Chevy Chase CES Parents -- How's it going?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CC is in an odd position because the feeder schools are all pretty good and I think most have ELC so there needs to be some persuasive reason to go there. I think it’s very disruptive socially to leave for 2 years so would not be inclined to do it unless they are very extroverted and make friends easily. I think it’s particularly hard for girls of that age to switch groups and then have to re-enter the neighborhood school in 2 years. When my kids went, it was very heavy on CC local kids for these reasons. I don’t think there were any KP kids, for instance.

No, most don't have ELC. That's one of the problems.

I don't think that's true. I can thank of at least three schools that I know about that have ELC.

The CCES CES has many more than three EA that feed into it. It covers all the ES from three clusters.
Overall, about 1/3 of MCPS offer ELC. If they expanded it to all ES, people wouldn’t be as upset that their kids didn’t get selected in the CES lottery.

[Anonymous]

It covers Whitman, WJ and BCC clusters….I’m guessing the ELC adoption rate in those clusters is somewhat higher than MCPS average. Just a guess. Also even without ELC, they are all pretty good schools—so if the peer group isn’t going to be markedly different and the social stuff and bus schedule are going to be a pain…my guess is a lot of the seats will end up going to the CCES neighborhood kids.

[Anonymous]

The ELC schools are listed at the bottom of this page. They are pretty evenly split across the county and yet still not in nearly enough schools. MCPS needs to expand to all schools. https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/enriched/programs/elc.aspx

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Do we really have to hash this out again? It was already 85+ percentile for CES starting 2018, when they changed to universal pooling from the former opt-in method. So the current CES 5th graders are 85+ percentile. I imagine it's not so different from the 75+ percentile.

Why not 65% even? Shouldn’t be too different right? Or even 50%? Why not just lottery the whole system? Why does anyone need enrichment?

PP was answering OP's question about the relative experience of the current CES 4th graders compared to those of previous years. Other comments confirm the experience is not that different. You, on the other hand, are providing an answer to a question that wasn't even asked.

The PPP was responding to who exactly and what question? No, they were trying to make a point that 75% is not substantively different in terms of quality of the student than 85%. I think it’s a valid question about appropriate cutoffs. Why indeed not 65%? Why indeed. If it increases representation but has no substantive impact on the learning environment. Why not.

This issue is moot this year. If you read the CES FAQ, they don't specify what MAP percentiles or grades are used as a baseline.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Do we really have to hash this out again? It was already 85+ percentile for CES starting 2018, when they changed to universal pooling from the former opt-in method. So the current CES 5th graders are 85+ percentile. I imagine it's not so different from the 75+ percentile.

Why not 65% even? Shouldn’t be too different right? Or even 50%? Why not just lottery the whole system? Why does anyone need enrichment?

PP was answering OP's question about the relative experience of the current CES 4th graders compared to those of previous years. Other comments confirm the experience is not that different. You, on the other hand, are providing an answer to a question that wasn't even asked.

The PPP was responding to who exactly and what question? No, they were trying to make a point that 75% is not substantively different in terms of quality of the student than 85%. I think it’s a valid question about appropriate cutoffs. Why indeed not 65%? Why indeed. If it increases representation but has no substantive impact on the learning environment. Why not.

This issue is moot this year. If you read the CES FAQ, they don't specify what MAP percentiles or grades are used as a baseline.

So now basically everything about CES assignment is speculation because there is zero transparency. They are going to get sued again. Pretty much guaranteed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lots of people are so against the lottery. That's because you don't really understand the makeup of the former ms/high school magnets. Lots of those kids had major advantages. Their parents themselves were often docs, lawyers, phds, etc., growing up in households which encouraged, nurtured, pushed. How do i know this? I was one of those kids! The magnet kids are disproportionately coming from well educated families (even if middle class). I am in favour of expanding the pool and giving these opportunities to kids from families different from mine, where the impact might be greater. I would have been just fine with ces/takoma/blair at my homeschool taking ap classes.

Also admission is based on exams, and all exams can be prepared for, even cogat. Your kid is not as gifted as you think just because they scored 99% in the map-m. Gifted is such a bullshit term. A lot of kids in the 85th percentile can handle the blair program if they are prepped in the right away.

They know, they just don't care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Do we really have to hash this out again? It was already 85+ percentile for CES starting 2018, when they changed to universal pooling from the former opt-in method. So the current CES 5th graders are 85+ percentile. I imagine it's not so different from the 75+ percentile.

Why not 65% even? Shouldn’t be too different right? Or even 50%? Why not just lottery the whole system? Why does anyone need enrichment?

PP was answering OP's question about the relative experience of the current CES 4th graders compared to those of previous years. Other comments confirm the experience is not that different. You, on the other hand, are providing an answer to a question that wasn't even asked.

The PPP was responding to who exactly and what question? No, they were trying to make a point that 75% is not substantively different in terms of quality of the student than 85%. I think it’s a valid question about appropriate cutoffs. Why indeed not 65%? Why indeed. If it increases representation but has no substantive impact on the learning environment. Why not.

This issue is moot this year. If you read the CES FAQ, they don't specify what MAP percentiles or grades are used as a baseline.

I heard it was just a random lottery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of people are so against the lottery. That's because you don't really understand the makeup of the former ms/high school magnets. Lots of those kids had major advantages. Their parents themselves were often docs, lawyers, phds, etc., growing up in households which encouraged, nurtured, pushed. How do i know this? I was one of those kids! The magnet kids are disproportionately coming from well educated families (even if middle class). I am in favour of expanding the pool and giving these opportunities to kids from families different from mine, where the impact might be greater. I would have been just fine with ces/takoma/blair at my homeschool taking ap classes.

Also admission is based on exams, and all exams can be prepared for, even cogat. Your kid is not as gifted as you think just because they scored 99% in the map-m. Gifted is such a bullshit term. A lot of kids in the 85th percentile can handle the blair program if they are prepped in the right away.

They know, they just don't care.

Yes and when they're prepped in the right way those 85% kids may even score 99%! In fact, that's been going on for years and this just pulls back the curtain on this farse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The ELC schools are listed at the bottom of this page. They are pretty evenly split across the county and yet still not in nearly enough schools. MCPS needs to expand to all schools. https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/enriched/programs/elc.aspx

I'm counting 6 of the CCES CES feeder ESes on the ELC list. It is a great program and puts both Benchmark and StudySync to shame. They should have a continuation for MS. HIGH is good, but it is not literature.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ELC schools are listed at the bottom of this page. They are pretty evenly split across the county and yet still not in nearly enough schools. MCPS needs to expand to all schools. https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/enriched/programs/elc.aspx

I'm counting 6 of the CCES CES feeder ESes on the ELC list. It is a great program and puts both Benchmark and StudySync to shame. They should have a continuation for MS. HIGH is good, but it is not literature.

Agree -- they should expand ELC to all schools. Enriched Benchmark is a joke. They still use Benchmark as the core texts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ELC schools are listed at the bottom of this page. They are pretty evenly split across the county and yet still not in nearly enough schools. MCPS needs to expand to all schools. https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/enriched/programs/elc.aspx

I'm counting 6 of the CCES CES feeder ESes on the ELC list. It is a great program and puts both Benchmark and StudySync to shame. They should have a continuation for MS. HIGH is good, but it is not literature.

Agree -- they should expand ELC to all schools. Enriched Benchmark is a joke. They still use Benchmark as the core texts.

MCPS needs to ditch Benchmark.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ELC schools are listed at the bottom of this page. They are pretty evenly split across the county and yet still not in nearly enough schools. MCPS needs to expand to all schools. https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/enriched/programs/elc.aspx

I'm counting 6 of the CCES CES feeder ESes on the ELC list. It is a great program and puts both Benchmark and StudySync to shame. They should have a continuation for MS. HIGH is good, but it is not literature.

Agree -- they should expand ELC to all schools. Enriched Benchmark is a joke. They still use Benchmark as the core texts.

MCPS needs to ditch Benchmark.

PP here: Agree, that would be even better. But they aren't going to evaluate it until mid-year next year, and even if they decide to ditch it, it will be some time before a new curriculum can be selected and teachers trained. I think we are stuck with it for a couple more years. Given that, they really need to expand ELC to all schools so that kids who are in the CES lottery pool but don't get a slot have an opportunity for real challenge at their home school. It's unfair that only about 1/3 of schools offer ELC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ELC schools are listed at the bottom of this page. They are pretty evenly split across the county and yet still not in nearly enough schools. MCPS needs to expand to all schools. https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/enriched/programs/elc.aspx

I'm counting 6 of the CCES CES feeder ESes on the ELC list. It is a great program and puts both Benchmark and StudySync to shame. They should have a continuation for MS. HIGH is good, but it is not literature.

Agree -- they should expand ELC to all schools. Enriched Benchmark is a joke. They still use Benchmark as the core texts.

MCPS needs to ditch Benchmark.

PP here: Agree, that would be even better. But they aren't going to evaluate it until mid-year next year, and even if they decide to ditch it, it will be some time before a new curriculum can be selected and teachers trained. I think we are stuck with it for a couple more years. Given that, they really need to expand ELC to all schools so that kids who are in the CES lottery pool but don't get a slot have an opportunity for real challenge at their home school. It's unfair that only about 1/3 of schools offer ELC.

Agree, but they can go back to the curriculum they had before benchmark while they figure out a new one. No sense in continuing this nonsense. My older kid was a guinea pig for curriculum 2.0, which just made her hate math and now my younger one is dealing with benchmark! Why can’t mcps buy a curriculum that already works ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It covers Whitman, WJ and BCC clusters….I’m guessing the ELC adoption rate in those clusters is somewhat higher than MCPS average. Just a guess. Also even without ELC, they are all pretty good schools—so if the peer group isn’t going to be markedly different and the social stuff and bus schedule are going to be a pain…my guess is a lot of the seats will end up going to the CCES neighborhood kids.

This is not going to be a popular opinion but I think the way this particular CES is heading I think it should be shut down or moved to a different part of the county. This makes no sense as a lottery because every single school in the catchment area is high performing. MCPS made sure of this a few years ago when they redistricted with Barnsley so that the wealthy schools were only competing with the wealthy schools.

With it being so random now and nearly everyone in these areas qualifying (was told it was more than 80 percent of kids in our elementary making the lottery cut off) they should be using those resources elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ELC schools are listed at the bottom of this page. They are pretty evenly split across the county and yet still not in nearly enough schools. MCPS needs to expand to all schools. https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/enriched/programs/elc.aspx

I'm counting 6 of the CCES CES feeder ESes on the ELC list. It is a great program and puts both Benchmark and StudySync to shame. They should have a continuation for MS. HIGH is good, but it is not literature.

Agree -- they should expand ELC to all schools. Enriched Benchmark is a joke. They still use Benchmark as the core texts.

MCPS needs to ditch Benchmark.

PP here: Agree, that would be even better. But they aren't going to evaluate it until mid-year next year, and even if they decide to ditch it, it will be some time before a new curriculum can be selected and teachers trained. I think we are stuck with it for a couple more years. Given that, they really need to expand ELC to all schools so that kids who are in the CES lottery pool but don't get a slot have an opportunity for real challenge at their home school. It's unfair that only about 1/3 of schools offer ELC.

Agree, but they can go back to the curriculum they had before benchmark while they figure out a new one. No sense in continuing this nonsense. My older kid was a guinea pig for curriculum 2.0, which just made her hate math and now my younger one is dealing with benchmark! Why can’t mcps buy a curriculum that already works ?

Unfortunately, the curriculum they had pre-Benchmark was 2.0, which was even worse than Benchmark. Why they chose something that was not recommended by experts and not based on the science of reading is anyone’s guess.