Nice explanation, but the discussion was about whether Cogat was used or not. There is no “little bit correct”. The poster who claimed Cogat was not used was wrong and the poster who said it was used was correct. |
Oh wow. Perhaps we need some basic math classes for parents! There are about 10-11k students in most grade levels in MCPS. The top 15 percent get into the lottery if the 85 percent threshold hasn’t changed (and it definitely hasn’t gone down), but only if they meet the other criteria which includes As in the relevant subjects. 15 percent of 10k is not 5,000! It’s 1500, so somewhere less than 1500 is the universe of kids who got into the lottery. Judging by how much the eastern waitlist moved for example, I’d guess the number is much much lower than that. |
I think that misses the point. Some high performing kids who did get in to TPMS/Clemente might still be selected for SMaCS, while their lower-performing (but still good enough to have been in the lottery pool) classmates might not, but it may be harder for some who in past years would have gone to the criteria-based magnets to get selected for the high school program. Take the use case of a kid who would have gotten in when identified by ability-related tests like CogAT, but who did not because of the shift to exposure-related tests like MAP. An outlier in the system as a whole, but without a peer cohort (and peer parent cohort) that would tend to better enable (perhaps by multiple-parent request) continued above-grade-level exposure in school. A kid whose parents don't have the resources ($, time or location) to pay for RSM or the like to provide that exposure outside of school. This kid likely falls into a demographic for which the BOE and superintendent espouse protection, but they won't get in to SMaCS. Why? Because of the continued lack of exposure. On the one hand, they wouldn't have covered the material that would make them good candidates for a class like Functions. On the other, they've probably lost a good amount of interest in the subject due to years of its being too easy for them, the system failing to provide the challenge that sparks the greater subject involvement that might support an application profile. Using a test like MAP to identify candidates is worse than using one like CogAT, because, while the latter isn't perfect, the former is much easier to game and then tilts the system towards the already-haves who best can game it. What happened to the multi-factorial approach to lottery identification (either this from this testing period or that from that testing period, etc.) that occurred in that first year they couldn't use CogAT? (That was supposed to help sweep in those who might have ability, recognizing the fallibility of single-point-in-time test gates.) The fact that they shifted the next year to the stricter version (only Fall MAP, no reprieve via other factors, just additional requirements from them), failing to re-employ ability-related testing (ostensibly to preserve classroom instruction time to deal with learning loss, but being willing to cut that instruction time for other purposes), tells us that they really have little interest in meeting high-ability kids where they are. The fact that they tried to wrangle the magnet demographics via the lottery system, while allowing different implementations of alternatives across local schools, tells us that they have little interest in ensuring enough enriched/accelerated programming in the first place. The system should not be embracing any paradigm that serves outside prep over intrinsic student ability. There are far fewer seats in these programs than it has kids who would benefit in the first place. What was the ratio of seats to student population when they were created (or last expanded)? Was it even enough back then? (The equivalent chatter from long ago suggests not.) What is that ratio now? |
85 %ile national. MCPS students, as a whole, score considerably higher than the national average -- the distribution shifts to the right. It may not be half the MCPS population that scores 85th or above, but it is a great deal more than 15 percent. |
DP. CogAT was used through this year's 9th graders, who were identified during the 2019-20 school year from data gathered prior to the CovID shutdown. This year's 8th graders were identified with an any-of-a-few heuristic, using MAP because they couldn't administer CogAT in the remote setting across the huge numbers at MCPS. This year's 7th graders were identified with a strict (though FARMS-rate locally normed) cutoff for the fall MAP of their 5th-grade year with additional requirements (grades, etc., employed in a this-AND-that paradigm, not any-of-a-few or sliding-scale). This year's 6th graders were identified similarly, but the local norming was much stricter, as pandemic recovery showed highly differentially between high-FARMS (scores remained more depressed vs. national norms) and low-FARMS (closer to pre-pandemic performance, with lots of high scorers) -- this meant a higher score was needed from a low-FARMS school to get in to the lottery for this year's 6th grade class than it had been from a prior year. MCPS still will not provide all of the detail. |
Why should Frost be so special? Are there different supports/options available to students at Frost & Frost feeders, or is it just monied families facilitating via outside enrichment? |
Many of the feeders offer acceleration unavailable elsewhere. Also, seems like the community is more interested in this and tends to invest more heavily in outside enrichment at RSM or AoPS. Not to mention many of the stronger Frost students would've been at TPMS before the lottery, but aren't selected because lotteries are random. |
No. You are wrong. It’s 85th percentile LOCAL. Which means the top 15 percent are in the lottery. Anyone who knows anything about this knows they use 85 percent local which translates into 95 percent national or so in some schools and 70 percent in others. |
I’m not sure why you stated this as if you were saying something different. The issue was that Cogat was used for this years 9th graders (last years 8th) and you are saying the same thing, which is correct. |
This is absolutely correct. I know several kids with scores in the 85-93 range who were not in the key because their local percentile was way beyond the cut off. One parent I know sprayed and learned that her kid’s 88% was 65% in MCPS. |
| Appealed, not sprayed. |
While that is true, the other poster is actually more correct. There are a lot of kids in mcps who score in the tippy top percentiles (99, 98, 97). Even with local norming manipulating the scores, if you have 25 kids in a school who have these scores, they all still get into the pool even if there’s only 90 kids in the grade. It ends up being more than a straight top 15 percent. |
Frost beating TPMS was before the lottery, however. It was during local norming only. |
Oh come on. Do you really not understand percentiles???? It staggers me how posters on this forum fail to understand basic math but advocate for their kids to be in all the advanced classes. The fact is that the top 15 percent in each of the groupings (schools grouped by poverty level) gets in to the pool. Where there are lots of kids at the top of the range, people at the bottom don’t get in. That’s why the national cut off isn’t 85 but 92 or 93 for lower poverty schools. No the other poster is not “more” correct. The top 15 percent is the top 15 percent. If everyone got 99th percentile nationally then the kids that got in would be the top 15 percent of that group (eg those scoring 99.85 percent and above). It’s amazing that so many supposedly intelligent people can’t grasp this and insist that 5000 people are in the pool because everyone is so smart and all their kids friends are allegedly 99th percentile. I would be willing to bet that pool is no more than 1000 kids county wide, but then again I apparently have a better understanding of stats than most posters. |
Which I said two pages ago but no one wants facts to get in the way. |