CES at Chevy Chase Elementary ?

[Anonymous]

We were happy at CCES this past year. My kid enjoyed the projects, and got really good at planning their work load, figuring out how to get the projects done in time allotted at school and at home.

[Anonymous]

My kid finished two years ago, so this is a bit dated. He was just saying that his teachers at CCES were so amazing. I think in reality they were not 100% amazing, but there are about 4 or so that are really absolutely phenomenal. That was part of what made the program great. During the pandemic, one of the teachers volunteered to lead an extra "optional" class (she had to call it a club to avoid violating the revised curriculum rules). It was absolutely phenomenal and probably the best part of the pandemic for my child. And a TON of kids volunteered for this optional extra class -- basically the whole grade, which says a lot both about how loved the teacher was, but also how these kids really wanted to learn interesting stuff. It was really great to hear them in the other room having small group debates and preparing presentations for their fellow students on the topic. Ms. Gleason, we love you if you are reading this!

Another teacher (Ms. Quintana) ran a book club that was also one of the best things about the school -- again, these are kids that are volunteering for extra reading and discussion because they just love books. I wish every ES had that.

With that, I think for many kids it is really hard to change schools and peer groups at grade 4-5 and then change again for 6-8. Because of the MS admissions, most of the CES kids will not stay together for MS. There were very few that went to our home MS from the CES program. For some kids (maybe especially girls?), I think this can be really hard. I think you have to take that into account when deciding. I also think that, if your home school has the ELC program and really great 4-5th grade teachers, then the difference won't be as stark.

[Anonymous]

We turned down a slot because we are happy with compacted math and the home school. I think COVID helped teach us that school is so much more than reading and mathematics, it is where kids learn social boundaries and friendships. CES would hit a reset on so much of our bus stop community and it wouldn't be worth it for us. Maybe if I wasn't happy with the local school or her current peer group but I don't have any of those concerns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Current CES CCES parent here. I don’t think my kid got a lot out of it. The environment seems lax and not as structured. Maybe its good for some kids but I don’t think it worked for mine. He loved it because of such environment but I found he didn’t develop any study habits because of the exact same thing.

I wonder if the change in admissions policy is part of it. The cohort of super book-oriented kids is part of what made the experience so great--I have heard that some of the kids being admitted now under the lottery system are less passionate about reading and that would make a pretty big difference. I wouldn't call the environment lax and not structure so much as geared toward student-driven projects that require a high degree of drive and initiative and interest. That worked well with my kid's cohort, but I wonder if it would work so well with a less nerdy pool. A couple of the kids from our community who were admitted for 4th this past year were just not kids who struck me as the types who either crave or would run with this type of environment... I am to be clear very happy they're trying to make the experience more diverse and inclusive, but from what I can see of who was admitted from our home school, an unintended consequence / side effect of the lottery system is the inclusion of kids who are a) white, b) privileged, c) not particularly in need of a CES type environment (which is to say, they were not bored at our home school)

The whole point of the lottery system is to reduce the number of Asian students and it’s worked.

Or it was to switch from semi private program with applications from 800 in the know parents to considering all 11,000 students each year….

+10000

Going from application to universal review is one thing. Going from rank- ordered admission of the top 2-3% to lottery admission from the top 15% (or 10%) is another. Even the home cohort identification had a reasonable basis, only taking extreme outliers from home schools with large numbers of gifted students because the rest could be taught as a group with enrichment without sending them farther away.

As for matching programming with need, the first is good because it helps to identify the population in a less biased manner and the third would be good if they ensured a proper GT environment in each school that maintained a cohort. However, the fact that they maintained the second after needing to employ it on an emergency basis during the one year of remote learning is indicative of their abdication of responsibility in the face of the ongoing reality that there are far more kids who need/would benefit from GT programs in MCPS than they have allowed for.

Where did you get the idea that the previous system used rank-ordered admission?

What is it you think they used to do with the applications?

This was covered in the Metis report (published in 2016):

Admission to the elementary centers is determined by a competitive selection process in Grade
3. Separate selection committees for each elementary center, composed of 10 to 16 MCPS staff
with diverse backgrounds and professional experience, review each applicant to determine a pool
of invited students, waitlisted (“waitpool”) students, and not invited students. The selection
committees consider the following multiple measures.
• application form;
• total and percentile scores on a cognitive reasoning assessment administered to
applicants, which appraises general abstract reasoning abilities and capacity to apply
abilities to verbal, quantitative, and non-verbal tasks;
• teacher recommendations and other school-based input;
• report card data and other test scores;
• student factors including FARMS eligibility and ESOL or special education needs;
• unique circumstances; and
• current school attended to determine special academic needs and the presence or
absence of an intellectual peer group of other highly able students

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Current CES CCES parent here. I don’t think my kid got a lot out of it. The environment seems lax and not as structured. Maybe its good for some kids but I don’t think it worked for mine. He loved it because of such environment but I found he didn’t develop any study habits because of the exact same thing.

I wonder if the change in admissions policy is part of it. The cohort of super book-oriented kids is part of what made the experience so great--I have heard that some of the kids being admitted now under the lottery system are less passionate about reading and that would make a pretty big difference. I wouldn't call the environment lax and not structure so much as geared toward student-driven projects that require a high degree of drive and initiative and interest. That worked well with my kid's cohort, but I wonder if it would work so well with a less nerdy pool. A couple of the kids from our community who were admitted for 4th this past year were just not kids who struck me as the types who either crave or would run with this type of environment... I am to be clear very happy they're trying to make the experience more diverse and inclusive, but from what I can see of who was admitted from our home school, an unintended consequence / side effect of the lottery system is the inclusion of kids who are a) white, b) privileged, c) not particularly in need of a CES type environment (which is to say, they were not bored at our home school)

The whole point of the lottery system is to reduce the number of Asian students and it’s worked.

Prior to the lottery they got rid of teacher recs because they were unreliable and also adopted started using local norms in ranking which is a best practice for G&T admissions. Based on outcomes for the following years things seemed about the same but there was broader URM participation roughly 2X.
Or it was to switch from semi private program with applications from 800 in the know parents to considering all 11,000 students each year….

+10000

Going from application to universal review is one thing. Going from rank- ordered admission of the top 2-3% to lottery admission from the top 15% (or 10%) is another. Even the home cohort identification had a reasonable basis, only taking extreme outliers from home schools with large numbers of gifted students because the rest could be taught as a group with enrichment without sending them farther away.

As for matching programming with need, the first is good because it helps to identify the population in a less biased manner and the third would be good if they ensured a proper GT environment in each school that maintained a cohort. However, the fact that they maintained the second after needing to employ it on an emergency basis during the one year of remote learning is indicative of their abdication of responsibility in the face of the ongoing reality that there are far more kids who need/would benefit from GT programs in MCPS than they have allowed for.

Where did you get the idea that the previous system used rank-ordered admission?

What is it you think they used to do with the applications?

This was covered in the Metis report (published in 2016):

Admission to the elementary centers is determined by a competitive selection process in Grade
3. Separate selection committees for each elementary center, composed of 10 to 16 MCPS staff
with diverse backgrounds and professional experience, review each applicant to determine a pool
of invited students, waitlisted (“waitpool”) students, and not invited students. The selection
committees consider the following multiple measures.
• application form;
• total and percentile scores on a cognitive reasoning assessment administered to
applicants, which appraises general abstract reasoning abilities and capacity to apply
abilities to verbal, quantitative, and non-verbal tasks;
• teacher recommendations and other school-based input;
• report card data and other test scores;
• student factors including FARMS eligibility and ESOL or special education needs;
• unique circumstances; and
• current school attended to determine special academic needs and the presence or
absence of an intellectual peer group of other highly able students

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Current CES CCES parent here. I don’t think my kid got a lot out of it. The environment seems lax and not as structured. Maybe its good for some kids but I don’t think it worked for mine. He loved it because of such environment but I found he didn’t develop any study habits because of the exact same thing.

I wonder if the change in admissions policy is part of it. The cohort of super book-oriented kids is part of what made the experience so great--I have heard that some of the kids being admitted now under the lottery system are less passionate about reading and that would make a pretty big difference. I wouldn't call the environment lax and not structure so much as geared toward student-driven projects that require a high degree of drive and initiative and interest. That worked well with my kid's cohort, but I wonder if it would work so well with a less nerdy pool. A couple of the kids from our community who were admitted for 4th this past year were just not kids who struck me as the types who either crave or would run with this type of environment... I am to be clear very happy they're trying to make the experience more diverse and inclusive, but from what I can see of who was admitted from our home school, an unintended consequence / side effect of the lottery system is the inclusion of kids who are a) white, b) privileged, c) not particularly in need of a CES type environment (which is to say, they were not bored at our home school)

The whole point of the lottery system is to reduce the number of Asian students and it’s worked.

Or it was to switch from semi private program with applications from 800 in the know parents to considering all 11,000 students each year….

+10000

Going from application to universal review is one thing. Going from rank- ordered admission of the top 2-3% to lottery admission from the top 15% (or 10%) is another. Even the home cohort identification had a reasonable basis, only taking extreme outliers from home schools with large numbers of gifted students because the rest could be taught as a group with enrichment without sending them farther away.

As for matching programming with need, the first is good because it helps to identify the population in a less biased manner and the third would be good if they ensured a proper GT environment in each school that maintained a cohort. However, the fact that they maintained the second after needing to employ it on an emergency basis during the one year of remote learning is indicative of their abdication of responsibility in the face of the ongoing reality that there are far more kids who need/would benefit from GT programs in MCPS than they have allowed for.

Where did you get the idea that the previous system used rank-ordered admission?

What is it you think they used to do with the applications?

This was covered in the Metis report (published in 2016):

Admission to the elementary centers is determined by a competitive selection process in Grade
3. Separate selection committees for each elementary center, composed of 10 to 16 MCPS staff
with diverse backgrounds and professional experience, review each applicant to determine a pool
of invited students, waitlisted (“waitpool”) students, and not invited students. The selection
committees consider the following multiple measures.
• application form;
• total and percentile scores on a cognitive reasoning assessment administered to
applicants, which appraises general abstract reasoning abilities and capacity to apply
abilities to verbal, quantitative, and non-verbal tasks;
• teacher recommendations and other school-based input;
• report card data and other test scores;
• student factors including FARMS eligibility and ESOL or special education needs;
• unique circumstances; and
• current school attended to determine special academic needs and the presence or
absence of an intellectual peer group of other highly able students

Prior to the COVID lottery, they got rid of teacher recs because they were unreliable and also adopted started using local norms in ranking which is a best practice for G&T admissions. Based on outcomes for the following years things seemed about the same but there was broader URM participation roughly 2X. I'd expect they'll continue to evolve this as they analyze the data from the lottery experiment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Current CES CCES parent here. I don’t think my kid got a lot out of it. The environment seems lax and not as structured. Maybe its good for some kids but I don’t think it worked for mine. He loved it because of such environment but I found he didn’t develop any study habits because of the exact same thing.

I wonder if the change in admissions policy is part of it. The cohort of super book-oriented kids is part of what made the experience so great--I have heard that some of the kids being admitted now under the lottery system are less passionate about reading and that would make a pretty big difference. I wouldn't call the environment lax and not structure so much as geared toward student-driven projects that require a high degree of drive and initiative and interest. That worked well with my kid's cohort, but I wonder if it would work so well with a less nerdy pool. A couple of the kids from our community who were admitted for 4th this past year were just not kids who struck me as the types who either crave or would run with this type of environment... I am to be clear very happy they're trying to make the experience more diverse and inclusive, but from what I can see of who was admitted from our home school, an unintended consequence / side effect of the lottery system is the inclusion of kids who are a) white, b) privileged, c) not particularly in need of a CES type environment (which is to say, they were not bored at our home school)

One of my kids went through this program in 2019 whereas the older one went through it in 2016 before the changes. Didn't really notice any difference but they weren't at CCES so guessing that may be the problem.

Yes, CCES is not one of the stronger CES programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Current CES CCES parent here. I don’t think my kid got a lot out of it. The environment seems lax and not as structured. Maybe its good for some kids but I don’t think it worked for mine. He loved it because of such environment but I found he didn’t develop any study habits because of the exact same thing.

I wonder if the change in admissions policy is part of it. The cohort of super book-oriented kids is part of what made the experience so great--I have heard that some of the kids being admitted now under the lottery system are less passionate about reading and that would make a pretty big difference. I wouldn't call the environment lax and not structure so much as geared toward student-driven projects that require a high degree of drive and initiative and interest. That worked well with my kid's cohort, but I wonder if it would work so well with a less nerdy pool. A couple of the kids from our community who were admitted for 4th this past year were just not kids who struck me as the types who either crave or would run with this type of environment... I am to be clear very happy they're trying to make the experience more diverse and inclusive, but from what I can see of who was admitted from our home school, an unintended consequence / side effect of the lottery system is the inclusion of kids who are a) white, b) privileged, c) not particularly in need of a CES type environment (which is to say, they were not bored at our home school)

One of my kids went through this program in 2019 whereas the older one went through it in 2016 before the changes. Didn't really notice any difference but they weren't at CCES so guessing that may be the problem.

Yes, CCES is not one of the stronger CES programs.

such nonsense

[Anonymous]

Whether explicitly termed rank-ordering or not, that's what they were doing with the Metis-noted evaluations of the applications. It may not be rank-ordering based on a single factor, like a MAP or CogAT score, but, instead, based on the overall profile.

Placing top-X-percenters in a lottery basiclly admits to the fact that there are about X percent that have a need. Unfortunately, the lottery, itself, basically admits that they haven't planned or budgeted enough to meet the need. Saying that a local school can meet the need with lesser enrichment than is available in a CES environment is intellectually dishonest -- MCPS need to expand the programs, either with more CES seats or with robust local GT programs that provide a truly equivalent experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Whether explicitly termed rank-ordering or not, that's what they were doing with the Metis-noted evaluations of the applications. It may not be rank-ordering based on a single factor, like a MAP or CogAT score, but, instead, based on the overall profile.

Placing top-X-percenters in a lottery basiclly admits to the fact that there are about X percent that have a need. Unfortunately, the lottery, itself, basically admits that they haven't planned or budgeted enough to meet the need. Saying that a local school can meet the need with lesser enrichment than is available in a CES environment is intellectually dishonest -- MCPS need to expand the programs, either with more CES seats or with robust local GT programs that provide a truly equivalent experience.

From what I've read usually G&T programs consist of the top 6% whereas MCPS programs have seats for 2%-3% so would agree the biggest issue is a lack of opportunity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Whether explicitly termed rank-ordering or not, that's what they were doing with the Metis-noted evaluations of the applications. It may not be rank-ordering based on a single factor, like a MAP or CogAT score, but, instead, based on the overall profile.

Placing top-X-percenters in a lottery basiclly admits to the fact that there are about X percent that have a need. Unfortunately, the lottery, itself, basically admits that they haven't planned or budgeted enough to meet the need. Saying that a local school can meet the need with lesser enrichment than is available in a CES environment is intellectually dishonest -- MCPS need to expand the programs, either with more CES seats or with robust local GT programs that provide a truly equivalent experience.

Agree, that the selection criteria may not be perfect but the bigger problem is these programs seem to only accommodate maybe 2% when it needs to be more like 6%. Even the current 15% lottery demonstrates there are far more qualified applicants than spots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whether explicitly termed rank-ordering or not, that's what they were doing with the Metis-noted evaluations of the applications. It may not be rank-ordering based on a single factor, like a MAP or CogAT score, but, instead, based on the overall profile.

Placing top-X-percenters in a lottery basiclly admits to the fact that there are about X percent that have a need. Unfortunately, the lottery, itself, basically admits that they haven't planned or budgeted enough to meet the need. Saying that a local school can meet the need with lesser enrichment than is available in a CES environment is intellectually dishonest -- MCPS need to expand the programs, either with more CES seats or with robust local GT programs that provide a truly equivalent experience.

Agree, that the selection criteria may not be perfect but the bigger problem is these programs seem to only accommodate maybe 2% when it needs to be more like 6%. Even the current 15% lottery demonstrates there are far more qualified applicants than spots.

I got the impression this was in the works because of the new regional IBs introduced prior to COVID but I think that put a damper on these plans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Current CES CCES parent here. I don’t think my kid got a lot out of it. The environment seems lax and not as structured. Maybe its good for some kids but I don’t think it worked for mine. He loved it because of such environment but I found he didn’t develop any study habits because of the exact same thing.

I wonder if the change in admissions policy is part of it. The cohort of super book-oriented kids is part of what made the experience so great--I have heard that some of the kids being admitted now under the lottery system are less passionate about reading and that would make a pretty big difference. I wouldn't call the environment lax and not structure so much as geared toward student-driven projects that require a high degree of drive and initiative and interest. That worked well with my kid's cohort, but I wonder if it would work so well with a less nerdy pool. A couple of the kids from our community who were admitted for 4th this past year were just not kids who struck me as the types who either crave or would run with this type of environment... I am to be clear very happy they're trying to make the experience more diverse and inclusive, but from what I can see of who was admitted from our home school, an unintended consequence / side effect of the lottery system is the inclusion of kids who are a) white, b) privileged, c) not particularly in need of a CES type environment (which is to say, they were not bored at our home school)

One of my kids went through this program in 2019 whereas the older one went through it in 2016 before the changes. Didn't really notice any difference but they weren't at CCES so guessing that may be the problem.

Yes, CCES is not one of the stronger CES programs.

such nonsense

bitter poster whose child did not get in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:4th grade and 5th grade are completely different experiences and both good in many ways.

4th grade has minimal homework and instead is mostly in-class work. It trains the kids to be focused and productive.

5th grade is a whole different animal. Extremely demanding, but also rewarding.

The teachers are awesome. I don’t think that I’ve met a better and more dedicated group of teachers. I am truly in awe. Years later, DC still talks about the teachers because they had such a major impact.

DC attended prior to the change in selection policy and as a result has changed the dynamics.

DC who was pre-lottery felt both 4th/5th were no different - nearly all work could be done in class. Loved that there was little to no HW and that many of the assignments were pretty open ended meaning you could put as much or as little effort as you want depending on your interests and go in creative directions. The projects were fun and interesting and there was no busy work.

Middle school is the different animal. Tons of busy work, disorganized teachers, rigidity in grading. You could have a really amazing project but because you didn't see line 107 of the rubric the child may get a C whereas a totally crappy project might get an A because it checked all the boxes of a rubric that does not actually encourage learning. DC has had both of these things happen.

Oh my, your description of middle school is absolutely spot on my kids experience in 4th grade at a different CES.

[Anonymous]

Chevy Chase along with Cold Spring are the two most competitive CESes or they were before the lottery because of they were in the wealthy SES band where the scores were higher.