure. People on this board do not think your particular child is unworthy. There have always been far fewer spots than deserving children. Not to mention the program has never truly been about serving the smartest children. It was created to keep white students in the eastern downcounty schools. The selection process is now being revised so the program can be a tool to reduce the achievement gap.

My kids were tested 2 and 4 years ago and did not get in despite having Map-M scores that were in the high 270s. They also scored slightly higher than the median of those admitted on the entrance test (MCPS used to send the median scores on each section of the test of those admitted to the magnet). The process was not transparent then, and it is not transparent now.

There is a distinct difference between the magnet curriculum and home school curriculums. People feel like their kids could benefit from the magnet curriculum, but have no access to it despite having various test scores that label them advanced and/or gifted amongst their peers.

Your child was lucky and got a spot (luck has always been part of the process, not just ability). There are hundreds of additional kids who could benefit from a magnet program and have no access to it. This is why people are mad. MCPS should absolutely create more spots in the magnet programs (and create a program in the western part of downcounty). They won't, because, it is not going to help the achievement gap, and it will increase the demographic imbalance in these programs.

I agree, it has always been the case that there are more kids who could benefit from the program than spaces available. The difference now is that more students from across the ENTIRE county are benefitting from the program. The other difference is that for most of the strong students who did not get a space due to space, they do have other intellectual peers at their home schools and opportunities to engage in deeper discussions, more more quickly through curriculum and learn with other students who think like them. In the past, many of the strong students who weren't selected were in schools where there were only a few other students working on similar levels and there was little opportunity for in depth discussion or working with similar level peers on a project.

Many on DCUM have said that the new process has created lower performing cohorts in the magnets and that some of the students there are "non-deserving" or less-deserving than their students. I applaud the OP for sharing his/her experiences and sharing that the cohort seems similarly strong even with a slightly different process in place, although I also agree with the PP that luck has always been a part of the process in addition to ability and there have always been many deserving students who did not have access to the magnets due to parents not understanding the process or not completing the application.

It's unfortunate that the number of seats hasn't changed in the magnets even though other efforts have been made to increase access/number of students considered. However to say it's now unfair and wasn't unfair before is just not accurate. There have always strong students who did not have access to the magnets.

TOtally agree about number of seats, but OP's post does not support the notion that the cohort is similarly strong. She is basing her argument in part on MAP scores, which are not particularly strong for TPMS magnet. Not trying to say kids are not deserving, but this data is not making the argument for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There have been lots of threads about the confusing statements made about the MAP that scores can be compared across grades. The fact is that the MAP-P, the MAP-M for 3-5, and the MAP-M for 6+ do not test the same content.

So 5th graders taking MAP-M are not seeing the same content as 6th graders taking the MAP-M and it is normal for scores to drop from 5th to 6th. So it is important when people are comparing scores to be sure you are comparing 5th to 5th and 6th to 6th and not Spring 5th to Fall 6th. (ie - don't compare the Fall 6th scores of magnet students to the Spring 5th scores of students not admitted)

+1
The tests have different content. The MAP-M 2-5 does not test on concepts above a certain level, so even if your score on a chart equates to something higher, higher level concepts are not presented. The MAP 6+ will not adjust down below a certain level and includes questions/content on higher levels than MAP M 2-5 ( and much higher than MAP P).

NWEA says the RIT scores are still comparable, but that discrepancies occur, especially in the transition years.

[Anonymous]

Unless MCPS released the map scores there is no way she even knows what the map scores are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Unless MCPS released the map scores there is no way she even knows what the map scores are.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless MCPS released the map scores there is no way she even knows what the map scores are.

+1

I was wondering the same thing. Knowing The Math Counts cut off score seems more plausible than a parent knowing the MAP scores of every kid in the 6th grade Magnet

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless MCPS released the map scores there is no way she even knows what the map scores are.

+1

I was wondering the same thing. Knowing The Math Counts cut off score seems more plausible than a parent knowing the MAP scores of every kid in the 6th grade Magnet

True but the point the OP was making is that the cohort seems similarly strong.

[Anonymous]

Maybe OPs data is anectodal, but so is all the data from parents saying kids in their schools who didn't get in have high/higher scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe OPs data is anectodal, but so is all the data from parents saying kids in their schools who didn't get in have high/higher scores.

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe OPs data is anectodal, but so is all the data from parents saying kids in their schools who didn't get in have high/higher scores.

+1000

At our CES, they give us the class distribution.

[Anonymous]

Class or grade distribution? How do they communicate this information? Do they email or give scores during parent-teacher conferences or a PTA meeting?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just to let all those parents know who criticized the magnet selection not being fair as many high performing kids from CES centers did not get selected, raw scores were requested, data were shared, and law suits were threatened, MAP- M scores of most of selected kids range from 250-294. Math counts try outs are competitive and still have high flyers from sixth grade though the selection criteria of these sixth graders was based on cogat and not traditional way, science class is serious business with lots of hands raised to answer teacher’s questions on a specific topic discussion. I don’t see these kids being any less smart (than those who did not make it to the magnet and parents cried foul).
Just sharing my observations as I see similar threads popping up about this year’s selection to middle school magnets.

Clearly, admissions are more competitive these days, but many parents are upset since they can no longer game the system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to let all those parents know who criticized the magnet selection not being fair as many high performing kids from CES centers did not get selected, raw scores were requested, data were shared, and law suits were threatened, MAP- M scores of most of selected kids range from 250-294. Math counts try outs are competitive and still have high flyers from sixth grade though the selection criteria of these sixth graders was based on cogat and not traditional way, science class is serious business with lots of hands raised to answer teacher’s questions on a specific topic discussion. I don’t see these kids being any less smart (than those who did not make it to the magnet and parents cried foul).
Just sharing my observations as I see similar threads popping up about this year’s selection to middle school magnets.

Clearly, admissions are more competitive these days, but many parents are upset since they can no longer game the system.

How do you game the system in MAP testing?

Either you know the material and get the answers correct or you do not. Not really possible to cheat.