Remind me how long until we get MAP results

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

There is no cut off score but it your kid is receiving enrichment in third then they are probably on track for compacted math in fourth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

Presuming no change from last year, criteria for central identification of 3rd graders for the lottery to be selected for the 4th-5th grade Centers for Enriched Studies include a locally normed 85th percentile on Winter MAP-R. The practice of local norming groups schools with similar FARMS rates for comparison, with locally normed percentile scores that can be higher or lower than the published/reported national norms. The score at which a student is 85th %ile within the low FARMS grouping of schools may be at the 95th %ile nationally (just an example -- the actual number won't be known until after analysis of the test data, and MCPS hasn't made it public since a public information act request a few years ago). There are adjustments to a lower percentile for students receiving services -- special education, FARMS, 504 accmodation and ELD designation.

There is a similar paradigm for 5th graders for the Humanities and Math/Science/CS criteria-based magnets, relying on Fall MAP-R and MAP-M, respectively. Due to the need to utilize a higher-level MAP test for consistency related to mainline usage of MAP, and due to greater uncertainty then introduced, the higher locally normed MAP percentile between spring of 4th and fall of 5th is used for students taking Math 5/6 in 5th grade.

Both the CES and criteria-based middle school programs have additional criteria (grades and reading level), but each criterion must be met. This effectively is a cutoff, though not at a specific RIT score due to the local norming. MCPS had published the 2024 FAQ for the middle school programs:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-cnoWQ61gfF2ybNI8ReXSV-AhTh5oQqhGzX0tCTqqkk/

The CES FAQ, when available, is likely to be similar.

Generally, entry into the lotteries affords automatic placement into locally delivered enriched curricula if not selected for the magnet program when the lottery is conducted:

4th/5th-grade Enriched Literacy Curriculum if not selected for CES

6th/7th/8th-grade Historical Inquiry into Global Humanities if not selected for the Humanities/Communications magnet

6th grade AIM or AMP7+ (depending on which is available at the school; each lead to Algebra in 7th grade) if not selected for the Math/Science/CS magnet

Schools have the flexibility to place additional students, beyond those centrally identified, in these courses/curricula.

Placement for elementary accelerated math (Math 4/5 in 4th & Math 5/6 in 5th) also starts with central review/recommendation, but has a slightly different paradigm (still with a component being 3rd grade MAP-M scores). Note that there is not an elementary math magnet -- CES's may have de facto cohorting due to the prevalence of overall academic ability, but not every CES student across all CES program schools might end up in accelerated elementary math. Some in-year movement of students between on-grade and accelerated math may occur.

None of these placements is directly tied to SIPPI/GT identification. That is a separate process.

[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:

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.

It's completely "prep able". You have no idea what you're talking about.

[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:

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.

What was the question?
It's pointless to argue this without a concrete example. An easy problem and very hard problem can both be described similarly by their superficial appearance.

Khan also has "fairly complex question that involved trigonometic functions".

[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.

What's an example question that's different?

Did your kid do Khan problems on the same subjects/level the MAP was giving? Obviously the MAP questions will be harder than the class Khan homework if your kid is already ahead of their class content.

[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.

This is absolutely not true.

A brilliant student can solve hard problems after knowing only the relevant definitions of terms.

[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:

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.

This is absolutely not true.

A brilliant student can solve hard problems after knowing only the relevant definitions of terms.

+1
Exactly

[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:

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.

It's completely "prep able". You have no idea what you're talking about.

If it's so prepable, why isn't every one scoring in the 300s. It's not for the lack of trying.

[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:

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.

It's completely "prep able". You have no idea what you're talking about.

If it's so prepable, why isn't every one scoring in the 300s. It's not for the lack of trying.

Umm. Because not everyone preps? I’d assume only a very small percentage do so.

[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:

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.

It's completely "prep able". You have no idea what you're talking about.

If it's so prepable, why isn't every one scoring in the 300s. It's not for the lack of trying.

Umm. Because not everyone preps? I’d assume only a very small percentage do so.

Right. All these straights A students begging for retakes simply don't care about their MAP scores. That they talk about all the time. Makes sense.

[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:

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.

This is absolutely not true.

A brilliant student can solve hard problems after knowing only the relevant definitions of terms.

DP. Yes, this is possible. I've seen it.

However, not all brilliant students get exposed to those terms, and there is much greater uncertainty/lower likelihood of those with low exposures demonstrating their capabilities on such a test. MAP was designed for alternate purposes.

[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:

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.

It's completely "prep able". You have no idea what you're talking about.

If it's so prepable, why isn't every one scoring in the 300s. It's not for the lack of trying.

Umm. Because not everyone preps? I’d assume only a very small percentage do so.

Right. All these straights A students begging for retakes simply don't care about their MAP scores. That they talk about all the time. Makes sense.

My straight A student has never had to beg for a retake nor does she obsess over her MAP score. Perhaps the type of cohort you describe is laser focused on a MAP test but that’s not the norm or even close to enough kids to answer the original question of why every kid doesn’t get a 300 if it’s a test that one can prep for.

[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:

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.

It's completely "prep able". You have no idea what you're talking about.

If it's so prepable, why isn't every one scoring in the 300s. It's not for the lack of trying.

Umm. Because not everyone preps? I’d assume only a very small percentage do so.

Right. All these straights A students begging for retakes simply don't care about their MAP scores. That they talk about all the time. Makes sense.

My straight A student has never had to beg for a retake nor does she obsess over her MAP score. Perhaps the type of cohort you describe is laser focused on a MAP test but that’s not the norm or even close to enough kids to answer the original question of why every kid doesn’t get a 300 if it’s a test that one can prep for.

There are literally after school programs that prep for MAP and publish the list of their highest scores. And those scores are actually not that impressive. But I am sure if only your daughter prepped she would score so much higher - because nobody can be smarter than her, duh.

[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:

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.

It's completely "prep able". You have no idea what you're talking about.

If it's so prepable, why isn't every one scoring in the 300s. It's not for the lack of trying.

Umm. Because not everyone preps? I’d assume only a very small percentage do so.

Right. All these straights A students begging for retakes simply don't care about their MAP scores. That they talk about all the time. Makes sense.

My straight A student has never had to beg for a retake nor does she obsess over her MAP score. Perhaps the type of cohort you describe is laser focused on a MAP test but that’s not the norm or even close to enough kids to answer the original question of why every kid doesn’t get a 300 if it’s a test that one can prep for.

There are literally after school programs that prep for MAP and publish the list of their highest scores. And those scores are actually not that impressive. But I am sure if only your daughter prepped she would score so much higher - because nobody can be smarter than her, duh.

Wow, I never knew these programs were so popular that most students and MAP test takers participate in them. I always thought the ones who took the time to do these types of programs were the rare few who beg for retakes on tests at school and fixate on test scores with their friends.

[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:

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.

It's completely "prep able". You have no idea what you're talking about.

If it's so prepable, why isn't every one scoring in the 300s. It's not for the lack of trying.

Umm. Because not everyone preps? I’d assume only a very small percentage do so.

Right. All these straights A students begging for retakes simply don't care about their MAP scores. That they talk about all the time. Makes sense.

My straight A student has never had to beg for a retake nor does she obsess over her MAP score. Perhaps the type of cohort you describe is laser focused on a MAP test but that’s not the norm or even close to enough kids to answer the original question of why every kid doesn’t get a 300 if it’s a test that one can prep for.

There are literally after school programs that prep for MAP and publish the list of their highest scores. And those scores are actually not that impressive. But I am sure if only your daughter prepped she would score so much higher - because nobody can be smarter than her, duh.

Wow, I never knew these programs were so popular that most students and MAP test takers participate in them. I always thought the ones who took the time to do these types of programs were the rare few who beg for retakes on tests at school and fixate on test scores with their friends.

Your daughter might not be one of those fixating on scores (you don't really know this - the way this usually works is that most good students talk about their scores until they meet someone with a higher score and the suddenly becomes not very important) but the kids fixating on scores and prepping are not less capable than your daughter. Still, they only get so far. After a certain point, you really can't prep for this test.