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?

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.

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

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….

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)

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.

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)

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.

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone share their experience who have a current 4th grader in the program? Do you feel your child benefited from this program? Thanks.

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)

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.

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone share their experience who have a current 4th grader in the program? Do you feel your child benefited from this program? Thanks.