Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here with an update. I'm the one whose child has a 255 MAP-M (and a history of As and 99% MAP scores) who wasn't in the lottery pool. I was able to connect with Jeannie Franklin at the Division of Consortia, Choice, and Application Programs, who was able to tell me that my child was not in the pool because of an "M" in science for the third marking period last year. Super frustrating, since the school told us they were giving Ms in many classes due to "the extended school closure and significant interruptions to the marking period", and the school told us it would have no impact going forward.

At least I now have concrete information to use in an appeal. I'm sharing it here in case it helps others who may be in the same situation. And it does make me think that there weren't school-specific cutoffs to be placed in the pool, but that the discrepancies we're seeing are the results of individual errors like this.

OK, what the heck is an "M"?

Anonymous wrote:PP here with an update. I'm the one whose child has a 255 MAP-M (and a history of As and 99% MAP scores) who wasn't in the lottery pool. I was able to connect with Jeannie Franklin at the Division of Consortia, Choice, and Application Programs, who was able to tell me that my child was not in the pool because of an "M" in science for the third marking period last year. Super frustrating, since the school told us they were giving Ms in many classes due to "the extended school closure and significant interruptions to the marking period", and the school told us it would have no impact going forward.

At least I now have concrete information to use in an appeal. I'm sharing it here in case it helps others who may be in the same situation. And it does make me think that there weren't school-specific cutoffs to be placed in the pool, but that the discrepancies we're seeing are the results of individual errors like this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here with an update. I'm the one whose child has a 255 MAP-M (and a history of As and 99% MAP scores) who wasn't in the lottery pool. I was able to connect with Jeannie Franklin at the Division of Consortia, Choice, and Application Programs, who was able to tell me that my child was not in the pool because of an "M" in science for the third marking period last year. Super frustrating, since the school told us they were giving Ms in many classes due to "the extended school closure and significant interruptions to the marking period", and the school told us it would have no impact going forward.

At least I now have concrete information to use in an appeal. I'm sharing it here in case it helps others who may be in the same situation. And it does make me think that there weren't school-specific cutoffs to be placed in the pool, but that the discrepancies we're seeing are the results of individual errors like this.

Thank you for the update! What a crappy thing they did to your child. I hope your appeal works, even though my kid is in pool too

I hope your kid gets ultimately selected. It was nice that you shared. In any case, you can sleep knowing that it was a bureaucratic issue not that your kid didn’t make the cut.

Thank you (and thanks to the other posters who wished us well with the appeal). I was supportive of the lottery as a way to deal with the situation this year (no COGAT, etc.), but I wasn't expecting this! It does feel much better to know what happened, although frustrating that it was so hard to find out -- I went through the general DCCAPS email address, my school counselor, and my school principal before contacting Ms. Franklin, but none of them could give me any specifics about my child.

Oh, and I really want to thank everybody who shared their datapoints here, since that really convinced me that something was "off" with my child's file. I wouldn't have been so persistent otherwise.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here with an update. I'm the one whose child has a 255 MAP-M (and a history of As and 99% MAP scores) who wasn't in the lottery pool. I was able to connect with Jeannie Franklin at the Division of Consortia, Choice, and Application Programs, who was able to tell me that my child was not in the pool because of an "M" in science for the third marking period last year. Super frustrating, since the school told us they were giving Ms in many classes due to "the extended school closure and significant interruptions to the marking period", and the school told us it would have no impact going forward.

At least I now have concrete information to use in an appeal. I'm sharing it here in case it helps others who may be in the same situation. And it does make me think that there weren't school-specific cutoffs to be placed in the pool, but that the discrepancies we're seeing are the results of individual errors like this.

Thank you for the update! What a crappy thing they did to your child. I hope your appeal works, even though my kid is in pool too

I hope your kid gets ultimately selected. It was nice that you shared. In any case, you can sleep knowing that it was a bureaucratic issue not that your kid didn’t make the cut.

Thank you (and thanks to the other posters who wished us well with the appeal). I was supportive of the lottery as a way to deal with the situation this year (no COGAT, etc.), but I wasn't expecting this! It does feel much better to know what happened, although frustrating that it was so hard to find out -- I went through the general DCCAPS email address, my school counselor, and my school principal before contacting Ms. Franklin, but none of them could give me any specifics about my child.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it seems that some kids with lower scores ‘won’ the lottery and that’s bad luck for the high scoring and also deserving kids. I don’t understand how high scorers were not included in the pool when there are clearly kids with lower (still very good) scores in there.

A much simpler way to doing it would have been to select the top scorers, taking into account previous years of MAP scores to account for the pandemic.

True, although the scores may not be the perfect predictor for success in magnet programs.

Honestly, the magnet middle school program could double or triple their seating and not dilute their excellence. Due to seat shortages, it's more selective than either high school or elementary school magnets.

No selection method is perfect, but I would rather have a strictly academic selection method than any other. This isn't so much for the children who get in since I know they'll do well (see above). It's to allow the outliers and higher-scorers to avoid their home school. A bright kid who is on the cusp might be expected to do well at either school, but for a kid who consistently scores higher than anyone else - how can anyone think they'd be fine in their home school? Weren't magnets made for just these children?

I agree but you have to have the top kids there or else it's pointless. At TPMS there's a core group of a dozen kids in each grade who are exceptional. Other kids go there to be with these kids. If they are no longer there then what?

And this top dozen group is uniquely determined by the top dozen MAP scores? I am not trying to be snarky, just curious.

DC's map score is 30 points over the 99% and in the high 270s. The difference in their score and a 99% is the same as that of an 70% and a 99%. However, they did not make the cut. They had straight A's. They are in the CES. They had 99% cog-at when they took it in 3rd and 5's on both PARCs. This is a lottery. Their scores were great but it didn't matter in the end.

They didn't make the cut to be in pool? Or they were in the pool and didn't win the lottery.

270s and straight As are nothing to brag about for a Humanities sixth grader. I’m a little embarrassed for you that those are the stats you think should qualify your kid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here with an update. I'm the one whose child has a 255 MAP-M (and a history of As and 99% MAP scores) who wasn't in the lottery pool. I was able to connect with Jeannie Franklin at the Division of Consortia, Choice, and Application Programs, who was able to tell me that my child was not in the pool because of an "M" in science for the third marking period last year. Super frustrating, since the school told us they were giving Ms in many classes due to "the extended school closure and significant interruptions to the marking period", and the school told us it would have no impact going forward.

At least I now have concrete information to use in an appeal. I'm sharing it here in case it helps others who may be in the same situation. And it does make me think that there weren't school-specific cutoffs to be placed in the pool, but that the discrepancies we're seeing are the results of individual errors like this.

Thank you for the update! What a crappy thing they did to your child. I hope your appeal works, even though my kid is in pool too

I hope your kid gets ultimately selected. It was nice that you shared. In any case, you can sleep knowing that it was a bureaucratic issue not that your kid didn’t make the cut.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here with an update. I'm the one whose child has a 255 MAP-M (and a history of As and 99% MAP scores) who wasn't in the lottery pool. I was able to connect with Jeannie Franklin at the Division of Consortia, Choice, and Application Programs, who was able to tell me that my child was not in the pool because of an "M" in science for the third marking period last year. Super frustrating, since the school told us they were giving Ms in many classes due to "the extended school closure and significant interruptions to the marking period", and the school told us it would have no impact going forward.

At least I now have concrete information to use in an appeal. I'm sharing it here in case it helps others who may be in the same situation. And it does make me think that there weren't school-specific cutoffs to be placed in the pool, but that the discrepancies we're seeing are the results of individual errors like this.

Thank you for the update! What a crappy thing they did to your child. I hope your appeal works, even though my kid is in pool too

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe parents will feel better that their kid was selected for the pool. The reality is that this kid is not getting an actual spot in the magnet.

Yeah, I'm the PP planning an appeal. Now I can move on to being disappointed that my kid didn't get a spot at either magnet, rather than being baffled about why she wasn't in the pool. I was expecting that disappointment given the realities of the process this year

This helps so much, I do recall an M for music but I didn’t think that would matter, I’m not making excuses For getting an M but that is harsh to be not selected in the pool because of one missing assignment in music. Thanks for looking into the matter and good luck with the appeal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe parents will feel better that their kid was selected for the pool. The reality is that this kid is not getting an actual spot in the magnet.

Yeah, I'm the PP planning an appeal. Now I can move on to being disappointed that my kid didn't get a spot at either magnet, rather than being baffled about why she wasn't in the pool. I was expecting that disappointment given the realities of the process this year

Anonymous wrote:Maybe parents will feel better that their kid was selected for the pool. The reality is that this kid is not getting an actual spot in the magnet.

Anonymous wrote:PP here with an update. I'm the one whose child has a 255 MAP-M (and a history of As and 99% MAP scores) who wasn't in the lottery pool. I was able to connect with Jeannie Franklin at the Division of Consortia, Choice, and Application Programs, who was able to tell me that my child was not in the pool because of an "M" in science for the third marking period last year. Super frustrating, since the school told us they were giving Ms in many classes due to "the extended school closure and significant interruptions to the marking period", and the school told us it would have no impact going forward.

At least I now have concrete information to use in an appeal. I'm sharing it here in case it helps others who may be in the same situation. And it does make me think that there weren't school-specific cutoffs to be placed in the pool, but that the discrepancies we're seeing are the results of individual errors like this.

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.

Last year my child had higher map scores than all of these and only got waitlisted for one. It makes zero sense how they do it.