Reply to How common is a math or reading MAP score at the 99th percentile in this area?

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "How common is a math or reading MAP score at the 99th percentile in this area?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]
A baseline of lower scores HAS to be established to account for students with special needs, FARM, etc. It's been there for years. And to a certain extent, this process is self-selecting. A family is unlikely to uproot their child and send them to such a program unless they believed they would both benefit and succeed in it. And I know families who have turned down a magnet program because it wasn't in their wheelhouse. Also, as a magnet teacher has written on this and other threads, the quality of the cohorts has actually improved since MCPS opened up the process to all 5th graders (and not just those are aware of the programs), regardless of the lower baseline. The self-reporting of scores previously posted is indicative. The lottery selects for higher scorers like mine who reads at the end of high school level.

[/quote]

Exactly the lottery pool was limited to kids in the top 15% but since these scores fall on a bell curve most of the selected candidates are closer to 15% than 1%. [/quote]

+1 I think this year's selection process was both sub-optimal and the best we were going to get under the pandemic circumstances. Without the CogAT, there was really not a good way to find the "true" top 5% (or whatever). MAP tells you how much material a child has been exposed to, but that's not really a reliable indicator of potential. Grades tell you whether a child tries hard in the class they are in, but not whether they really need a different environment entirely.

I hope they don't keep the lottery, but I also don't think it's part of some nefarious plot to dismantle the magnets. It was a weird year, and a lottery was the best of bad solutions. [/quote]
Not to say that it’s right or wrong, but I think 85% for lottery probably optimizes selection for racial and economic diversity.

I honestly just don’t understand why they don’t create more centers/magnets. Student population is rising but not the number of county-wide seats. What is rising is the number of in-boundary center seats, which is another story. [/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