MAP percentile cutoff for MS magnet lottery?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They could also change the FARMS bands. I think one year they had 5 and then they changed it to 3. There's a lot of ways to manipulate the numbers to get your desired result.

The one strength I need to give them credit for is their amazing ability to manipulate the data to produce their desired results. Heaven forbid they give every student the same test (which they do) and use the data itself to determine who is best prepared for the program. No, they must come up with very complex algorithms to allocate seats away from students with outlier performance and toward students with mediocre scores.

That's because MAP performance is influenced largely by exposure, while they seek expoaure-neutral ability for magnet programs while utilizing MAP for expedience. It is far from the fidelity to capability sought (in many ways), but, when implemented correctly, local norming is a recommended practice to try to account for that disconnect, where teachers in low-FARMS schools are more routinely able to manage cohorts to provide enrichment/exposure to those able than those in high-FARMS schools. This is independent of any more socio-political aim, but it could very well serve that purpoae, as well.

Cue the diingenuous CogAT-is-more-gameable-than-MAP poster...

I mean, the curriculum is supposed to be the same across all schools in primary grades. If kids are not being exposed to the same curricular material, and that is influencing students’ standardized test performance, I think the solution is to work on fixing that inequity rather than manipulate scores based on low expectations for students at higher FARMS schools.

The curriculum is the same. I think one difference is the amount that many of the wealthier families spend on tutoring and outside enrichment, which tilts things in their favor. Adjusting the scores to reflect differences in privilege seems like a reasonable concession to fairness.

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

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

https://artofproblemsolving.com/videos

https://artofproblemsolving.com/alcumus

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They could also change the FARMS bands. I think one year they had 5 and then they changed it to 3. There's a lot of ways to manipulate the numbers to get your desired result.

The one strength I need to give them credit for is their amazing ability to manipulate the data to produce their desired results. Heaven forbid they give every student the same test (which they do) and use the data itself to determine who is best prepared for the program. No, they must come up with very complex algorithms to allocate seats away from students with outlier performance and toward students with mediocre scores.

That's because MAP performance is influenced largely by exposure, while they seek expoaure-neutral ability for magnet programs while utilizing MAP for expedience. It is far from the fidelity to capability sought (in many ways), but, when implemented correctly, local norming is a recommended practice to try to account for that disconnect, where teachers in low-FARMS schools are more routinely able to manage cohorts to provide enrichment/exposure to those able than those in high-FARMS schools. This is independent of any more socio-political aim, but it could very well serve that purpoae, as well.

Cue the diingenuous CogAT-is-more-gameable-than-MAP poster...

I mean, the curriculum is supposed to be the same across all schools in primary grades. If kids are not being exposed to the same curricular material, and that is influencing students’ standardized test performance, I think the solution is to work on fixing that inequity rather than manipulate scores based on low expectations for students at higher FARMS schools.

The curriculum is the same. I think one difference is the amount that many of the wealthier families spend on tutoring and outside enrichment, which tilts things in their favor. Adjusting the scores to reflect differences in privilege seems like a reasonable concession to fairness.

I personally think this is overblown on dcum. Most of the folks I know who hire tutors for younger elementary grades are doing so for struggling students at or below grade level, who would not be in the percentiles above the lottery threshold. I also think chronic absenteeism is a bigger factor than people think. If kids are not physically in the classroom as often, they are definitely not exposed to as much learning. But that shifts the blame to parents whose early elementary students are chronic absentees, so it’s an unpopular truth.

Not overblown. A substitute was speaking about 40+ kids getting to Cold Spring an hour-plus early for intensive Math supplementation. I'm guessing that might be a club as opposed to something provided directly by MCPS, but these kids aren't struggling with the MCPS curriculum.

That was a miscommunication.

Miscommunication?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, No, Yes, No.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They could also change the FARMS bands. I think one year they had 5 and then they changed it to 3. There's a lot of ways to manipulate the numbers to get your desired result.

The one strength I need to give them credit for is their amazing ability to manipulate the data to produce their desired results. Heaven forbid they give every student the same test (which they do) and use the data itself to determine who is best prepared for the program. No, they must come up with very complex algorithms to allocate seats away from students with outlier performance and toward students with mediocre scores.

That's because MAP performance is influenced largely by exposure, while they seek expoaure-neutral ability for magnet programs while utilizing MAP for expedience. It is far from the fidelity to capability sought (in many ways), but, when implemented correctly, local norming is a recommended practice to try to account for that disconnect, where teachers in low-FARMS schools are more routinely able to manage cohorts to provide enrichment/exposure to those able than those in high-FARMS schools. This is independent of any more socio-political aim, but it could very well serve that purpoae, as well.

Cue the diingenuous CogAT-is-more-gameable-than-MAP poster...

I mean, the curriculum is supposed to be the same across all schools in primary grades. If kids are not being exposed to the same curricular material, and that is influencing students’ standardized test performance, I think the solution is to work on fixing that inequity rather than manipulate scores based on low expectations for students at higher FARMS schools.

The curriculum is the same. I think one difference is the amount that many of the wealthier families spend on tutoring and outside enrichment, which tilts things in their favor. Adjusting the scores to reflect differences in privilege seems like a reasonable concession to fairness.

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

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

https://artofproblemsolving.com/videos

https://artofproblemsolving.com/alcumus

That's not the same as an actual AoPS class that costs close to $1k but sure keep telling yourself that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They could also change the FARMS bands. I think one year they had 5 and then they changed it to 3. There's a lot of ways to manipulate the numbers to get your desired result.

The one strength I need to give them credit for is their amazing ability to manipulate the data to produce their desired results. Heaven forbid they give every student the same test (which they do) and use the data itself to determine who is best prepared for the program. No, they must come up with very complex algorithms to allocate seats away from students with outlier performance and toward students with mediocre scores.

That's because MAP performance is influenced largely by exposure, while they seek expoaure-neutral ability for magnet programs while utilizing MAP for expedience. It is far from the fidelity to capability sought (in many ways), but, when implemented correctly, local norming is a recommended practice to try to account for that disconnect, where teachers in low-FARMS schools are more routinely able to manage cohorts to provide enrichment/exposure to those able than those in high-FARMS schools. This is independent of any more socio-political aim, but it could very well serve that purpoae, as well.

Cue the diingenuous CogAT-is-more-gameable-than-MAP poster...

I mean, the curriculum is supposed to be the same across all schools in primary grades. If kids are not being exposed to the same curricular material, and that is influencing students’ standardized test performance, I think the solution is to work on fixing that inequity rather than manipulate scores based on low expectations for students at higher FARMS schools.

The curriculum is the same. I think one difference is the amount that many of the wealthier families spend on tutoring and outside enrichment, which tilts things in their favor. Adjusting the scores to reflect differences in privilege seems like a reasonable concession to fairness.

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

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

https://artofproblemsolving.com/videos

https://artofproblemsolving.com/alcumus

That's not the same as an actual AoPS class that costs close to $1k but sure keep telling yourself that.

Try to stay on topic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They could also change the FARMS bands. I think one year they had 5 and then they changed it to 3. There's a lot of ways to manipulate the numbers to get your desired result.

The one strength I need to give them credit for is their amazing ability to manipulate the data to produce their desired results. Heaven forbid they give every student the same test (which they do) and use the data itself to determine who is best prepared for the program. No, they must come up with very complex algorithms to allocate seats away from students with outlier performance and toward students with mediocre scores.

That's because MAP performance is influenced largely by exposure, while they seek expoaure-neutral ability for magnet programs while utilizing MAP for expedience. It is far from the fidelity to capability sought (in many ways), but, when implemented correctly, local norming is a recommended practice to try to account for that disconnect, where teachers in low-FARMS schools are more routinely able to manage cohorts to provide enrichment/exposure to those able than those in high-FARMS schools. This is independent of any more socio-political aim, but it could very well serve that purpoae, as well.

Cue the diingenuous CogAT-is-more-gameable-than-MAP poster...

I mean, the curriculum is supposed to be the same across all schools in primary grades. If kids are not being exposed to the same curricular material, and that is influencing students’ standardized test performance, I think the solution is to work on fixing that inequity rather than manipulate scores based on low expectations for students at higher FARMS schools.

The curriculum is the same. I think one difference is the amount that many of the wealthier families spend on tutoring and outside enrichment, which tilts things in their favor. Adjusting the scores to reflect differences in privilege seems like a reasonable concession to fairness.

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

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

https://artofproblemsolving.com/videos

https://artofproblemsolving.com/alcumus

That's not the same as an actual AoPS class that costs close to $1k but sure keep telling yourself that.

Very true, you can get free videos for a lot of things on YouTube too, but it isn't comparable to the elite enrichment that many parents spend heavily on to give their kids an edge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They could also change the FARMS bands. I think one year they had 5 and then they changed it to 3. There's a lot of ways to manipulate the numbers to get your desired result.

The one strength I need to give them credit for is their amazing ability to manipulate the data to produce their desired results. Heaven forbid they give every student the same test (which they do) and use the data itself to determine who is best prepared for the program. No, they must come up with very complex algorithms to allocate seats away from students with outlier performance and toward students with mediocre scores.

That's because MAP performance is influenced largely by exposure, while they seek expoaure-neutral ability for magnet programs while utilizing MAP for expedience. It is far from the fidelity to capability sought (in many ways), but, when implemented correctly, local norming is a recommended practice to try to account for that disconnect, where teachers in low-FARMS schools are more routinely able to manage cohorts to provide enrichment/exposure to those able than those in high-FARMS schools. This is independent of any more socio-political aim, but it could very well serve that purpoae, as well.

Cue the diingenuous CogAT-is-more-gameable-than-MAP poster...

I mean, the curriculum is supposed to be the same across all schools in primary grades. If kids are not being exposed to the same curricular material, and that is influencing students’ standardized test performance, I think the solution is to work on fixing that inequity rather than manipulate scores based on low expectations for students at higher FARMS schools.

The curriculum is the same. I think one difference is the amount that many of the wealthier families spend on tutoring and outside enrichment, which tilts things in their favor. Adjusting the scores to reflect differences in privilege seems like a reasonable concession to fairness.

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

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

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

I think they're attempting to dismiss the outsized impact that wealth and privilege play in unlocking elite magnet programs.

[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:They could also change the FARMS bands. I think one year they had 5 and then they changed it to 3. There's a lot of ways to manipulate the numbers to get your desired result.

The one strength I need to give them credit for is their amazing ability to manipulate the data to produce their desired results. Heaven forbid they give every student the same test (which they do) and use the data itself to determine who is best prepared for the program. No, they must come up with very complex algorithms to allocate seats away from students with outlier performance and toward students with mediocre scores.

That's because MAP performance is influenced largely by exposure, while they seek expoaure-neutral ability for magnet programs while utilizing MAP for expedience. It is far from the fidelity to capability sought (in many ways), but, when implemented correctly, local norming is a recommended practice to try to account for that disconnect, where teachers in low-FARMS schools are more routinely able to manage cohorts to provide enrichment/exposure to those able than those in high-FARMS schools. This is independent of any more socio-political aim, but it could very well serve that purpoae, as well.

Cue the diingenuous CogAT-is-more-gameable-than-MAP poster...

I mean, the curriculum is supposed to be the same across all schools in primary grades. If kids are not being exposed to the same curricular material, and that is influencing students’ standardized test performance, I think the solution is to work on fixing that inequity rather than manipulate scores based on low expectations for students at higher FARMS schools.

The curriculum is the same. I think one difference is the amount that many of the wealthier families spend on tutoring and outside enrichment, which tilts things in their favor. Adjusting the scores to reflect differences in privilege seems like a reasonable concession to fairness.

I personally think this is overblown on dcum. Most of the folks I know who hire tutors for younger elementary grades are doing so for struggling students at or below grade level, who would not be in the percentiles above the lottery threshold. I also think chronic absenteeism is a bigger factor than people think. If kids are not physically in the classroom as often, they are definitely not exposed to as much learning. But that shifts the blame to parents whose early elementary students are chronic absentees, so it’s an unpopular truth.

Not overblown. A substitute was speaking about 40+ kids getting to Cold Spring an hour-plus early for intensive Math supplementation. I'm guessing that might be a club as opposed to something provided directly by MCPS, but these kids aren't struggling with the MCPS curriculum.

That was a miscommunication.

Miscommunication?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, No, Yes, No.

Great! How did it get started? Does it cost anything/does thr PTA chip in? We should have one at our school.

[Anonymous]

This is why we had to leave MCPS. Sadly, talent in academics is not recognized nor respected, with the pool being so big and the tax money tends to serve the lower end. This has nothing to do with outside enrichment. I know my kids never did any extracurricular enrichment but have been in the 95th percentile and above since grade 2. I have never heard a swimming or track cut is adjusted based on size, shape, or social status. It's not right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is why we had to leave MCPS. Sadly, talent in academics is not recognized nor respected, with the pool being so big and the tax money tends to serve the lower end. This has nothing to do with outside enrichment. I know my kids never did any extracurricular enrichment but have been in the 95th percentile and above since grade 2. I have never heard a swimming or track cut is adjusted based on size, shape, or social status. It's not right.

Education is not a competition.

[Anonymous]

The primary purpose of tax-payer funded sports in public schools is also not about competition. There should be fair representation by multiple measures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The primary purpose of tax-payer funded sports in public schools is also not about competition. There should be fair representation by multiple measures.

Sports have nothing to do with academics. There's no reason we should be funding this. Not to mention it does not benefit all students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The primary purpose of tax-payer funded sports in public schools is also not about competition. There should be fair representation by multiple measures.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know MCPS doesn’t publicize this info, but does anyone know the approximate cutoff for MAP scores to be placed in the lottery pools for the MS magnets like Eastern/TPMS/Clemente etc?

95th? 90th?

Thanks!

It depends on the FARM's rate of school. There may be other factors that affect the requirements for individuals like ESOL, FARMS and 504, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The primary purpose of tax-payer funded sports in public schools is also not about competition. There should be fair representation by multiple measures.

Sports have nothing to do with academics. There's no reason we should be funding this. Not to mention it does not benefit all students.

Exactly and anyone who attempts to rationalize things based on analogies between these optional sports teams that our tax dollars are subsidizing is bent.

[Anonymous]

It depends but at our low-farms rate school, it was 95th percentile for both math & reading. We knew people in ELC who were not put in the humanities pool and got low 90s.

Also - relatedly - we have ONE global humanities class in 6th at our middle school. But feeder elementaries had 4 sections in total of ELC. We know ppl with 93-94th percentile map-r not admitted into global hum. Not sure what that's about; because we have 6 advanced math sections. I am guessing it's about staffing but I thought schools had to provide differentiated learning in math *and* reading.