Remind me how long until we get MAP results
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| Kids don't prep specifically for the map test but a lot of kids do extra math outside of school which helps the kids score higher on the test. |
Anonymous
Get out of your little bubble |
Anonymous
| So where can we see the test results within Parent Vue? |
Anonymous
Under Documents (where PDFs of report cards are also posted.) |
Anonymous
DP/"You'd be wrong there" poster from far back in this subthread. A highly able student might be able to show a level of capability beyond formal exposure, with that above-grade performance almost always supported by informal exposure to associated vocabulary/concept definition that would allow some reasoning/educated guessing. However, many highly able students (and students, in general) do not end up with that informal exposure, performing well in relation to that to which they had been exposed, but hitting a ceiling, for the most part, when questions that cover concepts completely new to them are presented. Meanwhile, a student can get pretty far beyond their grade's typical exposure with outside prep, whether directly for MAP or through general subject tutoring. The concepts screened in Math, for example, do not approach Calculus, and are rather amenable to rote training. (Not implying that all such outside prep focuses on rote learning or that learning Calculus, itself, is not at all amemable to repetitive practice.) This is among the reasons that the progression of norms slows down, particularly in high school -- the concepts to which students newly are exposed start to go beyond that tested by MAP, though one sees a notable divergence in 12th grade scores. Aside from, perhaps, ills associated with high levels of family pressure, there shouldn't be anything wrong with students' accessing such outside enrichment, especially if they show a natural inclination toward the subject. Interest-based enrichment should be celebrated, and caregiver support for learning should never be denigrated. A problem arises from a school system using an exposure-based score as a main criterion for placement in accelerated/enriched programming, particularly in earlier grades. Those highly able students with the greater need for such programming are less likely to be identified without outside enrichment. Those accessing enrichment, more highly able or less, are more likely to be identified. While this may create what seems to be a virtuous cycle for families able to promote outside learning, it tends to reinforce lack of exposure & opportunity for those, individually and societally, for whom that is most important. NWEA provides advice on this subject, suggesting not to use MAP as an exclusive testing criterion for advanced programs, but, at most, to use it within a heuristic thay includes measures that tend to evidence ability absent a heavy exposure component. |
Anonymous
This is only true for limited programs that accept the top students by score instead of inclusive programs that accept all students with a score showing readiness. MCPS at all levels (Compacted math, CES, MS and HS magnet) uses the latter -- a soft or hard minimum score for readiness qualification, not a cutoff based on how many seats are available. |
Anonymous
Not so. MCPS has only a fraction of seats available compared to the numbers qualifying for the lottery -- it does not accept all qualifying students to the magnet programs, and local programming is not close to magnet level implementation in most, if not all, circumstances, both due to curriculum and due to cohort. Ask parents in TP/Silver Spring with children at Piney Branch, Oak View or Pincecrest CES what is studied and how much time is given to enrichment and compare that to the local implementations of ELC at the feeder schools (PBES being its own feeder, of course, but noted due to the awareness within the surrounding communities). There is not reasonable equivalence. With that as background, it is incumbent on MCPS to ensure the qualification paradigm it adopted in the first year of the pandemic, then adjusted to make more stict (removing the any-of-these-criteria heuristic to make qualification on each criterion a requirement), results in an equitable identification of all those with high ability, and, then, reasonably equivalent likelihood of identification/selection for all such students. Further, the CES and MS lottery placement paradigms (possibly the CM identification paradigm, too) utilize hard minimum MAP cutoffs -- there is no heuristic that allows a lower score than the minimum to qualify based on greater indicators from other criteria. Unless one counts appeals, that is, which are sparingly few and cumbersome enough to present a significantly greater barrier to those with limited means. Sure, the former two employ local norming and adjustment for receipt of services, but it is still a hard floor based on percentile, there. One might suggest that this should include all who are highly able. However, it fails in many edge cases. For example, a non-FARMS student from a situation that would tend to limit outside enrichment opportunities who attends a low-FARMS school (lots of these, not just in the overwhelmingly wealthy areas) may still need to score above 95 %ile nationally to be placed in a lottery. One might see that as OK, but then those with outside enrichment opportunities, highly able or no, are simply more likely than their ability-peers without to qualify based on the exposure-related MAP score criterion. |
Anonymous
|
enough with the stupid enrichment. the amount of free math resources, from kahn academy to phd level math and math olympiads, is enough for a lifetime.
the problem is not that exposure or enrichment, but that smart kids are wasting their time in school. |
Anonymous
I don't disagree that there is a lot more that schools could be doing for smart kids. Part of that is a lack of focus on their needs when compared to the focus on needs of other groups of students. Finite resources dictate some of this, but I still find those needs underaddressed, even considering. As far as enrichment being available, while it is much more so than in decades past, accessing and benefitting from self-directed learning is a much more difficult thing to ensure for some families than others, and a not insignificant portion of those others might be employing more effective adult-guided enrichment. Pointing a second-grader to Khan Academy is not going to result in the same adherence to a learning opportunity as dropping the same off at an after-school tutoring program. In the end, if the main objective of these magnet programs is to meet the needs of the highly able, then a more equitable identification paradigm is required, along with expansion of magnet programming to better match the population demonstrating need. I simply would disagree with any who suggest that the greater objective, instead, and especially before high school, would be to serve those who have hit some level of learned content, though I think there should be room in the conversation for those, as well. |
Anonymous
| stop with the equity BS this is what brought is here. stop searching for non-existent gems among poor families while actually brilliant kids waste years of their lives trapped in repetitive busywork. |
Anonymous
Actually, it's pretty much the same level of learning, which is determined by the child and not the amount of money parent paid for class. Smart kids who are interested in math will do khan etc for fun, and look for more. Similar kids, when enrolled in enrichment programs by their parents, will listen to the teacher and engage with material. Other kids, when pushed by their parents to do either will soon stop/not listen in class. Not everyone enrolled in AoPS or RSM comes out being good at math. My kids tell me every day stuff other kids don't know in enrichment classes and also MCPS fastest tracked math classes. Those are some very basic things. Those kids don't listen, don't care and/or already way behind despite appearing advanced on paper. |
Anonymous
A good amount might correlate to a child's interest/ability. If you are suggesting that the outcomes would be similar, statistically across reasonably sized similar-ability populations from each group (casually pointed to Khan Academy vs. enrolled in an after-school tutoring program), I would suggest you are not correct. |
Anonymous
1. Lottery is random. It's not a cutoff. 2. Low FARMS schools offer as good as or better opportunities as magnet middle school (skipping into Algebra in 6th! Foundations of Computer Science; and more room in math/science ECs) for that middling smart 94th percentile student who failed to get into lottery. The littery cutoff percentile is much lower than the old non-lottery cutoff on the old tests. |
Anonymous
Perhaps, but only insofar the mix of ability of those two groups of children is different. A lot of learning that kids do is self-directed. Many parents think if they pay for tutors or expensive programs, they are set. Then they discoverer their children know very little and don't understand why little Sammy is suddenly struggling in honors precalculus or whatever. The outcome for enrichment will not be that different from regular MCPS classes although you have better teachers and curriculum and approach that is more individualized, unless you also have better students. You can't pay for learning. There is no literally no money that can make your child, say, fluent in Spanish. You can help them get there (and again, almost all resources to get there also exist for free), but you need a child who is willing to learn. Without that, you have nothing. Kids who are good at math (or anything else) constantly reinforce that knowledge because they care. They remember what they learned because they care. They make connections on their own, because they care. They are asking questions because they care. You can't buy that. And you don't even need to. Again, that type of kid will take advantage of whatever meager resource is available and run with it. |
Anonymous
I think this is the kind of magical thinking that resources make no difference that routinely has some noting individual cases of success from more modest backgrounds as indicative of parity of opportunity. It simply is not the case when comparing the relative likelihood of success in an endeavor of well-resourced cohorts to that of less-well-resourced cohorts across meaningful populations of similar underlying ability. Again, I don't disregard the significant element of individual interest, but I would dispute the assertion that related outcomes are not meaningfully different. The system should not be setting up a paradigm that significantly reinforces resource-born opportunity, just as, at the same time, it should try not to discourage pursuit of such resource-born opportunities wholly outside the construct of the system. |