Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 3-5 and 6+ tests, on average, are supposed to result in the same RIT score and the same percentile. However, the individual variation expected is among the reasons that MCPS central decided to count both the 4th-grade spring MAP-M and 5th-grade fall MAP-M (whichever locally normed percentile is higher) when evaluating those in accelerated math for the criteria-based magnet MS pool eligibility and recommended auto-placement in AMP7+/AIM in 6th, whichever is offered (each leads to Algebra in 7th).

This tends to compensate for the decision to administer the 6+ test to that population in 5th, which is consistent with what MAP is supposed to be used for -- evaluation of teaching effectiveness across populations and identification of possible strengths/weaknesses to guide teachers' approach to meet students' individual needs (not so much as a spot test without other evaluative tools for placement decisions).

MS placement in AMP7+/AIM is not limited to this centrally-identified population. Grades and later standardized test performance, along with the input of the elementary teacher/math specialist, typically are taken into consideration as MS classes are planned late in the school year for the following one. There is some variation among middle schools in what qualifies, often due to the need to keep relatively consistent/manageable class sizes, but there usually is also some flexibility in placement.

So what is the cutoff for the criteria-based magnet eligibility?

85th percentile, locally normed by FARMS-rate grouping (5 of those, as of last report, from High-FARMS to Low-FARMS). If all the group-FARMS elementaries have a distribution where it takes an RIT score of x to be at the 85th percentile among all the scores in that grouping (not nationally), then x is the locally normed 85th percentile. Sort of, that is. MCPS goes back to the national norms, finds the percentile there that most closely matches the strict 85th percentile RIT score in the FARMS-rate grouping and then establishes the RIT score from that national percentile as the 85th percentile local norm for lottery placement purposes.

As might be expected, the cutoff can be rather high at low-FARMS schools, where the cohort typically has extra opportunities for exposure to content. That last bit, though, going back to the national percentiles, ensures that anyone hitting 99th percentile nationally is not excluded, even if the strict locally normed 85th percentile might have been at an RIT score above the national 99th. (Avoiding reliance on expected statistical variation at the extremes.)

It also can vary from year to year, as can the FARMS rate group of a particular school. MCPS has not made the actual cutoffs public since a response to a request from MCCPTA a couple of years back, but parents have been able to make rough guesses after the fact by comparing scores of who got in at their school. The understanding from presentations to the BOE is that the cutoff becomes the locally normed 70th percentile for individual students receiving services (FARMS, EML, IEP or 504).

The idea is to try to identify students with ability/need for more. That used to be done with CogAT, an abilities-related test, but they had to abandon that during the pandemic and eventually went with MAP. MAP is largely an exposure-related test, and there's info on the NWEA website about not using MAP for identification/placement purposes without an ability-related measure (NWEA is the organization from which MAP originates). There also is reasoning there for using local norms, though that is often discussed by school instead of by school grouping (the same thoughts, roughly, should apply, however).

This lottery/placement paradigm was supposed to be reviewed, but, while there have been internal discussions/decisions from year to year (such as changing to use both the end of 4th and beginning of 5th MAP-M scores for those in accelerated math to adjust for using the 6+ test for those students), resourcing a formal review has been a challenge.

Thank you. Still, what ballpark raw score are we talking about in W feeders? I know they are not all the same, either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because you are mature enough to handle it, you can show it to colleges, and have another year to take a stats and/or linearly.

Isn’t it also that the student is better prepped for the SAT earlier given that the SAT covers material into precalc?

No, in some ways it’s harder as they forget algebra and geometry. Speaking from experience.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 3-5 and 6+ tests, on average, are supposed to result in the same RIT score and the same percentile. However, the individual variation expected is among the reasons that MCPS central decided to count both the 4th-grade spring MAP-M and 5th-grade fall MAP-M (whichever locally normed percentile is higher) when evaluating those in accelerated math for the criteria-based magnet MS pool eligibility and recommended auto-placement in AMP7+/AIM in 6th, whichever is offered (each leads to Algebra in 7th).

This tends to compensate for the decision to administer the 6+ test to that population in 5th, which is consistent with what MAP is supposed to be used for -- evaluation of teaching effectiveness across populations and identification of possible strengths/weaknesses to guide teachers' approach to meet students' individual needs (not so much as a spot test without other evaluative tools for placement decisions).

MS placement in AMP7+/AIM is not limited to this centrally-identified population. Grades and later standardized test performance, along with the input of the elementary teacher/math specialist, typically are taken into consideration as MS classes are planned late in the school year for the following one. There is some variation among middle schools in what qualifies, often due to the need to keep relatively consistent/manageable class sizes, but there usually is also some flexibility in placement.

So what is the cutoff for the criteria-based magnet eligibility?

85th percentile, locally normed by FARMS-rate grouping (5 of those, as of last report, from High-FARMS to Low-FARMS). If all the group-FARMS elementaries have a distribution where it takes an RIT score of x to be at the 85th percentile among all the scores in that grouping (not nationally), then x is the locally normed 85th percentile. Sort of, that is. MCPS goes back to the national norms, finds the percentile there that most closely matches the strict 85th percentile RIT score in the FARMS-rate grouping and then establishes the RIT score from that national percentile as the 85th percentile local norm for lottery placement purposes.

As might be expected, the cutoff can be rather high at low-FARMS schools, where the cohort typically has extra opportunities for exposure to content. That last bit, though, going back to the national percentiles, ensures that anyone hitting 99th percentile nationally is not excluded, even if the strict locally normed 85th percentile might have been at an RIT score above the national 99th. (Avoiding reliance on expected statistical variation at the extremes.)

It also can vary from year to year, as can the FARMS rate group of a particular school. MCPS has not made the actual cutoffs public since a response to a request from MCCPTA a couple of years back, but parents have been able to make rough guesses after the fact by comparing scores of who got in at their school. The understanding from presentations to the BOE is that the cutoff becomes the locally normed 70th percentile for individual students receiving services (FARMS, EML, IEP or 504).

The idea is to try to identify students with ability/need for more. That used to be done with CogAT, an abilities-related test, but they had to abandon that during the pandemic and eventually went with MAP. MAP is largely an exposure-related test, and there's info on the NWEA website about not using MAP for identification/placement purposes without an ability-related measure (NWEA is the organization from which MAP originates). There also is reasoning there for using local norms, though that is often discussed by school instead of by school grouping (the same thoughts, roughly, should apply, however).

This lottery/placement paradigm was supposed to be reviewed, but, while there have been internal discussions/decisions from year to year (such as changing to use both the end of 4th and beginning of 5th MAP-M scores for those in accelerated math to adjust for using the 6+ test for those students), resourcing a formal review has been a challenge.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 3-5 and 6+ tests, on average, are supposed to result in the same RIT score and the same percentile. However, the individual variation expected is among the reasons that MCPS central decided to count both the 4th-grade spring MAP-M and 5th-grade fall MAP-M (whichever locally normed percentile is higher) when evaluating those in accelerated math for the criteria-based magnet MS pool eligibility and recommended auto-placement in AMP7+/AIM in 6th, whichever is offered (each leads to Algebra in 7th).

This tends to compensate for the decision to administer the 6+ test to that population in 5th, which is consistent with what MAP is supposed to be used for -- evaluation of teaching effectiveness across populations and identification of possible strengths/weaknesses to guide teachers' approach to meet students' individual needs (not so much as a spot test without other evaluative tools for placement decisions).

MS placement in AMP7+/AIM is not limited to this centrally-identified population. Grades and later standardized test performance, along with the input of the elementary teacher/math specialist, typically are taken into consideration as MS classes are planned late in the school year for the following one. There is some variation among middle schools in what qualifies, often due to the need to keep relatively consistent/manageable class sizes, but there usually is also some flexibility in placement.

So what is the cutoff for the criteria-based magnet eligibility?

85th percentile, locally normed by FARMS-rate grouping (5 of those, as of last report, from High-FARMS to Low-FARMS). If all the group-FARMS elementaries have a distribution where it takes an RIT score of x to be at the 85th percentile among all the scores in that grouping (not nationally), then x is the locally normed 85th percentile. Sort of, that is. MCPS goes back to the national norms, finds the percentile there that most closely matches the strict 85th percentile RIT score in the FARMS-rate grouping and then establishes the RIT score from that national percentile as the 85th percentile local norm for lottery placement purposes.

As might be expected, the cutoff can be rather high at low-FARMS schools, where the cohort typically has extra opportunities for exposure to content. That last bit, though, going back to the national percentiles, ensures that anyone hitting 99th percentile nationally is not excluded, even if the strict locally normed 85th percentile might have been at an RIT score above the national 99th. (Avoiding reliance on expected statistical variation at the extremes.)

It also can vary from year to year, as can the FARMS rate group of a particular school. MCPS has not made the actual cutoffs public since a response to a request from MCCPTA a couple of years back, but parents have been able to make rough guesses after the fact by comparing scores of who got in at their school. The understanding from presentations to the BOE is that the cutoff becomes the locally normed 70th percentile for individual students receiving services (FARMS, EML, IEP or 504).

The idea is to try to identify students with ability/need for more. That used to be done with CogAT, an abilities-related test, but they had to abandon that during the pandemic and eventually went with MAP. MAP is largely an exposure-related test, and there's info on the NWEA website about not using MAP for identification/placement purposes without an ability-related measure (NWEA is the organization from which MAP originates). There also is reasoning there for using local norms, though that is often discussed by school instead of by school grouping (the same thoughts, roughly, should apply, however).

This lottery/placement paradigm was supposed to be reviewed, but, while there have been internal discussions/decisions from year to year (such as changing to use both the end of 4th and beginning of 5th MAP-M scores for those in accelerated math to adjust for using the 6+ test for those students), resourcing a formal review has been a challenge.

You sound very knowledgeable but there is no where in MCPS where the top 15 percent are scoring above 99th percentile. That’sa ridiculous statement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 3-5 and 6+ tests, on average, are supposed to result in the same RIT score and the same percentile. However, the individual variation expected is among the reasons that MCPS central decided to count both the 4th-grade spring MAP-M and 5th-grade fall MAP-M (whichever locally normed percentile is higher) when evaluating those in accelerated math for the criteria-based magnet MS pool eligibility and recommended auto-placement in AMP7+/AIM in 6th, whichever is offered (each leads to Algebra in 7th).

This tends to compensate for the decision to administer the 6+ test to that population in 5th, which is consistent with what MAP is supposed to be used for -- evaluation of teaching effectiveness across populations and identification of possible strengths/weaknesses to guide teachers' approach to meet students' individual needs (not so much as a spot test without other evaluative tools for placement decisions).

MS placement in AMP7+/AIM is not limited to this centrally-identified population. Grades and later standardized test performance, along with the input of the elementary teacher/math specialist, typically are taken into consideration as MS classes are planned late in the school year for the following one. There is some variation among middle schools in what qualifies, often due to the need to keep relatively consistent/manageable class sizes, but there usually is also some flexibility in placement.

So what is the cutoff for the criteria-based magnet eligibility?

85th percentile, locally normed by FARMS-rate grouping (5 of those, as of last report, from High-FARMS to Low-FARMS). If all the group-FARMS elementaries have a distribution where it takes an RIT score of x to be at the 85th percentile among all the scores in that grouping (not nationally), then x is the locally normed 85th percentile. Sort of, that is. MCPS goes back to the national norms, finds the percentile there that most closely matches the strict 85th percentile RIT score in the FARMS-rate grouping and then establishes the RIT score from that national percentile as the 85th percentile local norm for lottery placement purposes.

As might be expected, the cutoff can be rather high at low-FARMS schools, where the cohort typically has extra opportunities for exposure to content. That last bit, though, going back to the national percentiles, ensures that anyone hitting 99th percentile nationally is not excluded, even if the strict locally normed 85th percentile might have been at an RIT score above the national 99th. (Avoiding reliance on expected statistical variation at the extremes.)

It also can vary from year to year, as can the FARMS rate group of a particular school. MCPS has not made the actual cutoffs public since a response to a request from MCCPTA a couple of years back, but parents have been able to make rough guesses after the fact by comparing scores of who got in at their school. The understanding from presentations to the BOE is that the cutoff becomes the locally normed 70th percentile for individual students receiving services (FARMS, EML, IEP or 504).

The idea is to try to identify students with ability/need for more. That used to be done with CogAT, an abilities-related test, but they had to abandon that during the pandemic and eventually went with MAP. MAP is largely an exposure-related test, and there's info on the NWEA website about not using MAP for identification/placement purposes without an ability-related measure (NWEA is the organization from which MAP originates). There also is reasoning there for using local norms, though that is often discussed by school instead of by school grouping (the same thoughts, roughly, should apply, however).

This lottery/placement paradigm was supposed to be reviewed, but, while there have been internal discussions/decisions from year to year (such as changing to use both the end of 4th and beginning of 5th MAP-M scores for those in accelerated math to adjust for using the 6+ test for those students), resourcing a formal review has been a challenge.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 3-5 and 6+ tests, on average, are supposed to result in the same RIT score and the same percentile. However, the individual variation expected is among the reasons that MCPS central decided to count both the 4th-grade spring MAP-M and 5th-grade fall MAP-M (whichever locally normed percentile is higher) when evaluating those in accelerated math for the criteria-based magnet MS pool eligibility and recommended auto-placement in AMP7+/AIM in 6th, whichever is offered (each leads to Algebra in 7th).

This tends to compensate for the decision to administer the 6+ test to that population in 5th, which is consistent with what MAP is supposed to be used for -- evaluation of teaching effectiveness across populations and identification of possible strengths/weaknesses to guide teachers' approach to meet students' individual needs (not so much as a spot test without other evaluative tools for placement decisions).

MS placement in AMP7+/AIM is not limited to this centrally-identified population. Grades and later standardized test performance, along with the input of the elementary teacher/math specialist, typically are taken into consideration as MS classes are planned late in the school year for the following one. There is some variation among middle schools in what qualifies, often due to the need to keep relatively consistent/manageable class sizes, but there usually is also some flexibility in placement.

So what is the cutoff for the criteria-based magnet eligibility?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because you are mature enough to handle it, you can show it to colleges, and have another year to take a stats and/or linearly.

Isn’t it also that the student is better prepped for the SAT earlier given that the SAT covers material into precalc?

Anonymous wrote:Because you are mature enough to handle it, you can show it to colleges, and have another year to take a stats and/or linearly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mine scored 250+. I know they will recommend him for AMP7+ for MS but not seeing the point in doing calculus in 11th is. He’s more a humanities type.

Calculus in 11th is perfect.

Anonymous wrote:The 3-5 and 6+ tests, on average, are supposed to result in the same RIT score and the same percentile. However, the individual variation expected is among the reasons that MCPS central decided to count both the 4th-grade spring MAP-M and 5th-grade fall MAP-M (whichever locally normed percentile is higher) when evaluating those in accelerated math for the criteria-based magnet MS pool eligibility and recommended auto-placement in AMP7+/AIM in 6th, whichever is offered (each leads to Algebra in 7th).

This tends to compensate for the decision to administer the 6+ test to that population in 5th, which is consistent with what MAP is supposed to be used for -- evaluation of teaching effectiveness across populations and identification of possible strengths/weaknesses to guide teachers' approach to meet students' individual needs (not so much as a spot test without other evaluative tools for placement decisions).

MS placement in AMP7+/AIM is not limited to this centrally-identified population. Grades and later standardized test performance, along with the input of the elementary teacher/math specialist, typically are taken into consideration as MS classes are planned late in the school year for the following one. There is some variation among middle schools in what qualifies, often due to the need to keep relatively consistent/manageable class sizes, but there usually is also some flexibility in placement.

Anonymous wrote:Mine scored 250+. I know they will recommend him for AMP7+ for MS but not seeing the point in doing calculus in 11th is. He’s more a humanities type.