Reply to CES letters?

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "CES letters?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Can anyone point me to the actual measures being used?  I have a friend who got their letter that their kid didn't even make the lottery, but based on reading level, grades and MAP definitely should have.  We keep talking about 75th %ile but now I cant find where that is.

I know what the general measures are because I got our letter, but I'm trying to find specifics. This process is SO opaque.[/quote]

I hear you. Our daughter was in the 95th MAP-R percentile, straight A's, always multiple grade levels above in reading/lexile level and wasn't even chosen for the pool either, which seems to cut against this FAQ that was added on 3/29 to the FAQs on MCPS's CES website:

"What data was used to review Grade 3 students for needing enriched services in Grade 4?

Multiple measures including Grade 3 marking period 2 report cards, locally-normed percentile ranks for the winter 2022 Measures of Adequate Progress in Reading (MAP-R), instructional reading level and student services including: special education services, ESOL- English for Speakers of Other Languages, Section 504 accommodations plan and Free and Reduced-priced Meals.  Students who meet the following academic criteria will receive enriched literacy services in Grade 4:

-Grade 3 Marking Period 2 Reading ‘A’ and
-Grade 3 Marking Period 2 Writing  or Social Studies ‘A’
-Reading level ‘On’ or ‘Above’
-85th Percentile Local Norm on MAP- R

The enriched literacy services may be delivered at your student’s current school or in a regional CES program.  Students who meet the academic criteria will be placed into a lottery pool for potential placement in a CES program.   Placement in the regional CES program is by lottery only."

The only thing we can think of is that our "locally normed" MAP-R might be astronomically high.[/quote]

I would call AEI on that one - 95% is very high not to make pool.[/quote]

Yeah, we're in the same boat. 97% Fall and 95% Winter MAP-R, straight As, etc, but at a very high SES school, so maybe it's the "locally normed" factor. We weren't planning on sending our kid to CES anyway but I would have expected her to at least make the pool??[/quote]

Look even a high SES school isn't going to be too far off national norms. The pool was like the 75%. I imagine it's possible to miss that maybe at 85% national but at 95% I would have to say highly unlikely. [/quote]

Not in pool means no guarantee for ELC, so I would follow-up with AEI to get clarification on this.  95/97 not in pool seems extreme[/quote]

Viewing the system through an anti-racist lens, [b]I could see a scenario where MCPS sets the bar exceptionally high[/b] at high SES/low FARMs schools (i.e., 98/99% MAP-R) in order to drive down the number of kids from those schools who get into the pool in an effort to boost the chances of kids from low SES/high FARMS schools to get into CES. [/quote]

Not PP. This would be fine with me, [b]but there's no indication that's what's happening this year[/b], and though the MCPS language is squishy, your proposal? conjecture? i[b]s explicitly not what's happening[/b]. And based on what I know about last year (very limited) it's not what happened last year.[/quote]

What info do you have to support this?[/quote]

...the fact that they said the bar was at 75 or 85% locally normed? Again, the language is a little squishy, but all I mean is that *from what is publicly available and implied, if not stated*, that MCPS did not "set the bar" at 98-99% for high SES schools. That implies, to me, some sneaky intentionality that's not in evidence. Like they saw that locally-normed 85% at some W feeder was 90% nationally and they decided that would send too many W feeder kids to the CES, so they just said eff it and "set the bar" at 99%.

Besides not being in evidence, I don't believe there is an ES in MCPS where 15% or 25% of kids score in the 99th percentile nationally. Unless someone presents credible evidence otherwise, I'd say that if one exists, it would be a statistical outlier among decades of such classes and schools.[/quote]

So you know what "locally normed" means, how exactly? From that update MCPS released a few weeks ago that basically said that "locally normed means we norm scores locally, which entails taking scores and norming them for each school, on a local basis". Locally normed is not defined anywhere and I don't think it *implies* anything close to what you think it does. Why is it so far-fetched to think that MCPS took the average high FARMS school and saw that 85th percentile yielded, say, the top 10% of kids and then set the bar at low FARMS schools at whatever percentile yielded the top 10% of kids there. I can tell you for a fact that at my DD's low FARMS/high SES elementary school that getting a 90th or 95th percentile on a MAP test is not that special, so I could see how a 98th/99th percentile would be required to crack the top 10%.

I'm with you that I'm not necessarily against this approach, but to think it's outlandish to think that MCPS took an anti-racist approach and designed a system to make sure that the same percentage of high FARMS kids get into the pool than low FARMS kids and that this results in setting the bar at the lowest FARMS schools at what some here have called "extreme" or "unlikely" is naive.   [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics