New math pathway

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was a new FAQ posted on the website with the appeal information, which says that the mcps percentiles were not based on countywide information. Rather, each student was compared to their own ES's overall SES. Students at the CES were compared to that CES's SES. That means, if your home school was a different SES than your child CES, they may have been calculated under the wrong numbers. Those numbers are then used to calculate the middle school cohort group.

Where is this posted? Can you post the link? Thanks!

Question 3 here: https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/curriculum/specialprograms/middle/Magnet%20FAQs%202019(7).pdf

This link does not work. But I did find the document:

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/curriculum/specialprograms/middle/Magnet%20FAQs%202019(7).pdf

And this document does not say anything about CES vs non-CES schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was a new FAQ posted on the website with the appeal information, which says that the mcps percentiles were not based on countywide information. Rather, each student was compared to their own ES's overall SES. Students at the CES were compared to that CES's SES. That means, if your home school was a different SES than your child CES, they may have been calculated under the wrong numbers. Those numbers are then used to calculate the middle school cohort group.

Where is this posted? Can you post the link? Thanks!

Question 3 here: https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/curriculum/specialprograms/middle/Magnet%20FAQs%202019(7).pdf

This link does not work. But I did find the document:

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/curriculum/specialprograms/middle/Magnet%20FAQs%202019(7).pdf

And this document does not say anything about CES vs non-CES schools.

[Anonymous]

Well, it has impact if they are using it to discern the existence of a cohort. My kid has a cohort at his CES, but almost none of them will go to his middle school, so in sure what the cohort situation there would be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, it has impact if they are using it to discern the existence of a cohort. My kid has a cohort at his CES, but almost none of them will go to his middle school, so in sure what the cohort situation there would be.

The document does not say SES of elementary schools is used to discern the existence of a cohort. It only says that the kids are grouped based on SES of elementary schools to get the normed CogAT score (MCPS percentile).

This seems to be something new that they have added this year. So the MCPS percentile of your kid is not based on scores of *all* MCPS children who took the test. It is only based on scores of those children who are in schools with a similar FARMS rate.

[Anonymous]

(Re-posted from a more relevant thread: https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/0/781550.page#14429226)

My husband actually called the central office and they said that the CES students's percentiles were calculated based on their current elementary school's SES. They then use the outcome of that ES-based calculation to identify a cohort at the middle school (which may also have a different feeder group and SES that the CES from which the student was calculated, but that's not taken into account). They also said that there may be a difference in the calculation at our home school, but it's unlikely to be much of a difference as to final outcome of cohort, but they can't be sure without a recalculation, which they won't do unless specifically requested on an appeal. (In our case, the CES ES has about 50% FARMS, but our home ES has about 80% FARMS.) This supports the suspicion that students in the CES are less likely to be accepted into the magnets, especially if their "cohorts" are being determined based on numbers that are skewed in different ways from the home schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Sorry but that is not what MCPS wants and that is not what the BOE wants for the definition of the magnet programs.

7. My child’s scores for the various criteria are in the 90+ percentiles and/or higher levels, why did my child not get selected?
This year, the process looked at all grade five students. This provided information about your student’s performance in addition to their academic peer group. This process considered over 6,900 Grade 5 students. Your child, while high performing, may have an academic peer group at the local school and may not have emerged an outlier within the group

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/.../middle/Magnet%20FAQs%202019(7).pdf

If you are not happy or not agree, (a) inform the BOE members and (b) use your vote (and your friends' votes) to change the BOE members in the upcoming elections

WILD APPLAUSE.

Yes, MCPS is moving away from a system that relies on a child having received significant instruction above grade level in order to access the magnet program. Yes, that means that some kids will arrive at the magnet with the raw potential, but not the exposure, of another child in the magnet.

THAT'S FINE.

That is in fact preferable to a system that can only be accessed if you *already* have all of the resources available.

If that bothers you, please advocate for more above-grade-level instruction in high-needs schools, so that your precious kids won't be held back when those children are in a classroom with them at the magnet.

You're nuts. My kids who went to CES and the older one who went to Eastern did not get a single day of outside instruction of any kind in order to access the magnet program. The same is true for the vast majority of their peers from what I can tell in discussing with parents. These kids are objectively very, very smart, not coached within an inch of their lives. It's total BS to assume that all kids in magnet programs have been coached to get there. What the cohort system means is that kids who have done extremely well -- WITHOUT coaching -- are being denied access to the magnet programs that they need to reach their potential and thrive. The resources they have available are educated parents and books at home, not Kumon and Mathnasium and Dr. Li or whoever else.

The answer is not to change the selection system -- it's to make the magnet curricula (and associated teacher training) available to all kids who would benefit from them. Make the pie bigger -- don't change the system because you assume that kids who are top scorers are spending every waking hour getting coached or prepped. That's nonsense and unfair to those kids.

[Anonymous]

The peer cohort thing is ridiculous. Peer cohorts don't teach children -- teachers teach children, and children are taught what's in the curriculum. The idea that talented students will have their educational needs met simply because they're grouped with other talented children makes a mockery of the fundamental premise that teachers and curricula are critical to education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The peer cohort thing is ridiculous. Peer cohorts don't teach children -- teachers teach children, and children are taught what's in the curriculum. The idea that talented students will have their educational needs met simply because they're grouped with other talented children makes a mockery of the fundamental premise that teachers and curricula are critical to education.

Nobody's saying that. Once they've been grouped together as a cohort, that can enable the group to be given the enriched or applied courses, i.e. teachers and curricula.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they're in compacted math in 5th grade, then there's no difference. If they were in the regular math track, then they would do math 6, then IM in 7th grade, then algebra 1 in 8th grade (for high school credit). The old version had math 6, math 7, then math 8, and algebra 1 would be done in 9th grade. See page 19 of this PDF from Lee MS: https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/schools/leems/news/5th%20Grade%20Parent%20Meeting.pptx.pdf

Lee MS has a different path now, according to the presentation given to rising 6th graders this year. That PPT is from January 2017, before the IM and Applied IM class placement was enforced. Now, the basic path for students who took regular math 5 is math 6, IM 7, Algebra I, then geometry in 9th. Compacted math 5/6 students will start IM 6, then Algebra I, then Geometry, then Algebra II in 9th (although that is sometimes replaced with pre-calculus or functions, as in the Blair SMAC magnet). Some advanced 6th graders were allowed to start in Algebra I with the 7th graders, but now they have the magnet-level math and that is generally not being allowed anymore (except at Eastern where they have no magnet-level math class and they start all advanced 6th graders in Algebra I).

How common is this at Eastern? Do most of the humanities magnet kids end up doing Algebra 1 in 6th grade?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you just cling to those high MAP scores like they’re absolute evidence of your child being gifted. The MAP is an imperfect test and wasn’t designed for this application. It is preppable *by design*. The COGAT is only slightly better! (Here is just some evidence: over 15% of MCPS kids tested in the Top percentile nationally.) MCPS officials are wading through murky waters. Without administering WISC tests to thousands of students this is the best they can do. They are identifying hundreds of kids as high performers. Yes, it was easier to get your kid accepted when all you had to do was ask for testing and compete against a couple hundred other kids. But universal testing is actually turning up kids who are equally bright *and have no peer group at their home middle school*. That’s a good thing to capture. He is more deserving than your high MAP kid—good gravy!

A high map score is a premier indicator of prepping because it shows exposure to concepts not taught in school. It's absolutely not about aptitude or giftedness.

You can say this all you want but it's not true. I know several kids who take RSM or Dr. Li's classes and their Map scores lower than other bright kids who don't do outside classes. You are correct it isn't designed to measure giftedness like the Cogat. It's more like the SAT. So you can prep all you want but if a child doesn't have a certain aptitude the scores will not go up very much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you just cling to those high MAP scores like they’re absolute evidence of your child being gifted. The MAP is an imperfect test and wasn’t designed for this application. It is preppable *by design*. The COGAT is only slightly better! (Here is just some evidence: over 15% of MCPS kids tested in the Top percentile nationally.) MCPS officials are wading through murky waters. Without administering WISC tests to thousands of students this is the best they can do. They are identifying hundreds of kids as high performers. Yes, it was easier to get your kid accepted when all you had to do was ask for testing and compete against a couple hundred other kids. But universal testing is actually turning up kids who are equally bright *and have no peer group at their home middle school*. That’s a good thing to capture. He is more deserving than your high MAP kid—good gravy!

A high map score is a premier indicator of prepping because it shows exposure to concepts not taught in school. It's absolutely not about aptitude or giftedness.

You can say this all you want but it's not true. I know several kids who take RSM or Dr. Li's classes and their Map scores lower than other bright kids who don't do outside classes. You are correct it isn't designed to measure giftedness like the Cogat. It's more like the SAT. So you can prep all you want but if a child doesn't have a certain aptitude the scores will not go up very much.

Maybe. But mostly, those who prep have higher MAP scores than similarly capable kids who don't.

[Anonymous]

I can agree with that. But that doesn't mean all or even many kids with high scores prep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you just cling to those high MAP scores like they’re absolute evidence of your child being gifted. The MAP is an imperfect test and wasn’t designed for this application. It is preppable *by design*. The COGAT is only slightly better! (Here is just some evidence: over 15% of MCPS kids tested in the Top percentile nationally.) MCPS officials are wading through murky waters. Without administering WISC tests to thousands of students this is the best they can do. They are identifying hundreds of kids as high performers. Yes, it was easier to get your kid accepted when all you had to do was ask for testing and compete against a couple hundred other kids. But universal testing is actually turning up kids who are equally bright *and have no peer group at their home middle school*. That’s a good thing to capture. He is more deserving than your high MAP kid—good gravy!

A high map score is a premier indicator of prepping because it shows exposure to concepts not taught in school. It's absolutely not about aptitude or giftedness.

You can say this all you want but it's not true. I know several kids who take RSM or Dr. Li's classes and their Map scores lower than other bright kids who don't do outside classes. You are correct it isn't designed to measure giftedness like the Cogat. It's more like the SAT. So you can prep all you want but if a child doesn't have a certain aptitude the scores will not go up very much.

Maybe. But mostly, those who prep have higher MAP scores than similarly capable kids who don't.

Throw an ipad to two kids, one doesn't have any extracurricular activity and goes straight back home everyday after dismissal because parents cannot afford aftercare or extracurricular acitivity and plays tons of video games on it, the other has to squeeze some personal time out from sports/band/chores/etc to watch Kahn Academy. Then you say: "the latter prepped! Unfair!"

There is something called self-motivation, which is by no means equal to "prep".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you just cling to those high MAP scores like they’re absolute evidence of your child being gifted. The MAP is an imperfect test and wasn’t designed for this application. It is preppable *by design*. The COGAT is only slightly better! (Here is just some evidence: over 15% of MCPS kids tested in the Top percentile nationally.) MCPS officials are wading through murky waters. Without administering WISC tests to thousands of students this is the best they can do. They are identifying hundreds of kids as high performers. Yes, it was easier to get your kid accepted when all you had to do was ask for testing and compete against a couple hundred other kids. But universal testing is actually turning up kids who are equally bright *and have no peer group at their home middle school*. That’s a good thing to capture. He is more deserving than your high MAP kid—good gravy!

A high map score is a premier indicator of prepping because it shows exposure to concepts not taught in school. It's absolutely not about aptitude or giftedness.

You can say this all you want but it's not true. I know several kids who take RSM or Dr. Li's classes and their Map scores lower than other bright kids who don't do outside classes. You are correct it isn't designed to measure giftedness like the Cogat. It's more like the SAT. So you can prep all you want but if a child doesn't have a certain aptitude the scores will not go up very much.

Maybe. But mostly, those who prep have higher MAP scores than similarly capable kids who don't.

Throw an ipad to two kids, one doesn't have any extracurricular activity and goes straight back home everyday after dismissal because parents cannot afford aftercare or extracurricular acitivity and plays tons of video games on it, the other has to squeeze some personal time out from sports/band/chores/etc to watch Kahn Academy. Then you say: "the latter prepped! Unfair!"

There is something called self-motivation, which is by no means equal to "prep".

Actually no. What I say is of two kids who both do sports/band/chores/Kahn Academy, the one with higher MAP/CoGAT scores will be the one of the two who studies for those exams with a math Ph.d running a business model dependent on delivering success on those exams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The peer cohort thing is ridiculous. Peer cohorts don't teach children -- teachers teach children, and children are taught what's in the curriculum. The idea that talented students will have their educational needs met simply because they're grouped with other talented children makes a mockery of the fundamental premise that teachers and curricula are critical to education.

Nobody's saying that. Once they've been grouped together as a cohort, that can enable the group to be given the enriched or applied courses, i.e. teachers and curricula.

Actually, that's exactly what MCPS said last year, when they didn't roll out the enriched classes at all middle schools. So those kids who were rejected from the magnet middle schools on cohort grounds but didn't go to one of the home MS where they piloted either or both of the 6th grade enriched courses got nothing. And as far as I have heard so far, no one has identified that, going forward from 6th grade, the kid will receive enriched/applied courses in 7th, whether or not they received the piloted classes in 6th grade. (I'd be happy if someone showed me evidence otherwise).

Nor are they offering the enriched/applied across the board in all subjects -- only a couple. So a kid rejected from Eastern for peer cohort reasons may get the enriched social studies, for whatever that's worth, but won't get enriched/advanced English. Ditto for the kid rejected from TP for peer cohort reasons who will get the same science as everyone else.

The peer cohort was the rationale that MCPS came up with last year for redoing the system to get the results they wanted. They did not have the enriched/applied courses in mind ahead of time -- that was demonstrably cobbled together in response to parent uproar. Further, at the meeting that I attended where MCPS attempted to explain the new system (after implementing it), an MCPS staffer plainly and explicitly said that students would *not* be homogeneously grouped for all subjects. In other words, kids will not be tracked throughout to advanced level classes comprising advanced level kids, but will continue to be grouped in heterogeneous classes for at least some subjects. That is explicitly a social engineering policy, not one designed to meet the educational needs of advanced learners.

The peer cohort rationale was not one designed to identify and meet the needs of all advanced learners, wherever they are located. The new information about the CoGAT percentile comparison being made to similar SES levels demonstrates that clearly.