Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tea on Fall MAP 6+ scores for advanced students in 5th/6th grade, from the future TMZ writers in my neighborhood

230-260 for kids in Compacted 5/6
250-280 for kids in AMP 7+ / AIM
270-290+ for kids in Algebra

Advanced Students tend to score higher than higher-grade-level students enrolled in the same course level.
This is likely an artefact of MCPS being conservative in accelerating/advancing students.

The 5th graders did not report falling off their growth curve compared to past years' MAP-M 3-5 score trends

It’s obvious these MAP 6+ scores are inflated compared to national norms. 290+ is in the 99 percentile of 12th graders and indicates mastery way beyond Algebra.

Anonymous wrote:Tea on Fall MAP 6+ scores for advanced students in 5th/6th grade, from the future TMZ writers in my neighborhood

230-260 for kids in Compacted 5/6
250-280 for kids in AMP 7+ / AIM
270-290+ for kids in Algebra

Advanced Students tend to score higher than higher-grade-level students enrolled in the same course level.
This is likely an artefact of MCPS being conservative in accelerating/advancing students.

The 5th graders did not report falling off their growth curve compared to past years' MAP-M 3-5 score trends

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m guessing there will be a separate lottery for the CM students and the regular, each being in the top 15 percentile in each group? Otherwise it’s apples and oranges and wouldn’t make sense. This is pure speculation—I have no idea how this will affect the lottery.

Not really; NWEA RIT scores have percentages based on grade level. I haven't seen data for 5th graders taking the 6th grade test but it likely exists and can be applied.

NWEA doesn't differentiate percentile based on which version of the test is given, relying on the adaptive nature of the test to produce a continuum of RIT scores. That may work when considering averages across large populations or, to some degree, when looking at a longitudinal series of tests for an individual. However, there appears to be high individual variation seen at single test points when adding higher-level questions to the mix (such as at the grade 6+ version of the test). This showcases the infidelity to underlying ability/achievement of these kinds of tests when utilizing a single-point-in-time score (beyond any concern related to utilization of single data points as litmus tests for such decisions) -- the adaptive algorithm might present something it considers, say, 7th-grade level, which the student might not know, and then will "shift down" even if the student knows other sub-subject content at that or a higher level, which then doesn't get tested in the first place.

Yes, I know that adaptive tests may throw more than one question in at a particular level to counter this tendency, but, given the relatively few questions asked/short time allocated for these "untimed" tests and the 4 sub-subject areas covered, MAP doesn't really achieve adequate statistical certainty for an individual. This is among the reasons that, when not for a testing period used for selection criteria, families shouldn't worry too much about a one-off lower MAP score than expected. At the same time, families that can coach their children on test-taking skills (that tend to optimize expression of mastered content) create a distinct advantage towards selection.

It's not as if MAP is a terrible tool. It can be quite good as a guide for teaching if not relied upon in the absence of good classroom observation, and broad results (county-wide or school-wide averages, where that variation can be viewed though a proper stochastic lens) can help evaluate, say, curricular effectiveness. It's just a poor choice to be used in placement decisions (especially absent other system-independent measures) as MCPS does for their magnets.

By the way, those kids taking Math 5/6? MCPS also does not take their more rigorous course of study into account when reviewing the grade litmus used for inclusion in the criteria-based Math/Science/Computer Science magnet middle school lottery pool (and local-school AIM placement). This is only another of the several things that contribute to their approach failing to distinguish apples from oranges (and nectarines, and pears, and...).

Presuming no change from last year (they won't have OSA review until this coming spring), a student needs to get an A this quarter whether taking Math 5 or Math 5/6. That's along with an A in Science, an ON/ABV report card reading level, and hitting the required FARMS-rate-based, locally-normed MAP %ile, the currently used tables for which can be found, here:

resources.njgifted.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/2020-NWEA-Math-Norms.pdf

There are adjustments MCPS makes on an individual basis for IEP, 504, EML and FARMS (collectively, "students receiving services"), but they do not reveal what these adjustments entail.

Exactly the chart has grade level and gives a percent. So, for 5th graders who got score X, they are at percent Y. This would be different for 5th graders who took the 6th-grade test than for 5th graders who took the more straightforward test. The percentage would fairly reflect their knowledge, so it seems perfectly fair.

True, I am not sure why this is hard to comprehend for some.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does MCPS really want kids qualifying for magnet AIM who have only gotten through Math 5 content? They should make 5/6 AND a high MAP score a prereq for inclusion in the MS math/science lottery.

If they have a high MAP score, that means they got through Math 5/6 content, regardless of what class they are enrolled in.

Except they are taking g a different test that is easier. If they had to take the 6+ test like the 5/6 kids do then your argument would make more sense

The tests have overlapping content.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does MCPS really want kids qualifying for magnet AIM who have only gotten through Math 5 content? They should make 5/6 AND a high MAP score a prereq for inclusion in the MS math/science lottery.

If they have a high MAP score, that means they got through Math 5/6 content, regardless of what class they are enrolled in.

Except they are taking g a different test that is easier. If they had to take the 6+ test like the 5/6 kids do then your argument would make more sense

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does MCPS really want kids qualifying for magnet AIM who have only gotten through Math 5 content? They should make 5/6 AND a high MAP score a prereq for inclusion in the MS math/science lottery.

If they have a high MAP score, that means they got through Math 5/6 content, regardless of what class they are enrolled in.

Anonymous wrote:Does MCPS really want kids qualifying for magnet AIM who have only gotten through Math 5 content? They should make 5/6 AND a high MAP score a prereq for inclusion in the MS math/science lottery.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m guessing there will be a separate lottery for the CM students and the regular, each being in the top 15 percentile in each group? Otherwise it’s apples and oranges and wouldn’t make sense. This is pure speculation—I have no idea how this will affect the lottery.

Not really; NWEA RIT scores have percentages based on grade level. I haven't seen data for 5th graders taking the 6th grade test but it likely exists and can be applied.

NWEA doesn't differentiate percentile based on which version of the test is given, relying on the adaptive nature of the test to produce a continuum of RIT scores. That may work when considering averages across large populations or, to some degree, when looking at a longitudinal series of tests for an individual. However, there appears to be high individual variation seen at single test points when adding higher-level questions to the mix (such as at the grade 6+ version of the test). This showcases the infidelity to underlying ability/achievement of these kinds of tests when utilizing a single-point-in-time score (beyond any concern related to utilization of single data points as litmus tests for such decisions) -- the adaptive algorithm might present something it considers, say, 7th-grade level, which the student might not know, and then will "shift down" even if the student knows other sub-subject content at that or a higher level, which then doesn't get tested in the first place.

Yes, I know that adaptive tests may throw more than one question in at a particular level to counter this tendency, but, given the relatively few questions asked/short time allocated for these "untimed" tests and the 4 sub-subject areas covered, MAP doesn't really achieve adequate statistical certainty for an individual. This is among the reasons that, when not for a testing period used for selection criteria, families shouldn't worry too much about a one-off lower MAP score than expected. At the same time, families that can coach their children on test-taking skills (that tend to optimize expression of mastered content) create a distinct advantage towards selection.

It's not as if MAP is a terrible tool. It can be quite good as a guide for teaching if not relied upon in the absence of good classroom observation, and broad results (county-wide or school-wide averages, where that variation can be viewed though a proper stochastic lens) can help evaluate, say, curricular effectiveness. It's just a poor choice to be used in placement decisions (especially absent other system-independent measures) as MCPS does for their magnets.

By the way, those kids taking Math 5/6? MCPS also does not take their more rigorous course of study into account when reviewing the grade litmus used for inclusion in the criteria-based Math/Science/Computer Science magnet middle school lottery pool (and local-school AIM placement). This is only another of the several things that contribute to their approach failing to distinguish apples from oranges (and nectarines, and pears, and...).

Presuming no change from last year (they won't have OSA review until this coming spring), a student needs to get an A this quarter whether taking Math 5 or Math 5/6. That's along with an A in Science, an ON/ABV report card reading level, and hitting the required FARMS-rate-based, locally-normed MAP %ile, the currently used tables for which can be found, here:

resources.njgifted.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/2020-NWEA-Math-Norms.pdf

There are adjustments MCPS makes on an individual basis for IEP, 504, EML and FARMS (collectively, "students receiving services"), but they do not reveal what these adjustments entail.

Exactly the chart has grade level and gives a percent. So, for 5th graders who got score X, they are at percent Y. This would be different for 5th graders who took the 6th-grade test than for 5th graders who took the more straightforward test. The percentage would fairly reflect their knowledge, so it seems perfectly fair.

Anonymous wrote:Tea on Fall MAP 6+ scores for advanced students in 5th/6th grade, from the future TMZ writers in my neighborhood

230-260 for kids in Compacted 5/6
250-280 for kids in AMP 7+ / AIM
270-290+ for kids in Algebra

Advanced Students tend to score higher than higher-grade-level students enrolled in the same course level.
This is likely an artefact of MCPS being conservative in accelerating/advancing students.

The 5th graders did not report falling off their growth curve compared to past years' MAP-M 3-5 score trends

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I alluded to this in another thread, but if MCPS were to simply offer an ELC of sorts for MS students, this would eliminate a lot of the “do or die” high stakes competition + lottery for the MS magnet that has even fewer seats than CES.

It would not take a rocket scientist to teach a MS “ELC” class—most of those teachers currently teaching English for MS I’m sure would be able to step up the rigor.

Before ELC was extended to most ESs, CES was a big deal, but now it’s probably preferable to do ELC in your home school because it is not in a higher poverty school. Honestly I’m relieved my kid is not going to their designated CES because the school looks like it’s in a trailer park and my parents would have been alarmed for their grandkid.

I mean, let's leave aside the gross nature of your last sentence for a minute and focus on the "ELC for MS" idea. MCPS had that until about four years ago. Honors English was different than grade-level English and the Honors English kids were asked to read and analyze higher level texts. Then, they got it into their heads that Honors English was inequitable, so they made all section of English into "Honors" through grade 10. So, your options are Honors English, Honors English for English Language Learners, and Honors English for Inclusion.

Rather than whinging about kids taking MAP 6+, I really wish the parents on this board would get their heads in the game and focus on something that MCPS might be willing to reconsider.