Reply to Middle school lottery

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "Middle school lottery "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Students receiving certain services (FARMS, EML/ESOL, 504, IEP) have had an allowance to qualify with what appears to be a 70th percentile locally normed MAP score instead of 85th.[/quote]

OP, ignore this. It’s not true. They say that they take these things into account but in no way have they confirmed a specific lower percentile and I know several people with kids with IEPs and 504 plans who were well about 85th percentile nationally and didn’t get in the pool (assuming that 85th is way above 70th locally in a medium poverty school)[/quote]

There was a discussion about the lower cutoff for those receiving services just a short while back:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/15/1178989.page#26604725

This presentation to the BOE shows that the adjustment for the CES magnet lottery pool is to 70%.

https://www2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/siteassets/district/boe/meetings/memorandum/09/uploadedfiles/boe/meetings/memorandum/230119-ap-capstone-magnet-prog-12-06-2022-01-c-d-e-bd.pdf

The slides also show MS criteria-based magmet lottery pools are shown to be constructed in essentially the same exact way (As, reading level, 85th %ile locally normed for MAP).  They say a lower threshold is used.

That lower threshold for MS magnets is not specified in the presentation as it it with CES.  But the parallels are so direct as to make 70th a very reasonable guess.  Until MCPS opens up and specifies something else, that is.

The usual reply to this from posters disputing this, here, is,  nearly literally, "No, it's not," with nothing supporting that point of view.

Happy to be shown something different -- I have no intention, here, besides making the information available to the best of my understanding.[/quote]

Your guess is a guess. It’s not even a likely guess. [b]Next time you present data as fact when it’s actually a guess please make clear that it’s a guess.[/b]

I have direct experience in it not being accurate based on who does and does not get selected, so I know your guess is wrong, but go ahead and make that guess so long as you explain it is one.[/quote]

Insufferable.  What part of

[i]"But the parallels are so direct as to make 70th a very reasonable [b]guess[/b]."[/i]

did you misinterpret?

And one has a hard time reading your second paragraph without reducing it to the forecast "No, it's not." (with no backing data/citation).

Again, happy to [i]be shown[/i] it is different from that posited.  It should be about providing everyone with a clear picture.[/quote]

I was [b]responding to your initial statement[/b] at the beginning of this thread that it IS 70th percentile.[/quote]

Funny.  Why not, then, reply to that earlier post?  No, you replied to the post with the more explicit caveat of [i]reasonable guess[/i].  A post which provided a rationale for that deduction and a citation.

Even the earlier post provided reasonable equivocation, given its relative brevity:

"what [i]appears to be[/i] a 70th percentile locally normed MAP score instead of 85th."

The reply to that one was a "No, it's not"-type vacuous post that engendered the more detailed response.

[quote][b]Again, it’s incorrect.[/b] I could just as easily state that it’s 82nd percentile nationally and one B is acceptable rather than all As. That’s also a guess. [/quote]

And here we have yet another vacuous "No, it's not."  You [i]could[/i] state it's 82nd or 78th or 45th.  You present no [i]basis[/i] for doing so, whereas I have for 70th.  Some guesses are educated.

Throwing in "one B is acceptable" is a red herring.  Nowhere did I suggest that and nowhere have I found such suggested by MCPS documentation...

...unlike the lower MAP percentile.  That information, though guarded previously, made its way, at least partially, into the referenced presentation.

Why you dispute my nuanced and caveated inference, there, with claims that it is untrue, rather than allowing for its reasonable possibility, is unclear.  Are you suggesting MCPS [i]should[/i] be keeping it to themselves?[/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