TPMS MAP-M scores

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe OPs data is anectodal, but so is all the data from parents saying kids in their schools who didn't get in have high/higher scores.

+1000

At our CES, they give us the class distribution.

Wow! Our CES does not do this, but the kids all talk about scores so you get a decent feel for what scores are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP, public service announcement. MAP and Cogat scores above the 99th percentile may not be reliably distinguished. The tests are not designed to parse out differences at the tail ends. The test companies tell you this. So MCPS can't use apparent distinctions at the tail as determinitive of anything. So they use multiple factors. Ok continue.

As a parent of a child who consistently scores far above the 99%, this is a good thing because it isn't all that meaningful despite all the winging of parents to the contrary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe OPs data is anectodal, but so is all the data from parents saying kids in their schools who didn't get in have high/higher scores.

This has been true EVERY SINGLE YEAR. It's only this year that parents feel empowered to whine endlessly about it, because the overall cultural/political climate is such that blaming poor Black/brown kids is socially acceptable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to let all those parents know who criticized the magnet selection not being fair as many high performing kids from CES centers did not get selected, raw scores were requested, data were shared, and law suits were threatened, MAP- M scores of most of selected kids range from 250-294. Math counts try outs are competitive and still have high flyers from sixth grade though the selection criteria of these sixth graders was based on cogat and not traditional way, science class is serious business with lots of hands raised to answer teacher’s questions on a specific topic discussion. I don’t see these kids being any less smart (than those who did not make it to the magnet and parents cried foul).
Just sharing my observations as I see similar threads popping up about this year’s selection to middle school magnets.

I have no doubt the kids are bright and enthusiastic, but 250 MAP scores are not high for TPMS. If you had said 270-294, I'd be impressed. I do think these kids will do fine, but there are definitely kids at least on this level excluded. And, what about the kids who aren't great test takers? I guess, my point is that MCPS 1) needs more seats overall and 2) made a mistake using only test and location. It just feels very arbitrary. Glad to hear the class dynamic is good. Don't have a kid in this game, my kids are old school TPMS magnet.

Agreed. 4th grader CES kid's mom report here: for the fall MAP-M just tested a few weeks ago, I heard quite a few 250+ scores from my DC's classmates, and my DC got 260 even at 2nd grade MAP-P and around that score thereafter for MAP-M (this time, 262). 294 is impressive, 250 for 6th grade MAP-M? Not impressive at all.

I just want to say the same thing. W-feeder, 4th grade MAP-M 260 is norm. 250 for 6th grade MAP-M? I won't even think it's close to good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to let all those parents know who criticized the magnet selection not being fair as many high performing kids from CES centers did not get selected, raw scores were requested, data were shared, and law suits were threatened, MAP- M scores of most of selected kids range from 250-294. Math counts try outs are competitive and still have high flyers from sixth grade though the selection criteria of these sixth graders was based on cogat and not traditional way, science class is serious business with lots of hands raised to answer teacher’s questions on a specific topic discussion. I don’t see these kids being any less smart (than those who did not make it to the magnet and parents cried foul).
Just sharing my observations as I see similar threads popping up about this year’s selection to middle school magnets.

I have no doubt the kids are bright and enthusiastic, but 250 MAP scores are not high for TPMS. If you had said 270-294, I'd be impressed. I do think these kids will do fine, but there are definitely kids at least on this level excluded. And, what about the kids who aren't great test takers? I guess, my point is that MCPS 1) needs more seats overall and 2) made a mistake using only test and location. It just feels very arbitrary. Glad to hear the class dynamic is good. Don't have a kid in this game, my kids are old school TPMS magnet.

Agreed. 4th grader CES kid's mom report here: for the fall MAP-M just tested a few weeks ago, I heard quite a few 250+ scores from my DC's classmates, and my DC got 260 even at 2nd grade MAP-P and around that score thereafter for MAP-M (this time, 262). 294 is impressive, 250 for 6th grade MAP-M? Not impressive at all.

I just want to say the same thing. W-feeder, 4th grade MAP-M 260 is norm. 250 for 6th grade MAP-M? I won't even think it's close to good.

All anecdotal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to let all those parents know who criticized the magnet selection not being fair as many high performing kids from CES centers did not get selected, raw scores were requested, data were shared, and law suits were threatened, MAP- M scores of most of selected kids range from 250-294. Math counts try outs are competitive and still have high flyers from sixth grade though the selection criteria of these sixth graders was based on cogat and not traditional way, science class is serious business with lots of hands raised to answer teacher’s questions on a specific topic discussion. I don’t see these kids being any less smart (than those who did not make it to the magnet and parents cried foul).
Just sharing my observations as I see similar threads popping up about this year’s selection to middle school magnets.

I have no doubt the kids are bright and enthusiastic, but 250 MAP scores are not high for TPMS. If you had said 270-294, I'd be impressed. I do think these kids will do fine, but there are definitely kids at least on this level excluded. And, what about the kids who aren't great test takers? I guess, my point is that MCPS 1) needs more seats overall and 2) made a mistake using only test and location. It just feels very arbitrary. Glad to hear the class dynamic is good. Don't have a kid in this game, my kids are old school TPMS magnet.

Agreed. 4th grader CES kid's mom report here: for the fall MAP-M just tested a few weeks ago, I heard quite a few 250+ scores from my DC's classmates, and my DC got 260 even at 2nd grade MAP-P and around that score thereafter for MAP-M (this time, 262). 294 is impressive, 250 for 6th grade MAP-M? Not impressive at all.

I just want to say the same thing. W-feeder, 4th grade MAP-M 260 is norm. 250 for 6th grade MAP-M? I won't even think it's close to good.

Did you read previous responses- 6th grade MAP - M is not comparable to 4th or 5th grade MAP- M scores. Come back to this thread and post your DC ‘s MAP- M score after magnet or nonmagnet middle school 6th grade MAP - M. Until then try to read all posts before in thread, process info and then write your two cents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP, public service announcement. MAP and Cogat scores above the 99th percentile may not be reliably distinguished. The tests are not designed to parse out differences at the tail ends. The test companies tell you this. So MCPS can't use apparent distinctions at the tail as determinitive of anything. So they use multiple factors. Ok continue.

As a parent of a child who consistently scores far above the 99%, this is a good thing because it isn't all that meaningful despite all the winging of parents to the contrary.

True for Cogat, especially that god awful screener they used for 3rd grade with only a few questions. But not for Map as much. The standard error does get higher at the higher levels but there is a clear difference between a kid scoring 220 versus 250 which are both 99th percentile for younger grades on MAP r.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to let all those parents know who criticized the magnet selection not being fair as many high performing kids from CES centers did not get selected, raw scores were requested, data were shared, and law suits were threatened, MAP- M scores of most of selected kids range from 250-294. Math counts try outs are competitive and still have high flyers from sixth grade though the selection criteria of these sixth graders was based on cogat and not traditional way, science class is serious business with lots of hands raised to answer teacher’s questions on a specific topic discussion. I don’t see these kids being any less smart (than those who did not make it to the magnet and parents cried foul).
Just sharing my observations as I see similar threads popping up about this year’s selection to middle school magnets.

I have no doubt the kids are bright and enthusiastic, but 250 MAP scores are not high for TPMS. If you had said 270-294, I'd be impressed. I do think these kids will do fine, but there are definitely kids at least on this level excluded. And, what about the kids who aren't great test takers? I guess, my point is that MCPS 1) needs more seats overall and 2) made a mistake using only test and location. It just feels very arbitrary. Glad to hear the class dynamic is good. Don't have a kid in this game, my kids are old school TPMS magnet.

Agreed. 4th grader CES kid's mom report here: for the fall MAP-M just tested a few weeks ago, I heard quite a few 250+ scores from my DC's classmates, and my DC got 260 even at 2nd grade MAP-P and around that score thereafter for MAP-M (this time, 262). 294 is impressive, 250 for 6th grade MAP-M? Not impressive at all.

I just want to say the same thing. W-feeder, 4th grade MAP-M 260 is norm. 250 for 6th grade MAP-M? I won't even think it's close to good.

It is not the "norm" by a long shot. I have a DD at the CES and nearly all the scores she heard from her friends were in the 230s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP, public service announcement. MAP and Cogat scores above the 99th percentile may not be reliably distinguished. The tests are not designed to parse out differences at the tail ends. The test companies tell you this. So MCPS can't use apparent distinctions at the tail as determinitive of anything. So they use multiple factors. Ok continue.

As a parent of a child who consistently scores far above the 99%, this is a good thing because it isn't all that meaningful despite all the winging of parents to the contrary.

True for Cogat, especially that god awful screener they used for 3rd grade with only a few questions. But not for Map as much. The standard error does get higher at the higher levels but there is a clear difference between a kid scoring 220 versus 250 which are both 99th percentile for younger grades on MAP r.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to let all those parents know who criticized the magnet selection not being fair as many high performing kids from CES centers did not get selected, raw scores were requested, data were shared, and law suits were threatened, MAP- M scores of most of selected kids range from 250-294. Math counts try outs are competitive and still have high flyers from sixth grade though the selection criteria of these sixth graders was based on cogat and not traditional way, science class is serious business with lots of hands raised to answer teacher’s questions on a specific topic discussion. I don’t see these kids being any less smart (than those who did not make it to the magnet and parents cried foul).
Just sharing my observations as I see similar threads popping up about this year’s selection to middle school magnets.

I have no doubt the kids are bright and enthusiastic, but 250 MAP scores are not high for TPMS. If you had said 270-294, I'd be impressed. I do think these kids will do fine, but there are definitely kids at least on this level excluded. And, what about the kids who aren't great test takers? I guess, my point is that MCPS 1) needs more seats overall and 2) made a mistake using only test and location. It just feels very arbitrary. Glad to hear the class dynamic is good. Don't have a kid in this game, my kids are old school TPMS magnet.

Agreed. 4th grader CES kid's mom report here: for the fall MAP-M just tested a few weeks ago, I heard quite a few 250+ scores from my DC's classmates, and my DC got 260 even at 2nd grade MAP-P and around that score thereafter for MAP-M (this time, 262). 294 is impressive, 250 for 6th grade MAP-M? Not impressive at all.

I just want to say the same thing. W-feeder, 4th grade MAP-M 260 is norm. 250 for 6th grade MAP-M? I won't even think it's close to good.

254 is the 99th percentile for 6th grade MAP M, which others have pointed out is a different test then MAP M for 3rd to 5th grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP, public service announcement. MAP and Cogat scores above the 99th percentile may not be reliably distinguished. The tests are not designed to parse out differences at the tail ends. The test companies tell you this. So MCPS can't use apparent distinctions at the tail as determinitive of anything. So they use multiple factors. Ok continue.

As a parent of a child who consistently scores far above the 99%, this is a good thing because it isn't all that meaningful despite all the winging of parents to the contrary.

True for Cogat, especially that god awful screener they used for 3rd grade with only a few questions. But not for Map as much. The standard error does get higher at the higher levels but there is a clear difference between a kid scoring 220 versus 250 which are both 99th percentile for younger grades on MAP r.

This.

Still, the higher scores are less reliable. More meaning from 230 to 250 than 250 to 270, and so on. NWEA MAP docs explain this.

[Anonymous]

Agree that the range OP is sharing does not support an argument that this class is strong or stronger.

Here's the deal -what you want to see is the range and numerical distribution across the range for the OOB students. TPMS along with all other magnets keeps 25 seats set aside for in boundary students. The reason these are seats are set aside is because there wouldn't be 25 students scoring at the top or within the acceptance range if the bar wasn't set for lower for them. Most of these students would cluster toward the bottom of the distribution -this happens at all magnets. It could be a true statement that score ranges haven't changed but what has changed is that the number of students clustering toward the bottom range is no longer just the set aside in boundary students but more of the OOB students with the highest scoring students left back at their home schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agree that the range OP is sharing does not support an argument that this class is strong or stronger.

Here's the deal -what you want to see is the range and numerical distribution across the range for the OOB students. TPMS along with all other magnets keeps 25 seats set aside for in boundary students. The reason these are seats are set aside is because there wouldn't be 25 students scoring at the top or within the acceptance range if the bar wasn't set for lower for them. Most of these students would cluster toward the bottom of the distribution -this happens at all magnets. It could be a true statement that score ranges haven't changed but what has changed is that the number of students clustering toward the bottom range is no longer just the set aside in boundary students but more of the OOB students with the highest scoring students left back at their home schools.

Interesting and should be easy to discover if this is the case

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agree that the range OP is sharing does not support an argument that this class is strong or stronger.

Here's the deal -what you want to see is the range and numerical distribution across the range for the OOB students. TPMS along with all other magnets keeps 25 seats set aside for in boundary students. The reason these are seats are set aside is because there wouldn't be 25 students scoring at the top or within the acceptance range if the bar wasn't set for lower for them. Most of these students would cluster toward the bottom of the distribution -this happens at all magnets. It could be a true statement that score ranges haven't changed but what has changed is that the number of students clustering toward the bottom range is no longer just the set aside in boundary students but more of the OOB students with the highest scoring students left back at their home schools.

This+1! Talking about range is nothing. Since OP knows all the numbers, why not give us a general statistics, e.g., mean, standard deviation, Kurtosis, etc.

[Anonymous]

You know, some kids/parents lie about their scores. I personally know a child who told my child she got into CES who I know from the parent was wait-listed (and I did not tell either my child or the other parent about the discrepancy). Some of this obsessiveness and “260 is the norm” is based on utter BS