Reply to Kid didn’t finish MAP-R?

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "Kid didn’t finish MAP-R?"

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][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Can someone explain if the questions are easier why the scores are dropping?[/quote]

Yea it doesn’t make sense for the high achievers. From NWEA’s research it’s the lower achievers who end up lower here because they’re less likely to see items from significantly below grade level…. It does seem odd that folks are complaining that their high flyers are struggling [/quote]

High achievers are not getting the most difficult (advanced) questions which are worth the most points. Therefore, the highest scores are getting lower. But they are still using the old tables, resulting in misleading percentiles.[/quote]
Thank you, PPs, for bumping my question.

These high achievers don’t sound like they had a solid understanding of some earlier math concepts. [/quote]

If they didn't have a solid understanding of earlier math concepts, they would have never gotten to the harder, above grade level questions in the first place. It's an adaptive test. If you get an "easier," lower-level question wrong, you don't keep getting harder and harder questions. If you get them right, then the test continues to give you more challenging questions (at least this is the way it was before this year). The problem is the quantity of grade level questions is a lot more this year than it previously was. The test is still capped at the same number of questions. So by default, it means less questions and opportunities for harder, above grade level questions and to score higher as a result.

And yes, scores would go down if kids are not getting the harder questions because higher level questions are worth more. [/quote]

This is wrong, as previously explained. The old test gave equal credit for hard questions on grade level material and for easy questions that rely on outside of school "exposure", like special notation.  For example, my kid once got a question wrong because she didn't know the long division symbol in 2nd grade, even through the division problem was very simple, like 12/2.

The new test favors harder questions on grade level topics, exactly the "deeper" content everyone is always whining that their kids aren't getting and therefore "need" hyper acceleration. [/quote]

So they wrote a bunch of new questions? It's interesting that it is simultaneously claimed that nothing has really changed (look at the charts - the scores are the same) and that there has been a profound change in the types of problems on the test.[/quote]

No, they are changing the ITEM SELECTION ALGORITHM, not the Item Bank.[/quote]

PP said that the students will now be getting deeper content questions. Where were these questions till now?[/quote]

In the question bank but selected less often.[/quote]

This is such BS. I don't understand why people here accept such lack of transparency. I come from what some would consider a relatively corrupt country and for every exam of any significance there are publicly available questions and answer keys many years back. You can file a complaint and you can see how others have answered questions, if not their names.

In contrast, students here are taking exams that are pretty significant (e.g. [b]a consideration for entry to highly coveted magnets[/b]) and never know what they did correct/incorrect, what questions other students are getting and how they are doing. And everybody is ok with that. "The questions were there but selected less often". Really. They were there all along... but students were not getting them. Totally makes sense and you should definitively not expect any details or explanations. [/quote]

This is the problem, not the test itself or NWEA's periodic changes.  NWEA articles clearly indicate that MAP is designed for different purposes, doesn't have high single-point-in-time score fidelity for individuals, isn't supposed to be the primary test for such selection and, if used at all, should be used with an abilities-related test (not by itself, as MAP scores more closely reflect exposure than ability).

MAP, when used for well-aligned purposes and with best practices, is actually a very good tool -- just not the right one for this job, especially when MCPS is no longer in the bind of virtual learning due to the pandemic that necessitated its use as the only standardized test they could muster.  Of course, it would be a lot easier if the county would actually fund MCPS well enough that it wasn't as prone to continuing the cost savings realized.[/quote]

No, there should be no "ability test". Students should be tested for their readiness to join a program. If they are able, but not actually proficient in math, they can't follow the program at the HS level.

So, the idea of the test is appropriate. The problem is that it completely lack transparency. There should be a test similar to what Stuy was using. Everyone can see what is on the test, which is the same for everyone.[/quote]

Ridiculous on at least two points.

[b]First, the grades we're talking about are 3rd and 5th for 4th and 6th placement, not High School[/b].  Highly able kids can catch up to peers at those levels, and they are more [i]able[/i] to handle pace than those simply having had exposure.

Second, the exposure-based paradigm, while a "virtuous" cycle for those with outside enrichment, becomes a vicious cycle for those without resources for such and who often have in-school cohorts which limit teachers' ability to provide enrichment.  The idea of such magnets is to [i]meet students need[/i], and while I would not begrudge access to any who wanted to pursue that based on material learned (after all, why would a student [i]need[/i] to re-learn what they already did elsewhere), the system should prioritze ability-related need, which is more inherent to a student's nature, over exposure-related need, which is more about family choice on the one hand and family resources on the other.[/quote]

Please speak for yourself. I am talking about high school. The tests are an important factor in admissions to HS magnets.

Also, please stop the garbage with the diamonds in the rough. There are no such diamonds anymore, ok? My dad (born in the 1930s) was, it turned out later (without any tests or any supports) an extremely gifted child born to extreme poverty. His own parents would only let him attend school once per week (he was needed for farmwork). Despite this he managed to become a JD and a PhD, a hugely important and influential figure in his field. He ran away from his own home as a child because he loved to learn. And all this happened before the internet and the scholarships and programs and everybody looking for undiscovered talent with fine tooth combs.

So, bright kids will find their way to knowledge and programs and success. Please stop your destructive garbage about resources, about which are largely irrelevant. RSM and AOPS are full of kids who know nothing despite being in those programs for many years. Kids who you think are privileged just happen to be brilliant kids with similar parents, who, unlike my grandparents, who were poor and ignorant, are now very knowledgable and well off. Stop punishing our kids for it while searching for some non-existent poverty stricken unicorns.[/quote]

Poster to whom you responded, here.  Just a parent, FWIW.

Certainly, I speak for myself, but please note the vast majority of the discussion in this thread revolves around the use of MAP in determining eligibility for the ES and MS criteria-based magnets, for which MAP scores serve as a cutoff, rather than for HS programs, where MAP scores may be considered as part of an applicant's profile, along with grades, essays and the like, but not as a formal cutoff, itself.  Eligibility for the criteria-based ES and MS magnets is conducted by universal review, but in an automated way, with each criterion (locally normed MAP score, adjusted for services received, grades and reading level) serving as it's own gate/cutoff.

I'm sorry you see an interest in meeting ability-related need as garbage.  I strenuously disagree.  Some brilliant kids have notably brilliant parents.  Some do not.  Some come from privilege that affords them extra opportunity.  Some do not.  Some families that can confer that privilege chose to do so.  Some do not.

There is considerable research showing that students of high ability but without exposure are numerous, not some fictional beasts. There is also considerable research showing that, while academic (and other) success of individuals coming from more difficult circumstances is possible (and to be lauded, IMHO), the chances of such independent achievement are considerably lower for those coming from those curcumstances than the chances for those of equivalent ability coming from more comfortable circumstances.  I think that there is every reason for families to encourage their children's development as they can, but I draw a line at public institutions' reinforcement of that to the perpetuation of the inequity.

MCPS is a public school system, charged with meeting the needs of all students -- a really difficult task in such a large and diverse district.  Again, while I do not begrudge meeting those needs associated with exposure, I find the more compelling individual need to be related to ability.  Certainly there are those students who demonstrate both.  With the programs currently limited to far too few seats to meet the overall need, I find the continued reliance on this exposure-based metric in the absence of a heuristic that incorporates an ability-based metric to be ill-considered, especially when guidance from the organization (NWEA) that manages the more exposure-related test (MAP) being to the contrary.

If you want to solve the problem, I'd start with that too-few-seats problem, already existing at the dawn of the magnets, but amplified over the years both by the much higher student-body-to-magnet-seat ratios we now have and the much greater numbers accessing outside prep we now see (once more -- not something I find wrong in and of itself).  To address that, there needs to be more funding, either to stand up and run additional magnets or to develop and deliver truly equivalent local programming.  I might prefer a selection paradigm that delivers a rank-ordering of eligible students (with a better heuristic, as noted), but I don't see MCPS moving back to that any time soon -- that, also, would require additional funding, and they are loath to reintroduce the presumed DEI issues that might be tied to the prior selection regime.[/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