CES admissions - 3rd grade

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, remember that CES is a humanities/language arts-based program, not a math one, so MAP-M scores are not part of the criteria. I have a fifth grader in a CES who is doing great and has high 99% MAP-R scores, but whose MAP-M has always been in the 90-95% (high enough to do well in compacted math, but not the 99%-across-the-board student that others mention here).

The 5th graders got in under the old admissions criteria where they reviewed every child individually. The current 4th graders are the only ones that went through universal testing where everyone was basically reduced to a number.

I have a fifth grader at the CES now. His year was the first when MCPS considered MAP-R as well s MAP-M. His year was also the first to take the shortened CES test. So your statement is false.

What statement is false? The Map m not being part of the critera? yes that's false. it is part of the criteria.

Where they reduced children to numbers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, remember that CES is a humanities/language arts-based program, not a math one, so MAP-M scores are not part of the criteria. I have a fifth grader in a CES who is doing great and has high 99% MAP-R scores, but whose MAP-M has always been in the 90-95% (high enough to do well in compacted math, but not the 99%-across-the-board student that others mention here).

The 5th graders got in under the old admissions criteria where they reviewed every child individually. The current 4th graders are the only ones that went through universal testing where everyone was basically reduced to a number.

I have a fifth grader at the CES now. His year was the first when MCPS considered MAP-R as well s MAP-M. His year was also the first to take the shortened CES test. So your statement is false.

What statement is false? The Map m not being part of the critera? yes that's false. it is part of the criteria.

Where they reduced children to numbers.

The current 5th graders are the first group where they MCPS changed the naming to CES from HGC. They are the first group of kids whose MAP-M was considered. They were the first group that had the shortened CES test. They are the first group of kids whose scores were not reported comprehensively to the parents. I am told in years past, multiple scores were sent home. In my 5th grader's year, he got one score and nothing else sent home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, remember that CES is a humanities/language arts-based program, not a math one, so MAP-M scores are not part of the criteria. I have a fifth grader in a CES who is doing great and has high 99% MAP-R scores, but whose MAP-M has always been in the 90-95% (high enough to do well in compacted math, but not the 99%-across-the-board student that others mention here).

The 5th graders got in under the old admissions criteria where they reviewed every child individually. The current 4th graders are the only ones that went through universal testing where everyone was basically reduced to a number.

I have a fifth grader at the CES now. His year was the first when MCPS considered MAP-R as well s MAP-M. His year was also the first to take the shortened CES test. So your statement is false.

What statement is false? The Map m not being part of the critera? yes that's false. it is part of the criteria.

Where they reduced children to numbers.

The current 5th graders are the first group where they MCPS changed the naming to CES from HGC. They are the first group of kids whose MAP-M was considered. They were the first group that had the shortened CES test. They are the first group of kids whose scores were not reported comprehensively to the parents. I am told in years past, multiple scores were sent home. In my 5th grader's year, he got one score and nothing else sent home.

So the only thing that changed for current 4th graders is the cohort criteria? And the universal screening/testing? I thought the current 4th graders were the ones first subject to the new selection process - certainly the cohort criteria everyone complains about.

[Anonymous]

So the only thing that changed for current 4th graders is the cohort criteria? And the universal screening/testing? I thought the current 4th graders were the ones first subject to the new selection process - certainly the cohort criteria everyone complains about.

As many people have noted, the "cohort criteria" is not an issue at the CES level because Montgomery County and therefore MCPS remains highly segregated. Your upper middle class white/Asian kid is "competing" with similar kids because the CES regional centers are organized by HS pyramid, and MCPS high school periods are not particularly racially integrated.

That might mean that an upper middle class white kid in a highly segregated school needs a higher score to access Cold Spring CES than a working class Latinx kid needs to access Pine Crest, but that doesn't really hurt the upper middle class white kid because that child was never in "competition" with the working class Latinx kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So the only thing that changed for current 4th graders is the cohort criteria? And the universal screening/testing? I thought the current 4th graders were the ones first subject to the new selection process - certainly the cohort criteria everyone complains about.

As many people have noted, the "cohort criteria" is not an issue at the CES level because Montgomery County and therefore MCPS remains highly segregated. Your upper middle class white/Asian kid is "competing" with similar kids because the CES regional centers are organized by HS pyramid, and MCPS high school periods are not particularly racially integrated.

That might mean that an upper middle class white kid in a highly segregated school needs a higher score to access Cold Spring CES than a working class Latinx kid needs to access Pine Crest, but that doesn't really hurt the upper middle class white kid because that child was never in "competition" with the working class Latinx kid.

Fair point that may burst many bubbles, but impossible to know exactly what happened without actual data covering when all the changes occurred. PP here - I'm just trying to understand when the different aspects of the current selection criteria started.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, remember that CES is a humanities/language arts-based program, not a math one, so MAP-M scores are not part of the criteria. I have a fifth grader in a CES who is doing great and has high 99% MAP-R scores, but whose MAP-M has always been in the 90-95% (high enough to do well in compacted math, but not the 99%-across-the-board student that others mention here).

The 5th graders got in under the old admissions criteria where they reviewed every child individually. The current 4th graders are the only ones that went through universal testing where everyone was basically reduced to a number.

I have a fifth grader at the CES now. His year was the first when MCPS considered MAP-R as well s MAP-M. His year was also the first to take the shortened CES test. So your statement is false.

What statement is false? The Map m not being part of the critera? yes that's false. it is part of the criteria.

Where they reduced children to numbers.

The current 5th graders are the first group where they MCPS changed the naming to CES from HGC. They are the first group of kids whose MAP-M was considered. They were the first group that had the shortened CES test. They are the first group of kids whose scores were not reported comprehensively to the parents. I am told in years past, multiple scores were sent home. In my 5th grader's year, he got one score and nothing else sent home.

So the only thing that changed for current 4th graders is the cohort criteria? And the universal screening/testing? I thought the current 4th graders were the ones first subject to the new selection process - certainly the cohort criteria everyone complains about.

I'm the PP you responded to. I remember distinctly that "peer cohort" was written as part of the selection criteria. That said, I don't think peer cohort matter much at the elementary school level when the same geographical group of kids are competing with each other for a spot, whereas, in the MS selection process, the cohort will play a bigger role.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So the only thing that changed for current 4th graders is the cohort criteria? And the universal screening/testing? I thought the current 4th graders were the ones first subject to the new selection process - certainly the cohort criteria everyone complains about.

As many people have noted, the "cohort criteria" is not an issue at the CES level because Montgomery County and therefore MCPS remains highly segregated. Your upper middle class white/Asian kid is "competing" with similar kids because the CES regional centers are organized by HS pyramid, and MCPS high school periods are not particularly racially integrated.

That might mean that an upper middle class white kid in a highly segregated school needs a higher score to access Cold Spring CES than a working class Latinx kid needs to access Pine Crest, but that doesn't really hurt the upper middle class white kid because that child was never in "competition" with the working class Latinx kid.

Fair point that may burst many bubbles, but impossible to know exactly what happened without actual data covering when all the changes occurred. PP here - I'm just trying to understand when the different aspects of the current selection criteria started.

I also think it's worth interrogating what "all the changes" even ARE and rejecting the assumption that "all the changes" meant a weaker CES class overall, or somehow discriminated against a subset of kids.

Because of residential segregation, MCPS schools are mostly not integrated, which means that regional CES programs are pretty homogenous. With that said, my child is at a regional CES and the program is whiter and more middle class than his home school. I guess that means the way to game the system is to be a middle class family in an integrated cluster. Which is an option open to everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So the only thing that changed for current 4th graders is the cohort criteria? And the universal screening/testing? I thought the current 4th graders were the ones first subject to the new selection process - certainly the cohort criteria everyone complains about.

As many people have noted, the "cohort criteria" is not an issue at the CES level because Montgomery County and therefore MCPS remains highly segregated. Your upper middle class white/Asian kid is "competing" with similar kids because the CES regional centers are organized by HS pyramid, and MCPS high school periods are not particularly racially integrated.

That might mean that an upper middle class white kid in a highly segregated school needs a higher score to access Cold Spring CES than a working class Latinx kid needs to access Pine Crest, but that doesn't really hurt the upper middle class white kid because that child was never in "competition" with the working class Latinx kid.

Fair point that may burst many bubbles, but impossible to know exactly what happened without actual data covering when all the changes occurred. PP here - I'm just trying to understand when the different aspects of the current selection criteria started.

I also think it's worth interrogating what "all the changes" even ARE and rejecting the assumption that "all the changes" meant a weaker CES class overall, or somehow discriminated against a subset of kids.

Because of residential segregation, MCPS schools are mostly not integrated, which means that regional CES programs are pretty homogenous. With that said, my child is at a regional CES and the program is whiter and more middle class than his home school. I guess that means the way to game the system is to be a middle class family in an integrated cluster. Which is an option open to everyone.

You are jumping to the erroneous conclusion that I think that the selected group is weaker. Nobody knows whether the group selected is weaker or stronger, because there is no data but only anecdotal information that people are conflating into asserted truths/conclusions. Further, what's getting lost is whether any changes are more less fair, and how that should be measured, and whether the result is actually furthering legitimate goals of the county. As taxpayers and consumers of this important county service, I do believe that the county should be obligated to explain what and how they are making selection, why they are doing it, and whether the results are furthering its objectives. They county, sadly, probably believes that it is doing just that, except that there's no specificity in the information provided.

As far as any impact of the "cohort criteria," if the county were able to show what you (and I) believe to be the case - that it has minimal impact at the regional CES programs - that would shut up a lot of people here who believe otherwise. "Cohort" has become short hand for "why my clearly qualified child wasn't selected." Then they can just argue about the use of the Cogat screener and whatever other changes occurred that disadvantaged their kids. Or all the Dr. Li-trained kids who achieved unnatural results on the tests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, remember that CES is a humanities/language arts-based program, not a math one, so MAP-M scores are not part of the criteria. I have a fifth grader in a CES who is doing great and has high 99% MAP-R scores, but whose MAP-M has always been in the 90-95% (high enough to do well in compacted math, but not the 99%-across-the-board student that others mention here).

The 5th graders got in under the old admissions criteria where they reviewed every child individually. The current 4th graders are the only ones that went through universal testing where everyone was basically reduced to a number.

I have a fifth grader at the CES now. His year was the first when MCPS considered MAP-R as well s MAP-M. His year was also the first to take the shortened CES test. So your statement is false.

What statement is false? The Map m not being part of the critera? yes that's false. it is part of the criteria.

Where they reduced children to numbers.

The current 5th graders are the first group where they MCPS changed the naming to CES from HGC. They are the first group of kids whose MAP-M was considered. They were the first group that had the shortened CES test. They are the first group of kids whose scores were not reported comprehensively to the parents. I am told in years past, multiple scores were sent home. In my 5th grader's year, he got one score and nothing else sent home.

So the only thing that changed for current 4th graders is the cohort criteria? And the universal screening/testing? I thought the current 4th graders were the ones first subject to the new selection process - certainly the cohort criteria everyone complains about.

The PP was not entirely accurate about current 5th Graders. Current 5th Grade families may recall that a few of the CESes were part of the pilot program that year, and a few were not and had the old application system. I think Drew was one of the pilot schools - not sure which others. The pilot schools had the testing pool selected by the central office, the shorter COGAT, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I'm the PP you responded to. I remember distinctly that "peer cohort" was written as part of the selection criteria. That said, I don't think peer cohort matter much at the elementary school level when the same geographical group of kids are competing with each other for a spot, whereas, in the MS selection process, the cohort will play a bigger role.

AEI explicitly said peer cohort was part of the selection process for the CESes so there should not be any debate but I do agree that it couldn't possibly matter as much as it does for MS due to the higher number of kids admitted and the smaller catchment areas for each program. The way I understood it described to me was something like this. If one school has children with these completely fictional scores: 99.9+, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 98, 98, 98 and another school with 99, 97, 95, 95, 90, 90, 90, 90, 89, 89 they might admit 99.9+, 99 and 99 from the first school and 99, 97, 95, 95 from the other school. The 99.9+ is an outlier. 99 and 99 are in because they wanted at a minimum a few kids from each school. In school two, 99, 97, 95 and 95 are all outliers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is it documented kids need to be in 99th percentile on MAP? I read it here all the time. Are there any publicly available documents on this? Also, any info on CogAT score needed? Thanks!

Not documented - anecdotal data gathered from many, many admitted students. However, you can work out the numbers pretty easily. Those MAP percentiles are national and MCPS students perform way above the national norm. There are ~12,000 students per grade level, just 99% of MCPS would be 1200 students and let's guess twice that number are 99% nationally giving 2400 possible students at 99%ile. That's way more seats than there are (I've lost track - estimating 2 classes of 25 at 10 schools is 500 seats).

The one consistent thing said by MCPS for the CES programs (formerly HGCs) has been that they are for students whose academic and social needs cannot be met at their home school. In other words - they are outliers. If the home school has "enough" students (5? 10? 20?) then the home school should be able to program for them. This happened with a cohort for one of my kids. There were about 10 really strong kids of the caliber that usually ended up at one of the HGCs and parents speculated that the whole group would go. Nope. Just 2 kids instead of the usual 5 or 6. Why? The remaining 8 were all in class together and the teacher developed extended lessons for them.

Ha. Your math is flawed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm the PP you responded to. I remember distinctly that "peer cohort" was written as part of the selection criteria. That said, I don't think peer cohort matter much at the elementary school level when the same geographical group of kids are competing with each other for a spot, whereas, in the MS selection process, the cohort will play a bigger role.

AEI explicitly said peer cohort was part of the selection process for the CESes so there should not be any debate but I do agree that it couldn't possibly matter as much as it does for MS due to the higher number of kids admitted and the smaller catchment areas for each program. The way I understood it described to me was something like this. If one school has children with these completely fictional scores: 99.9+, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 98, 98, 98 and another school with 99, 97, 95, 95, 90, 90, 90, 90, 89, 89 they might admit 99.9+, 99 and 99 from the first school and 99, 97, 95, 95 from the other school. The 99.9+ is an outlier. 99 and 99 are in because they wanted at a minimum a few kids from each school. In school two, 99, 97, 95 and 95 are all outliers.

Sadly nothing more than speculation

[Anonymous]

In fact, 99.9% can also rejected or waitlisted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just moved into the area so please forgive me if this sounds ignorant. I am very confused by all the information on the different threads. Could someone please explain the criteria for CES admissions for elementary school in MCPS? I understand that this is centralized now and are not requesting parent nomination/input. But what are the objective measures used?
1> MAP Scores? Is this an average over past year? 2 years?
2> Is there a COGAT test that will be administered? Or has this already passed by?
3> Other criteria?
Thanks!

Don’t bother applying, UNLESS you live in an underperforming ES with majority of kids below grade level.

[Anonymous]

For CES admission there are roughly 6 factors outlined on the MCPS website. The biggest of these factors seem to be map-r and CogAT. The least appears to be cohort since the schools tied to a center are mostly homogenous