What type of MAP-M are 5th graders getting?

[Anonymous]

My kid in 5-6 math got at 237, and seemed to think it was good. Reading this thread, maybe that’s not so great. I’m ok with him just being in advanced 6 next year over advanced 7.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mine scored 250+. I know they will recommend him for AMP7+ for MS but not seeing the point in doing calculus in 11th is. He’s more a humanities type.

Calculus in 11th is perfect.

Why?

Because I said so fool

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is the size of the TPMS magnet?

100 students from out of boundary

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the size of the TPMS magnet?

100 students from out of boundary

The complete set of classes/experiences that comprise the magnet program is provided to those 100 plus 25 from within the TPMS boundary. The lottery pool identification criteria are the same for each group, but the in-bounds lottery for the 25 seats is conducted separately from the main lottery for the 100 seats. This gives a student from within the TPMS boundary about a three times greater likelihood of being selected, based on the underlying populations (not considering the relative prevalence of those meeting the criteria for lottery inclusion between the two groups).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kid in 5-6 math got at 237, and seemed to think it was good. Reading this thread, maybe that’s not so great. I’m ok with him just being in advanced 6 next year over advanced 7.

If you 5th grader took the map-m 6+ they did incredibly well. Even if it's the 2-5 they did around the 97% which is probably in the top 10% of their school even at a low FARMS WPES. In the past kids who scored 250+ on the 2-5 were considered Algebra ready at many schools like Frost.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 3-5 and 6+ tests, on average, are supposed to result in the same RIT score and the same percentile. However, the individual variation expected is among the reasons that MCPS central decided to count both the 4th-grade spring MAP-M and 5th-grade fall MAP-M (whichever locally normed percentile is higher) when evaluating those in accelerated math for the criteria-based magnet MS pool eligibility and recommended auto-placement in AMP7+/AIM in 6th, whichever is offered (each leads to Algebra in 7th).

This tends to compensate for the decision to administer the 6+ test to that population in 5th, which is consistent with what MAP is supposed to be used for -- evaluation of teaching effectiveness across populations and identification of possible strengths/weaknesses to guide teachers' approach to meet students' individual needs (not so much as a spot test without other evaluative tools for placement decisions).

MS placement in AMP7+/AIM is not limited to this centrally-identified population. Grades and later standardized test performance, along with the input of the elementary teacher/math specialist, typically are taken into consideration as MS classes are planned late in the school year for the following one. There is some variation among middle schools in what qualifies, often due to the need to keep relatively consistent/manageable class sizes, but there usually is also some flexibility in placement.

So what is the cutoff for the criteria-based magnet eligibility?

85th percentile, locally normed by FARMS-rate grouping (5 of those, as of last report, from High-FARMS to Low-FARMS). If all the group-FARMS elementaries have a distribution where it takes an RIT score of x to be at the 85th percentile among all the scores in that grouping (not nationally), then x is the locally normed 85th percentile. Sort of, that is. MCPS goes back to the national norms, finds the percentile there that most closely matches the strict 85th percentile RIT score in the FARMS-rate grouping and then establishes the RIT score from that national percentile as the 85th percentile local norm for lottery placement purposes.

As might be expected, the cutoff can be rather high at low-FARMS schools, where the cohort typically has extra opportunities for exposure to content. That last bit, though, going back to the national percentiles, ensures that anyone hitting 99th percentile nationally is not excluded, even if the strict locally normed 85th percentile might have been at an RIT score above the national 99th. (Avoiding reliance on expected statistical variation at the extremes.)

It also can vary from year to year, as can the FARMS rate group of a particular school. MCPS has not made the actual cutoffs public since a response to a request from MCCPTA a couple of years back, but parents have been able to make rough guesses after the fact by comparing scores of who got in at their school. The understanding from presentations to the BOE is that the cutoff becomes the locally normed 70th percentile for individual students receiving services (FARMS, EML, IEP or 504).

The idea is to try to identify students with ability/need for more. That used to be done with CogAT, an abilities-related test, but they had to abandon that during the pandemic and eventually went with MAP. MAP is largely an exposure-related test, and there's info on the NWEA website about not using MAP for identification/placement purposes without an ability-related measure (NWEA is the organization from which MAP originates). There also is reasoning there for using local norms, though that is often discussed by school instead of by school grouping (the same thoughts, roughly, should apply, however).

This lottery/placement paradigm was supposed to be reviewed, but, while there have been internal discussions/decisions from year to year (such as changing to use both the end of 4th and beginning of 5th MAP-M scores for those in accelerated math to adjust for using the 6+ test for those students), resourcing a formal review has been a challenge.

Thank you. Still, what ballpark raw score are we talking about in W feeders? I know they are not all the same, either.

250.

NWEA reports that "proficient" (barely passing, preparation for community college, not UVA/VT engineering) in Algebra is 238.

But even among students who already score exactly 238 in prior spring, 30% of them have a lower (non-proficient) score a year later after taking Algebra!

250 in prior year spring is nearly certain predictor of Proficient 238 at end of Algebra year. (And remember, Proficient is the minimum, not the goal.)

https://www.nwea.org/resource-center/guide/75475/When-are-students-ready-for-algebra-1_NWEA_guide.pdf/

Low FARMs and low moderate FARMS groups perform similarly (within one point) so the cutoff will be similar. 250 I believe is roughly 99 percentile and low FARMs schools cutoff is unlikely to be that RIT.

Not true at all. We were at a high farms school and multiple kids got 250 or higher.

Look, I get being defensive about your high FARMS school. I was as well. But your own child and a handful of other well-supported kids scoring about 250 isn't data. It's great for your kid and their friends, but it's not data. The MCPTA did a freedom of information (MPIA) request for the data, and here's what they learned about the cut-off, which is going to tell you something about how kids are doing at the population level.

This is for Math-M. You can see the cut-off for low FARMS schools is 232 and the cut-off for high FARMS schools is 213. Now, if you look at the list of High FARMS schools, it is *very* short. For a long time, I think we all thought the bands were equally sized, but they aren't. So that lowest score, the 213 cut-off, that's for the handful of schools in MCPS where close to 100% of kids receive FARMS.

Locally Normed Group by SES NWEA-RIT Score Nationally-normed percentile
Low 232 93
Low Moderate 230 92
Moderate 224 84
Moderate High 215 65
High 213 60

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 3-5 and 6+ tests, on average, are supposed to result in the same RIT score and the same percentile. However, the individual variation expected is among the reasons that MCPS central decided to count both the 4th-grade spring MAP-M and 5th-grade fall MAP-M (whichever locally normed percentile is higher) when evaluating those in accelerated math for the criteria-based magnet MS pool eligibility and recommended auto-placement in AMP7+/AIM in 6th, whichever is offered (each leads to Algebra in 7th).

This tends to compensate for the decision to administer the 6+ test to that population in 5th, which is consistent with what MAP is supposed to be used for -- evaluation of teaching effectiveness across populations and identification of possible strengths/weaknesses to guide teachers' approach to meet students' individual needs (not so much as a spot test without other evaluative tools for placement decisions).

MS placement in AMP7+/AIM is not limited to this centrally-identified population. Grades and later standardized test performance, along with the input of the elementary teacher/math specialist, typically are taken into consideration as MS classes are planned late in the school year for the following one. There is some variation among middle schools in what qualifies, often due to the need to keep relatively consistent/manageable class sizes, but there usually is also some flexibility in placement.

So what is the cutoff for the criteria-based magnet eligibility?

85th percentile, locally normed by FARMS-rate grouping (5 of those, as of last report, from High-FARMS to Low-FARMS). If all the group-FARMS elementaries have a distribution where it takes an RIT score of x to be at the 85th percentile among all the scores in that grouping (not nationally), then x is the locally normed 85th percentile. Sort of, that is. MCPS goes back to the national norms, finds the percentile there that most closely matches the strict 85th percentile RIT score in the FARMS-rate grouping and then establishes the RIT score from that national percentile as the 85th percentile local norm for lottery placement purposes.

As might be expected, the cutoff can be rather high at low-FARMS schools, where the cohort typically has extra opportunities for exposure to content. That last bit, though, going back to the national percentiles, ensures that anyone hitting 99th percentile nationally is not excluded, even if the strict locally normed 85th percentile might have been at an RIT score above the national 99th. (Avoiding reliance on expected statistical variation at the extremes.)

It also can vary from year to year, as can the FARMS rate group of a particular school. MCPS has not made the actual cutoffs public since a response to a request from MCCPTA a couple of years back, but parents have been able to make rough guesses after the fact by comparing scores of who got in at their school. The understanding from presentations to the BOE is that the cutoff becomes the locally normed 70th percentile for individual students receiving services (FARMS, EML, IEP or 504).

The idea is to try to identify students with ability/need for more. That used to be done with CogAT, an abilities-related test, but they had to abandon that during the pandemic and eventually went with MAP. MAP is largely an exposure-related test, and there's info on the NWEA website about not using MAP for identification/placement purposes without an ability-related measure (NWEA is the organization from which MAP originates). There also is reasoning there for using local norms, though that is often discussed by school instead of by school grouping (the same thoughts, roughly, should apply, however).

This lottery/placement paradigm was supposed to be reviewed, but, while there have been internal discussions/decisions from year to year (such as changing to use both the end of 4th and beginning of 5th MAP-M scores for those in accelerated math to adjust for using the 6+ test for those students), resourcing a formal review has been a challenge.

Thank you. Still, what ballpark raw score are we talking about in W feeders? I know they are not all the same, either.

250.

NWEA reports that "proficient" (barely passing, preparation for community college, not UVA/VT engineering) in Algebra is 238.

But even among students who already score exactly 238 in prior spring, 30% of them have a lower (non-proficient) score a year later after taking Algebra!

250 in prior year spring is nearly certain predictor of Proficient 238 at end of Algebra year. (And remember, Proficient is the minimum, not the goal.)

https://www.nwea.org/resource-center/guide/75475/When-are-students-ready-for-algebra-1_NWEA_guide.pdf/

Low FARMs and low moderate FARMS groups perform similarly (within one point) so the cutoff will be similar. 250 I believe is roughly 99 percentile and low FARMs schools cutoff is unlikely to be that RIT.

Not true at all. We were at a high farms school and multiple kids got 250 or higher.

Look, I get being defensive about your high FARMS school. I was as well. But your own child and a handful of other well-supported kids scoring about 250 isn't data. It's great for your kid and their friends, but it's not data. The MCPTA did a freedom of information (MPIA) request for the data, and here's what they learned about the cut-off, which is going to tell you something about how kids are doing at the population level.

This is for Math-M. You can see the cut-off for low FARMS schools is 232 and the cut-off for high FARMS schools is 213. Now, if you look at the list of High FARMS schools, it is *very* short. For a long time, I think we all thought the bands were equally sized, but they aren't. So that lowest score, the 213 cut-off, that's for the handful of schools in MCPS where close to 100% of kids receive FARMS.

Locally Normed Group by SES NWEA-RIT Score Nationally-normed percentile
Low 232 93
Low Moderate 230 92
Moderate 224 84
Moderate High 215 65
High 213 60

This is quite low for countywide Magnet, even in Low FARMS. 232 is a solid score for going into Prealgebra class (AIM / AMP 7+ / Math 8), but Magnet 6th grade "MIM" Magnet Investigations in Mathematics is an enriched pre-algebra class with extra topics.

MCPS really should offer the Magnet math / CS / science sequence at the W feeders that would easily fill the classrooms, and put the countywide mid-high students from low performing schools in magnet school together. But that would force them to admit that them county has a lot of smart UMC Asians with of support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kid in 5-6 math got at 237, and seemed to think it was good. Reading this thread, maybe that’s not so great. I’m ok with him just being in advanced 6 next year over advanced 7.

235 I think is what they use for AIM/AMP7+

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the Fall test used for criteria based magnets? Or math class placement in 6th grade?

huh? you mean for HS?

For middle school. TPMS and Eastern.

"Criteria based" are the high school magnets like SMCS and CAP.
The middle school magnets (Eastern and TPMS) are cutoff + lottery. They use Fall and Winter 5th grade MAP scores and grades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the Fall test used for criteria based magnets? Or math class placement in 6th grade?

huh? you mean for HS?

For middle school. TPMS and Eastern.

"Criteria based" are the high school magnets like SMCS and CAP.
The middle school magnets (Eastern and TPMS) are cutoff + lottery. They use Fall and Winter 5th grade MAP scores and grades.

The Eastern MS (lower ~2/3 of county) & MLK MS (upper ~1/3 of county) Humanities programs and TPMS (lower) & Clemente MS (upper) Math/Science/CS programs are categorized as criteria-based magnets because there are academic criteria for qualifying to be placed in the respective lottery pools. Fall MAP scores and 1st quarter grades are used. (Winter MAP-R and 2nd quarter grades are used to identify the lottery pool for placement in the 4th/5th-grade Centers for Enriched Studies.)

The non-criteria-based MS programs are the county-wide Middle School Magnet Consortium whole school programs at Loiederman (Arts), Argyle (IT) & Parkland (Aerospace). They are called interest-based magnets as the 100 seats available at each to those outside the collective catchment are lotteried among those who simply indicate interest (i.e., no academic criteria for placement). (Those within the combined catchment also rank-order their preference for school placement.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 3-5 and 6+ tests, on average, are supposed to result in the same RIT score and the same percentile. However, the individual variation expected is among the reasons that MCPS central decided to count both the 4th-grade spring MAP-M and 5th-grade fall MAP-M (whichever locally normed percentile is higher) when evaluating those in accelerated math for the criteria-based magnet MS pool eligibility and recommended auto-placement in AMP7+/AIM in 6th, whichever is offered (each leads to Algebra in 7th).

This tends to compensate for the decision to administer the 6+ test to that population in 5th, which is consistent with what MAP is supposed to be used for -- evaluation of teaching effectiveness across populations and identification of possible strengths/weaknesses to guide teachers' approach to meet students' individual needs (not so much as a spot test without other evaluative tools for placement decisions).

MS placement in AMP7+/AIM is not limited to this centrally-identified population. Grades and later standardized test performance, along with the input of the elementary teacher/math specialist, typically are taken into consideration as MS classes are planned late in the school year for the following one. There is some variation among middle schools in what qualifies, often due to the need to keep relatively consistent/manageable class sizes, but there usually is also some flexibility in placement.

So what is the cutoff for the criteria-based magnet eligibility?

85th percentile, locally normed by FARMS-rate grouping (5 of those, as of last report, from High-FARMS to Low-FARMS). If all the group-FARMS elementaries have a distribution where it takes an RIT score of x to be at the 85th percentile among all the scores in that grouping (not nationally), then x is the locally normed 85th percentile. Sort of, that is. MCPS goes back to the national norms, finds the percentile there that most closely matches the strict 85th percentile RIT score in the FARMS-rate grouping and then establishes the RIT score from that national percentile as the 85th percentile local norm for lottery placement purposes.

As might be expected, the cutoff can be rather high at low-FARMS schools, where the cohort typically has extra opportunities for exposure to content. That last bit, though, going back to the national percentiles, ensures that anyone hitting 99th percentile nationally is not excluded, even if the strict locally normed 85th percentile might have been at an RIT score above the national 99th. (Avoiding reliance on expected statistical variation at the extremes.)

It also can vary from year to year, as can the FARMS rate group of a particular school. MCPS has not made the actual cutoffs public since a response to a request from MCCPTA a couple of years back, but parents have been able to make rough guesses after the fact by comparing scores of who got in at their school. The understanding from presentations to the BOE is that the cutoff becomes the locally normed 70th percentile for individual students receiving services (FARMS, EML, IEP or 504).

The idea is to try to identify students with ability/need for more. That used to be done with CogAT, an abilities-related test, but they had to abandon that during the pandemic and eventually went with MAP. MAP is largely an exposure-related test, and there's info on the NWEA website about not using MAP for identification/placement purposes without an ability-related measure (NWEA is the organization from which MAP originates). There also is reasoning there for using local norms, though that is often discussed by school instead of by school grouping (the same thoughts, roughly, should apply, however).

This lottery/placement paradigm was supposed to be reviewed, but, while there have been internal discussions/decisions from year to year (such as changing to use both the end of 4th and beginning of 5th MAP-M scores for those in accelerated math to adjust for using the 6+ test for those students), resourcing a formal review has been a challenge.

Thank you. Still, what ballpark raw score are we talking about in W feeders? I know they are not all the same, either.

250.

NWEA reports that "proficient" (barely passing, preparation for community college, not UVA/VT engineering) in Algebra is 238.

But even among students who already score exactly 238 in prior spring, 30% of them have a lower (non-proficient) score a year later after taking Algebra!

250 in prior year spring is nearly certain predictor of Proficient 238 at end of Algebra year. (And remember, Proficient is the minimum, not the goal.)

https://www.nwea.org/resource-center/guide/75475/When-are-students-ready-for-algebra-1_NWEA_guide.pdf/

Low FARMs and low moderate FARMS groups perform similarly (within one point) so the cutoff will be similar. 250 I believe is roughly 99 percentile and low FARMs schools cutoff is unlikely to be that RIT.

Not true at all. We were at a high farms school and multiple kids got 250 or higher.

Look, I get being defensive about your high FARMS school. I was as well. But your own child and a handful of other well-supported kids scoring about 250 isn't data. It's great for your kid and their friends, but it's not data. The MCPTA did a freedom of information (MPIA) request for the data, and here's what they learned about the cut-off, which is going to tell you something about how kids are doing at the population level.

This is for Math-M. You can see the cut-off for low FARMS schools is 232 and the cut-off for high FARMS schools is 213. Now, if you look at the list of High FARMS schools, it is *very* short. For a long time, I think we all thought the bands were equally sized, but they aren't. So that lowest score, the 213 cut-off, that's for the handful of schools in MCPS where close to 100% of kids receive FARMS.

Locally Normed Group by SES NWEA-RIT Score Nationally-normed percentile
Low 232 93
Low Moderate 230 92
Moderate 224 84
Moderate High 215 65
High 213 60

Those are the last published numbers and FARMS-rate school lists. MCPS has indicated that these change year to year based on that year's FARMS rate and the locally normed percentiles seen that year for each FARMS-rate grouping. They have not released the resulting more recent cutoff RIT scores/national percentiles, but anecdotal comparison has evidenced higher cutoffs, now, at least for the Low and Low Moderate groupings, and the fact that the cutoffs edged higher after that first publishing has been acknowledged by MCPS (AEI & DCCAPS).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the Fall test used for criteria based magnets? Or math class placement in 6th grade?

huh? you mean for HS?

For middle school. TPMS and Eastern.

"Criteria based" are the high school magnets like SMCS and CAP.
The middle school magnets (Eastern and TPMS) are cutoff + lottery. They use Fall and Winter 5th grade MAP scores and grades.

The letter today says the review will occur in December 2024. Does that mean it will still consider Winter Map this year? Or is that administered later?

[Anonymous]

I believe Winter ones are given after holiday break, so January or February.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 3-5 and 6+ tests, on average, are supposed to result in the same RIT score and the same percentile. However, the individual variation expected is among the reasons that MCPS central decided to count both the 4th-grade spring MAP-M and 5th-grade fall MAP-M (whichever locally normed percentile is higher) when evaluating those in accelerated math for the criteria-based magnet MS pool eligibility and recommended auto-placement in AMP7+/AIM in 6th, whichever is offered (each leads to Algebra in 7th).

This tends to compensate for the decision to administer the 6+ test to that population in 5th, which is consistent with what MAP is supposed to be used for -- evaluation of teaching effectiveness across populations and identification of possible strengths/weaknesses to guide teachers' approach to meet students' individual needs (not so much as a spot test without other evaluative tools for placement decisions).

MS placement in AMP7+/AIM is not limited to this centrally-identified population. Grades and later standardized test performance, along with the input of the elementary teacher/math specialist, typically are taken into consideration as MS classes are planned late in the school year for the following one. There is some variation among middle schools in what qualifies, often due to the need to keep relatively consistent/manageable class sizes, but there usually is also some flexibility in placement.

So what is the cutoff for the criteria-based magnet eligibility?

85th percentile, locally normed by FARMS-rate grouping (5 of those, as of last report, from High-FARMS to Low-FARMS). If all the group-FARMS elementaries have a distribution where it takes an RIT score of x to be at the 85th percentile among all the scores in that grouping (not nationally), then x is the locally normed 85th percentile. Sort of, that is. MCPS goes back to the national norms, finds the percentile there that most closely matches the strict 85th percentile RIT score in the FARMS-rate grouping and then establishes the RIT score from that national percentile as the 85th percentile local norm for lottery placement purposes.

As might be expected, the cutoff can be rather high at low-FARMS schools, where the cohort typically has extra opportunities for exposure to content. That last bit, though, going back to the national percentiles, ensures that anyone hitting 99th percentile nationally is not excluded, even if the strict locally normed 85th percentile might have been at an RIT score above the national 99th. (Avoiding reliance on expected statistical variation at the extremes.)

It also can vary from year to year, as can the FARMS rate group of a particular school. MCPS has not made the actual cutoffs public since a response to a request from MCCPTA a couple of years back, but parents have been able to make rough guesses after the fact by comparing scores of who got in at their school. The understanding from presentations to the BOE is that the cutoff becomes the locally normed 70th percentile for individual students receiving services (FARMS, EML, IEP or 504).

The idea is to try to identify students with ability/need for more. That used to be done with CogAT, an abilities-related test, but they had to abandon that during the pandemic and eventually went with MAP. MAP is largely an exposure-related test, and there's info on the NWEA website about not using MAP for identification/placement purposes without an ability-related measure (NWEA is the organization from which MAP originates). There also is reasoning there for using local norms, though that is often discussed by school instead of by school grouping (the same thoughts, roughly, should apply, however).

This lottery/placement paradigm was supposed to be reviewed, but, while there have been internal discussions/decisions from year to year (such as changing to use both the end of 4th and beginning of 5th MAP-M scores for those in accelerated math to adjust for using the 6+ test for those students), resourcing a formal review has been a challenge.

Thank you. Still, what ballpark raw score are we talking about in W feeders? I know they are not all the same, either.

250.

NWEA reports that "proficient" (barely passing, preparation for community college, not UVA/VT engineering) in Algebra is 238.

But even among students who already score exactly 238 in prior spring, 30% of them have a lower (non-proficient) score a year later after taking Algebra!

250 in prior year spring is nearly certain predictor of Proficient 238 at end of Algebra year. (And remember, Proficient is the minimum, not the goal.)

https://www.nwea.org/resource-center/guide/75475/When-are-students-ready-for-algebra-1_NWEA_guide.pdf/

Low FARMs and low moderate FARMS groups perform similarly (within one point) so the cutoff will be similar. 250 I believe is roughly 99 percentile and low FARMs schools cutoff is unlikely to be that RIT.

Not true at all. We were at a high farms school and multiple kids got 250 or higher.

Look, I get being defensive about your high FARMS school. I was as well. But your own child and a handful of other well-supported kids scoring about 250 isn't data. It's great for your kid and their friends, but it's not data. The MCPTA did a freedom of information (MPIA) request for the data, and here's what they learned about the cut-off, which is going to tell you something about how kids are doing at the population level.

This is for Math-M. You can see the cut-off for low FARMS schools is 232 and the cut-off for high FARMS schools is 213. Now, if you look at the list of High FARMS schools, it is *very* short. For a long time, I think we all thought the bands were equally sized, but they aren't. So that lowest score, the 213 cut-off, that's for the handful of schools in MCPS where close to 100% of kids receive FARMS.

Locally Normed Group by SES NWEA-RIT Score Nationally-normed percentile
Low 232 93
Low Moderate 230 92
Moderate 224 84
Moderate High 215 65
High 213 60

I'm shocked these are so low. They are extremely low like 2nd or 3rd grade scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 3-5 and 6+ tests, on average, are supposed to result in the same RIT score and the same percentile. However, the individual variation expected is among the reasons that MCPS central decided to count both the 4th-grade spring MAP-M and 5th-grade fall MAP-M (whichever locally normed percentile is higher) when evaluating those in accelerated math for the criteria-based magnet MS pool eligibility and recommended auto-placement in AMP7+/AIM in 6th, whichever is offered (each leads to Algebra in 7th).

This tends to compensate for the decision to administer the 6+ test to that population in 5th, which is consistent with what MAP is supposed to be used for -- evaluation of teaching effectiveness across populations and identification of possible strengths/weaknesses to guide teachers' approach to meet students' individual needs (not so much as a spot test without other evaluative tools for placement decisions).

MS placement in AMP7+/AIM is not limited to this centrally-identified population. Grades and later standardized test performance, along with the input of the elementary teacher/math specialist, typically are taken into consideration as MS classes are planned late in the school year for the following one. There is some variation among middle schools in what qualifies, often due to the need to keep relatively consistent/manageable class sizes, but there usually is also some flexibility in placement.

So what is the cutoff for the criteria-based magnet eligibility?

85th percentile, locally normed by FARMS-rate grouping (5 of those, as of last report, from High-FARMS to Low-FARMS). If all the group-FARMS elementaries have a distribution where it takes an RIT score of x to be at the 85th percentile among all the scores in that grouping (not nationally), then x is the locally normed 85th percentile. Sort of, that is. MCPS goes back to the national norms, finds the percentile there that most closely matches the strict 85th percentile RIT score in the FARMS-rate grouping and then establishes the RIT score from that national percentile as the 85th percentile local norm for lottery placement purposes.

As might be expected, the cutoff can be rather high at low-FARMS schools, where the cohort typically has extra opportunities for exposure to content. That last bit, though, going back to the national percentiles, ensures that anyone hitting 99th percentile nationally is not excluded, even if the strict locally normed 85th percentile might have been at an RIT score above the national 99th. (Avoiding reliance on expected statistical variation at the extremes.)

It also can vary from year to year, as can the FARMS rate group of a particular school. MCPS has not made the actual cutoffs public since a response to a request from MCCPTA a couple of years back, but parents have been able to make rough guesses after the fact by comparing scores of who got in at their school. The understanding from presentations to the BOE is that the cutoff becomes the locally normed 70th percentile for individual students receiving services (FARMS, EML, IEP or 504).

The idea is to try to identify students with ability/need for more. That used to be done with CogAT, an abilities-related test, but they had to abandon that during the pandemic and eventually went with MAP. MAP is largely an exposure-related test, and there's info on the NWEA website about not using MAP for identification/placement purposes without an ability-related measure (NWEA is the organization from which MAP originates). There also is reasoning there for using local norms, though that is often discussed by school instead of by school grouping (the same thoughts, roughly, should apply, however).

This lottery/placement paradigm was supposed to be reviewed, but, while there have been internal discussions/decisions from year to year (such as changing to use both the end of 4th and beginning of 5th MAP-M scores for those in accelerated math to adjust for using the 6+ test for those students), resourcing a formal review has been a challenge.

Thank you. Still, what ballpark raw score are we talking about in W feeders? I know they are not all the same, either.

250.

NWEA reports that "proficient" (barely passing, preparation for community college, not UVA/VT engineering) in Algebra is 238.

But even among students who already score exactly 238 in prior spring, 30% of them have a lower (non-proficient) score a year later after taking Algebra!

250 in prior year spring is nearly certain predictor of Proficient 238 at end of Algebra year. (And remember, Proficient is the minimum, not the goal.)

https://www.nwea.org/resource-center/guide/75475/When-are-students-ready-for-algebra-1_NWEA_guide.pdf/

Low FARMs and low moderate FARMS groups perform similarly (within one point) so the cutoff will be similar. 250 I believe is roughly 99 percentile and low FARMs schools cutoff is unlikely to be that RIT.

Not true at all. We were at a high farms school and multiple kids got 250 or higher.

Look, I get being defensive about your high FARMS school. I was as well. But your own child and a handful of other well-supported kids scoring about 250 isn't data. It's great for your kid and their friends, but it's not data. The MCPTA did a freedom of information (MPIA) request for the data, and here's what they learned about the cut-off, which is going to tell you something about how kids are doing at the population level.

This is for Math-M. You can see the cut-off for low FARMS schools is 232 and the cut-off for high FARMS schools is 213. Now, if you look at the list of High FARMS schools, it is *very* short. For a long time, I think we all thought the bands were equally sized, but they aren't. So that lowest score, the 213 cut-off, that's for the handful of schools in MCPS where close to 100% of kids receive FARMS.

Locally Normed Group by SES NWEA-RIT Score Nationally-normed percentile
Low 232 93
Low Moderate 230 92
Moderate 224 84
Moderate High 215 65
High 213 60

I'm shocked these are so low. They are extremely low like 2nd or 3rd grade scores.