Reply to MAP percentile cutoff for MS magnet lottery?

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "MAP percentile cutoff for MS magnet lottery?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The problem with using MAP from what we've seen is that the small number of more middle class or wealthier kids at high FARMS schools will be at an advantage over the kids who are actually FARMS so you are missing the actual smart kids with a lot of potential.

I know Cogat is not perfect but it would capture more of those outlier smart kids who with the influence of strong peers and strong teachers could be really successful.

I would bet anything the local norming if you use Cogat would be unnecessary or at least nowhere as intense as it is for MAP. There would be more of an even distribution throughout the county.[/quote]

The idea is that those kids don't get the exposure that their equally-able peers at low-FARMS schools get, so the local norming adjusts for that.  Those more directly disadvantaged are boosted by the lower percentile threshold allowed for those receiving services, including individual FARMS designation.  A FARMS student at a moderate-FARMS school might get in with a 73rd national percentile score, where their non-FARMS classmate might need to hit the 88th percentile.  It ain't perfect, of course.[/quote]

The idea is a mix of 2 things: they want to tilt the demographic mix to get more non-Asian PoC, and they want kids who lack a local cohort to go to a school with a cohort. FARMS is a proxy for PoC and local cohort performance. It’s not about identifying high potential students who somehow avoided learning the grade-level material in their home school but would magically learn more by skipping a year of math and joining an accelerated class.[/quote]

They may want that tilt, but you're way off on your reasoning with respect to MAP.  The more exposure, whether on-grade enrichment, above-grade acceleration (especially) or merely covering modules that others must skip due to the time taken with the local cohort to get through the basics, the higher a MAP score is likely to be.  Put simply, they [i]would[/i] learn more.

Again. It isn't perfect, and it should be changed to achieve greater fidelity to ability, but it is considerably better than the results without the local norming adjustment.  That is, as long as better is about identifying capability, and not whether the happenstance of one's census tract allowed for exposure.

To be clear, I don't think there's anything wrong with providing that exposure, and would encourage it to whatever extent is manageable.  I do think, however, that a public-good system should strive for meaningful equal protection and avoid the reinforcement of advantage, where possible.[/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