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.

The universal screening for the entire county started with this year's 4th graders. This is the first year the applicant data was computerized to rank, look at peer cohorts, and other group criteria. That's just a fact.

As one PP correctly pointed out there was a pilot two years ago for universal screening for two centers, Fox Chapel and Drew.

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.

I suspect most PPs are talking about Cold Spring and Chevy Chase which are traditionally the most competitive centers.

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.

Nope, my 5th grader (I'm the PP above) was part of the pilot testing program two years ago and used the same process that was rolled out for all 4th graders last year. So universal screening/testing, no parent/teacher recommendations, etc.

Then you're at a local center and the criteria are very different. Still competitive but the cut offs are lower.

Nope again. Two years ago, when my child was in 3rd grade, they piloted the new selection program for the Fox Chapel and Drew centers, as well as for the new local programs. Universal screening was used for those two regional centers the year before it was rolled out for the other centers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not to pile on to the negativity, but you might want to search on these forums for "peer cohort" so that you have more of an understanding of MCPS's official position.

But doesn't that apply more to middle school and high school magnets? If a CES draws from all wealthy areas, peer cohort doesn't come into play that much, does it?
Thinking of Chevy Chase CES.

It does, and how. My child didn't get into Chevy Chase CES despite having 99% pretty much across the board. There were multiple kids like DD in her grade, and that's exactly where the 'peer cohort' concept came into play. Now they are all in the same class together, at their home school.

Same here. The CES took 3 but we know of at least 5 more that scored 99th percentile on everything. I know one of those three admitted has astronomical scores. The other two are in the same range as the kids waitlisted. I think MCPS tried to take at least 2-3 from each home school. DD is happy at the home school being grouped with the other kids with high scores.

Ditto for our school. I wonder if our kids go to the same school, but I wouldn't be surprised if similar scenario plays all over certain clusters.

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.

Nope, my 5th grader (I'm the PP above) was part of the pilot testing program two years ago and used the same process that was rolled out for all 4th graders last year. So universal screening/testing, no parent/teacher recommendations, etc.

Then you're at a local center and the criteria are very different. Still competitive but the cut offs are lower.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You will quickly learn that none of this transparent. There are not enough spots for qualified students.

+1

MCPS even admits that much. All the kids on the Wait List are equally qualified. They choose off of the await List based on pure lottery.

That basically means that ALL the Wait List kids could benefit from a CES, there just are not enough seats.

Yes and no. I think they should either greatly narrow the program admissions or greatly expand it. There are very few real outliers but a lot of 99th percentile kids. They should either take those very top kids, a dozen or maybe less by my guess at each CES, and give them their own program or double the number of seats in the CES. I also think grades should be weighted less than test scores at this age. I think the CESes should serve kids with great potential who might otherwise get lost in the system. If the kids are testing at levels similar to a decent sized peer group and getting straight As then by definition they are doing well at their home school and maybe don't need the program. But if they are testing well but not getting all As there's something amiss and maybe they need a different type of teaching. That's my 2 cents.

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.

Nope, my 5th grader (I'm the PP above) was part of the pilot testing program two years ago and used the same process that was rolled out for all 4th graders last year. So universal screening/testing, no parent/teacher recommendations, etc.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not to pile on to the negativity, but you might want to search on these forums for "peer cohort" so that you have more of an understanding of MCPS's official position.

But doesn't that apply more to middle school and high school magnets? If a CES draws from all wealthy areas, peer cohort doesn't come into play that much, does it?
Thinking of Chevy Chase CES.

It does, and how. My child didn't get into Chevy Chase CES despite having 99% pretty much across the board. There were multiple kids like DD in her grade, and that's exactly where the 'peer cohort' concept came into play. Now they are all in the same class together, at their home school.

Same here. The CES took 3 but we know of at least 5 more that scored 99th percentile on everything. I know one of those three admitted has astronomical scores. The other two are in the same range as the kids waitlisted. I think MCPS tried to take at least 2-3 from each home school. DD is happy at the home school being grouped with the other kids with high scores.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:99th% scores don't always get you in. I'm not sure how they weigh grades. DS was rejected with 99% in all test areas, A/Bs on report cards. I know one kid in his school around 96th% testing who got in.

On what type of testing, though?

MAP and CoGAT for CES, adding in PARCC as another factor for MS GT consideration.

Anonymous wrote:99th% scores don't always get you in. I'm not sure how they weigh grades. DS was rejected with 99% in all test areas, A/Bs on report cards. I know one kid in his school around 96th% testing who got in.

On what type of testing, though?

At this point someone ought to just link to the prior, massive threads about CES selection last spring, because it will save some electrons.

Many people aren't happy with the process, and many of those people have their own narratives about what happened, and God help the person who tries to establish a different narrative.

Anonymous wrote:The county says it doesn't use MAP-M for this. The criteria has been completely covered in fine detail. The method is transparent and MAP-M is for compacted math not the humanities CES.

No, I don't recall see from any source says explicitly that MAP-M is excluded from this evaluation process.