Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what I don't understand: Why is it that the SES factor even matters for the CES selection process, when the pool of kids from multiple elementary schools are supposed to fall under same SES category (of of the three)? This is particularly the case for the Cold Spring CES. Any insight?

Anonymous wrote:Last year, they didn't get the desired result which was a CES population that mirrors the demographics (by race which is what they care about) with the cohort model so they are fiddling around with the way they pick to get more URMs in the magnets.

You’re. Lcorrect. The schools assign to one center or another have similar SES so it has little impact.

Depends on the cluster. I think it made a difference for Oak View. I think Sligo Creek feeds into this CES and it is less than 10% FARMS/10% ESOL. I have many friends who live there and they are UMC professionals with six-figure incomes. In that same catchment area there are a huge number of Title I schools like Rolling Terrace which is 72% FARMS, 52% ESOL.

Respectfully, you need to stop. MCPS has been very open about their goals and it has been addressed in countless meetings and reports. They have defined diversity as having to do with race and socio-economic status, and their goal is to close that gap.

I don't disagree that there are some parents crying foul and blaming the diversity goal for negative results but it's all about your perception of the purpose of the programs and who "deserves" or "needs" admission. No one is wrong.

Some would argue that the 99th percentile rich kid fairly beat out the 89th percentile FARMS kid and should be admitted. My view is that we need to account for hardships so maybe the 89th percentile FARMS kid is more deserving and "needs" it more. But what about a 50th percentile FARMS kid?

Anonymous wrote:They said this when they talked about MS admissions. MS admissions used a similar SES grouping process. The whole goal of all these reforms was to get a diverse group admitted. There was some increase in URMs last year but overall they were disappointed in the results.

You can agree or disagree with this goal but it's just odd to deny that this is the target when MCPS has had countless meetings and commissioned reports and had different interest groups screaming at each other about this issue.

The goal was to make the make-up of the program more representative of the student body at large, not mere "diversity." It's unfortunately become a crutch for every parent who isn't happy about the results for their kid. Too many things changed last year to really know how much each particular change affected the chances for any particular student, but at least at the CES level, the impact of "cohort" seems marginal. Someone smart enough with all the data could figure it out, I suspect, but that hasn't happened yet.

Anonymous wrote:My child was rejected (64th percentile MCPS and 92th percentile National). Home school is Westbrook Elementary in Bethesda.

Out of curiosity, putting aside the CES process, what would you take away from these scores? Would you be worried about the 64th percentile, and perhaps try Kumon or similar outside of school?

This is what I don’t understand. This kid scored better than 92% of kids nationwide, and you’re talking about Kumon?? This type of pushing/pressure on a kid can’t be good. It just can’t.

I would not be concerned. I think MCPS did a disservice to parents by making them panic about these percentile scores without explaining how little they mean. I would focus on the 92nd percentile score which is more predictive of future success.

You can't control the artificial groupings MCPS created for the purpose of CES admissions and they are meaningless outside this context.

My child was rejected (64th percentile MCPS and 92th percentile National). Home school is Westbrook Elementary in Bethesda.

Out of curiosity, putting aside the CES process, what would you take away from these scores? Would you be worried about the 64th percentile, and perhaps try Kumon or similar outside of school?

Anonymous wrote:They said this when they talked about MS admissions. MS admissions used a similar SES grouping process. The whole goal of all these reforms was to get a diverse group admitted. There was some increase in URMs last year but overall they were disappointed in the results.

You can agree or disagree with this goal but it's just odd to deny that this is the target when MCPS has had countless meetings and commissioned reports and had different interest groups screaming at each other about this issue.

Yes, I agree.

Olney, 20832
We are still waiting the letter. Anybody got it in Olney area?

They said this when they talked about MS admissions. MS admissions used a similar SES grouping process. The whole goal of all these reforms was to get a diverse group admitted. There was some increase in URMs last year but overall they were disappointed in the results.

You can agree or disagree with this goal but it's just odd to deny that this is the target when MCPS has had countless meetings and commissioned reports and had different interest groups screaming at each other about this issue.

The poster claiming the county didn’t get the desired results is making this up. There’s no evidence to support that. It’s just another conspiracy theory.

Anonymous wrote:This is what I don't understand: Why is it that the SES factor even matters for the CES selection process, when the pool of kids from multiple elementary schools are supposed to fall under same SES category (of of the three)? This is particularly the case for the Cold Spring CES. Any insight?

Anonymous wrote:Last year, they didn't get the desired result which was a CES population that mirrors the demographics (by race which is what they care about) with the cohort model so they are fiddling around with the way they pick to get more URMs in the magnets.

You’re. Lcorrect. The schools assign to one center or another have similar SES so it has little impact.

This is what I don't understand: Why is it that the SES factor even matters for the CES selection process, when the pool of kids from multiple elementary schools are supposed to fall under same SES category (of of the three)? This is particularly the case for the Cold Spring CES. Any insight?

Anonymous wrote:Last year, they didn't get the desired result which was a CES population that mirrors the demographics (by race which is what they care about) with the cohort model so they are fiddling around with the way they pick to get more URMs in the magnets.

Last year, they didn't get the desired result which was a CES population that mirrors the demographics (by race which is what they care about) with the cohort model so they are fiddling around with the way they pick to get more URMs in the magnets.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they are adjusting the MCPS percentile depending on which school the kid attends, it's not a percentile and they should say that clearly in the letter.

It's kinda mean to make someone thing they're not doing well compared to others, when in fact they might be doing great.

MCPS, in my possibly ill informed opinion, may be trying to make the parents of high performing kids in high SES schools think their kids aren’t as bright as they are (and hence not in need of more advanced instruction).

I'm sure that's why they released this scores this year. There was a lot of complaining last year that 99th percentile (national) kids not making it into the CES but when you are in the Cold Spring catchment area, for example, your MCPS percentile might actually be 94th or 95th which helps explain to parents that other 99th percentile kids had higher raw scores.

Do they think the parents are stupid?

And with the cohort policy - which makes a degree of sense - why is it even necessary?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they are adjusting the MCPS percentile depending on which school the kid attends, it's not a percentile and they should say that clearly in the letter.

It's kinda mean to make someone thing they're not doing well compared to others, when in fact they might be doing great.

MCPS, in my possibly ill informed opinion, may be trying to make the parents of high performing kids in high SES schools think their kids aren’t as bright as they are (and hence not in need of more advanced instruction).

I'm sure that's why they released this scores this year. There was a lot of complaining last year that 99th percentile (national) kids not making it into the CES but when you are in the Cold Spring catchment area, for example, your MCPS percentile might actually be 94th or 95th which helps explain to parents that other 99th percentile kids had higher raw scores.