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.

Outside math enrichment requires time and attention, but at the level we are talking about for Magnet qualification, it's free. Khan is free. AoPS is free through Algebra 1. YouTube is free.
Yes there are classes, but for "exposure" to MAP topics through Algebra 1, the resources are free.

[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.

That was a miscommunication.

Miscommunication?

I'm talking about a substitute with whom I spoke directly. Recently. Where they brought up what they noted when they substituted there. Not some overheard MCPS testimony or the like.

Of course, that's hearsay, anyway. But is there something you have saying there aren't kids doing Math of some sort outside of school hours there?

[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.

That was a miscommunication.

Miscommunication?

I'm talking about a substitute with whom I spoke directly. Recently. Where they brought up what they noted when they substituted there. Not some overheard MCPS testimony or the like.

Of course, that's hearsay, anyway. But is there something you have saying there aren't kids doing Math of some sort outside of school hours there?

There is no before-school or after-school advanced math class/activity. There might be some tutoring or diligent student doing homework in kidsco or similar extended-care.

[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.

Cold Spring is great for kids that are serious about academics. Most MCPS schools just warehouse advanced students in an effort to dumb them down and close the gap. Although this was a few years ago, I even heard there was an afterschool bus at cold spring for Dr. Li's which also provided intensive enrichment. It's unfortunate that people have to resort to this kind of thing but the county just doesn't prioritize advanced learners.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I have noticed the same thing. It is frustrating that MCPS keeps messing with the entry criteria when that’s clearly not the main barrier to a diverse magnet. I love their goal but they aren’t pushing the right levers to achieve it.

[Anonymous]

I think this whole endeavor is problematic.
The last time I saw numbers the main change to the diversity numbers was that WHITE kids went up while Asian kids went down. Very small changes in Black enrollment and I think almost none in Hispanic enrollment.

So all this under the guise of benefiting URM while only benefiting white kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think this whole endeavor is problematic.
The last time I saw numbers the main change to the diversity numbers was that WHITE kids went up while Asian kids went down. Very small changes in Black enrollment and I think almost none in Hispanic enrollment.

So all this under the guise of benefiting URM while only benefiting white kids?

It mainly benefited kids in less affluent areas that invest less heavily in outside enrichment but I guess you can describe it a few ways that better suit your agenda.

[Anonymous]

That's the same thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this whole endeavor is problematic.
The last time I saw numbers the main change to the diversity numbers was that WHITE kids went up while Asian kids went down. Very small changes in Black enrollment and I think almost none in Hispanic enrollment.

So all this under the guise of benefiting URM while only benefiting white kids?

It mainly benefited kids in less affluent areas that invest less heavily in outside enrichment but I guess you can describe it a few ways that better suit your agenda.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That was a miscommunication.

Miscommunication?

I'm talking about a substitute with whom I spoke directly. Recently. Where they brought up what they noted when they substituted there. Not some overheard MCPS testimony or the like.

Of course, that's hearsay, anyway. But is there something you have saying there aren't kids doing Math of some sort outside of school hours there?

There is no before-school or after-school advanced math class/activity. There might be some tutoring or diligent student doing homework in kidsco or similar extended-care.

There is a 30-minute math competition practice in the morning one time per month, and a 30 minute contest exam during the school day, a few times per year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That was a miscommunication.

Miscommunication?

I'm talking about a substitute with whom I spoke directly. Recently. Where they brought up what they noted when they substituted there. Not some overheard MCPS testimony or the like.

Of course, that's hearsay, anyway. But is there something you have saying there aren't kids doing Math of some sort outside of school hours there?

There is no before-school or after-school advanced math class/activity. There might be some tutoring or diligent student doing homework in kidsco or similar extended-care.

There is a 30-minute math competition practice in the morning one time per month, and a 30 minute contest exam during the school day, a few times per year.

Do they still have AIM onsite for 5th graders?

[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.

Outside math enrichment requires time and attention, but at the level we are talking about for Magnet qualification, it's free. Khan is free. AoPS is free through Algebra 1. YouTube is free.
Yes there are classes, but for "exposure" to MAP topics through Algebra 1, the resources are free.

AoPS classes are definitely NOT free. You might want to talk to the center at Gaithersburg. They're actually kind of pricey.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That was a miscommunication.

Miscommunication?

I'm talking about a substitute with whom I spoke directly. Recently. Where they brought up what they noted when they substituted there. Not some overheard MCPS testimony or the like.

Of course, that's hearsay, anyway. But is there something you have saying there aren't kids doing Math of some sort outside of school hours there?

There is no before-school or after-school advanced math class/activity. There might be some tutoring or diligent student doing homework in kidsco or similar extended-care.

There is a 30-minute math competition practice in the morning one time per month, and a 30 minute contest exam during the school day, a few times per year.

Do they still have AIM onsite for 5th graders?

Don't know but it is one of the only schools where achievement isn't punished.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That was a miscommunication.

Miscommunication?

I'm talking about a substitute with whom I spoke directly. Recently. Where they brought up what they noted when they substituted there. Not some overheard MCPS testimony or the like.

Of course, that's hearsay, anyway. But is there something you have saying there aren't kids doing Math of some sort outside of school hours there?

There is no before-school or after-school advanced math class/activity. There might be some tutoring or diligent student doing homework in kidsco or similar extended-care.

There is a 30-minute math competition practice in the morning one time per month, and a 30 minute contest exam during the school day, a few times per year.

Is this done by the school/teachers or by some third party that simply uses the school space at parent request?

If the former, is it publicized/made available to anyone at the school (in particular grades) or are there criteria for participation?

[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.

Outside math enrichment requires time and attention, but at the level we are talking about for Magnet qualification, it's free. Khan is free. AoPS is free through Algebra 1. YouTube is free.
Yes there are classes, but for "exposure" to MAP topics through Algebra 1, the resources are free.

AoPS classes are definitely NOT free. You might want to talk to the center at Gaithersburg. They're actually kind of pricey.

I think PP meant that there are free videos you can watch online for AoPS