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

OMG, 255 parent! That is such s**t. Do the people running the lottery not know that M is missing data? That whole classes or grade levels get them and can do nothing about it? So frustrating!! Good luck with your appeal.

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:It’s the cohort that makes the program strong, not the program makes the cohort strong.

Anonymous wrote:Ugh, mine hates Eureka. What did you supplement with?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am not the poster responded to, but my child got 285 and was in-pool but not selected to Takoma. It happens. No BS.

MCPS sucks!

I feel like there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what a high MAP-M score means. MAP-M does not test ability, it tests knowledge. A high MAP-M score can, to some extent, indicate ability, but only to a point.

Most math curriculum spirals. Take, for example, fractions. In first grade, you learn what a fractional number is and what it means. Then you learn some simple comparisons of fractions to see which one is bigger. Then addition and subtraction of fractions with like denominators. Then equivalent fractions and simplifying. Mixed numbers. Addition and subtraction of fractions with unlike denominators. Multiplication and division of fractions. Converting fractions to decimals and back. This is all over the course of 4-5 years.

A 2nd or 3rd grader, who has learned a little bit about fractions, might be able to figure out how to do some of the harder problems without being taught. That kid would sore well on the MAP-M, but not phenomenally well. Say, 99th %ile for the grade level they're in, but not 99th %ile for 3 or 4 years ahead.

Now say you're testing an age group of kids that haven't been taught fractions at all yet. Most kids see that fraction - 1/3 - and have no idea what the symbol is meant to represent. They can't manipulate it, even if they're really good at math, because they don't know the notation. The kid in that age group who is whizzing through the fraction problems and scores in the 99th %ile for many grades ahead might be really good at math, but they've also been taught fractions outside of the curriculum.

The same is true for other things, especially as you get to the upper grades. No one "just knows" what math symbols and notation mean before they've learned it. A kid with a super high MAP-M score is not just extrapolating from learned knowledge because they're good at math - they've been taught extra math. Now, they might be really good at math AND have been exposed to lots of extra math, but all you can know for sure from a really high MAP-M score is that the child has been exposed to above-grade level math concepts. That might be consistent with their course registration. Like, you'd expect a 6th grader in algebra to score higher than a 6th grader in 6th grade math, because you expect that they've been exposed to more concepts. But if it's not consistent with their course registration, all you really know is that the kid is learning math outside of school.

In general true, but also related to the kid's aptitude in digesting higher level math concept. My DS asked me what "sin and cos" meant after he attended 4th grade fall map. So I briefly taught him the definition of sine and cosine functions with respect to a triangle. Total no more than 10 minutes. He scored the question right at the next map test, at least this was what he told me. MAP is self-adjusted. If you get one question right, you have chance to be challenged with a harder question, or a concept that you've never heard of. Only the ones that are curious of the new concept (i.e., motivation) and aptitude can be exposed to more higher level questions.

Anonymous wrote:To be frankly, my exceptional but not selected kids performed much better in competitions than peers in magnet. Most importantly, they don’t have to wake up so early to catch the magnet bus. They have more time to sleep and study happily at home MS.

Anonymous wrote:It’s the cohort that makes the program strong, not the program makes the cohort strong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Your child's MAP M was over 283? And they didnt get into Takoma? I call BS.

I heard this happened last year so I'm apt to believe it. It could be kids with similar profiles with higher Cogat.

Anonymous wrote:Not "only the ones that are curious." Also the ones taught at home or enrolled in an outside class. As I was when I was young. But in the long term, research shows that can be detriment to a child's higher level understanding of mathematics. And sadly, in my case I can say that was absolutely true.