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]Anyone have a child with a reading lexile level of 1300+? What's their MAP-R?[/quote]

That would be 240-250 I'm guessing.That's well beyond the 99% for a 3rd grader.[/quote]

I responded on the first page that my kid scored 232 on the MAP-R.

Lexile "1205-1355" according to the results, so not fully over 1300.

That's all I know, though.[/quote]

Does it even matter though, given that it is a lottery?  Yes, you have to be considered qualified to enter the lottery, but once you are in, is there any differentiation between those who just made the cutoff v. those who were way above?  Similarly, does IEP or FARM matter at that point, or is it just a factor to get you into the lottery pool?[/quote]

That’s right, and that’s the drawback of the lottery. Some kids, like PPs above, really need enrichment. A Lexile score over 1300 shows a true need for accelerated learning. CES would be a benefit to many, but it is a necessity for some, and the lottery doesn’t take that into account. My son is the 227 above. The pace of learning and content at school is painfully slow for him.  It seems to me that there is probably a significant difference in need between those kids who are scoring at this level and those who make the lottery at 75th %ile, which is above average but not demonstrating a true need for acceleration. [/quote]

In theory, you could have a weighted lottery that would give you a better chance based on scores and/or other factors.  This would keep some of the benefit of the lottery, but also take into account to a degree differences in the students and their respective needs.[/quote]

Yeah, I'm a NP but the issue to me is that the 75% catches more kids who are "really" 90-99% but don't test as well d/t testing biases... but it [i]also[/i] then catches like a TREMENDOUS number of the UMC+ white/some Asian kids who are very disproportionately represented at 75% and up. So there's minimal (if any?) improvement in diversity/catching "smart" kids from underrepresented groups. [/quote]

To follow up on this, I don't have actual numbers, but I can see where this could very easily, practically speaking, lead to a situation where there are many more URMs to be "caught" in raw numbers, but they make up a similar or even lower percentage of the top 25 percentile lottery pool vs the top 1-3 percentile.

And since it's then a lottery, the proportion might not change at all.[/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