Middle school magnet lottery cutoffs finally revealed

[Anonymous]

Just because a kid scores over 99% does not mean they are necessarily gifted. The parents providing outside supplementation are driving these numbers up in the wealthy areas. It makes sense to have a lower cutoff in these other areas where kids may not receive extra math outside of school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just because a kid scores over 99% does not mean they are necessarily gifted. The parents providing outside supplementation are driving these numbers up in the wealthy areas. It makes sense to have a lower cutoff in these other areas where kids may not receive extra math outside of school.

When you give math problems designed for the 99% to a student at 60%, you are not doing him/her a favor. He/She should be taught at 80%-level maybe.

[Anonymous]

I think we're putting way to much weight on these tests. These lower score kids may be gifted. Many parents are just pushing the math on kids outside of school to get the scores up.

Also think about the bright kids that might just not test well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think we're putting way to much weight on these tests. These lower score kids may be gifted. Many parents are just pushing the math on kids outside of school to get the scores up.

Also think about the bright kids that might just not test well.

What other data do you suggest using? Feelings?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just because a kid scores over 99% does not mean they are necessarily gifted. The parents providing outside supplementation are driving these numbers up in the wealthy areas. It makes sense to have a lower cutoff in these other areas where kids may not receive extra math outside of school.

I agree a 99 pct kid isn’t automatically gifted, but it’s certainly a student with the ability to handle an advanced program. And it may not fit the narrative but many of us have 99 percenters who do zero supplementing. Yes, my kids have a stable home life, but any math they have learned has been taught in an mcps classroom, same lessons all the students are receiving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Responding to MPIAs from MCCPTA's Gifted Education Committee, MCPS finally revealed middle school magnet lottery cutoffs.

(1) MCPS divides all elementary schools into 5 groups based on FARMS:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/120BRtShXf9_kQcNvKSxHKG4nJhnyTjL7/view?fbclid=IwAR1hrS0Ar1xsi_W8Ew3ow3Zz6aE84gkeAVZTu08rz_33TCvXCfTSRLDtX_w

low
low moderate
moderate
moderate high
high

(2) MCPS uses different cutoffs for these 5 groups:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1e0Szg2jJ8F1rL2BZSqCV1fb_R1gLwaRl/view?fbclid=IwAR36sMGZsbuKGYKnvEj9f5B2o0ioaZeiaZ7YQJLJVxPxP_m-Jr9-tUG5wq8

The cutoffs are national normed percentile (= 85% locally normed)

Math
low 93%
low moderate 92%
moderate 84%
moderate high 65%
high 60%

Humanites
low 92%
low moderate 92%
moderate 88%
moderate high 76%
high 70%


This means in a low-FARMS school, one needs 93%/92% to enter lottery.
In a high-FARMS school, one needs 60%/70% to enter lottery.

You can score 60% in math and 70% in reading to go to Takoma Park and Eastern magnets.

What percentage of the kids at a high-farms school have 70%+?

At least 60-70% of the students in high farms would have the scores to make the cut off

No. It's saying kids who attend high farms schools and score at least 70%ile on the test are in-pool.

It's not the same as scoring 99%ile, but at a lot of high farms schools the barriers to learning and achievement are greater, so what MCPS is saying is that a kid who scores 70%ile at a high farms schools, at age 8, demonstrates the same potential academically as a kid who scores a 95%ile at a W feeder. Which having been at both, I do think sounds fair.

If you hate this I can see that. But it's equitable. Equitable measures being introduced may mean that certain people's odds change. I don't take issues with this, but I do think a blind lottery post-cutoff is a mistake. It is meaningful to have teachers weigh in on things, and the outcomes for equity can be increased without resorting to straight up lottery. In the end though, what MCPS needs is increased access to enrichment for way more children, and perhaps they should consider re-adding a selective process for these more selective cohorts of highly capable kids (and yes, my kid was admitted to two of those in the past, so I can speak to the quality - they were/are excellent).

+2 I'll add that folks on this very site were claiming within recent memory that a 99th percentile kid couldn't possibly be expected to learn alongside a 95th percentile kid.

While I do think that 60th percentile is too low, I'd note that the schools in that category are among the absolute poorest in the district. It is not, as previously assumed, every single Title I school. It's the schools where the overwhelming majority of kids are living in poverty and/or have experienced trauma. Scoring a 70th percentile under those circumstances may well demonstrate more potential than a kid scoring in the 93rd percentile with every advantage possible.

+3

I teach in one of these MS magnets. We also see more resilience and innovation in the students coming from higher FARMS schools.

If you actually teach at one of these MS magnets you would also know that a surprising number of these students left the program.

Ha! I do actually teach in one of the big 4 MS magnets. The big secret we don’t tell incoming 6th grade parents is that we lose a few students every year for all sorts of reasons. This has been the case for over a decade. Students don’t want the long commute and separation from neighborhood friends. They think there’s too much homework, which interferes with sports, music, or other after school activities. Students are not counseled out, but we have students who depart for emotional health reasons. In all three of those circumstances, more of those leaving are well-off White and Asian than FARMS students of color.

Specifically, I found none of the departures surprising. Not in the number of students who left, nor in whether they were from traditional ethnic groups or underserved ones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Responding to MPIAs from MCCPTA's Gifted Education Committee, MCPS finally revealed middle school magnet lottery cutoffs.

(1) MCPS divides all elementary schools into 5 groups based on FARMS:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/120BRtShXf9_kQcNvKSxHKG4nJhnyTjL7/view?fbclid=IwAR1hrS0Ar1xsi_W8Ew3ow3Zz6aE84gkeAVZTu08rz_33TCvXCfTSRLDtX_w

low
low moderate
moderate
moderate high
high

(2) MCPS uses different cutoffs for these 5 groups:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1e0Szg2jJ8F1rL2BZSqCV1fb_R1gLwaRl/view?fbclid=IwAR36sMGZsbuKGYKnvEj9f5B2o0ioaZeiaZ7YQJLJVxPxP_m-Jr9-tUG5wq8

The cutoffs are national normed percentile (= 85% locally normed)

Math
low 93%
low moderate 92%
moderate 84%
moderate high 65%
high 60%

Humanites
low 92%
low moderate 92%
moderate 88%
moderate high 76%
high 70%


This means in a low-FARMS school, one needs 93%/92% to enter lottery.
In a high-FARMS school, one needs 60%/70% to enter lottery.

You can score 60% in math and 70% in reading to go to Takoma Park and Eastern magnets.

What percentage of the kids at a high-farms school have 70%+?

At least 60-70% of the students in high farms would have the scores to make the cut off

No. It's saying kids who attend high farms schools and score at least 70%ile on the test are in-pool.

It's not the same as scoring 99%ile, but at a lot of high farms schools the barriers to learning and achievement are greater, so what MCPS is saying is that a kid who scores 70%ile at a high farms schools, at age 8, demonstrates the same potential academically as a kid who scores a 95%ile at a W feeder. Which having been at both, I do think sounds fair.

If you hate this I can see that. But it's equitable. Equitable measures being introduced may mean that certain people's odds change. I don't take issues with this, but I do think a blind lottery post-cutoff is a mistake. It is meaningful to have teachers weigh in on things, and the outcomes for equity can be increased without resorting to straight up lottery. In the end though, what MCPS needs is increased access to enrichment for way more children, and perhaps they should consider re-adding a selective process for these more selective cohorts of highly capable kids (and yes, my kid was admitted to two of those in the past, so I can speak to the quality - they were/are excellent).

+2 I'll add that folks on this very site were claiming within recent memory that a 99th percentile kid couldn't possibly be expected to learn alongside a 95th percentile kid.

While I do think that 60th percentile is too low, I'd note that the schools in that category are among the absolute poorest in the district. It is not, as previously assumed, every single Title I school. It's the schools where the overwhelming majority of kids are living in poverty and/or have experienced trauma. Scoring a 70th percentile under those circumstances may well demonstrate more potential than a kid scoring in the 93rd percentile with every advantage possible.

+3

I teach in one of these MS magnets. We also see more resilience and innovation in the students coming from higher FARMS schools.

If you actually teach at one of these MS magnets you would also know that a surprising number of these students left the program.

Ha! I do actually teach in one of the big 4 MS magnets. The big secret we don’t tell incoming 6th grade parents is that we lose a few students every year for all sorts of reasons. This has been the case for over a decade. Students don’t want the long commute and separation from neighborhood friends. They think there’s too much homework, which interferes with sports, music, or other after school activities. Students are not counseled out, but we have students who depart for emotional health reasons. In all three of those circumstances, more of those leaving are well-off White and Asian than FARMS students of color.

Specifically, I found none of the departures surprising. Not in the number of students who left, nor in whether they were from traditional ethnic groups or underserved ones.

That my because those kids coming from high FARMS schools know that if they go back they will get pulled down academically (and maybe even socially) by their classmates.

Those kids going back to low FARMS schools are going back to classrooms full of kids from other settled families.

If you have never tried doing homework in a low rise apartment building with police in the hallways or in the parking lot every single week then you have NO IDEA how hard it is to find the emotional space to get your schoolwork done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just because a kid scores over 99% does not mean they are necessarily gifted. The parents providing outside supplementation are driving these numbers up in the wealthy areas. It makes sense to have a lower cutoff in these other areas where kids may not receive extra math outside of school.

When you give math problems designed for the 99% to a student at 60%, you are not doing him/her a favor. He/She should be taught at 80%-level maybe.

One of my kids who is really into math scores about 40 points above the 99% base score. The tales that NWEA publishes suggest the difference between them and someone just at the 99% is similar to the difference between a 99% kid and a 60% kid...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just because a kid scores over 99% does not mean they are necessarily gifted. The parents providing outside supplementation are driving these numbers up in the wealthy areas. It makes sense to have a lower cutoff in these other areas where kids may not receive extra math outside of school.

When you give math problems designed for the 99% to a student at 60%, you are not doing him/her a favor. He/She should be taught at 80%-level maybe.

One of my kids who is really into math scores about 40 points above the 99% base score. The tales that NWEA publishes suggest the difference between them and someone just at the 99% is similar to the difference between a 99% kid and a 60% kid...

Yeah, the tales people tell...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys. Let me say this to you another way.

The students from the highest FARMS schools needed a MAP score of 213 in 5th grade to get into the lottery pool. Let me put this in perspective for you. My recently graduated 5th grader had 217 as a 6 year old 1st grader. We do not supplement and he clearly did not have enough math background or knowledge to enter into a gifted math middle school program at that time! That score is nowhere close to the gifted range for a 5th grader no matter what their SES or circumstances. At this point, they might as well enter all students into the lottery because these thresholds are absolutely ridiculous.

Apologies, but I'm just not willing to take your anecdotal experiences as data. If you're argument is that students from the highest FARMS schools who achieve those scores are not able to succeed in the magnet program, then you're going to need something beyond what you claim your first grader scored on their MAP test one time.

What? I did not give you an anecdote. I gave you actual, literal data! Scores are data: statistics and facts. Anecdotes are funny stories.

The MAP test 1st graders take so different from the one 5th graders take. The scores are not comparable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this is equity sh*t right?

Absolutely, but even worse, it makes students with the highest scores, who DO NOT win the lottery, feel really terrible about themselves. This was my daughter's situation a couple of years ago.
I am against the lottery, even if the cut-off was similar at all schools, just because it's not a fair system. You can't have a large range of scores that are entered into a hat, then pick a lower scorer over a higher scorer. You could possibly do this if the hat was all 99% and above, maaaybe? But it's really frustrating when a 90th percentile gets in, and the 99th percentile doesn't. There is a big difference in critical thinking between those two scores. DD has always had scores within the 99th percentile. Kids like her are why magnets were created. And yet she has to go to her home school, where I had to fight to get her into an advanced math class, because we're in a cluster that doesn't like accelerating students, even though she did well on her placement test and found the class really easy.

In general, we are happy with MCPS, but this particular part of it really maddening.

Look, I'm in the same boat as you with a rising sixth grader who has consistently scored in the 99th percentile, went to CES, and didn't get selected from the lottery. And yes, it sucks, but it's definitely not any less fair than our kids getting in because they happen to have been born into families with the resources to support them.

And the fact that she has someone in her life who 1) knows how to and 2) is willing to fight to get her into advanced math is a pretty good indicator that she will be OK in her home school. Not all students have that.

My 5th grader who scored in 280s on their MAPs which is 30 points over the 99th percentile wasn't selected, but several kids from the CES with much lower stats were.

I'm not into turning this into a hunger games competition or making it a windfall for the prep industry either.

They just need to increase the number of seats so kids who score in the top 2% who are interested in these programs can participate.

Yes, that's going to happen, because test scores aren't a gold standard indicator of which kids most need those seats. They definitely need to increase the number of seats, but not just for the top 2%. They need to have enough seats for all kids who can do the work. That's a huge lift, but it should be the goal.

I don't understand why the "pie" can't be bigger either. Despite an increase in school age population they have not added MS magnet seats downcountry. I assume part of the problem is space. Maybe it is optics too.

I think the reality is that these exclusive programs have run their course. The original purpose was to stop white flight in east county. Then the Asians took them over. They should get rid of the programs and focus gifted resources at the individual school level. After the pilot in 2017ish data was released that showed most middle schools had enough kids to have a gifted cohort. For the small percentage of kids who can not served at their home school, they can bus those kids to other schools where a cohort does exist. We already have a significant amount of bussing in the DCC. What is a little bit more?

I completely agree with this. They have watered down CES and middle-school magnets so much at this point that they should just get rid of them and offer local cohosted programming, creating a regional programs for schools that don’t have enough kids to create a full classroom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I don't understand why the "pie" can't be bigger either. Despite an increase in school age population they have not added MS magnet seats downcountry. I assume part of the problem is space. Maybe it is optics too.

I think the reality is that these exclusive programs have run their course. The original purpose was to stop white flight in east county. Then the Asians took them over. They should get rid of the programs and focus gifted resources at the individual school level. After the pilot in 2017ish data was released that showed most middle schools had enough kids to have a gifted cohort. For the small percentage of kids who can not served at their home school, they can bus those kids to other schools where a cohort does exist. We already have a significant amount of bussing in the DCC. What is a little bit more?

I completely agree with this. They have watered down CES and middle-school magnets so much at this point that they should just get rid of them and offer local cohosted programming, creating a regional programs for schools that don’t have enough kids to create a full classroom.

They cannot make cohorts because cohorts will leave some people out. They want mixed-ability classrooms so all are included.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I don't understand why the "pie" can't be bigger either. Despite an increase in school age population they have not added MS magnet seats downcountry. I assume part of the problem is space. Maybe it is optics too.

I think the reality is that these exclusive programs have run their course. The original purpose was to stop white flight in east county. Then the Asians took them over. They should get rid of the programs and focus gifted resources at the individual school level. After the pilot in 2017ish data was released that showed most middle schools had enough kids to have a gifted cohort. For the small percentage of kids who can not served at their home school, they can bus those kids to other schools where a cohort does exist. We already have a significant amount of bussing in the DCC. What is a little bit more?

I completely agree with this. They have watered down CES and middle-school magnets so much at this point that they should just get rid of them and offer local cohosted programming, creating a regional programs for schools that don’t have enough kids to create a full classroom.

They cannot make cohorts because cohorts will leave some people out. They want mixed-ability classrooms so all are included.

Well they come close. In ES they offer compacted math in all schools and ELC in about half the schools (and I certainly hope this expands). In MS they now have math and humanities for gifted kids. If they add more content, like science and English, using this model they will effectively be able to meet kids’ needs at the home school.

The existing CES/MS magnets are watered down now to the point that they aren’t doing much. And lots of kids who qualify and need more advanced programming aren’t offered seats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys. Let me say this to you another way.

The students from the highest FARMS schools needed a MAP score of 213 in 5th grade to get into the lottery pool. Let me put this in perspective for you. My recently graduated 5th grader had 217 as a 6 year old 1st grader. We do not supplement and he clearly did not have enough math background or knowledge to enter into a gifted math middle school program at that time! That score is nowhere close to the gifted range for a 5th grader no matter what their SES or circumstances. At this point, they might as well enter all students into the lottery because these thresholds are absolutely ridiculous.

Apologies, but I'm just not willing to take your anecdotal experiences as data. If you're argument is that students from the highest FARMS schools who achieve those scores are not able to succeed in the magnet program, then you're going to need something beyond what you claim your first grader scored on their MAP test one time.

What? I did not give you an anecdote. I gave you actual, literal data! Scores are data: statistics and facts. Anecdotes are funny stories.

The MAP test 1st graders take so different from the one 5th graders take. The scores are not comparable.

That is such a red herring. You can directly compare the kids’ 5th grade scores then. Same test. One kid gets a 213, other gets a 275. I cannot understand why anyone keeps justifying that the student with the 213 has demonstrated ability/potential/giftedness with that score to gain entry into a special program that has fewer than 500 seats for 10,000 rising 6th graders. We don’t have perfect tools, but the tools we have show data. Is there any score from a high farms school that is so low that you wouldn’t find a way to justify their inclusion in the lottery? Where would you suggest the bar be set?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys. Let me say this to you another way.

The students from the highest FARMS schools needed a MAP score of 213 in 5th grade to get into the lottery pool. Let me put this in perspective for you. My recently graduated 5th grader had 217 as a 6 year old 1st grader. We do not supplement and he clearly did not have enough math background or knowledge to enter into a gifted math middle school program at that time! That score is nowhere close to the gifted range for a 5th grader no matter what their SES or circumstances. At this point, they might as well enter all students into the lottery because these thresholds are absolutely ridiculous.

Apologies, but I'm just not willing to take your anecdotal experiences as data. If you're argument is that students from the highest FARMS schools who achieve those scores are not able to succeed in the magnet program, then you're going to need something beyond what you claim your first grader scored on their MAP test one time.

What? I did not give you an anecdote. I gave you actual, literal data! Scores are data: statistics and facts. Anecdotes are funny stories.

The MAP test 1st graders take so different from the one 5th graders take. The scores are not comparable.

That is such a red herring. You can directly compare the kids’ 5th grade scores then. Same test. One kid gets a 213, other gets a 275. I cannot understand why anyone keeps justifying that the student with the 213 has demonstrated ability/potential/giftedness with that score to gain entry into a special program that has fewer than 500 seats for 10,000 rising 6th graders. We don’t have perfect tools, but the tools we have show data. Is there any score from a high farms school that is so low that you wouldn’t find a way to justify their inclusion in the lottery? Where would you suggest the bar be set?

I don’t think an achievement test should be used at all to judge giftedness. They should use an intelligence test. They do not measure the same thing.