Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
I’m also not sure what real info comes from that chart. Those are the kids who were seriously considered from each school, and what put them into consideration. Many kids were probably in consideration based on every one of those measures. But it still doesn’t show who was selected or why. Or am I misunderstanding?
I think the chart is meant to show that there is talent and promise all over the county. You are of course right, though, that is is showing the 99th (or maybe even something like >97th) percentiles and not the 99.9th. But it was put out by MCPS at a time when a lot of folks seem to be publicly aghast at the idea that there might be bright and underchallenged kids who would benefit from the magnet at even the most high needs schools.
Ah, that makes sense.
But none of the tests used by mcps are designed to distinguish any part of the 99th percentile from another part of the 99th percentile. Oh well. Stats you know....
What are you talking about? CogAt raw scores distinguish within the 99th percentile, so do MAPs and PARCCs. A child with 300 MAP-M in the fall is, obviously, different from the child with 240 MAP-M while both numbers fall under 99 percentile.
There is little statistical validity to those distinctions - so say statistics AND the creators of those tests. Thus they all say you must use multiple measures.
Anonymous wrote:DC's home MS is Tilden -- one of three I know of from home ES attending a magnet MS. If there are others who got in and declined the offer, I don't know about them -- I do know one of the three kids got into both magnet MS.
Having had one kid go through Tilden already, I think the cohort rationale is nonsense. It's not the cohort that makes the difference between an average to subpar education and a good to great one, it's the curriculum and the quality/training of the teachers that makes the difference. The magnet MS is not perfect by any means, but the quality of the instruction and the curriculum in the magnet classes blows the instruction/curriculum at Tilden out of the water.
The real shame here is that the very existence of these so-called "cohorts" demonstrates that there are groups of kids at every MS who would rise to the challenge of the magnet-level curricula. Instead of figuring out different ways to split the pie, MCPS should make the pie bigger and provide much better curricula (and train teachers to implement them) at all the MS (and not just these "magnet lite" advanced courses, but the truly excellent and integrated curricula the magnet kids benefit from).
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
I’m also not sure what real info comes from that chart. Those are the kids who were seriously considered from each school, and what put them into consideration. Many kids were probably in consideration based on every one of those measures. But it still doesn’t show who was selected or why. Or am I misunderstanding?
I think the chart is meant to show that there is talent and promise all over the county. You are of course right, though, that is is showing the 99th (or maybe even something like >97th) percentiles and not the 99.9th. But it was put out by MCPS at a time when a lot of folks seem to be publicly aghast at the idea that there might be bright and underchallenged kids who would benefit from the magnet at even the most high needs schools.
Ah, that makes sense.
But none of the tests used by mcps are designed to distinguish any part of the 99th percentile from another part of the 99th percentile. Oh well. Stats you know....
What are you talking about? CogAt raw scores distinguish within the 99th percentile, so do MAPs and PARCCs. A child with 300 MAP-M in the fall is, obviously, different from the child with 240 MAP-M while both numbers fall under 99 percentile.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
I’m also not sure what real info comes from that chart. Those are the kids who were seriously considered from each school, and what put them into consideration. Many kids were probably in consideration based on every one of those measures. But it still doesn’t show who was selected or why. Or am I misunderstanding?
I think the chart is meant to show that there is talent and promise all over the county. You are of course right, though, that is is showing the 99th (or maybe even something like >97th) percentiles and not the 99.9th. But it was put out by MCPS at a time when a lot of folks seem to be publicly aghast at the idea that there might be bright and underchallenged kids who would benefit from the magnet at even the most high needs schools.
Ah, that makes sense.
But none of the tests used by mcps are designed to distinguish any part of the 99th percentile from another part of the 99th percentile. Oh well. Stats you know....
What are you talking about? CogAt raw scores distinguish within the 99th percentile, so do MAPs and PARCCs. A child with 300 MAP-M in the fall is, obviously, different from the child with 240 MAP-M while both numbers fall under 99 percentile.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:There were long threads about this, last year, with some information shared. They were many pages long. I'd do a google search to see if you can pull it up.
I think there was such a large cohort of gifted kids at Pyle they determined magnet wasn't necessary since they already had a comparable cohort at their home school.
Anonymous wrote:There were long threads about this, last year, with some information shared. They were many pages long. I'd do a google search to see if you can pull it up.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
I’m also not sure what real info comes from that chart. Those are the kids who were seriously considered from each school, and what put them into consideration. Many kids were probably in consideration based on every one of those measures. But it still doesn’t show who was selected or why. Or am I misunderstanding?
I think the chart is meant to show that there is talent and promise all over the county. You are of course right, though, that is is showing the 99th (or maybe even something like >97th) percentiles and not the 99.9th. But it was put out by MCPS at a time when a lot of folks seem to be publicly aghast at the idea that there might be bright and underchallenged kids who would benefit from the magnet at even the most high needs schools.
Ah, that makes sense.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
I’m also not sure what real info comes from that chart. Those are the kids who were seriously considered from each school, and what put them into consideration. Many kids were probably in consideration based on every one of those measures. But it still doesn’t show who was selected or why. Or am I misunderstanding?
I think the chart is meant to show that there is talent and promise all over the county. You are of course right, though, that is is showing the 99th (or maybe even something like >97th) percentiles and not the 99.9th. But it was put out by MCPS at a time when a lot of folks seem to be publicly aghast at the idea that there might be bright and underchallenged kids who would benefit from the magnet at even the most high needs schools.
Ah, that makes sense.
But none of the tests used by mcps are designed to distinguish any part of the 99th percentile from another part of the 99th percentile. Oh well. Stats you know....
What are you talking about? CogAt raw scores distinguish within the 99th percentile, so do MAPs and PARCCs. A child with 300 MAP-M in the fall is, obviously, different from the child with 240 MAP-M while both numbers fall under 99 percentile.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
I’m also not sure what real info comes from that chart. Those are the kids who were seriously considered from each school, and what put them into consideration. Many kids were probably in consideration based on every one of those measures. But it still doesn’t show who was selected or why. Or am I misunderstanding?
I think the chart is meant to show that there is talent and promise all over the county. You are of course right, though, that is is showing the 99th (or maybe even something like >97th) percentiles and not the 99.9th. But it was put out by MCPS at a time when a lot of folks seem to be publicly aghast at the idea that there might be bright and underchallenged kids who would benefit from the magnet at even the most high needs schools.
Ah, that makes sense.
But none of the tests used by mcps are designed to distinguish any part of the 99th percentile from another part of the 99th percentile. Oh well. Stats you know....
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
I’m also not sure what real info comes from that chart. Those are the kids who were seriously considered from each school, and what put them into consideration. Many kids were probably in consideration based on every one of those measures. But it still doesn’t show who was selected or why. Or am I misunderstanding?
I think the chart is meant to show that there is talent and promise all over the county. You are of course right, though, that is is showing the 99th (or maybe even something like >97th) percentiles and not the 99.9th. But it was put out by MCPS at a time when a lot of folks seem to be publicly aghast at the idea that there might be bright and underchallenged kids who would benefit from the magnet at even the most high needs schools.
Ah, that makes sense.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
I’m also not sure what real info comes from that chart. Those are the kids who were seriously considered from each school, and what put them into consideration. Many kids were probably in consideration based on every one of those measures. But it still doesn’t show who was selected or why. Or am I misunderstanding?
I think the chart is meant to show that there is talent and promise all over the county. You are of course right, though, that is is showing the 99th (or maybe even something like >97th) percentiles and not the 99.9th. But it was put out by MCPS at a time when a lot of folks seem to be publicly aghast at the idea that there might be bright and underchallenged kids who would benefit from the magnet at even the most high needs schools.