4th Grade CES Admission Criteria?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
They moved WJ cluster out thereby opening more seats to those in the other three clusters because with WJ in the Barnsley HGC cluster, there were less spots available for those from the other clusters because WJ had a ton of kids going to Barnsely HGC in previous years. Without this move, the other kids from the other clusters wouldn't get much of a chance. The move was so that those kids from the less well off areas get a chance.

Sure, it's nice that those kids have a chance, but let's not pretend why they did it, which was that it was much harder for those kids to compete with the WJ kids.

My DC went to Barnsely HGC with a ton of WJ kids. We are not in WJ cluster.

+1 Let's stop pretending that all schools have equal numbers of high achieving children. Notice I didn't say deserving children. But it's a fact that the number of "highly qualified" children according to MCPS's own criteria is much higher at WJ, BCC and Whitman than at the other schools.

Unless the numbers actually changed, it's a red herring. Do you have the numbers?

lets use test scores and graduation rates, that is what colleges use.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
They moved WJ cluster out thereby opening more seats to those in the other three clusters because with WJ in the Barnsley HGC cluster, there were less spots available for those from the other clusters because WJ had a ton of kids going to Barnsely HGC in previous years. Without this move, the other kids from the other clusters wouldn't get much of a chance. The move was so that those kids from the less well off areas get a chance.

Sure, it's nice that those kids have a chance, but let's not pretend why they did it, which was that it was much harder for those kids to compete with the WJ kids.

My DC went to Barnsely HGC with a ton of WJ kids. We are not in WJ cluster.

+1 Let's stop pretending that all schools have equal numbers of high achieving children. Notice I didn't say deserving children. But it's a fact that the number of "highly qualified" children according to MCPS's own criteria is much higher at WJ, BCC and Whitman than at the other schools.

Unless the numbers actually changed, it's a red herring. Do you have the numbers?

lets use test scores and graduation rates, that is what colleges use.

You understand we're talking about third graders right?

[Anonymous]

“Highly able” students in 5th grade identified by MCPS screening process by cluster if you use PARCC ELA/PARCC Math.
2017-18

Chevy Chase CES catchment area
Whitman cluster (Pyle): 134/133
BCC (Westland, Silver Creek): 71/70
WJ (Tilden, North Bethesda): 102/103

Barnesly CES catchment area
RM (Julius West) 53/51
Rockville (Earl Wood) 34/34
Wheaton (Parkland, Loiderman) MCPS hasn’t released data

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
They moved WJ cluster out thereby opening more seats to those in the other three clusters because with WJ in the Barnsley HGC cluster, there were less spots available for those from the other clusters because WJ had a ton of kids going to Barnsely HGC in previous years. Without this move, the other kids from the other clusters wouldn't get much of a chance. The move was so that those kids from the less well off areas get a chance.

Sure, it's nice that those kids have a chance, but let's not pretend why they did it, which was that it was much harder for those kids to compete with the WJ kids.

My DC went to Barnsely HGC with a ton of WJ kids. We are not in WJ cluster.

+1 Let's stop pretending that all schools have equal numbers of high achieving children. Notice I didn't say deserving children. But it's a fact that the number of "highly qualified" children according to MCPS's own criteria is much higher at WJ, BCC and Whitman than at the other schools.

Well if we are going to stop pretending than the whole point of the system is to get W kids in to help out the other school's metrics. If they don't care about the metrics, why do you care about helping so much? The admission criteria were set up to target UMC kids. The poor kids and reg middle class kids complained that they didn't get the shiny in their school and wanted to re-purpose the program to get them out of classes with even poorer kids. Let them use their school how they want.

Huh? This thread is about CES. Seven out of the nine regional centers have no "W kids."

[Anonymous]

You can estimate Wheaton from the Maryland report card.
For the 5th grade for the six elementary schools it's impossible to estimate the number of 5s for PARCC ELA because there aren't enough kids who got that score.

Chevy Chase 307/306
Barnsly 87*/110

*Real number is higher than 87 but number was not reported because it's too low.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
They moved WJ cluster out thereby opening more seats to those in the other three clusters because with WJ in the Barnsley HGC cluster, there were less spots available for those from the other clusters because WJ had a ton of kids going to Barnsely HGC in previous years. Without this move, the other kids from the other clusters wouldn't get much of a chance. The move was so that those kids from the less well off areas get a chance.

Sure, it's nice that those kids have a chance, but let's not pretend why they did it, which was that it was much harder for those kids to compete with the WJ kids.

My DC went to Barnsely HGC with a ton of WJ kids. We are not in WJ cluster.

+1 Let's stop pretending that all schools have equal numbers of high achieving children. Notice I didn't say deserving children. But it's a fact that the number of "highly qualified" children according to MCPS's own criteria is much higher at WJ, BCC and Whitman than at the other schools.

Well if we are going to stop pretending than the whole point of the system is to get W kids in to help out the other school's metrics. If they don't care about the metrics, why do you care about helping so much? The admission criteria were set up to target UMC kids. The poor kids and reg middle class kids complained that they didn't get the shiny in their school and wanted to re-purpose the program to get them out of classes with even poorer kids. Let them use their school how they want.

Huh? This thread is about CES. Seven out of the nine regional centers have no "W kids."

+1 PP seems to be confusing CES (regional and local centers, largely drawing from similar schools) with middle school and high school magnet admissions.

[Anonymous]

You are being too literal.

This thread is about the cohort in the different CES catchment areas and got into a discussion about Chevy Chase CES v. Barnsley (Barnsly?) While this data isn't about the current 4th grade class it gives you a really good sense of the gap in achievement levels when you compare schools in different parts of the county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one said that.
What they said was it resulted in whites and Asians from WJ competing with whites and Asians from Whitman and BCC for CES spots - leaving Barnsley for more diverse populations.

Did the Barnsley CES program stay the same size, so that it's now just drawing from a smaller (and "more diverse") set of ES's - i.e., more spots for the ES schools that remained? And why would the person making that assertion even care about it unless they felt that it was now harder for students at WJ-cluster ES's to get into a CES program? If the same 28 kids from the WJ cluster who would have been Barnsley are now at CCES, what's the difference?

Of course they are arguing it's harder because they now now have to compete with "whites and Asians" rather than "more diverse populations."

Yes, Barnsley stayed the same size, three CES classes per grade.

So Barnsley, with three classes/grade, went from RM, Rockville, WJ and Wheaton (17-18) to RM, Rockville and Wheaton (18-19)? And CCES went from two classes for BCC and Whitman (17-18) to three classes for BCC, Whitman and WJ (18-19)? So the WJ kids went from competing for three classroom's worth of spots with three other high schools, to three classroom's worth of spots with two other high schools. Sounds great for the Wj kids, unless one thinks that competing with Whitman and BCC kids is harder than competing with RM,Rockville and Wheaton kids. Which is exactly what the poster was arguing (and not some ridiculous offense of having a diverse program at Barnsley become even more diverse). I'm of the view that, at the very top. there are equally very strong kids at every ES, and with the small number of kids who are offered spots, it really doesn't matter. So maybe MCPS actually created more spots by keeping Barnsley at three CES classes for the remaining clusters. That's fine by me, and would be consistent with its stated policies.

Yup, that's exactly what they did.

This hardly amounts to a countywide conspiracy to skew CES admissions to the under represented.

It's a way for non W cluster students a chance at the spot because without the change and with the peer cohort criteria, they wouldn't be able to get in. If they had done universal screening without looking at the peer cohort, the representation of certain groups wouldn't have changed that much. How do I know this... look at MCPS' own statistics in regards to test scores. Oh, I know, test scores don't tell you much, but I'm not sure what else you would look at for an academic program. Maybe how fast you could run? My DC would've failed that one.

Call it whatever you want.

This is rank speculation. They aren't selecting students, then or now, based on some median test score or percentage of students at grade level. It's based on individual qualifications. So unless you are willing to say that NO "non W cluster students" would qualify based on his or her own test scores (which, actually, is exactly what you said), this is just a gross generalization. Assuming three classes per grade at each regional CES, they are looking for the less than 95 students across the covered clusters. Unless you have the data for the students actually there, and students who aren't there, you can't make that assertion credibly.

Of course they used to base it on test scores, along with other criteria. Otherwise, why bother having them take a test? That makes no sense.

Prior to this change, when they used to show the median test scores of admitted students, people would post on this forum what the median scores were. Cold Spring HGC was always the highest. I can't remember where Barnsely fell in the hierarchy, but I believe it was third highest or something like that. But with pulling WJ out, I am pretty sure the median test scores of the accepted students at Barnsely CES went down. Again... why would I suspect this.. look at MCPS' own numbers.

Easy enough to figure out if MCPS released the median scores of accepted students like they used to do. But they don't do that anymore along with "peer cohort". Things that make you go "hmmm..."


You have reading comprehension issues. I stated that there were other kids from other clusters represented (mine was one) but that WJ contingent was *huge*. If they didn't look at peer cohort but still did universal screening, the numbers wouldn't move that much. Again, how do I know this... just look at MCPS' own statistics on test scores from the other clusters.

You are being purposefully obtuse because you can't admit that this change was a way to up the representation of URM without using race. What was the point of the Metis report? I'm not arguing whether this change was good or bad. I'm just stating what's pretty obvious to most people. The change came about because of the Metis report which clearly indicated that there was very low representation of URM in the magnets. The Metis report also indicated that a barrier to entry may be lack of knowledge of the program, which is why MCPS decided on universal screening. No one, myself included, thinks universal screening is bad. But clearly, MCPS had to add the "peer cohort" criteria in order to include in more URM because otherwise, why include "peer cohort"? If indeed these students can get in without changing the admissions criteria, then why include "peer cohort"? MCPS could've just done universal screening, exclude parental input, and let the chips fall where they may. But no, they had to add "peer cohort" because otherwise, the needle wouldn't move. MCPS' own statistics show that this would be the case.

[Anonymous]

Peer cohort is the actual justification for pretty much all magnet programs. Sure some/many have additional purposes. If a peer cohort already exists at a school, it is fundamentally easier on all to service them at that school. Sorry this is so painful for some.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one said that.
What they said was it resulted in whites and Asians from WJ competing with whites and Asians from Whitman and BCC for CES spots - leaving Barnsley for more diverse populations.

Did the Barnsley CES program stay the same size, so that it's now just drawing from a smaller (and "more diverse") set of ES's - i.e., more spots for the ES schools that remained? And why would the person making that assertion even care about it unless they felt that it was now harder for students at WJ-cluster ES's to get into a CES program? If the same 28 kids from the WJ cluster who would have been Barnsley are now at CCES, what's the difference?

Of course they are arguing it's harder because they now now have to compete with "whites and Asians" rather than "more diverse populations."

Yes, Barnsley stayed the same size, three CES classes per grade.

So Barnsley, with three classes/grade, went from RM, Rockville, WJ and Wheaton (17-18) to RM, Rockville and Wheaton (18-19)? And CCES went from two classes for BCC and Whitman (17-18) to three classes for BCC, Whitman and WJ (18-19)? So the WJ kids went from competing for three classroom's worth of spots with three other high schools, to three classroom's worth of spots with two other high schools. Sounds great for the Wj kids, unless one thinks that competing with Whitman and BCC kids is harder than competing with RM,Rockville and Wheaton kids. Which is exactly what the poster was arguing (and not some ridiculous offense of having a diverse program at Barnsley become even more diverse). I'm of the view that, at the very top. there are equally very strong kids at every ES, and with the small number of kids who are offered spots, it really doesn't matter. So maybe MCPS actually created more spots by keeping Barnsley at three CES classes for the remaining clusters. That's fine by me, and would be consistent with its stated policies.

Yup, that's exactly what they did.

This hardly amounts to a countywide conspiracy to skew CES admissions to the under represented.

It's a way for non W cluster students a chance at the spot because without the change and with the peer cohort criteria, they wouldn't be able to get in. If they had done universal screening without looking at the peer cohort, the representation of certain groups wouldn't have changed that much. How do I know this... look at MCPS' own statistics in regards to test scores. Oh, I know, test scores don't tell you much, but I'm not sure what else you would look at for an academic program. Maybe how fast you could run? My DC would've failed that one.

Call it whatever you want.

This is rank speculation. They aren't selecting students, then or now, based on some median test score or percentage of students at grade level. It's based on individual qualifications. So unless you are willing to say that NO "non W cluster students" would qualify based on his or her own test scores (which, actually, is exactly what you said), this is just a gross generalization. Assuming three classes per grade at each regional CES, they are looking for the less than 95 students across the covered clusters. Unless you have the data for the students actually there, and students who aren't there, you can't make that assertion credibly.

Of course they used to base it on test scores, along with other criteria. Otherwise, why bother having them take a test? That makes no sense.

Prior to this change, when they used to show the median test scores of admitted students, people would post on this forum what the median scores were. Cold Spring HGC was always the highest. I can't remember where Barnsely fell in the hierarchy, but I believe it was third highest or something like that. But with pulling WJ out, I am pretty sure the median test scores of the accepted students at Barnsely CES went down. Again... why would I suspect this.. look at MCPS' own numbers.

Easy enough to figure out if MCPS released the median scores of accepted students like they used to do. But they don't do that anymore along with "peer cohort". Things that make you go "hmmm..."


You have reading comprehension issues. I stated that there were other kids from other clusters represented (mine was one) but that WJ contingent was *huge*. If they didn't look at peer cohort but still did universal screening, the numbers wouldn't move that much. Again, how do I know this... just look at MCPS' own statistics on test scores from the other clusters.

You are being purposefully obtuse because you can't admit that this change was a way to up the representation of URM without using race. What was the point of the Metis report? I'm not arguing whether this change was good or bad. I'm just stating what's pretty obvious to most people. The change came about because of the Metis report which clearly indicated that there was very low representation of URM in the magnets. The Metis report also indicated that a barrier to entry may be lack of knowledge of the program, which is why MCPS decided on universal screening. No one, myself included, thinks universal screening is bad. But clearly, MCPS had to add the "peer cohort" criteria in order to include in more URM because otherwise, why include "peer cohort"? If indeed these students can get in without changing the admissions criteria, then why include "peer cohort"? MCPS could've just done universal screening, exclude parental input, and let the chips fall where they may. But no, they had to add "peer cohort" because otherwise, the needle wouldn't move. MCPS' own statistics show that this would be the case.

+1
The people who keep arguing this was not about increasing diversity are very confused. You can argue whether this was legal or good or whatever but the facts are facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Peer cohort is the actual justification for pretty much all magnet programs. Sure some/many have additional purposes. If a peer cohort already exists at a school, it is fundamentally easier on all to service them at that school. Sorry this is so painful for some.

sigh.. no it's not because without a magnet curriculum, peer cohort is kind of meaningless. And no, the one or two classes is not the same as a whole magnet curriculum. The teachers in the magnet program usually have some kind of training to teach "gifted" level students. Oh, I'm sure the home school teachers received all of a few weeks of training.

My DC in MS now had "honors" classes. What a joke. The Principal and teachers made it all sound so great, but in reality and in practice, it was completely lackluster. Total joke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The people who keep arguing this was not about increasing diversity are very confused. You can argue whether this was legal or good or whatever but the facts are facts.

They are not confused. They just don't want to admit it to themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“Highly able” students in 5th grade identified by MCPS screening process by cluster if you use PARCC ELA/PARCC Math.
2017-18

Chevy Chase CES catchment area
Whitman cluster (Pyle): 134/133
BCC (Westland, Silver Creek): 71/70
WJ (Tilden, North Bethesda): 102/103

Barnesly CES catchment area
RM (Julius West) 53/51
Rockville (Earl Wood) 34/34
Wheaton (Parkland, Loiderman) MCPS hasn’t released data

This isn't especially meaningful, but for it to be relevant to magnet admissions you'd want to compare the top 3% at these schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The people who keep arguing this was not about increasing diversity are very confused. You can argue whether this was legal or good or whatever but the facts are facts.

They are not confused. They just don't want to admit it to themselves.

I know they're so hung up on those pesky fact things like the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one said that.
What they said was it resulted in whites and Asians from WJ competing with whites and Asians from Whitman and BCC for CES spots - leaving Barnsley for more diverse populations.

Did the Barnsley CES program stay the same size, so that it's now just drawing from a smaller (and "more diverse") set of ES's - i.e., more spots for the ES schools that remained? And why would the person making that assertion even care about it unless they felt that it was now harder for students at WJ-cluster ES's to get into a CES program? If the same 28 kids from the WJ cluster who would have been Barnsley are now at CCES, what's the difference?

Of course they are arguing it's harder because they now now have to compete with "whites and Asians" rather than "more diverse populations."

Yes, Barnsley stayed the same size, three CES classes per grade.

So Barnsley, with three classes/grade, went from RM, Rockville, WJ and Wheaton (17-18) to RM, Rockville and Wheaton (18-19)? And CCES went from two classes for BCC and Whitman (17-18) to three classes for BCC, Whitman and WJ (18-19)? So the WJ kids went from competing for three classroom's worth of spots with three other high schools, to three classroom's worth of spots with two other high schools. Sounds great for the Wj kids, unless one thinks that competing with Whitman and BCC kids is harder than competing with RM,Rockville and Wheaton kids. Which is exactly what the poster was arguing (and not some ridiculous offense of having a diverse program at Barnsley become even more diverse). I'm of the view that, at the very top. there are equally very strong kids at every ES, and with the small number of kids who are offered spots, it really doesn't matter. So maybe MCPS actually created more spots by keeping Barnsley at three CES classes for the remaining clusters. That's fine by me, and would be consistent with its stated policies.

Yup, that's exactly what they did.

This hardly amounts to a countywide conspiracy to skew CES admissions to the under represented.

It's a way for non W cluster students a chance at the spot because without the change and with the peer cohort criteria, they wouldn't be able to get in. If they had done universal screening without looking at the peer cohort, the representation of certain groups wouldn't have changed that much. How do I know this... look at MCPS' own statistics in regards to test scores. Oh, I know, test scores don't tell you much, but I'm not sure what else you would look at for an academic program. Maybe how fast you could run? My DC would've failed that one.

Call it whatever you want.

This is rank speculation. They aren't selecting students, then or now, based on some median test score or percentage of students at grade level. It's based on individual qualifications. So unless you are willing to say that NO "non W cluster students" would qualify based on his or her own test scores (which, actually, is exactly what you said), this is just a gross generalization. Assuming three classes per grade at each regional CES, they are looking for the less than 95 students across the covered clusters. Unless you have the data for the students actually there, and students who aren't there, you can't make that assertion credibly.

In a nutshell, yes, YOU NAILED IT, but don't expect many to be so rational. It's so much easier to scapegoat others for their own shortcomings.