Reply to The impact of IEP or 504 plan on magnet program selection

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "The impact of IEP or 504 plan on magnet program selection"

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]Under the current magnet pool construction paradigm, both for CES and criteria-based MS magnets, there is an adjustment to the MAP score criteria for students receiving services -- EML/ESOL, FARMS, IEP and 504.  Instead of needing a locally normed 85th %ile score, a locally normed 70th %ile is required.

With a significant proportion of IEPs & 504s coming from those with the means to identify, formally, conditions and pursue associated accommodations, this is one of the ways that MCPS has left the magnet selection system vulnerable to gaming.  That's not to say it is a principal reason that MCPS might push back on a designation; it's more of an afterthought, if even that.

The timing of designation vs. applicability to magnet lottery pool creation (or appeal) is unclear.  There are also the other criteria (grades, reading level), and the whole paradigm could always change -- there is some possibility of that this coming year with a review scheduled for this spring.[/quote]

This 70th percentile claim is a guess, no where has such info been confirmed or published. In fact I know a kid with a 504 plan and 92nd percentile nationally that didn’t get in the lottery. Pretty sure even on a moderate farms school that’s about 70th percentile.[/quote]

It's not 70th percentile nationally; it's 70th percentile locally normed; that could be higher or lower than 70th percentile nationally depending on the FARMs rate of the school.[/quote]

I didn’t say it was 70th nationally. Please read my post again. However I did say that the 70th percentile cut off for kids with IEPs was fabricated, because it was and also is not borne out by experience.[/quote]

It is not fabricated. I know because they mistakenly didn't consider my child's plan, and we appealed, and he were moved into the wait pool - and they said that for my kid the percentile should have been the 70th, which is how he got into the pool. He would not have made it at the 85th percentile locally normed.

I am not the person who cited the 70th percentile earlier. It sounds like that may have come through an MPIA filing. But I am confident that the 70th percentile figure is correct based on our experience.[/quote]

I know multiple other people whose kids have IEPs and weren’t put in the pool but must have been above 70th. So either it’s wrong or they didn’t apply it. To anyone.[/quote]

DP, and they do absolutely use a 70th percentile local norm for those students. But they also take a second look for anyone who meets the threshold to confirm they can provide the services in the IEP or accommodations in the 504. If they cannot, they will then remove the child from the pool. My child has a 504 and was in the pool. I also know kids with IEPs who were in the pool and also matriculated. But your friend’s child may have had something in the IEP that could not be provided or accommodated within the program. Or maybe you go to a low poverty school and the kid was like 80th percentile nationally, but due to the volume of high scores in that band, was locally normed to 69 percent or something. [/quote]

See post above that confirms that the same local norms are applied. Ergo you are incorrect.[/quote]

Just because you believe it and posted it doesn’t make it true. I assure you it was published. I think it was in a presentation made during a BOE meeting last year but can’t recall. There are multiple posters who are not me who are also aware of the 70th threshold. [/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