Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think some parents with kids who had higher scores are justifiably upset about the lack of transparency and the fact it obviously wasn't a straight lottery.

MCPS will never release the recipe for the secret sauce. If they did, too many parents would try to game it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry PP. They should have provided you with an explanation. FWIW I have a child who was in 5th last year with a 250 and change MAP-M, all As for everything, and 99th Cogat math who was in the wait pool for TPMS. It's possible that if this were not a pandemic year your child would not have even made the wait pool so at least with the lottery he has some kind of chance.

Yes, I completely understand, a 240 is not an amazing score by any means, and I honestly didn’t expect him to get in prepandemic. But, by hearing about others who had much lower scores make the cut, it makes it frustrating because I can’t understand MCPS’s logic. What was so overwhelming in those kids that they were considered, despite lower scores that my DS wasn’t? I just wish we knew what was hurting our chances. I mean, he’ll have to go through this again for high school so it would be good to know, that’s all. Congrats to the other PP who was able to successfully appeal, its well deserved.

Will your child be in the enriched classes? Sorry PP!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry PP. They should have provided you with an explanation. FWIW I have a child who was in 5th last year with a 250 and change MAP-M, all As for everything, and 99th Cogat math who was in the wait pool for TPMS. It's possible that if this were not a pandemic year your child would not have even made the wait pool so at least with the lottery he has some kind of chance.

Yes, I completely understand, a 240 is not an amazing score by any means, and I honestly didn’t expect him to get in prepandemic. But, by hearing about others who had much lower scores make the cut, it makes it frustrating because I can’t understand MCPS’s logic. What was so overwhelming in those kids that they were considered, despite lower scores that my DS wasn’t? I just wish we knew what was hurting our chances. I mean, he’ll have to go through this again for high school so it would be good to know, that’s all. Congrats to the other PP who was able to successfully appeal, its well deserved.

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.

PP back again with an update -- just got an email that the appeal was successful and my kid is now in the pool. I know the odds are low of getting a spot at this point, but I'm still glad to be in the pool, both for the slim chance at the magnet and for the guaranteed placement in the enriched class at the local middle school.

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.

PP back again with an update -- just got an email that the appeal was successful and my kid is now in the pool. I know the odds are low of getting a spot at this point, but I'm still glad to be in the pool, both for the slim chance at the magnet and for the guaranteed placement in the enriched class at the local middle school.

The other PP with the MAP of 240 for math, appeal was not successful. Im really frustrated with the whole selection process as it was never explained why with a score in the 98 percentile, he did even get considered, and yes his math grades were As and his third grade cogat was in 99 percentile for national and MCPS. And now if they take away AIM as rumors are spreading, we’ll have to figure out some sort of supplement.

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry PP. They should have provided you with an explanation. FWIW I have a child who was in 5th last year with a 250 and change MAP-M, all As for everything, and 99th Cogat math who was in the wait pool for TPMS. It's possible that if this were not a pandemic year your child would not have even made the wait pool so at least with the lottery he has some kind of chance.

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.

PP back again with an update -- just got an email that the appeal was successful and my kid is now in the pool. I know the odds are low of getting a spot at this point, but I'm still glad to be in the pool, both for the slim chance at the magnet and for the guaranteed placement in the enriched class at the local middle school.

The other PP with the MAP of 240 for math, appeal was not successful. Im really frustrated with the whole selection process as it was never explained why with a score in the 98 percentile, he did even get considered, and yes his math grades were As and his third grade cogat was in 99 percentile for national and MCPS. And now if they take away AIM as rumors are spreading, we’ll have to figure out some sort of supplement.

I thought they looked at all grades, not just math.

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.

PP back again with an update -- just got an email that the appeal was successful and my kid is now in the pool. I know the odds are low of getting a spot at this point, but I'm still glad to be in the pool, both for the slim chance at the magnet and for the guaranteed placement in the enriched class at the local middle school.

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.

PP back again with an update -- just got an email that the appeal was successful and my kid is now in the pool. I know the odds are low of getting a spot at this point, but I'm still glad to be in the pool, both for the slim chance at the magnet and for the guaranteed placement in the enriched class at the local middle school.

The other PP with the MAP of 240 for math, appeal was not successful. Im really frustrated with the whole selection process as it was never explained why with a score in the 98 percentile, he did even get considered, and yes his math grades were As and his third grade cogat was in 99 percentile for national and MCPS. And now if they take away AIM as rumors are spreading, we’ll have to figure out some sort of supplement.

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.

PP back again with an update -- just got an email that the appeal was successful and my kid is now in the pool. I know the odds are low of getting a spot at this point, but I'm still glad to be in the pool, both for the slim chance at the magnet and for the guaranteed placement in the enriched class at the local middle school.

The other PP with the MAP of 240 for math, appeal was not successful. Im really frustrated with the whole selection process as it was never explained why with a score in the 98 percentile, he did even get considered, and yes his math grades were As and his third grade cogat was in 99 percentile for national and MCPS. And now if they take away AIM as rumors are spreading, we’ll have to figure out some sort of supplement.

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.

PP back again with an update -- just got an email that the appeal was successful and my kid is now in the pool. I know the odds are low of getting a spot at this point, but I'm still glad to be in the pool, both for the slim chance at the magnet and for the guaranteed placement in the enriched class at the local middle school.

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.