Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People lie and/or exaggerate. The median map r scores for Eastern magnet historically has been 234/235, which is the 94th percentile for Spring 5th grade. My child's compacted math 5/6 teacher left the fall 2017 map scores on her desk while conducting parent teacher meetings. I admit that I looked out of curiosity and noted that only a few kids scored over 260 on MAP M. Most of the kids were in the 230s to 250s. This was at one of the schools mentioned often on this board.

Were these 260+ selected to TP?

2 of them went to TP.

Were they the two who scored the highest on the MAP-M? Were there others below 260 who got in to TPMS? Or do you think MCPS does not really distinguish beyond a certain cutoff?

I don't remember if they were the highest score of the 3 or 4 students who scored the highest in the Fall. However, I do remember that they were the only 2 that were admitted to TPMS and both scored over 260. My child told me that they also scored in the 99% on the CogAt test. I don't think the children lied to my child about their score. My child also scored 99% but had a lower MAP M score in the low 250s, which was also 99% for Fall MAP M 5th grade.

The process last year was not transparent but thought I add my observations about the probable role of MAP scores.

Do you think that they only consider the Fall 5th grade scores? We had a great summer with lots of fun vacations, and always suffer from the summer slide. DC always does worse in the fall, but was phenomenal in the Spring of 4th.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s been stated by others that selection committee has percentiles not raw scores because they aren’t reliable measure at that end.

This argument suggestes that MCPS should use measurement that measures the tail, not using 99% which is even a worse measurement of the tail.

Exactly the opposite. The tail was shown to be especially inaccurate; however, being in the top percentile has statistical certainty.

It’s better than have someone sitting there determining this 99% is better than this 99%. Are there anyone measuring the human error? I doubt even there is consistency in this measurement. If MCPS truly believes there is no way to distinguish the tail, MCPS should expand the magnet program and take all kids in the tail.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s been stated by others that selection committee has percentiles not raw scores because they aren’t reliable measure at that end.

This argument suggestes that MCPS should use measurement that measures the tail, not using 99% which is even a worse measurement of the tail.

Exactly the opposite. The tail was shown to be especially inaccurate; however, being in the top percentile has statistical certainty.

Yes. This is correct. Also, if a school tries to differentiate between scorers above the 99% you are only going to benefit those who have seen more above level curriculum. It’s not something that is encouraged. You don’t want to reward a rush though curriculum.

My child (now in HS) was in a CES, accepted to Eastern waitlisted for TPMS. DC MAP scores were: Spring 5th Grade 257, Spring 6th Grade 257, Spring 7th Grade 262, Spring 8th Grade 273. DC is very good at math, but not a superstar by any means. I don't think he could have kept up with the TPMS school kids and he didn't even try for Blair SMAC. In contrast, his MAP R scores were much lower (247-260) but always the 99th percentile. I have no idea how it works and there were definitely years when he dropped in either fall or spring. Honestly, I don't think it matters all that much.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s been stated by others that selection committee has percentiles not raw scores because they aren’t reliable measure at that end.

This argument suggestes that MCPS should use measurement that measures the tail, not using 99% which is even a worse measurement of the tail.

Exactly the opposite. The tail was shown to be especially inaccurate; however, being in the top percentile has statistical certainty.

The admission criteria is anything but vague. It has been picked over as infinitude on this board.

Anonymous wrote:It’s been stated by others that selection committee has percentiles not raw scores because they aren’t reliable measure at that end.

This argument suggestes that MCPS should use measurement that measures the tail, not using 99% which is even a worse measurement of the tail.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People lie and/or exaggerate. The median map r scores for Eastern magnet historically has been 234/235, which is the 94th percentile for Spring 5th grade. My child's compacted math 5/6 teacher left the fall 2017 map scores on her desk while conducting parent teacher meetings. I admit that I looked out of curiosity and noted that only a few kids scored over 260 on MAP M. Most of the kids were in the 230s to 250s. This was at one of the schools mentioned often on this board.

Were these 260+ selected to TP?

2 of them went to TP.

Were they the two who scored the highest on the MAP-M? Were there others below 260 who got in to TPMS? Or do you think MCPS does not really distinguish beyond a certain cutoff?

MAP isn't really an admission criterion. Or, it wasn't in previous years. It may have been consulted if kid was borderline. Mine had crazy high Raven and not so great quant comp. Fortunately, also high MAP M that winter.

With new admission being more vague, they may be playing more of a role, but I don't think anything definitive has been said about it.

It was in last year’s selection criteria.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People lie and/or exaggerate. The median map r scores for Eastern magnet historically has been 234/235, which is the 94th percentile for Spring 5th grade. My child's compacted math 5/6 teacher left the fall 2017 map scores on her desk while conducting parent teacher meetings. I admit that I looked out of curiosity and noted that only a few kids scored over 260 on MAP M. Most of the kids were in the 230s to 250s. This was at one of the schools mentioned often on this board.

Were these 260+ selected to TP?

2 of them went to TP.

Were they the two who scored the highest on the MAP-M? Were there others below 260 who got in to TPMS? Or do you think MCPS does not really distinguish beyond a certain cutoff?

I don't remember if they were the highest score of the 3 or 4 students who scored the highest in the Fall. However, I do remember that they were the only 2 that were admitted to TPMS and both scored over 260. My child told me that they also scored in the 99% on the CogAt test. I don't think the children lied to my child about their score. My child also scored 99% but had a lower MAP M score in the low 250s, which was also 99% for Fall MAP M 5th grade.

The process last year was not transparent but thought I add my observations about the probable role of MAP scores.

Thanks for sharing!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People lie and/or exaggerate. The median map r scores for Eastern magnet historically has been 234/235, which is the 94th percentile for Spring 5th grade. My child's compacted math 5/6 teacher left the fall 2017 map scores on her desk while conducting parent teacher meetings. I admit that I looked out of curiosity and noted that only a few kids scored over 260 on MAP M. Most of the kids were in the 230s to 250s. This was at one of the schools mentioned often on this board.

Were these 260+ selected to TP?

2 of them went to TP.

Were they the two who scored the highest on the MAP-M? Were there others below 260 who got in to TPMS? Or do you think MCPS does not really distinguish beyond a certain cutoff?

I don't remember if they were the highest score of the 3 or 4 students who scored the highest in the Fall. However, I do remember that they were the only 2 that were admitted to TPMS and both scored over 260. My child told me that they also scored in the 99% on the CogAt test. I don't think the children lied to my child about their score. My child also scored 99% but had a lower MAP M score in the low 250s, which was also 99% for Fall MAP M 5th grade.

The process last year was not transparent but thought I add my observations about the probable role of MAP scores.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People lie and/or exaggerate. The median map r scores for Eastern magnet historically has been 234/235, which is the 94th percentile for Spring 5th grade. My child's compacted math 5/6 teacher left the fall 2017 map scores on her desk while conducting parent teacher meetings. I admit that I looked out of curiosity and noted that only a few kids scored over 260 on MAP M. Most of the kids were in the 230s to 250s. This was at one of the schools mentioned often on this board.

Were these 260+ selected to TP?

2 of them went to TP.

Were they the two who scored the highest on the MAP-M? Were there others below 260 who got in to TPMS? Or do you think MCPS does not really distinguish beyond a certain cutoff?

MAP isn't really an admission criterion. Or, it wasn't in previous years. It may have been consulted if kid was borderline. Mine had crazy high Raven and not so great quant comp. Fortunately, also high MAP M that winter.

With new admission being more vague, they may be playing more of a role, but I don't think anything definitive has been said about it.

No, MAP scores were used as admission criteria last year. It was stated at the info meeting and on all of the q&a docs regarding the pilot last year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People lie and/or exaggerate. The median map r scores for Eastern magnet historically has been 234/235, which is the 94th percentile for Spring 5th grade. My child's compacted math 5/6 teacher left the fall 2017 map scores on her desk while conducting parent teacher meetings. I admit that I looked out of curiosity and noted that only a few kids scored over 260 on MAP M. Most of the kids were in the 230s to 250s. This was at one of the schools mentioned often on this board.

Were these 260+ selected to TP?

2 of them went to TP.

Were they the two who scored the highest on the MAP-M? Were there others below 260 who got in to TPMS? Or do you think MCPS does not really distinguish beyond a certain cutoff?

MAP isn't really an admission criterion. Or, it wasn't in previous years. It may have been consulted if kid was borderline. Mine had crazy high Raven and not so great quant comp. Fortunately, also high MAP M that winter.

With new admission being more vague, they may be playing more of a role, but I don't think anything definitive has been said about it.

It’s been stated by others that selection committee has percentiles not raw scores because they aren’t reliable measure at that end.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People lie and/or exaggerate. The median map r scores for Eastern magnet historically has been 234/235, which is the 94th percentile for Spring 5th grade. My child's compacted math 5/6 teacher left the fall 2017 map scores on her desk while conducting parent teacher meetings. I admit that I looked out of curiosity and noted that only a few kids scored over 260 on MAP M. Most of the kids were in the 230s to 250s. This was at one of the schools mentioned often on this board.

Were these 260+ selected to TP?

2 of them went to TP.

Were they the two who scored the highest on the MAP-M? Were there others below 260 who got in to TPMS? Or do you think MCPS does not really distinguish beyond a certain cutoff?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People lie and/or exaggerate. The median map r scores for Eastern magnet historically has been 234/235, which is the 94th percentile for Spring 5th grade. My child's compacted math 5/6 teacher left the fall 2017 map scores on her desk while conducting parent teacher meetings. I admit that I looked out of curiosity and noted that only a few kids scored over 260 on MAP M. Most of the kids were in the 230s to 250s. This was at one of the schools mentioned often on this board.

Were these 260+ selected to TP?

2 of them went to TP.