Anonymous wrote:Has anyone's kid been in pool for one but not the other?
My kid got into one but not the other, but was in pool for both. I didn't expect my kid to be in pool for the one he got into, he's got pretty divergent scores. But now, I'm wondering if maybe there was only one pool.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Here's a (hopefully correct) summary of Fall MAP scores reported in this thread so far. Although maybe we are all focusing too much on Fall MAP scores, but there really aren't a lot of other data points to consider.
MAP-M and Math magnet results:
232 - not in pool
234 - not in pool
242 - in pool
244 - in pool (selected)
245 - in pool
252 - in pool (selected)
255 - not in pool
255 - in pool
262 - in pool
268 - in pool
272 - in pool (and in-bounds for TPMS, but not selected)
283 - in pool
MAP-R and Humanities magnet results:
235 - in pool
235 - in pool
237 - in pool
238 - in pool
239- in pool (selected)
240- not in pool
240 - in pool
240 - in pool
240 - in pool
245 - in pool
245 - in pool
256 - in pool
Thanks for compiling PP. It looks like they may have used the 240 cut-off for TPMS. This has been the traditional recommendation line for AIM in 6th, however it is not the Fall test that they usually consider. Interesting.
Add 240 map M and NOT in pool.
There goes another theory! Any Bs in math?
I wonder if they did do cutoffs by each school or type of school (like the CogAT percentiles). 240 is the 98%ile in the Fall, so that is a pretty steep cut-off for a lottery (not saying it shouldn't be steep, but for MCPS that is surprisingly steep).
As they said MAP is one of several factors that are weighed there's likely not a hard cutoff but a score that is derived from a combination of those things that determines pool eligibility.
No Bs, all As in every subject and yes 240 is a 98% and he was not even in the pool. He goes to a focus school. Clearly there was no “cutoff.” And no I am not lying or making up the numbers. His 3rd grade Cogat was 99%. MCPS seems to have some secret formula of who gets in the pool and who doesn’t.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If these are the cut offs 80% of the kids at our elementary made the pool.
My guess is these pools were huge.
This is what irks me. Why was my DS not in the pool? 98% for math, all A’s on report cards. His past Map Ms have been either 98 or 99. He loves math and is so self motivated, he wanted to compete in math competitions and used to wake up on Saturdays sneaking Khan academy. I know he’s not a genius or anything, but he clearly has a passion for it. What am I missing that kids with percentiles as low as 89 were in the lottery. I’m sorry but that is a huge jump with no other explanation. I don’t see the point in appealing but I would like to know how he missed the cutoff. Thanks a lot MCPS.
I totally understand your frustration. I've emailed my kid's principal asking if they can explain how the pool decisions were made or if they see anything in my child's profile that would help explain why they weren't in the pool or if an appeal makes any sense. Lack of clarity is incredibly frustrating; ironically, the lottery process was supposed to be a more open and transparent process. I may send MCPS a letter pointing out that it really wasn't.
Thank you for understanding my rant 😊. Please do update this post if you hear back.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Here's a (hopefully correct) summary of Fall MAP scores reported in this thread so far. Although maybe we are all focusing too much on Fall MAP scores, but there really aren't a lot of other data points to consider.
MAP-M and Math magnet results:
232 - not in pool
234 - not in pool
242 - in pool
244 - in pool (selected)
245 - in pool
252 - in pool (selected)
255 - not in pool
255 - in pool
262 - in pool
268 - in pool
272 - in pool (and in-bounds for TPMS, but not selected)
283 - in pool
MAP-R and Humanities magnet results:
235 - in pool
235 - in pool
237 - in pool
238 - in pool
239- in pool (selected)
240- not in pool
240 - in pool
240 - in pool
240 - in pool
245 - in pool
245 - in pool
256 - in pool
Thanks for compiling PP. It looks like they may have used the 240 cut-off for TPMS. This has been the traditional recommendation line for AIM in 6th, however it is not the Fall test that they usually consider. Interesting.
Add 240 map M and NOT in pool.
There goes another theory! Any Bs in math?
I wonder if they did do cutoffs by each school or type of school (like the CogAT percentiles). 240 is the 98%ile in the Fall, so that is a pretty steep cut-off for a lottery (not saying it shouldn't be steep, but for MCPS that is surprisingly steep).
As they said MAP is one of several factors that are weighed there's likely not a hard cutoff but a score that is derived from a combination of those things that determines pool eligibility.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:No matter what system you choose, someone is always going to think it didn't work well if their kid doesn't get in.
This. For good or ill...
I think the only people that might think this system works well are a few of the parents whose kid got in and even then many still seem to think a system based on objective merit would be more fair.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:No matter what system you choose, someone is always going to think it didn't work well if their kid doesn't get in.
This. For good or ill...
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:No matter what system you choose, someone is always going to think it didn't work well if their kid doesn't get in.
This. For good or ill...
Anonymous wrote:No matter what system you choose, someone is always going to think it didn't work well if their kid doesn't get in.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Here's a (hopefully correct) summary of Fall MAP scores reported in this thread so far. Although maybe we are all focusing too much on Fall MAP scores, but there really aren't a lot of other data points to consider.
MAP-M and Math magnet results:
232 - not in pool
234 - not in pool
242 - in pool
244 - in pool (selected)
245 - in pool
252 - in pool (selected)
255 - not in pool
255 - in pool
262 - in pool
268 - in pool
272 - in pool (and in-bounds for TPMS, but not selected)
283 - in pool
MAP-R and Humanities magnet results:
235 - in pool
235 - in pool
237 - in pool
238 - in pool
239- in pool (selected)
240- not in pool
240 - in pool
240 - in pool
240 - in pool
245 - in pool
245 - in pool
256 - in pool
Thanks for compiling PP. It looks like they may have used the 240 cut-off for TPMS. This has been the traditional recommendation line for AIM in 6th, however it is not the Fall test that they usually consider. Interesting.
Add 240 map M and NOT in pool.
There goes another theory! Any Bs in math?
I wonder if they did do cutoffs by each school or type of school (like the CogAT percentiles). 240 is the 98%ile in the Fall, so that is a pretty steep cut-off for a lottery (not saying it shouldn't be steep, but for MCPS that is surprisingly steep).
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:MCPS should hire my husband, or another savvy programmer, who can build them a neat little algorithm to pick out the best student for each magnet![]()
The program can weigh math and reading test scores and Cogat subscores differently according to each magnet, and take into account ESOL, FARMS or IEP status. It can also identify cohorts of similarly-scoring students per home middle school, separate the outliers for magnet purposes and group the rest into a list ready to plug into the "advanced" regular programming.
I don't know if they already have an algorithm for magnet selection, but it sure as heck hasn't worked well at all. And that lottery is a complete cop-out.
No matter what system you choose, someone is always going to think it didn't work well if their kid doesn't get in.
PP you replied to. My kid had a score in the 260s for math and didn’t get in. I would accept that EASILY if I knew that the magnet was populated by kids with higher scores, since after all a magnet should get the best and brightest. Add a few lower scoring students in exceptional circumstances and you have cohort. But when I see multiple kids get in with scores in the 240s, it’s a little hard to stomach. And apparently it’s not just this year, but every year, so it’s not just because of the lottery.
Hence the need for a better algorithm.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:MCPS should hire my husband, or another savvy programmer, who can build them a neat little algorithm to pick out the best student for each magnet![]()
The program can weigh math and reading test scores and Cogat subscores differently according to each magnet, and take into account ESOL, FARMS or IEP status. It can also identify cohorts of similarly-scoring students per home middle school, separate the outliers for magnet purposes and group the rest into a list ready to plug into the "advanced" regular programming.
I don't know if they already have an algorithm for magnet selection, but it sure as heck hasn't worked well at all. And that lottery is a complete cop-out.
No matter what system you choose, someone is always going to think it didn't work well if their kid doesn't get in.