Remind me how long until we get MAP results

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does “norm grade level mean” mean? Is that the school average?

It's that mean score for students in that grade the last time they did a norm study to establish an average of a representative group of students. That was in 2020.

So like a national average?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some years it is in early Nov.

Why on earth does it take so long? The score literally pops up on the kids' screens instantly...

Umm...you are on this forum. Have you not picked up on the trend? It's mcps. folks are here because something is wrong, information is not clear, no one knows the actual answer. So, to answer your question: it would be too easy for mcps to do what you think (scores appearing right away). If your precious Larlo didn't jot down his score (and didnt make a mistake writing it down), or memorize it, you gotta wait until report comes. Or bug the teacher.

The score reports are delivered 2 weeks after testing ends. The report includes county averages, so they need everyone's scores before they publish any reports. Then some admin has to go push some buttons. Do you want to pay for GAFA engineers to make a super sophisticated instant system?

Chilll out, folks.

Well noted, but riddle me this, Batman:

If middle school criteria-based magnet lotteries utilize these Fall MAP scores from 5th graders as entry gates (albeit locally normed), and

If score reports are delivered 2 weeks after testing ends, and

If that means mid-/late October for the Fall MAPs, and

If some schools scheduled MAP in the first week+ of September, and

If MAP scores largely correlate with exposure to content, and

If a considerable amount of content is taught between early September and early October (e.g., Math 5/6 covering operations with fractions), then

What does that say about the expected relative MAP scores for students fortunate enough to be taking MAP at the end of the testing window, and the resulting likelihood of placement in a magnet lottery pool?

Perhaps those who know the import of the test from schools having administered it early in the window have a more difficult time keeping it cool over the extra month.

(Notes: The MCPS Fall MAP testing window was 9/3-10/4. The Winter window, where 3rd-grade MAP-R scores are similarly used for placement in the CES lottery pool, is 12/16-1/28. MCPS has not employed the weeks-of-instruction adjustment available from NWEA to normalize MAP scores when determining lottery candidacy, and NWEA recommends a maximum 3-week testing window to reduce improper comparison among students.)

Kids who test high enough to qualify for these pools do so because of the exposure to content they receive outside of school, not because they happened to learn how to do long division late in the first quarter of the school year

This is not true. There are those who do not engage in outside tutoring/enrichment, and there are concepts to which students are newly exposed during the first quarter, which notably includes operations with fractions in Math 5/6. From these, there are some who test high enough. There are some who test just at the border of high enough, as well, and that extra content exposure can make the difference as to the side of the border on which they end up.

The only cohort for whom this is true is kids at high FARMS schools who can qualify for the pool with scores in the 70th percentile due to locally normed scores. There’s no way a kid at a low FARMS school where the cutoff can be as high as the low 90s percentile can pass that hurdle just by being very good at the content they’ve been exposed to at school.

You'd be wrong, there. There are kids with mathematically inclined minds who absorb concepts from daily life or are able to deduce concepts, to a degree, when presented with a question, though mathematical vocabulary can be an impediment when comparing to those receiving more formal exposure (e.g., tutoring). They demonstrate that across multiple tests (i.e., not in a one-off manner that would suggest lucky guessing).

And the low FARMS MAP-M cutoff has been higher than national percentiles in the low 90s. The low 90s made public by MCPS was in response to an MPIA request from a couple of years back and they haven't publicized the actual numbers since (those change each year with the actual set of scores achieved among MCPS students). They have acknowledged that the scores in MCPS, particularly in the low-FARMS and moderate-low-FARMS groupings, (and, then, locally normed percentiles) had gone up in following years. Parent comparisons of scores for those making/not making the lottery have suggested mid- to high-90s national percentiles for MAP-M.

I’m not buying it. A first grader who has never seen a division symbol isn’t going to know how to solve the problem regardless of how “mathematically inclined” their mind is. Same for a second grader who is asked to multiply fractions or find the area of a triangle. To score in the 95th, 96th percentile, a kid needs to have exposure to concepts grade levels beyond what they currently get. There’s no amount of “deducing concepts, to a degree” that will get there. I’m sure it helps in making educated guesses, but MAP-M is almost entirely a test of one’s mastery of content, not one’s math aptitude.

From what my kids told me, the questions require a fair amount of thinking. Some examples they gave me were pretty complex. These are not khan-academy questions - at least those the algorithm offers at later stages/harder. "Exposure" might be necessary, not sure about that, but it's for sure not sufficient to score well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does “norm grade level mean” mean? Is that the school average?

It's that mean score for students in that grade the last time they did a norm study to establish an average of a representative group of students. That was in 2020.

So like a national average?

Sort of.

They took data from a subset of students from across the country over a couple year period beforehand and analyzed that to come up with the 2020 percentile tables that have been used since. The norm grade level mean would be the average from that analysis (for a particular grade, for the season -- fall, winter or spring), so you could call it a national average, but it would be from something like 7 year old data, not from tests taken this year.

The district grade level mean is the average for MCPS this year & season (or whenever the test was taken by the student, in the case of the historical scores shown)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some years it is in early Nov.

Why on earth does it take so long? The score literally pops up on the kids' screens instantly...

Umm...you are on this forum. Have you not picked up on the trend? It's mcps. folks are here because something is wrong, information is not clear, no one knows the actual answer. So, to answer your question: it would be too easy for mcps to do what you think (scores appearing right away). If your precious Larlo didn't jot down his score (and didnt make a mistake writing it down), or memorize it, you gotta wait until report comes. Or bug the teacher.

The score reports are delivered 2 weeks after testing ends. The report includes county averages, so they need everyone's scores before they publish any reports. Then some admin has to go push some buttons. Do you want to pay for GAFA engineers to make a super sophisticated instant system?

Chilll out, folks.

Well noted, but riddle me this, Batman:

If middle school criteria-based magnet lotteries utilize these Fall MAP scores from 5th graders as entry gates (albeit locally normed), and

If score reports are delivered 2 weeks after testing ends, and

If that means mid-/late October for the Fall MAPs, and

If some schools scheduled MAP in the first week+ of September, and

If MAP scores largely correlate with exposure to content, and

If a considerable amount of content is taught between early September and early October (e.g., Math 5/6 covering operations with fractions), then

What does that say about the expected relative MAP scores for students fortunate enough to be taking MAP at the end of the testing window, and the resulting likelihood of placement in a magnet lottery pool?

Perhaps those who know the import of the test from schools having administered it early in the window have a more difficult time keeping it cool over the extra month.

(Notes: The MCPS Fall MAP testing window was 9/3-10/4. The Winter window, where 3rd-grade MAP-R scores are similarly used for placement in the CES lottery pool, is 12/16-1/28. MCPS has not employed the weeks-of-instruction adjustment available from NWEA to normalize MAP scores when determining lottery candidacy, and NWEA recommends a maximum 3-week testing window to reduce improper comparison among students.)

Kids who test high enough to qualify for these pools do so because of the exposure to content they receive outside of school, not because they happened to learn how to do long division late in the first quarter of the school year

This is not true. There are those who do not engage in outside tutoring/enrichment, and there are concepts to which students are newly exposed during the first quarter, which notably includes operations with fractions in Math 5/6. From these, there are some who test high enough. There are some who test just at the border of high enough, as well, and that extra content exposure can make the difference as to the side of the border on which they end up.

The only cohort for whom this is true is kids at high FARMS schools who can qualify for the pool with scores in the 70th percentile due to locally normed scores. There’s no way a kid at a low FARMS school where the cutoff can be as high as the low 90s percentile can pass that hurdle just by being very good at the content they’ve been exposed to at school.

You'd be wrong, there. There are kids with mathematically inclined minds who absorb concepts from daily life or are able to deduce concepts, to a degree, when presented with a question, though mathematical vocabulary can be an impediment when comparing to those receiving more formal exposure (e.g., tutoring). They demonstrate that across multiple tests (i.e., not in a one-off manner that would suggest lucky guessing).

And the low FARMS MAP-M cutoff has been higher than national percentiles in the low 90s. The low 90s made public by MCPS was in response to an MPIA request from a couple of years back and they haven't publicized the actual numbers since (those change each year with the actual set of scores achieved among MCPS students). They have acknowledged that the scores in MCPS, particularly in the low-FARMS and moderate-low-FARMS groupings, (and, then, locally normed percentiles) had gone up in following years. Parent comparisons of scores for those making/not making the lottery have suggested mid- to high-90s national percentiles for MAP-M.

I’m not buying it. A first grader who has never seen a division symbol isn’t going to know how to solve the problem regardless of how “mathematically inclined” their mind is. Same for a second grader who is asked to multiply fractions or find the area of a triangle. To score in the 95th, 96th percentile, a kid needs to have exposure to concepts grade levels beyond what they currently get. There’s no amount of “deducing concepts, to a degree” that will get there. I’m sure it helps in making educated guesses, but MAP-M is almost entirely a test of one’s mastery of content, not one’s math aptitude.

From what my kids told me, the questions require a fair amount of thinking. Some examples they gave me were pretty complex. These are not khan-academy questions - at least those the algorithm offers at later stages/harder. "Exposure" might be necessary, not sure about that, but it's for sure not sufficient to score well.

Yes it is the same content and question types as Khan, with minor differences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just saw my 10th grader's MAP scores were posted and was a little surprised that they didn't take a MAP-m this year. I remember pre-covid, they didn't use MAP-M for HS students (at least my older kid stopped getting them after Spring of her 8th grade. Then it seemed everyone was taking them to measure how students were doing after distance learning. Was kind of surprised to see the change.

Have we switched to less MAP testing for older students like in pre-covid times now?

MAP Growth goes up to basic Algebra 2.

By 10th grade kids are either past the MAP content so it's useless, or they never became proficient in algebra and aren't going to grow further. There's a tiny slice of students in the middle. The average score barely moves at all from 8th to 12th grade, and it's 222-234, below Prealgebra readiness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some years it is in early Nov.

Why on earth does it take so long? The score literally pops up on the kids' screens instantly...

Umm...you are on this forum. Have you not picked up on the trend? It's mcps. folks are here because something is wrong, information is not clear, no one knows the actual answer. So, to answer your question: it would be too easy for mcps to do what you think (scores appearing right away). If your precious Larlo didn't jot down his score (and didnt make a mistake writing it down), or memorize it, you gotta wait until report comes. Or bug the teacher.

The score reports are delivered 2 weeks after testing ends. The report includes county averages, so they need everyone's scores before they publish any reports. Then some admin has to go push some buttons. Do you want to pay for GAFA engineers to make a super sophisticated instant system?

Chilll out, folks.

Well noted, but riddle me this, Batman:

If middle school criteria-based magnet lotteries utilize these Fall MAP scores from 5th graders as entry gates (albeit locally normed), and

If score reports are delivered 2 weeks after testing ends, and

If that means mid-/late October for the Fall MAPs, and

If some schools scheduled MAP in the first week+ of September, and

If MAP scores largely correlate with exposure to content, and

If a considerable amount of content is taught between early September and early October (e.g., Math 5/6 covering operations with fractions), then

What does that say about the expected relative MAP scores for students fortunate enough to be taking MAP at the end of the testing window, and the resulting likelihood of placement in a magnet lottery pool?

Perhaps those who know the import of the test from schools having administered it early in the window have a more difficult time keeping it cool over the extra month.

(Notes: The MCPS Fall MAP testing window was 9/3-10/4. The Winter window, where 3rd-grade MAP-R scores are similarly used for placement in the CES lottery pool, is 12/16-1/28. MCPS has not employed the weeks-of-instruction adjustment available from NWEA to normalize MAP scores when determining lottery candidacy, and NWEA recommends a maximum 3-week testing window to reduce improper comparison among students.)

Kids who test high enough to qualify for these pools do so because of the exposure to content they receive outside of school, not because they happened to learn how to do long division late in the first quarter of the school year

This is not true. There are those who do not engage in outside tutoring/enrichment, and there are concepts to which students are newly exposed during the first quarter, which notably includes operations with fractions in Math 5/6. From these, there are some who test high enough. There are some who test just at the border of high enough, as well, and that extra content exposure can make the difference as to the side of the border on which they end up.

The only cohort for whom this is true is kids at high FARMS schools who can qualify for the pool with scores in the 70th percentile due to locally normed scores. There’s no way a kid at a low FARMS school where the cutoff can be as high as the low 90s percentile can pass that hurdle just by being very good at the content they’ve been exposed to at school.

You'd be wrong, there. There are kids with mathematically inclined minds who absorb concepts from daily life or are able to deduce concepts, to a degree, when presented with a question, though mathematical vocabulary can be an impediment when comparing to those receiving more formal exposure (e.g., tutoring). They demonstrate that across multiple tests (i.e., not in a one-off manner that would suggest lucky guessing).

And the low FARMS MAP-M cutoff has been higher than national percentiles in the low 90s. The low 90s made public by MCPS was in response to an MPIA request from a couple of years back and they haven't publicized the actual numbers since (those change each year with the actual set of scores achieved among MCPS students). They have acknowledged that the scores in MCPS, particularly in the low-FARMS and moderate-low-FARMS groupings, (and, then, locally normed percentiles) had gone up in following years. Parent comparisons of scores for those making/not making the lottery have suggested mid- to high-90s national percentiles for MAP-M.

I’m not buying it. A first grader who has never seen a division symbol isn’t going to know how to solve the problem regardless of how “mathematically inclined” their mind is. Same for a second grader who is asked to multiply fractions or find the area of a triangle. To score in the 95th, 96th percentile, a kid needs to have exposure to concepts grade levels beyond what they currently get. There’s no amount of “deducing concepts, to a degree” that will get there. I’m sure it helps in making educated guesses, but MAP-M is almost entirely a test of one’s mastery of content, not one’s math aptitude.

Your examples are 99.9% issues, not 95%ile issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some years it is in early Nov.

Why on earth does it take so long? The score literally pops up on the kids' screens instantly...

Umm...you are on this forum. Have you not picked up on the trend? It's mcps. folks are here because something is wrong, information is not clear, no one knows the actual answer. So, to answer your question: it would be too easy for mcps to do what you think (scores appearing right away). If your precious Larlo didn't jot down his score (and didnt make a mistake writing it down), or memorize it, you gotta wait until report comes. Or bug the teacher.

The score reports are delivered 2 weeks after testing ends. The report includes county averages, so they need everyone's scores before they publish any reports. Then some admin has to go push some buttons. Do you want to pay for GAFA engineers to make a super sophisticated instant system?

Chilll out, folks.

Well noted, but riddle me this, Batman:

If middle school criteria-based magnet lotteries utilize these Fall MAP scores from 5th graders as entry gates (albeit locally normed), and

If score reports are delivered 2 weeks after testing ends, and

If that means mid-/late October for the Fall MAPs, and

If some schools scheduled MAP in the first week+ of September, and

If MAP scores largely correlate with exposure to content, and

If a considerable amount of content is taught between early September and early October (e.g., Math 5/6 covering operations with fractions), then

What does that say about the expected relative MAP scores for students fortunate enough to be taking MAP at the end of the testing window, and the resulting likelihood of placement in a magnet lottery pool?

Perhaps those who know the import of the test from schools having administered it early in the window have a more difficult time keeping it cool over the extra month.

(Notes: The MCPS Fall MAP testing window was 9/3-10/4. The Winter window, where 3rd-grade MAP-R scores are similarly used for placement in the CES lottery pool, is 12/16-1/28. MCPS has not employed the weeks-of-instruction adjustment available from NWEA to normalize MAP scores when determining lottery candidacy, and NWEA recommends a maximum 3-week testing window to reduce improper comparison among students.)

Kids who test high enough to qualify for these pools do so because of the exposure to content they receive outside of school, not because they happened to learn how to do long division late in the first quarter of the school year

This is not true. There are those who do not engage in outside tutoring/enrichment, and there are concepts to which students are newly exposed during the first quarter, which notably includes operations with fractions in Math 5/6. From these, there are some who test high enough. There are some who test just at the border of high enough, as well, and that extra content exposure can make the difference as to the side of the border on which they end up.

The only cohort for whom this is true is kids at high FARMS schools who can qualify for the pool with scores in the 70th percentile due to locally normed scores. There’s no way a kid at a low FARMS school where the cutoff can be as high as the low 90s percentile can pass that hurdle just by being very good at the content they’ve been exposed to at school.

You'd be wrong, there. There are kids with mathematically inclined minds who absorb concepts from daily life or are able to deduce concepts, to a degree, when presented with a question, though mathematical vocabulary can be an impediment when comparing to those receiving more formal exposure (e.g., tutoring). They demonstrate that across multiple tests (i.e., not in a one-off manner that would suggest lucky guessing).

And the low FARMS MAP-M cutoff has been higher than national percentiles in the low 90s. The low 90s made public by MCPS was in response to an MPIA request from a couple of years back and they haven't publicized the actual numbers since (those change each year with the actual set of scores achieved among MCPS students). They have acknowledged that the scores in MCPS, particularly in the low-FARMS and moderate-low-FARMS groupings, (and, then, locally normed percentiles) had gone up in following years. Parent comparisons of scores for those making/not making the lottery have suggested mid- to high-90s national percentiles for MAP-M.

I’m not buying it. A first grader who has never seen a division symbol isn’t going to know how to solve the problem regardless of how “mathematically inclined” their mind is. Same for a second grader who is asked to multiply fractions or find the area of a triangle. To score in the 95th, 96th percentile, a kid needs to have exposure to concepts grade levels beyond what they currently get. There’s no amount of “deducing concepts, to a degree” that will get there. I’m sure it helps in making educated guesses, but MAP-M is almost entirely a test of one’s mastery of content, not one’s math aptitude.

There was the note in there that vocabulary (like knowing what a division symbol means) may be an impediment in comparison to those with formal tutoring. The mind of a talented and mathematically inclined elementary school student might not pick out symbols or terms through some kind of divination, but it certainly might pick those up from casual interaction/observation (vs. from tutoring) and capably deduce much of the rest, where those less mathematically inclined might not.

And then, again, there is evidence of that with those high scores noted where tutoring hasn't been in play. Probably quite a bit less likely than from among those who have had that formal exposure, but there, nonetheless.

You'll get no argument from me about MAP being a rather limited measure of capability vs. its more relevant use as a measure of content mastery. It was designed for the latter, and is not recommended as a determinant of the former, except, perhaps, as an ancillary data point with the context of more ability-focused measurements.

[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:Some years it is in early Nov.

Why on earth does it take so long? The score literally pops up on the kids' screens instantly...

Umm...you are on this forum. Have you not picked up on the trend? It's mcps. folks are here because something is wrong, information is not clear, no one knows the actual answer. So, to answer your question: it would be too easy for mcps to do what you think (scores appearing right away). If your precious Larlo didn't jot down his score (and didnt make a mistake writing it down), or memorize it, you gotta wait until report comes. Or bug the teacher.

The score reports are delivered 2 weeks after testing ends. The report includes county averages, so they need everyone's scores before they publish any reports. Then some admin has to go push some buttons. Do you want to pay for GAFA engineers to make a super sophisticated instant system?

Chilll out, folks.

Well noted, but riddle me this, Batman:

If middle school criteria-based magnet lotteries utilize these Fall MAP scores from 5th graders as entry gates (albeit locally normed), and

If score reports are delivered 2 weeks after testing ends, and

If that means mid-/late October for the Fall MAPs, and

If some schools scheduled MAP in the first week+ of September, and

If MAP scores largely correlate with exposure to content, and

If a considerable amount of content is taught between early September and early October (e.g., Math 5/6 covering operations with fractions), then

What does that say about the expected relative MAP scores for students fortunate enough to be taking MAP at the end of the testing window, and the resulting likelihood of placement in a magnet lottery pool?

Perhaps those who know the import of the test from schools having administered it early in the window have a more difficult time keeping it cool over the extra month.

(Notes: The MCPS Fall MAP testing window was 9/3-10/4. The Winter window, where 3rd-grade MAP-R scores are similarly used for placement in the CES lottery pool, is 12/16-1/28. MCPS has not employed the weeks-of-instruction adjustment available from NWEA to normalize MAP scores when determining lottery candidacy, and NWEA recommends a maximum 3-week testing window to reduce improper comparison among students.)

Kids who test high enough to qualify for these pools do so because of the exposure to content they receive outside of school, not because they happened to learn how to do long division late in the first quarter of the school year

This is not true. There are those who do not engage in outside tutoring/enrichment, and there are concepts to which students are newly exposed during the first quarter, which notably includes operations with fractions in Math 5/6. From these, there are some who test high enough. There are some who test just at the border of high enough, as well, and that extra content exposure can make the difference as to the side of the border on which they end up.

The only cohort for whom this is true is kids at high FARMS schools who can qualify for the pool with scores in the 70th percentile due to locally normed scores. There’s no way a kid at a low FARMS school where the cutoff can be as high as the low 90s percentile can pass that hurdle just by being very good at the content they’ve been exposed to at school.

You'd be wrong, there. There are kids with mathematically inclined minds who absorb concepts from daily life or are able to deduce concepts, to a degree, when presented with a question, though mathematical vocabulary can be an impediment when comparing to those receiving more formal exposure (e.g., tutoring). They demonstrate that across multiple tests (i.e., not in a one-off manner that would suggest lucky guessing).

And the low FARMS MAP-M cutoff has been higher than national percentiles in the low 90s. The low 90s made public by MCPS was in response to an MPIA request from a couple of years back and they haven't publicized the actual numbers since (those change each year with the actual set of scores achieved among MCPS students). They have acknowledged that the scores in MCPS, particularly in the low-FARMS and moderate-low-FARMS groupings, (and, then, locally normed percentiles) had gone up in following years. Parent comparisons of scores for those making/not making the lottery have suggested mid- to high-90s national percentiles for MAP-M.

I’m not buying it. A first grader who has never seen a division symbol isn’t going to know how to solve the problem regardless of how “mathematically inclined” their mind is. Same for a second grader who is asked to multiply fractions or find the area of a triangle. To score in the 95th, 96th percentile, a kid needs to have exposure to concepts grade levels beyond what they currently get. There’s no amount of “deducing concepts, to a degree” that will get there. I’m sure it helps in making educated guesses, but MAP-M is almost entirely a test of one’s mastery of content, not one’s math aptitude.

From what my kids told me, the questions require a fair amount of thinking. Some examples they gave me were pretty complex. These are not khan-academy questions - at least those the algorithm offers at later stages/harder. "Exposure" might be necessary, not sure about that, but it's for sure not sufficient to score well.

Yes it is the same content and question types as Khan, with minor differences.

Have you seen the questions? I don't think that it is. My kid scored 300+ in 8th and told me it's different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some years it is in early Nov.

Why on earth does it take so long? The score literally pops up on the kids' screens instantly...

Umm...you are on this forum. Have you not picked up on the trend? It's mcps. folks are here because something is wrong, information is not clear, no one knows the actual answer. So, to answer your question: it would be too easy for mcps to do what you think (scores appearing right away). If your precious Larlo didn't jot down his score (and didnt make a mistake writing it down), or memorize it, you gotta wait until report comes. Or bug the teacher.

The score reports are delivered 2 weeks after testing ends. The report includes county averages, so they need everyone's scores before they publish any reports. Then some admin has to go push some buttons. Do you want to pay for GAFA engineers to make a super sophisticated instant system?

Chilll out, folks.

Well noted, but riddle me this, Batman:

If middle school criteria-based magnet lotteries utilize these Fall MAP scores from 5th graders as entry gates (albeit locally normed), and

If score reports are delivered 2 weeks after testing ends, and

If that means mid-/late October for the Fall MAPs, and

If some schools scheduled MAP in the first week+ of September, and

If MAP scores largely correlate with exposure to content, and

If a considerable amount of content is taught between early September and early October (e.g., Math 5/6 covering operations with fractions), then

What does that say about the expected relative MAP scores for students fortunate enough to be taking MAP at the end of the testing window, and the resulting likelihood of placement in a magnet lottery pool?

Perhaps those who know the import of the test from schools having administered it early in the window have a more difficult time keeping it cool over the extra month.

(Notes: The MCPS Fall MAP testing window was 9/3-10/4. The Winter window, where 3rd-grade MAP-R scores are similarly used for placement in the CES lottery pool, is 12/16-1/28. MCPS has not employed the weeks-of-instruction adjustment available from NWEA to normalize MAP scores when determining lottery candidacy, and NWEA recommends a maximum 3-week testing window to reduce improper comparison among students.)

Kids who test high enough to qualify for these pools do so because of the exposure to content they receive outside of school, not because they happened to learn how to do long division late in the first quarter of the school year

This is not true. There are those who do not engage in outside tutoring/enrichment, and there are concepts to which students are newly exposed during the first quarter, which notably includes operations with fractions in Math 5/6. From these, there are some who test high enough. There are some who test just at the border of high enough, as well, and that extra content exposure can make the difference as to the side of the border on which they end up.

The only cohort for whom this is true is kids at high FARMS schools who can qualify for the pool with scores in the 70th percentile due to locally normed scores. There’s no way a kid at a low FARMS school where the cutoff can be as high as the low 90s percentile can pass that hurdle just by being very good at the content they’ve been exposed to at school.

You'd be wrong, there. There are kids with mathematically inclined minds who absorb concepts from daily life or are able to deduce concepts, to a degree, when presented with a question, though mathematical vocabulary can be an impediment when comparing to those receiving more formal exposure (e.g., tutoring). They demonstrate that across multiple tests (i.e., not in a one-off manner that would suggest lucky guessing).

And the low FARMS MAP-M cutoff has been higher than national percentiles in the low 90s. The low 90s made public by MCPS was in response to an MPIA request from a couple of years back and they haven't publicized the actual numbers since (those change each year with the actual set of scores achieved among MCPS students). They have acknowledged that the scores in MCPS, particularly in the low-FARMS and moderate-low-FARMS groupings, (and, then, locally normed percentiles) had gone up in following years. Parent comparisons of scores for those making/not making the lottery have suggested mid- to high-90s national percentiles for MAP-M.

I’m not buying it. A first grader who has never seen a division symbol isn’t going to know how to solve the problem regardless of how “mathematically inclined” their mind is. Same for a second grader who is asked to multiply fractions or find the area of a triangle. To score in the 95th, 96th percentile, a kid needs to have exposure to concepts grade levels beyond what they currently get. There’s no amount of “deducing concepts, to a degree” that will get there. I’m sure it helps in making educated guesses, but MAP-M is almost entirely a test of one’s mastery of content, not one’s math aptitude.

There was the note in there that vocabulary (like knowing what a division symbol means) may be an impediment in comparison to those with formal tutoring. The mind of a talented and mathematically inclined elementary school student might not pick out symbols or terms through some kind of divination, but it certainly might pick those up from casual interaction/observation (vs. from tutoring) and capably deduce much of the rest, where those less mathematically inclined might not.

And then, again, there is evidence of that with those high scores noted where tutoring hasn't been in play. Probably quite a bit less likely than from among those who have had that formal exposure, but there, nonetheless.

You'll get no argument from me about MAP being a rather limited measure of capability vs. its more relevant use as a measure of content mastery. It was designed for the latter, and is not recommended as a determinant of the former, except, perhaps, as an ancillary data point with the context of more ability-focused measurements.

Who is determining ability? If you want to go to a science-based magnet high school, you better have a decent knowledge of math. How you got there really doesn't matter. So, for that purpose MAP-M is much more useful than some IQ test. Though it would be even better to have a real entrance exam.

[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:Some years it is in early Nov.

Why on earth does it take so long? The score literally pops up on the kids' screens instantly...

Umm...you are on this forum. Have you not picked up on the trend? It's mcps. folks are here because something is wrong, information is not clear, no one knows the actual answer. So, to answer your question: it would be too easy for mcps to do what you think (scores appearing right away). If your precious Larlo didn't jot down his score (and didnt make a mistake writing it down), or memorize it, you gotta wait until report comes. Or bug the teacher.

The score reports are delivered 2 weeks after testing ends. The report includes county averages, so they need everyone's scores before they publish any reports. Then some admin has to go push some buttons. Do you want to pay for GAFA engineers to make a super sophisticated instant system?

Chilll out, folks.

Well noted, but riddle me this, Batman:

If middle school criteria-based magnet lotteries utilize these Fall MAP scores from 5th graders as entry gates (albeit locally normed), and

If score reports are delivered 2 weeks after testing ends, and

If that means mid-/late October for the Fall MAPs, and

If some schools scheduled MAP in the first week+ of September, and

If MAP scores largely correlate with exposure to content, and

If a considerable amount of content is taught between early September and early October (e.g., Math 5/6 covering operations with fractions), then

What does that say about the expected relative MAP scores for students fortunate enough to be taking MAP at the end of the testing window, and the resulting likelihood of placement in a magnet lottery pool?

Perhaps those who know the import of the test from schools having administered it early in the window have a more difficult time keeping it cool over the extra month.

(Notes: The MCPS Fall MAP testing window was 9/3-10/4. The Winter window, where 3rd-grade MAP-R scores are similarly used for placement in the CES lottery pool, is 12/16-1/28. MCPS has not employed the weeks-of-instruction adjustment available from NWEA to normalize MAP scores when determining lottery candidacy, and NWEA recommends a maximum 3-week testing window to reduce improper comparison among students.)

Kids who test high enough to qualify for these pools do so because of the exposure to content they receive outside of school, not because they happened to learn how to do long division late in the first quarter of the school year

This is not true. There are those who do not engage in outside tutoring/enrichment, and there are concepts to which students are newly exposed during the first quarter, which notably includes operations with fractions in Math 5/6. From these, there are some who test high enough. There are some who test just at the border of high enough, as well, and that extra content exposure can make the difference as to the side of the border on which they end up.

The only cohort for whom this is true is kids at high FARMS schools who can qualify for the pool with scores in the 70th percentile due to locally normed scores. There’s no way a kid at a low FARMS school where the cutoff can be as high as the low 90s percentile can pass that hurdle just by being very good at the content they’ve been exposed to at school.

You'd be wrong, there. There are kids with mathematically inclined minds who absorb concepts from daily life or are able to deduce concepts, to a degree, when presented with a question, though mathematical vocabulary can be an impediment when comparing to those receiving more formal exposure (e.g., tutoring). They demonstrate that across multiple tests (i.e., not in a one-off manner that would suggest lucky guessing).

And the low FARMS MAP-M cutoff has been higher than national percentiles in the low 90s. The low 90s made public by MCPS was in response to an MPIA request from a couple of years back and they haven't publicized the actual numbers since (those change each year with the actual set of scores achieved among MCPS students). They have acknowledged that the scores in MCPS, particularly in the low-FARMS and moderate-low-FARMS groupings, (and, then, locally normed percentiles) had gone up in following years. Parent comparisons of scores for those making/not making the lottery have suggested mid- to high-90s national percentiles for MAP-M.

I’m not buying it. A first grader who has never seen a division symbol isn’t going to know how to solve the problem regardless of how “mathematically inclined” their mind is. Same for a second grader who is asked to multiply fractions or find the area of a triangle. To score in the 95th, 96th percentile, a kid needs to have exposure to concepts grade levels beyond what they currently get. There’s no amount of “deducing concepts, to a degree” that will get there. I’m sure it helps in making educated guesses, but MAP-M is almost entirely a test of one’s mastery of content, not one’s math aptitude.

There was the note in there that vocabulary (like knowing what a division symbol means) may be an impediment in comparison to those with formal tutoring. The mind of a talented and mathematically inclined elementary school student might not pick out symbols or terms through some kind of divination, but it certainly might pick those up from casual interaction/observation (vs. from tutoring) and capably deduce much of the rest, where those less mathematically inclined might not.

And then, again, there is evidence of that with those high scores noted where tutoring hasn't been in play. Probably quite a bit less likely than from among those who have had that formal exposure, but there, nonetheless.

You'll get no argument from me about MAP being a rather limited measure of capability vs. its more relevant use as a measure of content mastery. It was designed for the latter, and is not recommended as a determinant of the former, except, perhaps, as an ancillary data point with the context of more ability-focused measurements.

Who is determining ability? If you want to go to a science-based magnet high school, you better have a decent knowledge of math. How you got there really doesn't matter. So, for that purpose MAP-M is much more useful than some IQ test. Though it would be even better to have a real entrance exam.

Whether knowledge or ability is more important to High School magnet admissions is a reasonable subject for debate. However, this subthread was discussing MAP being used as a gate criterion from fall of 5th grade for magnet middle lottery pools and from winter of 3rd grade for the lottery pools for 4th grade Centers for Enriched Studies. If you feel that knowledge gained is more important than ability at that level, I respectfully, but firmly, disagree.

Early identification of ability is especially important because the extra exposure for those lucky enough to be chosen via the lottery (and even the lesser extra exposure afforded to those lottery-identified at their local school) simply reinforces the knowledge gain difference that then might be used as something of a determinant for High School magnet selection, though those programs actually have more selection leeway vis-a-vis MAP, albeit less under the current paradigm than two years ago, than the central identification for the lotteries since the review for high school is supposed to be holistic across the criteria, whereas lottery qualification is gated for each criterion.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:Some years it is in early Nov.

Why on earth does it take so long? The score literally pops up on the kids' screens instantly...

Umm...you are on this forum. Have you not picked up on the trend? It's mcps. folks are here because something is wrong, information is not clear, no one knows the actual answer. So, to answer your question: it would be too easy for mcps to do what you think (scores appearing right away). If your precious Larlo didn't jot down his score (and didnt make a mistake writing it down), or memorize it, you gotta wait until report comes. Or bug the teacher.

The score reports are delivered 2 weeks after testing ends. The report includes county averages, so they need everyone's scores before they publish any reports. Then some admin has to go push some buttons. Do you want to pay for GAFA engineers to make a super sophisticated instant system?

Chilll out, folks.

Well noted, but riddle me this, Batman:

If middle school criteria-based magnet lotteries utilize these Fall MAP scores from 5th graders as entry gates (albeit locally normed), and

If score reports are delivered 2 weeks after testing ends, and

If that means mid-/late October for the Fall MAPs, and

If some schools scheduled MAP in the first week+ of September, and

If MAP scores largely correlate with exposure to content, and

If a considerable amount of content is taught between early September and early October (e.g., Math 5/6 covering operations with fractions), then

What does that say about the expected relative MAP scores for students fortunate enough to be taking MAP at the end of the testing window, and the resulting likelihood of placement in a magnet lottery pool?

Perhaps those who know the import of the test from schools having administered it early in the window have a more difficult time keeping it cool over the extra month.

(Notes: The MCPS Fall MAP testing window was 9/3-10/4. The Winter window, where 3rd-grade MAP-R scores are similarly used for placement in the CES lottery pool, is 12/16-1/28. MCPS has not employed the weeks-of-instruction adjustment available from NWEA to normalize MAP scores when determining lottery candidacy, and NWEA recommends a maximum 3-week testing window to reduce improper comparison among students.)

Kids who test high enough to qualify for these pools do so because of the exposure to content they receive outside of school, not because they happened to learn how to do long division late in the first quarter of the school year

This is not true. There are those who do not engage in outside tutoring/enrichment, and there are concepts to which students are newly exposed during the first quarter, which notably includes operations with fractions in Math 5/6. From these, there are some who test high enough. There are some who test just at the border of high enough, as well, and that extra content exposure can make the difference as to the side of the border on which they end up.

The only cohort for whom this is true is kids at high FARMS schools who can qualify for the pool with scores in the 70th percentile due to locally normed scores. There’s no way a kid at a low FARMS school where the cutoff can be as high as the low 90s percentile can pass that hurdle just by being very good at the content they’ve been exposed to at school.

You'd be wrong, there. There are kids with mathematically inclined minds who absorb concepts from daily life or are able to deduce concepts, to a degree, when presented with a question, though mathematical vocabulary can be an impediment when comparing to those receiving more formal exposure (e.g., tutoring). They demonstrate that across multiple tests (i.e., not in a one-off manner that would suggest lucky guessing).

And the low FARMS MAP-M cutoff has been higher than national percentiles in the low 90s. The low 90s made public by MCPS was in response to an MPIA request from a couple of years back and they haven't publicized the actual numbers since (those change each year with the actual set of scores achieved among MCPS students). They have acknowledged that the scores in MCPS, particularly in the low-FARMS and moderate-low-FARMS groupings, (and, then, locally normed percentiles) had gone up in following years. Parent comparisons of scores for those making/not making the lottery have suggested mid- to high-90s national percentiles for MAP-M.

I’m not buying it. A first grader who has never seen a division symbol isn’t going to know how to solve the problem regardless of how “mathematically inclined” their mind is. Same for a second grader who is asked to multiply fractions or find the area of a triangle. To score in the 95th, 96th percentile, a kid needs to have exposure to concepts grade levels beyond what they currently get. There’s no amount of “deducing concepts, to a degree” that will get there. I’m sure it helps in making educated guesses, but MAP-M is almost entirely a test of one’s mastery of content, not one’s math aptitude.

From what my kids told me, the questions require a fair amount of thinking. Some examples they gave me were pretty complex. These are not khan-academy questions - at least those the algorithm offers at later stages/harder. "Exposure" might be necessary, not sure about that, but it's for sure not sufficient to score well.

Yes it is the same content and question types as Khan, with minor differences.

Have you seen the questions? I don't think that it is. My kid scored 300+ in 8th and told me it's different.

DP. But as someone who had kids at home taking the test during Covid I saw most of the test. And yes, it’s Khan academy drill and kill type questions that test basic mastery of concepts.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some years it is in early Nov.

Why on earth does it take so long? The score literally pops up on the kids' screens instantly...

Umm...you are on this forum. Have you not picked up on the trend? It's mcps. folks are here because something is wrong, information is not clear, no one knows the actual answer. So, to answer your question: it would be too easy for mcps to do what you think (scores appearing right away). If your precious Larlo didn't jot down his score (and didnt make a mistake writing it down), or memorize it, you gotta wait until report comes. Or bug the teacher.

The score reports are delivered 2 weeks after testing ends. The report includes county averages, so they need everyone's scores before they publish any reports. Then some admin has to go push some buttons. Do you want to pay for GAFA engineers to make a super sophisticated instant system?

Chilll out, folks.

Well noted, but riddle me this, Batman:

If middle school criteria-based magnet lotteries utilize these Fall MAP scores from 5th graders as entry gates (albeit locally normed), and

If score reports are delivered 2 weeks after testing ends, and

If that means mid-/late October for the Fall MAPs, and

If some schools scheduled MAP in the first week+ of September, and

If MAP scores largely correlate with exposure to content, and

If a considerable amount of content is taught between early September and early October (e.g., Math 5/6 covering operations with fractions), then

What does that say about the expected relative MAP scores for students fortunate enough to be taking MAP at the end of the testing window, and the resulting likelihood of placement in a magnet lottery pool?

Perhaps those who know the import of the test from schools having administered it early in the window have a more difficult time keeping it cool over the extra month.

(Notes: The MCPS Fall MAP testing window was 9/3-10/4. The Winter window, where 3rd-grade MAP-R scores are similarly used for placement in the CES lottery pool, is 12/16-1/28. MCPS has not employed the weeks-of-instruction adjustment available from NWEA to normalize MAP scores when determining lottery candidacy, and NWEA recommends a maximum 3-week testing window to reduce improper comparison among students.)

Kids who test high enough to qualify for these pools do so because of the exposure to content they receive outside of school, not because they happened to learn how to do long division late in the first quarter of the school year

This is not true. There are those who do not engage in outside tutoring/enrichment, and there are concepts to which students are newly exposed during the first quarter, which notably includes operations with fractions in Math 5/6. From these, there are some who test high enough. There are some who test just at the border of high enough, as well, and that extra content exposure can make the difference as to the side of the border on which they end up.

The only cohort for whom this is true is kids at high FARMS schools who can qualify for the pool with scores in the 70th percentile due to locally normed scores. There’s no way a kid at a low FARMS school where the cutoff can be as high as the low 90s percentile can pass that hurdle just by being very good at the content they’ve been exposed to at school.

You'd be wrong, there. There are kids with mathematically inclined minds who absorb concepts from daily life or are able to deduce concepts, to a degree, when presented with a question, though mathematical vocabulary can be an impediment when comparing to those receiving more formal exposure (e.g., tutoring). They demonstrate that across multiple tests (i.e., not in a one-off manner that would suggest lucky guessing).

And the low FARMS MAP-M cutoff has been higher than national percentiles in the low 90s. The low 90s made public by MCPS was in response to an MPIA request from a couple of years back and they haven't publicized the actual numbers since (those change each year with the actual set of scores achieved among MCPS students). They have acknowledged that the scores in MCPS, particularly in the low-FARMS and moderate-low-FARMS groupings, (and, then, locally normed percentiles) had gone up in following years. Parent comparisons of scores for those making/not making the lottery have suggested mid- to high-90s national percentiles for MAP-M.

I’m not buying it. A first grader who has never seen a division symbol isn’t going to know how to solve the problem regardless of how “mathematically inclined” their mind is. Same for a second grader who is asked to multiply fractions or find the area of a triangle. To score in the 95th, 96th percentile, a kid needs to have exposure to concepts grade levels beyond what they currently get. There’s no amount of “deducing concepts, to a degree” that will get there. I’m sure it helps in making educated guesses, but MAP-M is almost entirely a test of one’s mastery of content, not one’s math aptitude.

From what my kids told me, the questions require a fair amount of thinking. Some examples they gave me were pretty complex. These are not khan-academy questions - at least those the algorithm offers at later stages/harder. "Exposure" might be necessary, not sure about that, but it's for sure not sufficient to score well.

Yes it is the same content and question types as Khan, with minor differences.

Have you seen the questions? I don't think that it is. My kid scored 300+ in 8th and told me it's different.

DP. But as someone who had kids at home taking the test during Covid I saw most of the test. And yes, it’s Khan academy drill and kill type questions that test basic mastery of concepts.

The questions are not the same for everyone. DD got questions about trigonometry functions which she didn't know anything about but was able to solve using very rudimentary knowledge. "Mere exposure" is not doing it.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some years it is in early Nov.

Why on earth does it take so long? The score literally pops up on the kids' screens instantly...

Umm...you are on this forum. Have you not picked up on the trend? It's mcps. folks are here because something is wrong, information is not clear, no one knows the actual answer. So, to answer your question: it would be too easy for mcps to do what you think (scores appearing right away). If your precious Larlo didn't jot down his score (and didnt make a mistake writing it down), or memorize it, you gotta wait until report comes. Or bug the teacher.

The score reports are delivered 2 weeks after testing ends. The report includes county averages, so they need everyone's scores before they publish any reports. Then some admin has to go push some buttons. Do you want to pay for GAFA engineers to make a super sophisticated instant system?

Chilll out, folks.

Well noted, but riddle me this, Batman:

If middle school criteria-based magnet lotteries utilize these Fall MAP scores from 5th graders as entry gates (albeit locally normed), and

If score reports are delivered 2 weeks after testing ends, and

If that means mid-/late October for the Fall MAPs, and

If some schools scheduled MAP in the first week+ of September, and

If MAP scores largely correlate with exposure to content, and

If a considerable amount of content is taught between early September and early October (e.g., Math 5/6 covering operations with fractions), then

What does that say about the expected relative MAP scores for students fortunate enough to be taking MAP at the end of the testing window, and the resulting likelihood of placement in a magnet lottery pool?

Perhaps those who know the import of the test from schools having administered it early in the window have a more difficult time keeping it cool over the extra month.

(Notes: The MCPS Fall MAP testing window was 9/3-10/4. The Winter window, where 3rd-grade MAP-R scores are similarly used for placement in the CES lottery pool, is 12/16-1/28. MCPS has not employed the weeks-of-instruction adjustment available from NWEA to normalize MAP scores when determining lottery candidacy, and NWEA recommends a maximum 3-week testing window to reduce improper comparison among students.)

Kids who test high enough to qualify for these pools do so because of the exposure to content they receive outside of school, not because they happened to learn how to do long division late in the first quarter of the school year

This is not true. There are those who do not engage in outside tutoring/enrichment, and there are concepts to which students are newly exposed during the first quarter, which notably includes operations with fractions in Math 5/6. From these, there are some who test high enough. There are some who test just at the border of high enough, as well, and that extra content exposure can make the difference as to the side of the border on which they end up.

The only cohort for whom this is true is kids at high FARMS schools who can qualify for the pool with scores in the 70th percentile due to locally normed scores. There’s no way a kid at a low FARMS school where the cutoff can be as high as the low 90s percentile can pass that hurdle just by being very good at the content they’ve been exposed to at school.

You'd be wrong, there. There are kids with mathematically inclined minds who absorb concepts from daily life or are able to deduce concepts, to a degree, when presented with a question, though mathematical vocabulary can be an impediment when comparing to those receiving more formal exposure (e.g., tutoring). They demonstrate that across multiple tests (i.e., not in a one-off manner that would suggest lucky guessing).

And the low FARMS MAP-M cutoff has been higher than national percentiles in the low 90s. The low 90s made public by MCPS was in response to an MPIA request from a couple of years back and they haven't publicized the actual numbers since (those change each year with the actual set of scores achieved among MCPS students). They have acknowledged that the scores in MCPS, particularly in the low-FARMS and moderate-low-FARMS groupings, (and, then, locally normed percentiles) had gone up in following years. Parent comparisons of scores for those making/not making the lottery have suggested mid- to high-90s national percentiles for MAP-M.

I’m not buying it. A first grader who has never seen a division symbol isn’t going to know how to solve the problem regardless of how “mathematically inclined” their mind is. Same for a second grader who is asked to multiply fractions or find the area of a triangle. To score in the 95th, 96th percentile, a kid needs to have exposure to concepts grade levels beyond what they currently get. There’s no amount of “deducing concepts, to a degree” that will get there. I’m sure it helps in making educated guesses, but MAP-M is almost entirely a test of one’s mastery of content, not one’s math aptitude.

From what my kids told me, the questions require a fair amount of thinking. Some examples they gave me were pretty complex. These are not khan-academy questions - at least those the algorithm offers at later stages/harder. "Exposure" might be necessary, not sure about that, but it's for sure not sufficient to score well.

Yes it is the same content and question types as Khan, with minor differences.

Have you seen the questions? I don't think that it is. My kid scored 300+ in 8th and told me it's different.

DP. But as someone who had kids at home taking the test during Covid I saw most of the test. And yes, it’s Khan academy drill and kill type questions that test basic mastery of concepts.

The questions are not the same for everyone. DD got questions about trigonometry functions which she didn't know anything about but was able to solve using very rudimentary knowledge. "Mere exposure" is not doing it.

You just proved my point. Being able to answer questions with just rudimentary knowledge of the subject shows how superficial the questions generally are. Both of my kids scored in the 99th percentile, so presumably I would have seen the more difficult questions as they topped out, and they were very basic questions about material they hadn't covered yet. Sure, they were able to reason their way few a couple but it's far from a math aptitude test.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some years it is in early Nov.

Why on earth does it take so long? The score literally pops up on the kids' screens instantly...

Umm...you are on this forum. Have you not picked up on the trend? It's mcps. folks are here because something is wrong, information is not clear, no one knows the actual answer. So, to answer your question: it would be too easy for mcps to do what you think (scores appearing right away). If your precious Larlo didn't jot down his score (and didnt make a mistake writing it down), or memorize it, you gotta wait until report comes. Or bug the teacher.

The score reports are delivered 2 weeks after testing ends. The report includes county averages, so they need everyone's scores before they publish any reports. Then some admin has to go push some buttons. Do you want to pay for GAFA engineers to make a super sophisticated instant system?

Chilll out, folks.

Well noted, but riddle me this, Batman:

If middle school criteria-based magnet lotteries utilize these Fall MAP scores from 5th graders as entry gates (albeit locally normed), and

If score reports are delivered 2 weeks after testing ends, and

If that means mid-/late October for the Fall MAPs, and

If some schools scheduled MAP in the first week+ of September, and

If MAP scores largely correlate with exposure to content, and

If a considerable amount of content is taught between early September and early October (e.g., Math 5/6 covering operations with fractions), then

What does that say about the expected relative MAP scores for students fortunate enough to be taking MAP at the end of the testing window, and the resulting likelihood of placement in a magnet lottery pool?

Perhaps those who know the import of the test from schools having administered it early in the window have a more difficult time keeping it cool over the extra month.

(Notes: The MCPS Fall MAP testing window was 9/3-10/4. The Winter window, where 3rd-grade MAP-R scores are similarly used for placement in the CES lottery pool, is 12/16-1/28. MCPS has not employed the weeks-of-instruction adjustment available from NWEA to normalize MAP scores when determining lottery candidacy, and NWEA recommends a maximum 3-week testing window to reduce improper comparison among students.)

Kids who test high enough to qualify for these pools do so because of the exposure to content they receive outside of school, not because they happened to learn how to do long division late in the first quarter of the school year

This is not true. There are those who do not engage in outside tutoring/enrichment, and there are concepts to which students are newly exposed during the first quarter, which notably includes operations with fractions in Math 5/6. From these, there are some who test high enough. There are some who test just at the border of high enough, as well, and that extra content exposure can make the difference as to the side of the border on which they end up.

The only cohort for whom this is true is kids at high FARMS schools who can qualify for the pool with scores in the 70th percentile due to locally normed scores. There’s no way a kid at a low FARMS school where the cutoff can be as high as the low 90s percentile can pass that hurdle just by being very good at the content they’ve been exposed to at school.

You'd be wrong, there. There are kids with mathematically inclined minds who absorb concepts from daily life or are able to deduce concepts, to a degree, when presented with a question, though mathematical vocabulary can be an impediment when comparing to those receiving more formal exposure (e.g., tutoring). They demonstrate that across multiple tests (i.e., not in a one-off manner that would suggest lucky guessing).

And the low FARMS MAP-M cutoff has been higher than national percentiles in the low 90s. The low 90s made public by MCPS was in response to an MPIA request from a couple of years back and they haven't publicized the actual numbers since (those change each year with the actual set of scores achieved among MCPS students). They have acknowledged that the scores in MCPS, particularly in the low-FARMS and moderate-low-FARMS groupings, (and, then, locally normed percentiles) had gone up in following years. Parent comparisons of scores for those making/not making the lottery have suggested mid- to high-90s national percentiles for MAP-M.

I’m not buying it. A first grader who has never seen a division symbol isn’t going to know how to solve the problem regardless of how “mathematically inclined” their mind is. Same for a second grader who is asked to multiply fractions or find the area of a triangle. To score in the 95th, 96th percentile, a kid needs to have exposure to concepts grade levels beyond what they currently get. There’s no amount of “deducing concepts, to a degree” that will get there. I’m sure it helps in making educated guesses, but MAP-M is almost entirely a test of one’s mastery of content, not one’s math aptitude.

From what my kids told me, the questions require a fair amount of thinking. Some examples they gave me were pretty complex. These are not khan-academy questions - at least those the algorithm offers at later stages/harder. "Exposure" might be necessary, not sure about that, but it's for sure not sufficient to score well.

Yes it is the same content and question types as Khan, with minor differences.

Have you seen the questions? I don't think that it is. My kid scored 300+ in 8th and told me it's different.

DP. But as someone who had kids at home taking the test during Covid I saw most of the test. And yes, it’s Khan academy drill and kill type questions that test basic mastery of concepts.

The questions are not the same for everyone. DD got questions about trigonometry functions which she didn't know anything about but was able to solve using very rudimentary knowledge. "Mere exposure" is not doing it.

You just proved my point. Being able to answer questions with just rudimentary knowledge of the subject shows how superficial the questions generally are. Both of my kids scored in the 99th percentile, so presumably I would have seen the more difficult questions as they topped out, and they were very basic questions about material they hadn't covered yet. Sure, they were able to reason their way few a couple but it's far from a math aptitude test.

I don't think you understood what I told you - the kid was given a fairly complex question that involved trigonometic functions, but all my kid actually knows is what sin and cos are. Yet, by using this very rudimentary knowledge she was able to solve this much more advanced question. The difference between kids who can and can't do that is not one of "mere exposure" - only very few kids exposed to basic definitions can take them as far.

Furthermore, MAP-M is not supposed to be "a math aptitude test" - whatever that is and whatever strange reason there is for that thing to exist. The MAP-M tests math knowledge/skills. It is not my favorite test of those skills, but it is a decent test and not actually all that "prep able" unless knowing and understanding math is some kind of diabolical prep for you.

Finally, kids scoring at 99th percentile of MAP-M can have more than 50 point difference in actual scores. So, no, all 99th percentile kids don't get the same questions. Again, my kid told me some of the questions, and as a person who is very good at math, I concluded that these were not easy questions of the kahn academy sort.

[Anonymous]

Sorry, we are new to MCPS. What are the cutoff scores for getting invited to the 4th grade special program and/or the MS special program?