Magnet Middle School Thread: MAP scores and results

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just looked at the FAQ on the magnet info website (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l0Zy-bCfG7O8E-F64VOnit_54fjOIU_lTR1JyU8SSMg/edit), and it was updated this week and now includes this information about cutoffs. There were indeed local norms. I still have a hard time understanding what happened with the students who posted here with 98th% MAP scores, as it seems really unlikely that 98th nationally is 85th locally.

23. How were Grade 5 students identified for placement in the lottery pool for recommendation in a middle school magnet program?
Multiple academic measures were used to identify students. Given the impact of COVID-19 school-building closures, both measures from the 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 school years were included. To be placed in the humanities and communication lottery pool, an A in both reading and writing and an indication of above reading grade level on the report card from Grade 4, and a locally normed minimum of 85th percentile on either last year (winter) or this year’s (fall) MAP-R. For math, science or computer science, an A in both math and science and an indication of on level or higher for reading on the report card from Grade 4 and a locally normed minimum of 85th percentile on either last year (winter) or this year’s (fall) MAP-M.
24. What are locally normed scores?
Gifted and talented experts recommend the use of local norms of assessment scores as an equitable approach to ensure equity and access in identification of students for program access. Additionally, the current draft of Gifted and Talented Definitions from the Maryland State Department of Education includes the use of local norms as part of the gifted and talented identification process.
MCPS locally normed scores are designed to examine test takers in relation to one another within MCPS. As part of the middle school magnet identification process, scores obtained on the MAP assessment were locally normed.

Saying "we do local norming" without saying how seems shady as hell.

Last year, if memory serves right, CogAT scores were normed -- home middle schools were placed in one of three groups based on FARMS status and scores were normed among students in the same group. I don't understand why this has to be a secret this year.

Shady is about right. And who thinks it's ok to sneak this into the FAQs about a program after the fact rather than explain the process before it happens? L

Agreed. Shady as hell, MCPS. But we expect no less these past few years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just looked at the FAQ on the magnet info website (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l0Zy-bCfG7O8E-F64VOnit_54fjOIU_lTR1JyU8SSMg/edit), and it was updated this week and now includes this information about cutoffs. There were indeed local norms. I still have a hard time understanding what happened with the students who posted here with 98th% MAP scores, as it seems really unlikely that 98th nationally is 85th locally.

23. How were Grade 5 students identified for placement in the lottery pool for recommendation in a middle school magnet program?
Multiple academic measures were used to identify students. Given the impact of COVID-19 school-building closures, both measures from the 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 school years were included. To be placed in the humanities and communication lottery pool, an A in both reading and writing and an indication of above reading grade level on the report card from Grade 4, and a locally normed minimum of 85th percentile on either last year (winter) or this year’s (fall) MAP-R. For math, science or computer science, an A in both math and science and an indication of on level or higher for reading on the report card from Grade 4 and a locally normed minimum of 85th percentile on either last year (winter) or this year’s (fall) MAP-M.
24. What are locally normed scores?
Gifted and talented experts recommend the use of local norms of assessment scores as an equitable approach to ensure equity and access in identification of students for program access. Additionally, the current draft of Gifted and Talented Definitions from the Maryland State Department of Education includes the use of local norms as part of the gifted and talented identification process.
MCPS locally normed scores are designed to examine test takers in relation to one another within MCPS. As part of the middle school magnet identification process, scores obtained on the MAP assessment were locally normed.

That is grossly unfair. 85th %, normed any way you like, is a cutoff that is incredibly LOW for magnets. Year in , year out, students selected for middle school magnets are in the 99th percentile for MAP tests, and Cogat too.

This means that excellent students lost on the chance to study for three years at a level they need, because other students won a place they would not have won in another year. I'm very happy for these students, but angry at MCPS for shutting out outliers and truly gifted students who really need those three years of advanced instruction.

It's outrageous.

+1
It hurts those who come from low performing schools which usually line up with low SES the most. The outlier not getting in from Hoover will likely have parents who can provide enrichment or challenges outside of school and a really strong peer group. The outlier coming from a poorer MS district may not have those opportunities.

[Anonymous]

I also find the stringent cutoff for grades grossly unfair. Some schools have grade inflation whereas I know at some CES schools and others they do not dole out a lot of As. There's also a lot of teacher bias built into English and Writing grades. I don't understand what they were thinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t like how MCPS is dealing with this issue. They have decided to ration advanced instruction instead of provide it to everyone who needs it.

I personally have no problem with MCPS giving opportunity for advanced instruction to 85% kids in schools that are failing. They really do need to support those kids and get them into better environments where they can achieve their potential.

The problem is that they refuse to provide support for advanced instruction to kids like mine that is 99%.

It is possible to do both but they refuse to do it. The sense I get is that MCPS actually does not want to serve high performing students at all. I see the posts, which call them “dream hoarders”. We can all see the policies, like focus schools, where higher achieving schools are intentionally provided larger class sizes and less resources than high FARMS schools.

I’m just curious what the endgame is here.

I feel the same.

On what planet has it become admirable to deny advanced instruction to high-performing bright kids? Whether low income or White or Latino or Asian. This is a wealthy school district with plenty of money. We should be encouraging ALL students. And MCPS should find a way to offer enriched instruction to all students who can handle the work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just looked at the FAQ on the magnet info website (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l0Zy-bCfG7O8E-F64VOnit_54fjOIU_lTR1JyU8SSMg/edit), and it was updated this week and now includes this information about cutoffs. There were indeed local norms. I still have a hard time understanding what happened with the students who posted here with 98th% MAP scores, as it seems really unlikely that 98th nationally is 85th locally.

23. How were Grade 5 students identified for placement in the lottery pool for recommendation in a middle school magnet program?
Multiple academic measures were used to identify students. Given the impact of COVID-19 school-building closures, both measures from the 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 school years were included. To be placed in the humanities and communication lottery pool, an A in both reading and writing and an indication of above reading grade level on the report card from Grade 4, and a locally normed minimum of 85th percentile on either last year (winter) or this year’s (fall) MAP-R. For math, science or computer science, an A in both math and science and an indication of on level or higher for reading on the report card from Grade 4 and a locally normed minimum of 85th percentile on either last year (winter) or this year’s (fall) MAP-M.
24. What are locally normed scores?
Gifted and talented experts recommend the use of local norms of assessment scores as an equitable approach to ensure equity and access in identification of students for program access. Additionally, the current draft of Gifted and Talented Definitions from the Maryland State Department of Education includes the use of local norms as part of the gifted and talented identification process.
MCPS locally normed scores are designed to examine test takers in relation to one another within MCPS. As part of the middle school magnet identification process, scores obtained on the MAP assessment were locally normed.

That is grossly unfair. 85th %, normed any way you like, is a cutoff that is incredibly LOW for magnets. Year in , year out, students selected for middle school magnets are in the 99th percentile for MAP tests, and Cogat too.

This means that excellent students lost on the chance to study for three years at a level they need, because other students won a place they would not have won in another year. I'm very happy for these students, but angry at MCPS for shutting out outliers and truly gifted students who really need those three years of advanced instruction.

It's outrageous.

MCPS started this two years ago in the name of Equity.

I have a 7th grader and I remember going to the Magnet meeting when my kid was applying. The MCPS said this at the meeting. And that year, there were lots of high-performing students from my DD’s regional CES (with high MAP scores, and great grades) who were rejected from the magnets.

It is a lousy system to say the least.

[Anonymous]

I’m the PP with the 98%. I’m really confused now because his last several MAP M were all 98 or 99, and he had an A in math and science. I’ll have to go back and dig out his report card from last year, but I don’t remember him getting less than an A. He was denied an appeal with no explanation. I don’t understand this whole locally normed thing but I agree that 85 is way too low a cutoff for a program like this. I just hope DS enjoys AIM and he can try at the high school level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m the PP with the 98%. I’m really confused now because his last several MAP M were all 98 or 99, and he had an A in math and science. I’ll have to go back and dig out his report card from last year, but I don’t remember him getting less than an A. He was denied an appeal with no explanation. I don’t understand this whole locally normed thing but I agree that 85 is way too low a cutoff for a program like this. I just hope DS enjoys AIM and he can try at the high school level.

If he really does have all As on last year’s report card and 98% MAP, you might try emailing DCCAPS or Jeannie Franklin directly to ask for clarification, saying that the FAQ suggests your son should have been in the pool and you are confused about why he wasn’t. They might give you an explanation (I’m the PP who got them to explain about the effect of the “M” grade on my kid, and I completely understand that frustrated and baffled feeling).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t like how MCPS is dealing with this issue. They have decided to ration advanced instruction instead of provide it to everyone who needs it.

I personally have no problem with MCPS giving opportunity for advanced instruction to 85% kids in schools that are failing. They really do need to support those kids and get them into better environments where they can achieve their potential.

The problem is that they refuse to provide support for advanced instruction to kids like mine that is 99%.

It is possible to do both but they refuse to do it. The sense I get is that MCPS actually does not want to serve high performing students at all. I see the posts, which call them “dream hoarders”. We can all see the policies, like focus schools, where higher achieving schools are intentionally provided larger class sizes and less resources than high FARMS schools.

I’m just curious what the endgame is here.

I feel the same.

On what planet has it become admirable to deny advanced instruction to high-performing bright kids? Whether low income or White or Latino or Asian. This is a wealthy school district with plenty of money. We should be encouraging ALL students. And MCPS should find a way to offer enriched instruction to all students who can handle the work.

With all the extra expenses need to reopen schools for in person instruction there isn't much left for things like education.

[Anonymous]

Anyone get in off waitlist?

[Anonymous]

Does locally normed mean FARMs vs Non FARMs Title 1 vs non Title 1 School? Is this done by race?

I would think if it were the same for everyone they could have just said 98 percent MAP etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I also find the stringent cutoff for grades grossly unfair. Some schools have grade inflation whereas I know at some CES schools and others they do not dole out a lot of As. There's also a lot of teacher bias built into English and Writing grades. I don't understand what they were thinking.

Agree. Grading is s**t in MCPS ES. It is supposed to be standards based, but it's not. One question wrong is a B s LOT of the time. (Whether or not the question made sense!) Some report card categories have literally 1 assignment for the quarter and the teachers don't give the kids a heads up on what's a graded assignment vs. what is the typical busywork. It's not a natural distinction. The math kids in 5/6 were particularly screwed this year because of the sudden shift to Eureka. The teachers didn't bother to tell the kids that you have to use the models to solve the problems or get a lower grade. Then there are schools where everyone got an M in a certain topic because they did not give assessments last spring. I could go on and on.

[Anonymous]

Just because they talk about a 85% minimum doesn't mean that that's what what they used in all cases. Could be that that's what they used for Title I schools but not for others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m the PP with the 98%. I’m really confused now because his last several MAP M were all 98 or 99, and he had an A in math and science. I’ll have to go back and dig out his report card from last year, but I don’t remember him getting less than an A. He was denied an appeal with no explanation. I don’t understand this whole locally normed thing but I agree that 85 is way too low a cutoff for a program like this. I just hope DS enjoys AIM and he can try at the high school level.

The problem is lots of kids score like that on their map in this area and in MCPS and there are very few spots.

Some MS allow Algebra in 6th. We choose that option and it worked out well.

Ideally MCPS would provide Magnet programs for all kids who get 96% and above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also find the stringent cutoff for grades grossly unfair. Some schools have grade inflation whereas I know at some CES schools and others they do not dole out a lot of As. There's also a lot of teacher bias built into English and Writing grades. I don't understand what they were thinking.

Agree. Grading is s**t in MCPS ES. It is supposed to be standards based, but it's not. One question wrong is a B s LOT of the time. (Whether or not the question made sense!) Some report card categories have literally 1 assignment for the quarter and the teachers don't give the kids a heads up on what's a graded assignment vs. what is the typical busywork. It's not a natural distinction. The math kids in 5/6 were particularly screwed this year because of the sudden shift to Eureka. The teachers didn't bother to tell the kids that you have to use the models to solve the problems or get a lower grade. Then there are schools where everyone got an M in a certain topic because they did not give assessments last spring. I could go on and on.

Those kids will be fine. We switched mid-year for compacted math when covid hit so we got both a change to Eureka math and DL. This year those kids are fine. Thankfully the dumb strategies are over starting in algebra.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t like how MCPS is dealing with this issue. They have decided to ration advanced instruction instead of provide it to everyone who needs it.

I personally have no problem with MCPS giving opportunity for advanced instruction to 85% kids in schools that are failing. They really do need to support those kids and get them into better environments where they can achieve their potential.

The problem is that they refuse to provide support for advanced instruction to kids like mine that is 99%.

It is possible to do both but they refuse to do it. The sense I get is that MCPS actually does not want to serve high performing students at all. I see the posts, which call them “dream hoarders”. We can all see the policies, like focus schools, where higher achieving schools are intentionally provided larger class sizes and less resources than high FARMS schools.

I’m just curious what the endgame is here.

I feel the same.

On what planet has it become admirable to deny advanced instruction to high-performing bright kids? Whether low income or White or Latino or Asian. This is a wealthy school district with plenty of money. We should be encouraging ALL students. And MCPS should find a way to offer enriched instruction to all students who can handle the work.

With all the extra expenses need to reopen schools for in person instruction there isn't much left for things like education.

Not totally true. A lot of the funding is coming from federal money. At one of the BOE meetings, someone even commented that there is money available and financial constraints were not a barrier to schools reopening.