CES Lottery

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So you think kids who didn’t get in the lottery have a chance to get elc? My kid had a higher score in the fall but his score fell on the winter map. He would have been placed in the lottery based on the fall score. It seems like bad luck, if his scores were reversed he would qualify!

Teacher PP here--I would like to think so, for the reasons you just mentioned. The year before last when we were making classes for compacted math, we were held to county criteria that dropped nearly all of our rising 5th graders from compacted math. It was very frustrating and nobody was pleased. Last spring, when preparing for this school year, that restriction had changed and we were able to move students into the class based on a number of factors. Some kids can handle the work but don't perform on tests, others have a strong interest in pushing themselves and want to try it, and I've had some kids that just have a spark and I think they could handle a little more challenge. And of course, parent input can make a difference too. It's just better, in my opinion, if the people that know the students and know the demands of the curriculum have a voice in the process, vs just relying on one score. Especially if that one score is going to gatekeep the opportunity. I'm all for allowing capable students the opportunity to prove themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you think kids who didn’t get in the lottery have a chance to get elc? My kid had a higher score in the fall but his score fell on the winter map. He would have been placed in the lottery based on the fall score. It seems like bad luck, if his scores were reversed he would qualify!

Teacher PP here--I would like to think so, for the reasons you just mentioned. The year before last when we were making classes for compacted math, we were held to county criteria that dropped nearly all of our rising 5th graders from compacted math. It was very frustrating and nobody was pleased. Last spring, when preparing for this school year, that restriction had changed and we were able to move students into the class based on a number of factors. Some kids can handle the work but don't perform on tests, others have a strong interest in pushing themselves and want to try it, and I've had some kids that just have a spark and I think they could handle a little more challenge. And of course, parent input can make a difference too. It's just better, in my opinion, if the people that know the students and know the demands of the curriculum have a voice in the process, vs just relying on one score. Especially if that one score is going to gatekeep the opportunity. I'm all for allowing capable students the opportunity to prove themselves.

(New poster ) Thanks for the input! Our child didn’t qualify for the lottery, and we frankly don’t know if ELC is suitable for her, but we are hoping that it’s more flexible than the lottery cut-off and her teacher/school take other factors into consideration. Like the PP’s kid, she had a higher MAP-R in the fall, and her grades are right on the cusp, but improving as she figures out how to take tests.

From a practical perspective, does a child’s acceptance into ELC or compacted math or whatever impact middle school/high school placement? I was a late bloomer academically, and it would suck if she was the same way and tracking at this age meant later academic opportunities were automatically closed off.
My main goal right now is to get her a solid foundation in reading, writing, math and critical thinking skills, so she can do as well as she wants when she’s in higher grades and not hate school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Question for parents who have kids who didn’t make the lottery but are bright and above grade level in reading. Scores above 89th percentile. Are you worried about not getting elc next year?

Are there plans to further expand ELC next school year?

Our home school hosts a CES and I swear they looked at me like I had three heads when I asked what literacy enrichment was available for "neighborhood" kids (ie not in the CES). Our school does not have ELC and I have not heard anything about it being expanded to more schools in 2023-24... It was my impression from my limited involvement with the gifted advocacy arm of the MCCPTA that CES-hosting schools were not being considered for any further special programs or curriculum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We got the wait-pool for Oakview. Of course the challenge is that Oakview is out home school so we need to check with the principal about how they do ELC with the few local kids who are not in the CES.

I'm the PP whose local school also hosts a CES.

Oakview is not on the list:
https://www2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/enriched/programs/elc

Very frustrating that they somehow think kids in these hosting schools who aren't in the CES program somehow don't need extra enrichment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We got the wait-pool for Oakview. Of course the challenge is that Oakview is out home school so we need to check with the principal about how they do ELC with the few local kids who are not in the CES.

I'm the PP whose local school also hosts a CES.

Oakview is not on the list:
https://www2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/enriched/programs/elc

Very frustrating that they somehow think kids in these hosting schools who aren't in the CES program somehow don't need extra enrichment.

Yeah. It makes literally no sense. And at other schools ALL the 4th graders are being placed in ELC. So you have kids who need enrichment being prevented from accessing it (like the child at Oakview) and kids who are not showing a need for enrichment being given above grade level texts and novel studies that aren’t suited to where their abilities currently are. It is unbelievable to me how there are dozens of people being hired for Central office but they don’t streamline what curriculum is being used and leave that up to individual principals.

[Anonymous]

I am confused with CES or ELA or advanced math etc. What is Rachel carson ES? Can someone give me details please?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you think kids who didn’t get in the lottery have a chance to get elc? My kid had a higher score in the fall but his score fell on the winter map. He would have been placed in the lottery based on the fall score. It seems like bad luck, if his scores were reversed he would qualify!

Teacher PP here--I would like to think so, for the reasons you just mentioned. The year before last when we were making classes for compacted math, we were held to county criteria that dropped nearly all of our rising 5th graders from compacted math. It was very frustrating and nobody was pleased. Last spring, when preparing for this school year, that restriction had changed and we were able to move students into the class based on a number of factors. Some kids can handle the work but don't perform on tests, others have a strong interest in pushing themselves and want to try it, and I've had some kids that just have a spark and I think they could handle a little more challenge. And of course, parent input can make a difference too. It's just better, in my opinion, if the people that know the students and know the demands of the curriculum have a voice in the process, vs just relying on one score. Especially if that one score is going to gatekeep the opportunity. I'm all for allowing capable students the opportunity to prove themselves.

(New poster ) Thanks for the input! Our child didn’t qualify for the lottery, and we frankly don’t know if ELC is suitable for her, but we are hoping that it’s more flexible than the lottery cut-off and her teacher/school take other factors into consideration. Like the PP’s kid, she had a higher MAP-R in the fall, and her grades are right on the cusp, but improving as she figures out how to take tests.

From a practical perspective, does a child’s acceptance into ELC or compacted math or whatever impact middle school/high school placement? I was a late bloomer academically, and it would suck if she was the same way and tracking at this age meant later academic opportunities were automatically closed off.
My main goal right now is to get her a solid foundation in reading, writing, math and critical thinking skills, so she can do as well as she wants when she’s in higher grades and not hate school.

My understanding is that it does not. My child is in 7th grade now. At least at the time, going into 6th, I don’t think being in compacted math automatically meant a kid would be in AIM in 6th. The central office review for the math and humanities magnets was like how the CES lottery is so if a kid qualified for the humanities lottery but didn’t get a spot, they’d be placed in the advanced history/humanities class at their home school (HIGH). And if they qualified for the math magnet but didn’t get a spot, they’d be placed in AIM in 6th in their home school. I think there was the ability to also get into an advanced class based on teacher recommendation, but maybe someone else knows for sure. Anecdotally, my child has a classmate who wasn’t in AIM in 6th, but was placed in Algebra I in 7th, so there seems to be room for movement even outside of the times when there’s a central office review.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS should stop wasting money on surveys and contractors and start focusing on properly educating all the kids who meet the parameters for CES/enrichment/magnet schools. Or perhaps MCPS needs to also ask why so many kids qualify for these enhancement programs? Maybe educational standards need to go up. These lotteries are ridiculous.

Agreed.

+1 Maybe raise the bar to top 2 percent, the way CTY does, to enter the lottery, and moderate or high FARMs can be locally normed.

Maybe we could actually dedicate money and resources to expanding the enriched studies program so that every kid who qualifies can access that instruction.

Most of the new funds this past year went to increasing the number of Central Office positions.

While there may be new central office positions, ELC is also expanding to all schools so there is supposed to be enrichment available at all schools. How the implement it we will see, but I've heard great things about it from other schools. I find this encouraging.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
IEP 504 FARMS and ESOL are all positive factors for consideration when applying to these special programs

Please provide a source for this. I really think you are incorrect.

If you have the IEP 504 FARMS and ESOL factor, you are not "Locally Normed". With 85%, you are in the lottery.
If you don't have the above factor, depends, but in a low moderate FARM school, 96% will NOT be in the lottery.
They will adjust points to make it locally normed, and you are not in the lottery anymore. 96 - 12 = 84% percentile

I was on the MCPS website a while ago, where they listed admission factors to the application special programs. You'll have to find it yourself since I didn't save the link. It's also been discussed on this board numerous times. Again you'll need to search yourself to find those threads but it really isn't that hard.

PP is correct. Look under FAQs
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jmQmo4UZDowNzddfXA56UtyB0KJPSfwiGi9oqqVT1OI/mobilebasic

I am very familiar with the FAQs. Nowhere in it does it say you are not “locally normed” if you have a 504 or receive FARMS, etc. You assumed/inferred that. I understand how local norming works. I promise you the MCCPTA gifted Ed committee has tried very very hard to get AEI to clarify how these student services are incorporated into the process and has asked if there is a separate lottery for those students or if they have different thresholds. AEI has not answered this question.

I don’t think you are reading the criteria very thoroughly. It says SpEd, ELD, 504, etc, are some of the measures that are used to evaluate students for the program. While it doesn’t say these students will not be locally normed, these are factors that are taken into account.

I assure you I’m reading it thoroughly. As I said, I am aware those are some of the criteria they are using in the process. I just take issue with the assumption a PP is making that being a student with one of those identifications confers some type of advantage or thumb on the scale in the process. It does not. Or perhaps it does. But it is not explained. If you look down to number 10 on the FAQ, it essentially says even if your kid is identified and wins the lottery, if you are a member if one of these special populations, your team can recommend that you not go forward with the CES placement. I truly think they norm everybody’s scores and then for students who have IEPs or ESOL or whatever else, they take a second look at their data and supports/accommodations needed to see if they can provide it within the CES program. If they can, kid gets the offer. If not, kid does not. Vast majority of kids with IEPs, ESOL, etc are not in the top 15 percent to begin with. Of course some are, but it’s not thousands of kids.

Their site makes it clear it does but the earlier poster here seemed to think it counted against a kid which is not only false but illegal.

+1 So the question is whether SpEd, ELD, etc, counts for or against the student. If being SpEd, for example, counts against the student, that is illegal. So the fact that SpEd, ELD, etc, are factors, and they are not negative factors -- the only remaining choice is that they are positive factors. If they were "neutral" factors, then they would not be factors at all and why would they even mention these in FAQs.

I explained one plausible way they could be used as factors. I think one poster is imagining them sort of like “hooks” for college admissions. Like you get an extra point in a point system for legacy or athlete or first gen or whatnot. This lottery isn’t that complex. They use data to get a list of those who have the A grades in the particular marking period and the MAP scores in a particular semester. They put those student IDs into a lottery pool and use a random number generator to select the winners, to whom they offer seats. If you think being part of these special populations is a “positive factor” how exactly do you think it’s happening in the process? Literally describe how that would work with the lottery pool.

Have no idea how they take SpEd, etc, into account in relation to scores. Like, maybe they widen the MAP threshold similar to that of high FARMs? I agree transparency should be a requirement for all publicly funded criteria-based programs so everyone can see if the process is fair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you think kids who didn’t get in the lottery have a chance to get elc? My kid had a higher score in the fall but his score fell on the winter map. He would have been placed in the lottery based on the fall score. It seems like bad luck, if his scores were reversed he would qualify!

Teacher PP here--I would like to think so, for the reasons you just mentioned. The year before last when we were making classes for compacted math, we were held to county criteria that dropped nearly all of our rising 5th graders from compacted math. It was very frustrating and nobody was pleased. Last spring, when preparing for this school year, that restriction had changed and we were able to move students into the class based on a number of factors. Some kids can handle the work but don't perform on tests, others have a strong interest in pushing themselves and want to try it, and I've had some kids that just have a spark and I think they could handle a little more challenge. And of course, parent input can make a difference too. It's just better, in my opinion, if the people that know the students and know the demands of the curriculum have a voice in the process, vs just relying on one score. Especially if that one score is going to gatekeep the opportunity. I'm all for allowing capable students the opportunity to prove themselves.

(New poster ) Thanks for the input! Our child didn’t qualify for the lottery, and we frankly don’t know if ELC is suitable for her, but we are hoping that it’s more flexible than the lottery cut-off and her teacher/school take other factors into consideration. Like the PP’s kid, she had a higher MAP-R in the fall, and her grades are right on the cusp, but improving as she figures out how to take tests.

From a practical perspective, does a child’s acceptance into ELC or compacted math or whatever impact middle school/high school placement? I was a late bloomer academically, and it would suck if she was the same way and tracking at this age meant later academic opportunities were automatically closed off.
My main goal right now is to get her a solid foundation in reading, writing, math and critical thinking skills, so she can do as well as she wants when she’s in higher grades and not hate school.

You would need compacted to end up in Algebra in 7th and Algebra 2 in 9th. Now that's not the end of the world but my point is it will effect math placement. There probably are some rare exceptions but in general this is true.

[Anonymous]

For those of you who got a seat, how long do you have to make a decision? Would like to understand when waitlist offers might come through. Thanks!

[Anonymous]

My kid was offered a seat at Barnsley.

For context, our home school is low-moderate FARMS, kid had MAP-R 222 and 220 in fall and winter this year, 98th and 95th percentile.

They are hosting an open house the week after spring break.

The deadline to make a decision is April 24.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
IEP 504 FARMS and ESOL are all positive factors for consideration when applying to these special programs

Please provide a source for this. I really think you are incorrect.

If you have the IEP 504 FARMS and ESOL factor, you are not "Locally Normed". With 85%, you are in the lottery.
If you don't have the above factor, depends, but in a low moderate FARM school, 96% will NOT be in the lottery.
They will adjust points to make it locally normed, and you are not in the lottery anymore. 96 - 12 = 84% percentile


Based on the appeal we filed, we found out you are locally normed but the threshold you need is lower. You don’t need to be in the top 15 percent. You can have a lower percentile locally normed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for parents who have kids who didn’t make the lottery but are bright and above grade level in reading. Scores above 89th percentile. Are you worried about not getting elc next year?

The school should be pulling qualified kids in even if they aren't in the lottery. Some schools are going to an ELC-for-all model, so all kids will get it.

So they're raising all students to this higher standard?

Of course not. It’s just a way to ensure that no student’s needs are met. The teachers will spend the whole time trying to get kids below grade level to be able to handle a curriculum that is well above grade level. Way to go, MCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for parents who have kids who didn’t make the lottery but are bright and above grade level in reading. Scores above 89th percentile. Are you worried about not getting elc next year?

The school should be pulling qualified kids in even if they aren't in the lottery. Some schools are going to an ELC-for-all model, so all kids will get it.

So they're raising all students to this higher standard?

Of course not. It’s just a way to ensure that no student’s needs are met. The teachers will spend the whole time trying to get kids below grade level to be able to handle a curriculum that is well above grade level. Way to go, MCPS.

That doesn't make any sense. Demanding a higher standard ensures that more student needs are being met.