Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I am so so so glad we made it into the CES next year. This is a complete bait and switch for those who didn’t get into the lottery
Well that’s great for you. How is any of this fair for the kids who qualified for the CES but didn’t get a seat through the lottery. I don’t understand how MCPS justifies keeping CES. Disband them and offer enrichment at local schools.
Advocating to disband the CES isn't going to help, PP. I agree with you that all of this is unfair, and counterproductive, but I'm old enough to remember that ELC was introduced in order to redress concerns that arose after MCPS adjusted the cut-off for CES. It was introduced explicitly in response to parent outrage, which means it can be brought back the same way.
I don’t think it should be disbanded for sour grapes reasons, I just don’t see the point in it. The fact that they moved to a system that now identifies kids who qualify and then lotteries off the spots exposes that more kids qualify for the program than MCPS will provide spots for. Why? Why can’t MCPS offer an enriched curriculum to everyone who qualifies based on the criteria that they set? The solution to me is that it should be provided at the local school level for all the kids in the pool, instead of creating winners and losers arbitrarily based on a lottery, and then bussing those winners to other schools and leaving the losers with no enrichment. Why are there now essentially two systems for the same pool of kids? This makes no sense.
MCPS hasn’t always used a lottery system for admissions to the CES (or previously, for the HGC), but they have always had more students who qualified than seats for qualified students. That part isn’t new. In fact, there are fewer seats in the middle school magnets than at CES. They should expand these magnet programs or limit them to the very most advanced learners. They should not randomly select a small portion of students who are in the top half of performers for the CES and then offer no enrichment to most of the qualified students. The ways they plan to offer an enriched curriculum to students isn’t satisfactory to anyone.
Yes, I know how the prior system worked and how the current system works. I think the lottery process exposes that they do not provide access to all who qualify. They set the criteria, they identify students, and then they say sorry, no access for you to a segment of the identified students. Why do we need to expand magnets when the curriculum could be provided in the local schools? Same with the middle school magnets. Don't people want their kids to stay at their local schools but have access to the best programs MCPS has to offer? Why the gate keeping, the two tiered system, the busing kids around? Who wants this other than maybe current magnet parents who fear that somehow bringing the curriculum to the local schools will feel less special?
We already have a successful model for this with the four local CES schools. They should expand that program to any school with a large enough cohort to populate at least one classroom. If schools don't have a large enough cohort, their students should be able to attend a regional CES. I don't understand why they have not implemented this.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I am so so so glad we made it into the CES next year. This is a complete bait and switch for those who didn’t get into the lottery
Well that’s great for you. How is any of this fair for the kids who qualified for the CES but didn’t get a seat through the lottery. I don’t understand how MCPS justifies keeping CES. Disband them and offer enrichment at local schools.
Advocating to disband the CES isn't going to help, PP. I agree with you that all of this is unfair, and counterproductive, but I'm old enough to remember that ELC was introduced in order to redress concerns that arose after MCPS adjusted the cut-off for CES. It was introduced explicitly in response to parent outrage, which means it can be brought back the same way.
I don’t think it should be disbanded for sour grapes reasons, I just don’t see the point in it. The fact that they moved to a system that now identifies kids who qualify and then lotteries off the spots exposes that more kids qualify for the program than MCPS will provide spots for. Why? Why can’t MCPS offer an enriched curriculum to everyone who qualifies based on the criteria that they set? The solution to me is that it should be provided at the local school level for all the kids in the pool, instead of creating winners and losers arbitrarily based on a lottery, and then bussing those winners to other schools and leaving the losers with no enrichment. Why are there now essentially two systems for the same pool of kids? This makes no sense.
MCPS hasn’t always used a lottery system for admissions to the CES (or previously, for the HGC), but they have always had more students who qualified than seats for qualified students. That part isn’t new. In fact, there are fewer seats in the middle school magnets than at CES. They should expand these magnet programs or limit them to the very most advanced learners. They should not randomly select a small portion of students who are in the top half of performers for the CES and then offer no enrichment to most of the qualified students. The ways they plan to offer an enriched curriculum to students isn’t satisfactory to anyone.
Yes, I know how the prior system worked and how the current system works. I think the lottery process exposes that they do not provide access to all who qualify. They set the criteria, they identify students, and then they say sorry, no access for you to a segment of the identified students. Why do we need to expand magnets when the curriculum could be provided in the local schools? Same with the middle school magnets. Don't people want their kids to stay at their local schools but have access to the best programs MCPS has to offer? Why the gate keeping, the two tiered system, the busing kids around? Who wants this other than maybe current magnet parents who fear that somehow bringing the curriculum to the local schools will feel less special?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Im the parent who posted that we got into the CES next year and I would love if she could stay at her home school and be in a class with just high performing kids, but even if it were just ELC (and compacted math I guess) everything else would continue to be mixed. I hear constantly about the kids in her class who are behind and who take the attention of the teacher. The fact that all the kids will be advanced is what I’m looking forward to most.
I never thought I’d say this but I truly think we need to go back to tracking — more like the German education system…
But they don’t want to go back to tracking because it harms more kids than it helps. Your child would benefit from tracking, but other kids would not.
They don't have to track kids. They could let kids in and out of the courses as appropriate. That's what happens in math. Some kids who do 5/6 do 6+ and others do AIM. Meanwhile, some kids who do math 5 go into 6+ while othrs go into 6. You could do the same with ELA. In fact, that's what they did with ELC.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Im the parent who posted that we got into the CES next year and I would love if she could stay at her home school and be in a class with just high performing kids, but even if it were just ELC (and compacted math I guess) everything else would continue to be mixed. I hear constantly about the kids in her class who are behind and who take the attention of the teacher. The fact that all the kids will be advanced is what I’m looking forward to most.
I never thought I’d say this but I truly think we need to go back to tracking — more like the German education system…
But they don’t want to go back to tracking because it harms more kids than it helps. Your child would benefit from tracking, but other kids would not.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Im the parent who posted that we got into the CES next year and I would love if she could stay at her home school and be in a class with just high performing kids, but even if it were just ELC (and compacted math I guess) everything else would continue to be mixed. I hear constantly about the kids in her class who are behind and who take the attention of the teacher. The fact that all the kids will be advanced is what I’m looking forward to most.
I never thought I’d say this but I truly think we need to go back to tracking — more like the German education system…
But they don’t want to go back to tracking because it harms more kids than it helps. Your child would benefit from tracking, but other kids would not.
Anonymous wrote:Im the parent who posted that we got into the CES next year and I would love if she could stay at her home school and be in a class with just high performing kids, but even if it were just ELC (and compacted math I guess) everything else would continue to be mixed. I hear constantly about the kids in her class who are behind and who take the attention of the teacher. The fact that all the kids will be advanced is what I’m looking forward to most.
I never thought I’d say this but I truly think we need to go back to tracking — more like the German education system…
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I am so so so glad we made it into the CES next year. This is a complete bait and switch for those who didn’t get into the lottery
Well that’s great for you. How is any of this fair for the kids who qualified for the CES but didn’t get a seat through the lottery. I don’t understand how MCPS justifies keeping CES. Disband them and offer enrichment at local schools.
Advocating to disband the CES isn't going to help, PP. I agree with you that all of this is unfair, and counterproductive, but I'm old enough to remember that ELC was introduced in order to redress concerns that arose after MCPS adjusted the cut-off for CES. It was introduced explicitly in response to parent outrage, which means it can be brought back the same way.
I don’t think it should be disbanded for sour grapes reasons, I just don’t see the point in it. The fact that they moved to a system that now identifies kids who qualify and then lotteries off the spots exposes that more kids qualify for the program than MCPS will provide spots for. Why? Why can’t MCPS offer an enriched curriculum to everyone who qualifies based on the criteria that they set? The solution to me is that it should be provided at the local school level for all the kids in the pool, instead of creating winners and losers arbitrarily based on a lottery, and then bussing those winners to other schools and leaving the losers with no enrichment. Why are there now essentially two systems for the same pool of kids? This makes no sense.
MCPS hasn’t always used a lottery system for admissions to the CES (or previously, for the HGC), but they have always had more students who qualified than seats for qualified students. That part isn’t new. In fact, there are fewer seats in the middle school magnets than at CES. They should expand these magnet programs or limit them to the very most advanced learners. They should not randomly select a small portion of students who are in the top half of performers for the CES and then offer no enrichment to most of the qualified students. The ways they plan to offer an enriched curriculum to students isn’t satisfactory to anyone.
Yes, I know how the prior system worked and how the current system works. I think the lottery process exposes that they do not provide access to all who qualify. They set the criteria, they identify students, and then they say sorry, no access for you to a segment of the identified students. Why do we need to expand magnets when the curriculum could be provided in the local schools? Same with the middle school magnets. Don't people want their kids to stay at their local schools but have access to the best programs MCPS has to offer? Why the gate keeping, the two tiered system, the busing kids around? Who wants this other than maybe current magnet parents who fear that somehow bringing the curriculum to the local schools will feel less special?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I am so so so glad we made it into the CES next year. This is a complete bait and switch for those who didn’t get into the lottery
Well that’s great for you. How is any of this fair for the kids who qualified for the CES but didn’t get a seat through the lottery. I don’t understand how MCPS justifies keeping CES. Disband them and offer enrichment at local schools.
Advocating to disband the CES isn't going to help, PP. I agree with you that all of this is unfair, and counterproductive, but I'm old enough to remember that ELC was introduced in order to redress concerns that arose after MCPS adjusted the cut-off for CES. It was introduced explicitly in response to parent outrage, which means it can be brought back the same way.
I don’t think it should be disbanded for sour grapes reasons, I just don’t see the point in it. The fact that they moved to a system that now identifies kids who qualify and then lotteries off the spots exposes that more kids qualify for the program than MCPS will provide spots for. Why? Why can’t MCPS offer an enriched curriculum to everyone who qualifies based on the criteria that they set? The solution to me is that it should be provided at the local school level for all the kids in the pool, instead of creating winners and losers arbitrarily based on a lottery, and then bussing those winners to other schools and leaving the losers with no enrichment. Why are there now essentially two systems for the same pool of kids? This makes no sense.
MCPS hasn’t always used a lottery system for admissions to the CES (or previously, for the HGC), but they have always had more students who qualified than seats for qualified students. That part isn’t new. In fact, there are fewer seats in the middle school magnets than at CES. They should expand these magnet programs or limit them to the very most advanced learners. They should not randomly select a small portion of students who are in the top half of performers for the CES and then offer no enrichment to most of the qualified students. The ways they plan to offer an enriched curriculum to students isn’t satisfactory to anyone.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I am so so so glad we made it into the CES next year. This is a complete bait and switch for those who didn’t get into the lottery
Well that’s great for you. How is any of this fair for the kids who qualified for the CES but didn’t get a seat through the lottery. I don’t understand how MCPS justifies keeping CES. Disband them and offer enrichment at local schools.
Advocating to disband the CES isn't going to help, PP. I agree with you that all of this is unfair, and counterproductive, but I'm old enough to remember that ELC was introduced in order to redress concerns that arose after MCPS adjusted the cut-off for CES. It was introduced explicitly in response to parent outrage, which means it can be brought back the same way.
I don’t think it should be disbanded for sour grapes reasons, I just don’t see the point in it. The fact that they moved to a system that now identifies kids who qualify and then lotteries off the spots exposes that more kids qualify for the program than MCPS will provide spots for. Why? Why can’t MCPS offer an enriched curriculum to everyone who qualifies based on the criteria that they set? The solution to me is that it should be provided at the local school level for all the kids in the pool, instead of creating winners and losers arbitrarily based on a lottery, and then bussing those winners to other schools and leaving the losers with no enrichment. Why are there now essentially two systems for the same pool of kids? This makes no sense.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I am so so so glad we made it into the CES next year. This is a complete bait and switch for those who didn’t get into the lottery
Well that’s great for you. How is any of this fair for the kids who qualified for the CES but didn’t get a seat through the lottery. I don’t understand how MCPS justifies keeping CES. Disband them and offer enrichment at local schools.
Advocating to disband the CES isn't going to help, PP. I agree with you that all of this is unfair, and counterproductive, but I'm old enough to remember that ELC was introduced in order to redress concerns that arose after MCPS adjusted the cut-off for CES. It was introduced explicitly in response to parent outrage, which means it can be brought back the same way.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I am so so so glad we made it into the CES next year. This is a complete bait and switch for those who didn’t get into the lottery
Well that’s great for you. How is any of this fair for the kids who qualified for the CES but didn’t get a seat through the lottery. I don’t understand how MCPS justifies keeping CES. Disband them and offer enrichment at local schools.
Anonymous wrote:Nothing will happen until parents with advanced kids not receiving instruction that meets their needs all instruct their children to intentionally bomp mcap testing.
You can no longer opt out in the state of Maryland but students are absolutely not mandated ton do their best.
Or parents leave the school.
Some principals only care about test scores and MD report card. Stop letting your kids prop up schools who do not meet their needs.
Anonymous wrote:I am so so so glad we made it into the CES next year. This is a complete bait and switch for those who didn’t get into the lottery