Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP,

At grade level MAP 99th percentile is really easy. It is based nation wide sample. This area is known to have many high achievers

I got my DC MAP-M score from 3rd Grade (fall) of 244 to 5th Grade of 295 --- not gifted at all

I don't think you can take MAP out of grade level, but maybe I am misunderstanding. Are you talking about comparing the RIT score with RIT scores in higher grade levels?

295 is extremely high for for fifth grade. What makes you say 'not gifted?'

Yeah, 295 is way high. like unheard of high. Maybe the top 8th grade magnet students at TPMS are getting that. 250s is very high for 5th grade, 260s super high.

My DC who attends a w school feeder has a friend who got a 304. They said that six 8th graders at their school got above 300. One even got a 314. It's not as uncommon as you think.

300+ in 8th is 95+% (probably 97+%ile) in W, but 99+% (often 100%ile) almost everywhere else in MCPS.

On the 2020 national norms

Score: 300
Grade percentile

6 99.9995
7 99.996
8 99.98

But in a high performance/wealth urbanized area (town level, not county level), with competitive academic kids, and parents from "test cram" cultures, and free online trainers,
the percentiles are much farther from 100%ile for the 300 score.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You don't seem to understand the use of "percentile." A 99th percentile score can't be "common" because it means the student is above the score of 99% of other students. So that can't be "common."

You don't seem to understand the concept of uneven distribution.

You still don't get it. You can't have a lot of kids in the 99th percentile, because, again, it means the students' score is above 99% of other kids. You can give everyone an A, you can give everyone a medal for participating, but you can't give everyone a 99th percentile score.

Anonymous wrote:You don't seem to understand the use of "percentile." A 99th percentile score can't be "common" because it means the student is above the score of 99% of other students. So that can't be "common."

You don't seem to understand the concept of uneven distribution.

You don't seem to understand the use of "percentile." A 99th percentile score can't be "common" because it means the student is above the score of 99% of other students. So that can't be "common."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP,

At grade level MAP 99th percentile is really easy. It is based nation wide sample. This area is known to have many high achievers

I got my DC MAP-M score from 3rd Grade (fall) of 244 to 5th Grade of 295 --- not gifted at all

I don't think you can take MAP out of grade level, but maybe I am misunderstanding. Are you talking about comparing the RIT score with RIT scores in higher grade levels?

295 is extremely high for for fifth grade. What makes you say 'not gifted?'

Yeah, 295 is way high. like unheard of high. Maybe the top 8th grade magnet students at TPMS are getting that. 250s is very high for 5th grade, 260s super high.

My DC who attends a w school feeder has a friend who got a 304. They said that six 8th graders at their school got above 300. One even got a 314. It's not as uncommon as you think.

My 8th grader is also in the 300s but they were scoring 250 at 8.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP,

At grade level MAP 99th percentile is really easy. It is based nation wide sample. This area is known to have many high achievers

I got my DC MAP-M score from 3rd Grade (fall) of 244 to 5th Grade of 295 --- not gifted at all

I don't think you can take MAP out of grade level, but maybe I am misunderstanding. Are you talking about comparing the RIT score with RIT scores in higher grade levels?

295 is extremely high for for fifth grade. What makes you say 'not gifted?'

Yeah, 295 is way high. like unheard of high. Maybe the top 8th grade magnet students at TPMS are getting that. 250s is very high for 5th grade, 260s super high.

My DC who attends a w school feeder has a friend who got a 304. They said that six 8th graders at their school got above 300. One even got a 314. It's not as uncommon as you think.

Anonymous wrote:Previously posted and exhaustively discussed in the thread "Middle school magnet lottery cutoffs finally revealed":

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1077029.page

Thanks!

Previously posted and exhaustively discussed in the thread "Middle school magnet lottery cutoffs finally revealed":

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1077029.page

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very common and I’m a teacher

Strange, I’ve heard the opposite from teachers who actually administer the tests.

Recent MCPS data has been published. They also share their district averages, which are, as it turns out, very similar to national norms. You can go with known facts or believe in gossip. This is a simple choice.

Oh, I go with the facts, not sure why you’d think otherwise. I’ve said so repeatedly on this thread.. I was just pointing out that my conversations with teachers also support the facts.

Sorry, I meant to support your viewpoint. Now, I can only guess specifics, but based on what we know, a half-dozen out of 100 may score 99% at a low FARMS school. and although this is hardly every kid, but it does exceed national norms.

I think this debate you’re having all depends on where people are coming from. Out our ES - W feeder with low FARMS - I’m not kidding when I say that nearly every parent we talk to about MAP scores reports that their DC got something at or close to 99%. We’re of course self selecting who we discuss this with, but until threads like this one, I assumed that MAP was a fairly easy test to get a 99th percentile on. I’d be genuinely troubled if any of my kids scored less than 95th percentile or so. Not because I think they’re super smart but because my impression is that everyone can score that high. I’m sure there are teachers at our school who would characterize it as pretty common too. District-wide, it’s another story completely. But when people ask “how common is it for x to happen” I think most people answer based on their personal experience and not a nuanced look at the really hard to find data.

And my anecdotal experience is exactly the opposite of your anecdotal experience. Where does that leave us? Also who shares their kids scores with other adults? So weird. Most of my friends wouldn’t even know their kids scores.

It leaves us with the data that MCPS recently released to the MCCPTA group from a year or two ago and the data they routinely publish to parentview.

Absolutely agree. In fact I said pages ago in this thread that the numbers are similar to the national average and that DCUM posters would fall over themselves to explain how and why MCPS is special and different and here we are.

You seem to fall over yourself to defend MCPS's lack of openness by suggesting, in the same breath, that the 2 year old data is recent enough to apply to last year (it isn't) and that medians give a clear picture of distribution (they don't). Whatever you might think about MoCo students being "special" or not, stop shilling for MCPS's continuing failure in this regard.

They seem plenty open to me. I mean, the data they just released last year seems current, and they do publish stats to ParentVue. It seems like nothing short of having access to MCPS' systems would satisfy you. Others have also pointed out that this data just doesn't vary much year over year.

Where did they release this data you’re both referring to? Is that the data that the gifted and talented group has on its closed Facebook group that it got through a FOIA type request?

MPIA responses provided during FY22, referencing MS Magnet criteria drawing from fall 2021 5th-grade MAP scores:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/120BRtShXf9_kQcNvKSxHKG4nJhnyTjL7/view

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1e0Szg2jJ8F1rL2BZSqCV1fb_R1gLwaRl/view

Last URL got cut off. Corrected, above.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very common and I’m a teacher

Strange, I’ve heard the opposite from teachers who actually administer the tests.

Recent MCPS data has been published. They also share their district averages, which are, as it turns out, very similar to national norms. You can go with known facts or believe in gossip. This is a simple choice.

Oh, I go with the facts, not sure why you’d think otherwise. I’ve said so repeatedly on this thread.. I was just pointing out that my conversations with teachers also support the facts.

Sorry, I meant to support your viewpoint. Now, I can only guess specifics, but based on what we know, a half-dozen out of 100 may score 99% at a low FARMS school. and although this is hardly every kid, but it does exceed national norms.

I think this debate you’re having all depends on where people are coming from. Out our ES - W feeder with low FARMS - I’m not kidding when I say that nearly every parent we talk to about MAP scores reports that their DC got something at or close to 99%. We’re of course self selecting who we discuss this with, but until threads like this one, I assumed that MAP was a fairly easy test to get a 99th percentile on. I’d be genuinely troubled if any of my kids scored less than 95th percentile or so. Not because I think they’re super smart but because my impression is that everyone can score that high. I’m sure there are teachers at our school who would characterize it as pretty common too. District-wide, it’s another story completely. But when people ask “how common is it for x to happen” I think most people answer based on their personal experience and not a nuanced look at the really hard to find data.

And my anecdotal experience is exactly the opposite of your anecdotal experience. Where does that leave us? Also who shares their kids scores with other adults? So weird. Most of my friends wouldn’t even know their kids scores.

It leaves us with the data that MCPS recently released to the MCCPTA group from a year or two ago and the data they routinely publish to parentview.

Absolutely agree. In fact I said pages ago in this thread that the numbers are similar to the national average and that DCUM posters would fall over themselves to explain how and why MCPS is special and different and here we are.

You seem to fall over yourself to defend MCPS's lack of openness by suggesting, in the same breath, that the 2 year old data is recent enough to apply to last year (it isn't) and that medians give a clear picture of distribution (they don't). Whatever you might think about MoCo students being "special" or not, stop shilling for MCPS's continuing failure in this regard.

They seem plenty open to me. I mean, the data they just released last year seems current, and they do publish stats to ParentVue. It seems like nothing short of having access to MCPS' systems would satisfy you. Others have also pointed out that this data just doesn't vary much year over year.

Where did they release this data you’re both referring to? Is that the data that the gifted and talented group has on its closed Facebook group that it got through a FOIA type request?

MPIA responses provided during FY22, referencing MS Magnet criteria drawing from fall 2021 5th-grade MAP scores:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/120BRtShXf9_kQcNvKSxHKG4nJhnyTjL7/view

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1e0Szg2jJ8F1rL2BZSqCV1fb_R1gLw

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very common and I’m a teacher

Strange, I’ve heard the opposite from teachers who actually administer the tests.

Recent MCPS data has been published. They also share their district averages, which are, as it turns out, very similar to national norms. You can go with known facts or believe in gossip. This is a simple choice.

Oh, I go with the facts, not sure why you’d think otherwise. I’ve said so repeatedly on this thread.. I was just pointing out that my conversations with teachers also support the facts.

Sorry, I meant to support your viewpoint. Now, I can only guess specifics, but based on what we know, a half-dozen out of 100 may score 99% at a low FARMS school. and although this is hardly every kid, but it does exceed national norms.

I think this debate you’re having all depends on where people are coming from. Out our ES - W feeder with low FARMS - I’m not kidding when I say that nearly every parent we talk to about MAP scores reports that their DC got something at or close to 99%. We’re of course self selecting who we discuss this with, but until threads like this one, I assumed that MAP was a fairly easy test to get a 99th percentile on. I’d be genuinely troubled if any of my kids scored less than 95th percentile or so. Not because I think they’re super smart but because my impression is that everyone can score that high. I’m sure there are teachers at our school who would characterize it as pretty common too. District-wide, it’s another story completely. But when people ask “how common is it for x to happen” I think most people answer based on their personal experience and not a nuanced look at the really hard to find data.

And my anecdotal experience is exactly the opposite of your anecdotal experience. Where does that leave us? Also who shares their kids scores with other adults? So weird. Most of my friends wouldn’t even know their kids scores.

It leaves us with the data that MCPS recently released to the MCCPTA group from a year or two ago and the data they routinely publish to parentview.

Absolutely agree. In fact I said pages ago in this thread that the numbers are similar to the national average and that DCUM posters would fall over themselves to explain how and why MCPS is special and different and here we are.

You seem to fall over yourself to defend MCPS's lack of openness by suggesting, in the same breath, that the 2 year old data is recent enough to apply to last year (it isn't) and that medians give a clear picture of distribution (they don't). Whatever you might think about MoCo students being "special" or not, stop shilling for MCPS's continuing failure in this regard.

They seem plenty open to me. I mean, the data they just released last year seems current, and they do publish stats to ParentVue. It seems like nothing short of having access to MCPS' systems would satisfy you. Others have also pointed out that this data just doesn't vary much year over year.

Wow. Absolutely shocking that you simply repeat the discredited statements. Politic much?

MCPS provided the cutoffs with respect to 5th grade Fall 2021 MAP. They did so only after an MPIA request (and well after any appeal period wherein a more cogent appeal might have been made by families if such data was available), rather than making them (and similar data) public out of a sense of responsibility to the community they serve. They did not provide an update last year, despite the cutoffs clearly having become different. They probably will not provide an update this year. Medians provided on ParentVUE, whether they vary slightly or more than slightly, are essentially meaningless to this discussion. One doesn't need access to MCPS systems or have any individual-student data compromised to provide the information. (Strawman, much?)

But you know all of this, already. Stop shilling for MCPS. Time for Jeff to lock this up, hopefully without a no-new-info, reiterate-the-discredited-claim rejoinder by you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very common and I’m a teacher

Strange, I’ve heard the opposite from teachers who actually administer the tests.

Recent MCPS data has been published. They also share their district averages, which are, as it turns out, very similar to national norms. You can go with known facts or believe in gossip. This is a simple choice.

Oh, I go with the facts, not sure why you’d think otherwise. I’ve said so repeatedly on this thread.. I was just pointing out that my conversations with teachers also support the facts.

Sorry, I meant to support your viewpoint. Now, I can only guess specifics, but based on what we know, a half-dozen out of 100 may score 99% at a low FARMS school. and although this is hardly every kid, but it does exceed national norms.

I think this debate you’re having all depends on where people are coming from. Out our ES - W feeder with low FARMS - I’m not kidding when I say that nearly every parent we talk to about MAP scores reports that their DC got something at or close to 99%. We’re of course self selecting who we discuss this with, but until threads like this one, I assumed that MAP was a fairly easy test to get a 99th percentile on. I’d be genuinely troubled if any of my kids scored less than 95th percentile or so. Not because I think they’re super smart but because my impression is that everyone can score that high. I’m sure there are teachers at our school who would characterize it as pretty common too. District-wide, it’s another story completely. But when people ask “how common is it for x to happen” I think most people answer based on their personal experience and not a nuanced look at the really hard to find data.

And my anecdotal experience is exactly the opposite of your anecdotal experience. Where does that leave us? Also who shares their kids scores with other adults? So weird. Most of my friends wouldn’t even know their kids scores.

It leaves us with the data that MCPS recently released to the MCCPTA group from a year or two ago and the data they routinely publish to parentview.

Absolutely agree. In fact I said pages ago in this thread that the numbers are similar to the national average and that DCUM posters would fall over themselves to explain how and why MCPS is special and different and here we are.

You seem to fall over yourself to defend MCPS's lack of openness by suggesting, in the same breath, that the 2 year old data is recent enough to apply to last year (it isn't) and that medians give a clear picture of distribution (they don't). Whatever you might think about MoCo students being "special" or not, stop shilling for MCPS's continuing failure in this regard.

They seem plenty open to me. I mean, the data they just released last year seems current, and they do publish stats to ParentVue. It seems like nothing short of having access to MCPS' systems would satisfy you. Others have also pointed out that this data just doesn't vary much year over year.

Where did they release this data you’re both referring to? Is that the data that the gifted and talented group has on its closed Facebook group that it got through a FOIA type request?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very common and I’m a teacher

Strange, I’ve heard the opposite from teachers who actually administer the tests.

Recent MCPS data has been published. They also share their district averages, which are, as it turns out, very similar to national norms. You can go with known facts or believe in gossip. This is a simple choice.

Oh, I go with the facts, not sure why you’d think otherwise. I’ve said so repeatedly on this thread.. I was just pointing out that my conversations with teachers also support the facts.

Sorry, I meant to support your viewpoint. Now, I can only guess specifics, but based on what we know, a half-dozen out of 100 may score 99% at a low FARMS school. and although this is hardly every kid, but it does exceed national norms.

I think this debate you’re having all depends on where people are coming from. Out our ES - W feeder with low FARMS - I’m not kidding when I say that nearly every parent we talk to about MAP scores reports that their DC got something at or close to 99%. We’re of course self selecting who we discuss this with, but until threads like this one, I assumed that MAP was a fairly easy test to get a 99th percentile on. I’d be genuinely troubled if any of my kids scored less than 95th percentile or so. Not because I think they’re super smart but because my impression is that everyone can score that high. I’m sure there are teachers at our school who would characterize it as pretty common too. District-wide, it’s another story completely. But when people ask “how common is it for x to happen” I think most people answer based on their personal experience and not a nuanced look at the really hard to find data.

And my anecdotal experience is exactly the opposite of your anecdotal experience. Where does that leave us? Also who shares their kids scores with other adults? So weird. Most of my friends wouldn’t even know their kids scores.

It leaves us with the data that MCPS recently released to the MCCPTA group from a year or two ago and the data they routinely publish to parentview.

Absolutely agree. In fact I said pages ago in this thread that the numbers are similar to the national average and that DCUM posters would fall over themselves to explain how and why MCPS is special and different and here we are.

You seem to fall over yourself to defend MCPS's lack of openness by suggesting, in the same breath, that the 2 year old data is recent enough to apply to last year (it isn't) and that medians give a clear picture of distribution (they don't). Whatever you might think about MoCo students being "special" or not, stop shilling for MCPS's continuing failure in this regard.

They seem plenty open to me. I mean, the data they just released last year seems current, and they do publish stats to ParentVue. It seems like nothing short of having access to MCPS' systems would satisfy you. Others have also pointed out that this data just doesn't vary much year over year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very common and I’m a teacher

Strange, I’ve heard the opposite from teachers who actually administer the tests.

Recent MCPS data has been published. They also share their district averages, which are, as it turns out, very similar to national norms. You can go with known facts or believe in gossip. This is a simple choice.

Oh, I go with the facts, not sure why you’d think otherwise. I’ve said so repeatedly on this thread.. I was just pointing out that my conversations with teachers also support the facts.

Sorry, I meant to support your viewpoint. Now, I can only guess specifics, but based on what we know, a half-dozen out of 100 may score 99% at a low FARMS school. and although this is hardly every kid, but it does exceed national norms.

I think this debate you’re having all depends on where people are coming from. Out our ES - W feeder with low FARMS - I’m not kidding when I say that nearly every parent we talk to about MAP scores reports that their DC got something at or close to 99%. We’re of course self selecting who we discuss this with, but until threads like this one, I assumed that MAP was a fairly easy test to get a 99th percentile on. I’d be genuinely troubled if any of my kids scored less than 95th percentile or so. Not because I think they’re super smart but because my impression is that everyone can score that high. I’m sure there are teachers at our school who would characterize it as pretty common too. District-wide, it’s another story completely. But when people ask “how common is it for x to happen” I think most people answer based on their personal experience and not a nuanced look at the really hard to find data.

And my anecdotal experience is exactly the opposite of your anecdotal experience. Where does that leave us? Also who shares their kids scores with other adults? So weird. Most of my friends wouldn’t even know their kids scores.

It leaves us with the data that MCPS recently released to the MCCPTA group from a year or two ago and the data they routinely publish to parentview.

Absolutely agree. In fact I said pages ago in this thread that the numbers are similar to the national average and that DCUM posters would fall over themselves to explain how and why MCPS is special and different and here we are.

You seem to fall over yourself to defend MCPS's lack of openness by suggesting, in the same breath, that the 2 year old data is recent enough to apply to last year (it isn't) and that medians give a clear picture of distribution (they don't). Whatever you might think about MoCo students being "special" or not, stop shilling for MCPS's continuing failure in this regard.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very common and I’m a teacher

A teacher at a CES? If so, could you comment on whether the curriculum and rigor of the program has changed after MCPS lowered the admission standard so much for kids from some schools and switched to a lottery?

DP.

It's literacy. The "curriculum" isn't really important. What matters is how the children react to it. A brilliant precocious excited kid can write an amazing essay, and a dull, slow, bored kid can write a bad essay, in response to the same book.


It's not like math where you have to change the content to pose harder problems on more topics for advanced kids, while the slower kids need more time to study and review before moving on.

That can’t be right. Of course the curriculum matters. As in, the books the students read, the pace at which they’re expected to read them, the way they’re taught to analyze the text and the methods taught to write about them.

Before they changed the admission standard the kids in these classes were all among the strongest readers in the county with MAP-R scores in the high 90s. Now, kids from high FARMS schools scoring in the 70th percentile are attending. You’re saying that teachers would give a classroom of kids filled with readers who are 2 or 3 grade levels above the average reading level the same novel to read and analyze as the book they’d give a kid who is just on reading level?

DDP. While I see what you are saying, bringing a highly able student up to speed in reading might be easier than in math.

Separately, since MAP scores are exposure-based, a highly able kid from a high FARMS school might simply not have had the exposure, as the teachers needed to address the presumably larger group of more challenged students.

That's where the idea of using local norming comes in, but it's fidelity to underlying ability is tenuous. Better to find and use a more directly ability-based evaluation.

In any case, we shouldn't assume that those with MAP scores in the 70th %ile under more difficult conditions are less able than those scoring 95+ with high performing cohorts and better family supports. However, failing to address the needs of all those 95+ students (or 90+, or 70+ at high FARMS, or better identified in another manner) robustly is terrible.

Thanks - but my point wasn't to call into question the wisdom of lowering the admission standards for students from high FARMS schools. It was about, in reality - in practice, how has that changed the program., if at all Wanted to see if anyone had real experience with CES after these changes to the cohort were implemented rather than the "might be" and "shouldn't assume" stuff you mentioned about the reasoning behind the change.