4th Grade CES Admission Criteria?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I don't know if some people believe there was a demographic reason to move WJ out of Barnsley. We were told it was because when Silver Creek MS opened, CCES lost their 6th grade, so they had additional space. Because CCES had additional classroom space, it made sense to add WJ (and a third CES classroom) to CCES. I don't believe that the Barnsley CES was reduced in number of classrooms, so effectively it does mean more spaces for students from the clusters Barnsley still serves.

The interesting thing is that they could have increased the number of spots and not added WJ. If you look at their own data on "highly able" students based on MCPS's own criteria there are 3 times as many in the Chevy Chase catchment area as there are in the Barnsley area. If race or diversity were not a factor at all, you would reduce Barnsley by 1 class and move that to Chevy Chase.

[Anonymous]

Put a different way, if you use the numbers above as very rough estimates given the lack of any real data, a "highly able" child in the CCES area would have a 25% chance of getting into a CES. A "highly able" child in the Barnsley area would have almost a 100% chance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Put a different way, if you use the numbers above as very rough estimates given the lack of any real data, a "highly able" child in the CCES area would have a 25% chance of getting into a CES. A "highly able" child in the Barnsley area would have almost a 100% chance.

Sure but the adminstrators, tracking federal requirements or so they likely think, are trying to get both the CCES area kids AND the Barnsley kids the same % chance of having a peer group of highly ables.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Put a different way, if you use the numbers above as very rough estimates given the lack of any real data, a "highly able" child in the CCES area would have a 25% chance of getting into a CES. A "highly able" child in the Barnsley area would have almost a 100% chance.

Does anyone know how many WJ-cluster kids were selected for the CES for fall 2017 (Barnsley) v 2018 (CCES)? There's no question that if the only change between the two years (beyond the selection criteria) is that the WJ cluster moved to CCES, which added a class, that the students in the remaining ES' had a better chance of being selected to the Barnsley CES; same number of spots, but no WJ cluster ES. If MoCo thought that would improve the odds for the remaining ES', no doubt it worked. That doesn't mean the opposite is true - that if you were in a WJ-cluster ES, your chances went down, unless the number really changed. And if that happened, then its some combination of the change in regional CES and the selection criteria.

There's no question the MoCo is trying to diversify the magnets, and it really had an effect at the MS magnets, at least according to our DC's CES principal. Many CES students used to be accepted from that school; barely any for fall 2018, at least from that school. Not clear what the peer cohort criteria is doing at the regional CES level. At our DC's ES, it certainly did not appear to affect the demographics at all.

[Anonymous]

I don’t think anyone outside the central office knows how many kids from any particular school/cluster were selected, because no one else has the info to know who declined. The numbers accepting and enrolling are going to be affected by geographical proximity in addition to any differences in selection rates. Because if you’re zoned for the school anyway there are way fewer reasons to decline than if the bus ride is an hour+ (Farmland)

[Anonymous]

It is funny about unintended consequences, the magnet was developed to get UMC mostly white kids to self opt into minority schools. After a few decades minority parents looked up and saw a bunch of white and Asian kids in there school with the best classes and all the other carrots that got those kids to opt in originally. Outrage ensues and the system reacts and starts to make the carrots “less targeted” and more open and those parents would never ever send there kids to schools like eastern, TP or Blair are now pissed that they are losing their private-lite education for their kids that they didn’t really need in the first place. They cry system biases as the real biases that favored them are eliminated, little tone deft.

The question is if the county will continue to disproportionately fund a program that spends lots but only helps a handful of kids but doesn’t boost the paper diversity and test score targets. Part of the draw of the old program wasn’t that it got the smart kids but it got the motivated families. It is yet to be seen if kids who qualify but don’t have pushy parents or the money to keep up will reach the heights of pervious classes. It will be interesting

[Anonymous]

“Their school” damn it

[Anonymous]

If there was even a shred of evidence that the county was trying to diversify the magnets as you say, there'd be a lawsuit. It's illegal. You people are crazypants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If there was even a shred of evidence that the county was trying to diversify the magnets as you say, there'd be a lawsuit. It's illegal. You people are crazypants.

People don’t sue, they move.

You and your buddies will be left with nothing, a “magnet” in name only, after your wink-wink-nod-nod reforms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is funny about unintended consequences, the magnet was developed to get UMC mostly white kids to self opt into minority schools. After a few decades minority parents looked up and saw a bunch of white and Asian kids in there school with the best classes and all the other carrots that got those kids to opt in originally. Outrage ensues and the system reacts and starts to make the carrots “less targeted” and more open and those parents would never ever send there kids to schools like eastern, TP or Blair are now pissed that they are losing their private-lite education for their kids that they didn’t really need in the first place. They cry system biases as the real biases that favored them are eliminated, little tone deft.

The question is if the county will continue to disproportionately fund a program that spends lots but only helps a handful of kids but doesn’t boost the paper diversity and test score targets. Part of the draw of the old program wasn’t that it got the smart kids but it got the motivated families. It is yet to be seen if kids who qualify but don’t have pushy parents or the money to keep up will reach the heights of pervious classes. It will be interesting

I dislike the magnet programs generally because I would much rather prefer truly accelerated (and difficult, like you can get a C or D even if bright if you don't work hard) programs within the home schools themselves, particularly the high schools. I understand the arguments against differentiated classes, but magnet system is worse.

[Anonymous]

---Friendly reminder that this thread is about CES, which is an elementary school program---

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:---Friendly reminder that this thread is about CES, which is an elementary school program---

Same shit, just not as rigorous as the later stem magnets. Still set asides for parents not happy with their current circumstances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep, the middle school magnet has very different student demographics in 7th grade vs 6th, at least for tpms.

I'm genuinely curious about this. Where did you get this info? Can you provide a link?

NP true per DC in Tpms

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep, the middle school magnet has very different student demographics in 7th grade vs 6th, at least for tpms.

I'm genuinely curious about this. Where did you get this info? Can you provide a link?

NP true per DC in Tpms

Sorry if I wasn't clear but I'm looking for actual data, not anonymous anecdotes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep, the middle school magnet has very different student demographics in 7th grade vs 6th, at least for tpms.

I'm genuinely curious about this. Where did you get this info? Can you provide a link?

NP true per DC in Tpms

Sorry if I wasn't clear but I'm looking for actual data, not anonymous anecdotes

It was posted here about 6 months ago and although there may have been a few more minority spots, it wasn't that different. I remember thinking it was less Asian and more white, but that was just my impression. I wish I had the link but finding it would require digging through months of posts.