Robert Frost beats Takoma Park in Mathcounts

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was definitely a study that showed a portion of the magnet admits the first year of universal screening/peer cohorts had scores in the 60-80th percentile. Can someone please find a link?

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/2019/Enriched%20and%20Accelerated%2028Jan2019%20FINAL.pdf

The report just says that 95.6% of the students received 95% or higher on the MAP-M at TPMS. The other 4% fell in the 80%-94.9% range.

The was a greater range on the MAP-R but that is hardly the focus of a STEM program so ignoring that statistic.

Nevertheless, this appears similar to prior years and refutes the false narrative that magnets are in decline.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was definitely a study that showed a portion of the magnet admits the first year of universal screening/peer cohorts had scores in the 60-80th percentile. Can someone please find a link?

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/2019/Enriched%20and%20Accelerated%2028Jan2019%20FINAL.pdf

The report just says that 95.6% of the students received 95% or higher on the MAP-M at TPMS. The other 4% fell in the 80%-94.9% range.

The was a greater range on the MAP-R but that is hardly the focus of a STEM program so ignoring that statistic.

Nevertheless, this appears similar to prior years and refutes the false narrative that magnets are in decline.

What were the prior year numbers? Did 99% of the admitted students in prior years score 95%+? If so, then the scores the past year when the change was implemented show the program is admitting students with lower scores, which can be attributed to a decline in the group performance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was definitely a study that showed a portion of the magnet admits the first year of universal screening/peer cohorts had scores in the 60-80th percentile. Can someone please find a link?

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/2019/Enriched%20and%20Accelerated%2028Jan2019%20FINAL.pdf

The report just says that 95.6% of the students received 95% or higher on the MAP-M at TPMS. The other 4% fell in the 80%-94.9% range.

The was a greater range on the MAP-R but that is hardly the focus of a STEM program so ignoring that statistic.

Nevertheless, this appears similar to prior years and refutes the false narrative that magnets are in decline.

What were the prior year numbers? Did 99% of the admitted students in prior years score 95%+? If so, then the scores the past year when the change was implemented show the program is admitting students with lower scores, which can be attributed to a decline in the group performance.

I remember the previous year's report showed more or less the same numbers showing no significant YoY change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was definitely a study that showed a portion of the magnet admits the first year of universal screening/peer cohorts had scores in the 60-80th percentile. Can someone please find a link?

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/2019/Enriched%20and%20Accelerated%2028Jan2019%20FINAL.pdf

The report just says that 95.6% of the students received 95% or higher on the MAP-M at TPMS. The other 4% fell in the 80%-94.9% range.

The was a greater range on the MAP-R but that is hardly the focus of a STEM program so ignoring that statistic.

Nevertheless, this appears similar to prior years and refutes the false narrative that magnets are in decline.

What were the prior year numbers? Did 99% of the admitted students in prior years score 95%+? If so, then the scores the past year when the change was implemented show the program is admitting students with lower scores, which can be attributed to a decline in the group performance.

Unfortunately, we don't have that info -- MCPS released data for 6 years prior to the universal screening, but it includes info on tests that aren't used now (SCAT, Raven). The only test score that they released that is still used is MAP-R. For Eastern in 2016-2017, the median accepted MAP-R was 232; assuming this is a 5th grade fall score, then that's 96th percentile as an average score. In 2017-18 with universal screening (using the other report), 88.7% of students had higher than 95th percentile on MAP-R. That does not seem like a decrease in scores with universal screening. But we don't know about TP and math scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was definitely a study that showed a portion of the magnet admits the first year of universal screening/peer cohorts had scores in the 60-80th percentile. Can someone please find a link?

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/2019/Enriched%20and%20Accelerated%2028Jan2019%20FINAL.pdf

The report just says that 95.6% of the students received 95% or higher on the MAP-M at TPMS. The other 4% fell in the 80%-94.9% range.

The was a greater range on the MAP-R but that is hardly the focus of a STEM program so ignoring that statistic.

Nevertheless, this appears similar to prior years and refutes the false narrative that magnets are in decline.

What were the prior year numbers? Did 99% of the admitted students in prior years score 95%+? If so, then the scores the past year when the change was implemented show the program is admitting students with lower scores, which can be attributed to a decline in the group performance.

Unfortunately, we don't have that info -- MCPS released data for 6 years prior to the universal screening, but it includes info on tests that aren't used now (SCAT, Raven). The only test score that they released that is still used is MAP-R. For Eastern in 2016-2017, the median accepted MAP-R was 232; assuming this is a 5th grade fall score, then that's 96th percentile as an average score. In 2017-18 with universal screening (using the other report), 88.7% of students had higher than 95th percentile on MAP-R. That does not seem like a decrease in scores with universal screening. But we don't know about TP and math scores.

However, it stands to reason it shouldn't be significantly different than Eastern and refutes this narrative that the magnets are in decline. More likely some parents felt that they had a greater advantage with the old system and are simply bitter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was definitely a study that showed a portion of the magnet admits the first year of universal screening/peer cohorts had scores in the 60-80th percentile. Can someone please find a link?

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/2019/Enriched%20and%20Accelerated%2028Jan2019%20FINAL.pdf

The report just says that 95.6% of the students received 95% or higher on the MAP-M at TPMS. The other 4% fell in the 80%-94.9% range.

The was a greater range on the MAP-R but that is hardly the focus of a STEM program so ignoring that statistic.

Nevertheless, this appears similar to prior years and refutes the false narrative that magnets are in decline.

What were the prior year numbers? Did 99% of the admitted students in prior years score 95%+? If so, then the scores the past year when the change was implemented show the program is admitting students with lower scores, which can be attributed to a decline in the group performance.

Unfortunately, we don't have that info -- MCPS released data for 6 years prior to the universal screening, but it includes info on tests that aren't used now (SCAT, Raven). The only test score that they released that is still used is MAP-R. For Eastern in 2016-2017, the median accepted MAP-R was 232; assuming this is a 5th grade fall score, then that's 96th percentile as an average score. In 2017-18 with universal screening (using the other report), 88.7% of students had higher than 95th percentile on MAP-R. That does not seem like a decrease in scores with universal screening. But we don't know about TP and math scores.

How are you gleaning from those numbers that prior years MAP R scores of admitted students is similar to 2017/18 percentages?

Average is not the same as Median.

[Anonymous]

Unfortunately, we don't have that info -- MCPS released data for 6 years prior to the universal screening, but it includes info on tests that aren't used now (SCAT, Raven). The only test score that they released that is still used is MAP-R. For Eastern in 2016-2017, the median accepted MAP-R was 232; assuming this is a 5th grade fall score, then that's 96th percentile as an average score. In 2017-18 with universal screening (using the other report), 88.7% of students had higher than 95th percentile on MAP-R. That does not seem like a decrease in scores with universal screening. But we don't know about TP and math scores.

How are you gleaning from those numbers that prior years MAP R scores of admitted students is similar to 2017/18 percentages?

Average is not the same as Median.

Right, sorry. But I think this shows that the scores are similar. The median in 2016-17 was 96th percentile; in 2017-18, the median was >95th percentile.

[Anonymous]

Are the medians similar in more recent years?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are the medians similar in more recent years?

This is a 5-year-old thread that discuss the one time Robert Frost beat TPMS in a math contest but lost badly to TPMS at the state level a few weeks later.

[Anonymous]

Uh, the State tournament in 2020 was cancelled due to COVID lockdown.

I can't believe I'm commenting on such an old thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Uh, the State tournament in 2020 was cancelled due to COVID lockdown.

I can't believe I'm commenting on such an old thread.

It's discussed in this thread, but I remember Frost's victory was short-lived.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Uh, the State tournament in 2020 was cancelled due to COVID lockdown.

I can't believe I'm commenting on such an old thread.

Perhaps they are talking about the unofficial state contest that was held nationally online that allowed adults to participate.

[Anonymous]

This was nearly three years ago....

I guess trolls have longer memories than elephants?

[Anonymous]

Frost won Science Bowl state champion two years in a row. Takoma Park was not even close.

Only one student from Takoma Park advanced to MATHCOUNTS National in the last two years.

The glory days of TPMS are long gone.

[Anonymous]

If you want to talk about whether or not TPMS is still (or ever was) all that great then please start a new thread.

Digging up something from three years ago to make it look like this is a "hot topic" super underhanded.