Anonymous wrote:(Re-posted from another similar thread: https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/0/781550.page#14429226)

My husband actually called the central office and they said that the CES students's percentiles were calculated based on their current elementary school's SES. They then use the outcome of that ES-based calculation to identify a cohort at the middle school (which may also have a different feeder group and SES that the CES from which the student was calculated, but that's not taken into account). They also said that there may be a difference in the calculation at our home school, but it's unlikely to be much of a difference as to final outcome of cohort, but they can't be sure without a recalculation, which they won't do unless specifically requested on an appeal. (In our case, the CES ES has about 50% FARMS, but our home ES has about 80% FARMS.) This supports the suspicion that students in the CES are less likely to be accepted into the magnets, especially if their "cohorts" are being determined based on numbers that are skewed in different ways from the home schools.

I am still a little confused... does that mean that they determine percentiles based only on the ES, or on all ES with similar SES? Because if they are just comparing CES kids to each other and then sending them to different middle schools, how will that identify a cohort at the middle school? So a kid who is in the middle of the pack for his CES, but is an outlier for his middle school would be deemed not an outlier?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why they limit the ranking at school level. As they want to help those disadvantaged kids, why don’t them use the applicants’ SES as grouping. It will be much more effective to help those disadvantaged kids.

....because they don't have it. They only have FARMS and non-FARMS, which isn't a great metric because it only tells you whether a child is actively in poverty and cannot differentiate between a kid whose parents make $41K and a kid whose parents make $410K.

There are also a fair number of families who would qualify for FARMS but don't access the services for their own religious or social reasons.

For better or worse, and due to a century of deliberate housing policy, our county is highly segregated. That's a status quo that has been upheld by those in power, who could have approved mixed-income housing and reduced the existence of concentrated poverty a long time ago, but chose not to.

So, as a result of those policies and a whole bunch of NIMBY-ism, school zone remains one of the best proxies for SES that MCPS has at its fingertips.

+10,000!!

Anonymous wrote:(Re-posted from another similar thread: https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/0/781550.page#14429226)

My husband actually called the central office and they said that the CES students's percentiles were calculated based on their current elementary school's SES. They then use the outcome of that ES-based calculation to identify a cohort at the middle school (which may also have a different feeder group and SES that the CES from which the student was calculated, but that's not taken into account). They also said that there may be a difference in the calculation at our home school, but it's unlikely to be much of a difference as to final outcome of cohort, but they can't be sure without a recalculation, which they won't do unless specifically requested on an appeal. (In our case, the CES ES has about 50% FARMS, but our home ES has about 80% FARMS.) This supports the suspicion that students in the CES are less likely to be accepted into the magnets, especially if their "cohorts" are being determined based on numbers that are skewed in different ways from the home schools.

Seems clear from this change they didn't really think the cohort approach used last year produced the results they desired.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:(Re-posted from another similar thread: https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/0/781550.page#14429226)

My husband actually called the central office and they said that the CES students's percentiles were calculated based on their current elementary school's SES. They then use the outcome of that ES-based calculation to identify a cohort at the middle school (which may also have a different feeder group and SES that the CES from which the student was calculated, but that's not taken into account). They also said that there may be a difference in the calculation at our home school, but it's unlikely to be much of a difference as to final outcome of cohort, but they can't be sure without a recalculation, which they won't do unless specifically requested on an appeal. (In our case, the CES ES has about 50% FARMS, but our home ES has about 80% FARMS.) This supports the suspicion that students in the CES are less likely to be accepted into the magnets, especially if their "cohorts" are being determined based on numbers that are skewed in different ways from the home schools.

Interesting! Our home ES has about 50% FARMS but our CES is about 80%.

I wonder if they are using regular, Focus, and Title I as their categories. That would be easy because it is a split that already exists.

Which regional CES has 80%? (The highest FARMS rate for any regional CES appears to be about 70% for oak view.)

Anonymous wrote:(Re-posted from another similar thread: https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/0/781550.page#14429226)

My husband actually called the central office and they said that the CES students's percentiles were calculated based on their current elementary school's SES. They then use the outcome of that ES-based calculation to identify a cohort at the middle school (which may also have a different feeder group and SES that the CES from which the student was calculated, but that's not taken into account). They also said that there may be a difference in the calculation at our home school, but it's unlikely to be much of a difference as to final outcome of cohort, but they can't be sure without a recalculation, which they won't do unless specifically requested on an appeal. (In our case, the CES ES has about 50% FARMS, but our home ES has about 80% FARMS.) This supports the suspicion that students in the CES are less likely to be accepted into the magnets, especially if their "cohorts" are being determined based on numbers that are skewed in different ways from the home schools.

Interesting! Our home ES has about 50% FARMS but our CES is about 80%.

I wonder if they are using regular, Focus, and Title I as their categories. That would be easy because it is a split that already exists.

(Re-posted from another similar thread: https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/0/781550.page#14429226)

My husband actually called the central office and they said that the CES students's percentiles were calculated based on their current elementary school's SES. They then use the outcome of that ES-based calculation to identify a cohort at the middle school (which may also have a different feeder group and SES that the CES from which the student was calculated, but that's not taken into account). They also said that there may be a difference in the calculation at our home school, but it's unlikely to be much of a difference as to final outcome of cohort, but they can't be sure without a recalculation, which they won't do unless specifically requested on an appeal. (In our case, the CES ES has about 50% FARMS, but our home ES has about 80% FARMS.) This supports the suspicion that students in the CES are less likely to be accepted into the magnets, especially if their "cohorts" are being determined based on numbers that are skewed in different ways from the home schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why they limit the ranking at school level. As they want to help those disadvantaged kids, why don’t them use the applicants’ SES as grouping. It will be much more effective to help those disadvantaged kids.

....because they don't have it. They only have FARMS and non-FARMS, which isn't a great metric because it only tells you whether a child is actively in poverty and cannot differentiate between a kid whose parents make $41K and a kid whose parents make $410K.

There are also a fair number of families who would qualify for FARMS but don't access the services for their own religious or social reasons.

For better or worse, and due to a century of deliberate housing policy, our county is highly segregated. That's a status quo that has been upheld by those in power, who could have approved mixed-income housing and reduced the existence of concentrated poverty a long time ago, but chose not to.

So, as a result of those policies and a whole bunch of NIMBY-ism, school zone remains one of the best proxies for SES that MCPS has at its fingertips.

Then just rank within FARM students. Those disadvantaged kids might not get ranked higher when there are non FARM students in their school.

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why they limit the ranking at school level. As they want to help those disadvantaged kids, why don’t them use the applicants’ SES as grouping. It will be much more effective to help those disadvantaged kids.

....because they don't have it. They only have FARMS and non-FARMS, which isn't a great metric because it only tells you whether a child is actively in poverty and cannot differentiate between a kid whose parents make $41K and a kid whose parents make $410K.

There are also a fair number of families who would qualify for FARMS but don't access the services for their own religious or social reasons.

For better or worse, and due to a century of deliberate housing policy, our county is highly segregated. That's a status quo that has been upheld by those in power, who could have approved mixed-income housing and reduced the existence of concentrated poverty a long time ago, but chose not to.

So, as a result of those policies and a whole bunch of NIMBY-ism, school zone remains one of the best proxies for SES that MCPS has at its fingertips.

I don’t understand why they limit the ranking at school level. As they want to help those disadvantaged kids, why don’t them use the applicants’ SES as grouping. It will be much more effective to help those disadvantaged kids.

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/curriculum/specialprograms/middle/Magnet%20FAQs%202019(7).pdf
(hope this link works... from https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/specialprograms/admissions/applications.aspx )

Here is the entire paragraph:

3. What do the MCPS percentiles mean? How are MCPS percentiles determined?
National norms are designed to compare and rank test takers in relation to one another based on those who took the test nationally. Local norms are designed to compare and rank test takers in relation to one another based on those who took the test locally – within MCPS. Local norming provides information about students in relation to their academic peer groups in MCPS. MCPS CogAT percentiles are locally normed percentiles established based on the three sections of the CogAT. Gifted and talented experts recommend the use of local norms as an equitable approach to ensure equity and access in identification of students for program access. Additionally, the current draft of Gifted and Talented Definitions from the Maryland State Department of Education includes the use of local norms as part of its gifted and talented identification process. The socioeconomic status of elementary schools was used to determine the locally normed score on the CogAT (MCPS Percentiles). In establishing MCPS Percentiles, students in schools with minimal poverty were compared to one another, students in schools with moderate poverty were compared to each other, and students from schools highly impacted by poverty were compared to each other.

The CogAT is providing raw scores, the percentile scores depend on the sub-grouping. I think that this is a sensible way to try to identify talented students whose performance may be masked by poverty. If you have 3000 test takers, and are looking for 300 students, you might think it's best to take just the top 10% (or 90th percentile). But if you split that group into three groups of 1000, you might discover that the top 5% of the low poverty group was around the 85th percentile, and you would have missed them. If you can serve many of your top students in the schools with minimal poverty because there are enough to make a cohort, you can then make room to serve students from schools where there are not enough students to make a cohort. It is a reasonable process.

This is effectively what the middle school magnet consortium does, but in reverse. Draw enough high performing students from out of area to make a large enough cohort that advanced classes can be offered, which the advanced local students then also benefit from. It's a big difference from being one of the 20 "smart" kids in a grade with 300 kids to being one of 100 smart kids in a grade of 300 kids. I taught at Parkland and had 2 boys that were in Honors Geometry who were convinced they didn't belong there because all the other kids were "so much smarter". Although they were recommended to Honors Algebra 2 in high school, they ended up enrolling in regular Algebra 2. They came back the following year to tell me how eye-opening it was and how they realized that they actually were smart, because as freshmen they ended up with 11th and 12th graders and practically tutored them in the class.

I thought the CoGAT creators say it is not designed to reliably distinguish amont the top percent or two. This has been discussed extensively last year and this in the magnet admissions threads. It is the "reason" folks are supposed to accept simply viewing all 99 percent scores as the same rather than looking within that percentile. So.... I don't understand how MCPS could take that "indistinguishable" group and then separate it out by expanding the scale used and rely on that ranking for anything. What am I missing?

It sounds like they are comparing kids to children in elementary schools with similar poverty rates? Number 3 in the magnet CogAT questions.

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/curriculum/specialprograms/middle/Magnet%20FAQs%202019(7).pdf

The PDF says: In establishing MCPS Percentiles, students in schools with minimal poverty were compared to one another, students in schools with moderate poverty were compared to each other, and students from schools highly impacted by poverty were compared to each other.

This was posted in the math pathways thread, and I don’t understand:

There was a new FAQ posted on the website with the appeal information, which says that the mcps percentiles were not based on countywide information. Rather, each student was compared to their own ES's overall SES. Students at the CES were compared to that CES's SES. That means, if your home school was a different SES than your child CES, they may have been calculated under the wrong numbers. Those numbers are then used to calculate the middle school cohort group.