Anyone else sick of gifted talk?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

know I am going to be flamed by mamas who claim that their kids are gifted. Gifted in my opinion means a God-given intelligence, innate in you. Which also means that they will remain gifted even if they do not get into magnet schools. Furthermore, the process by which they are admitted to the center is not really measuring giftedness, because is there a test that can measure that? And could giftedness come in different flavors?

well stated

Not to flame, but you've put forward some common misunderstandings. There's no "extra gift from God" - the biology, brain chemistry, DNA et cetera - is all basically the same. But that said, all kids are born along a spectrum with varying capabilities along that spectrum. Some kids are able to process information faster than other kids. Some kids are able to manage complex concepts and information in their heads than others. Some kids have better memory than others. Some kids are better at recognizing patterns than others. Some kids are better at visualizing and transforming spatial objects in their heads. There are a whole host of aspects to it - and many of the aspects of what is meaningful in areas like academics are in fact measurable and quantifiable via standardized tests like the Wechsler IQ tests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

know I am going to be flamed by mamas who claim that their kids are gifted. Gifted in my opinion means a God-given intelligence, innate in you. Which also means that they will remain gifted even if they do not get into magnet schools. Furthermore, the process by which they are admitted to the center is not really measuring giftedness, because is there a test that can measure that? And could giftedness come in different flavors?

well stated

Not to flame, but you've put forward some common misunderstandings. There's no "extra gift from God" - the biology, brain chemistry, DNA et cetera - is all basically the same. But that said, all kids are born along a spectrum with varying capabilities along that spectrum. Some kids are able to process information faster than other kids. Some kids are able to manage complex concepts and information in their heads than others. Some kids have better memory than others. Some kids are better at recognizing patterns than others. Some kids are better at visualizing and transforming spatial objects in their heads. There are a whole host of aspects to it - and many of the aspects of what is meaningful in areas like academics are in fact measurable and quantifiable via standardized tests like the Wechsler IQ tests.

Well, in the end - nature and nurture both impact giftedness. If we measure these capabilities in newborns, we will find that the environment of the womb, the nutrition the mother had, the age of the parents - all these things also affect the child.

I agree that many of these capabilities are meaningful in areas of academics, but I also want to suggest that we have only one way of teaching in our schools. So many of these capabilities will not get a chance to be utilized in academics because the limitations of curriculum and the mechanics of how that curriculum is imparted.

I will say that quite a few kids who get into HGC, are bright, get the nurture at home, get some coaching, and are plain lucky. It is not all nature. Nor is HGC admissions geared towards really measuring all of the varying capabilities that a kid might have. They are limited in that they are also measuring test taking skills and brain chemistry at a given moment in time.

[Anonymous]

Sure, there may be some over-the-top parents here and there getting "coaching" for their kids but I think that a.) that is the exception, rather than the rule and b.) I don't think "coaching" would be terribly effective and any gains w would at best be marginal, given the nature of many of the questions. They are typically not knowledge-based questions, nor are they typically formulaic problem solving questions like normal testing that one can more effectively coach someone on.

[Anonymous]

Sure, there may be some over-the-top parents here and there getting "coaching" for their kids but I think that a.) that is the exception, rather than the rule and b.) I don't think "coaching" would be terribly effective and any gains w would at best be marginal, given the nature of many of the questions. They are typically not knowledge-based questions, nor are they typically formulaic problem solving questions like normal testing that one can more effectively coach someone on.

Agree, to a point. When kids are given "practice tests" that are exactly like the test they are given for real, you can expect the scores to be significantly higher

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Sure, there may be some over-the-top parents here and there getting "coaching" for their kids but I think that a.) that is the exception, rather than the rule and b.) I don't think "coaching" would be terribly effective and any gains w would at best be marginal, given the nature of many of the questions. They are typically not knowledge-based questions, nor are they typically formulaic problem solving questions like normal testing that one can more effectively coach someone on.

Agree, to a point. When kids are given "practice tests" that are exactly like the test they are given for real, you can expect the scores to be significantly higher

Regardless of how they do in the test, most are regular smart kids, who work hard. The whole "highly gifted" label I will buy if they are Doogie Howser or Jimmy Neutron!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sure, there may be some over-the-top parents here and there getting "coaching" for their kids but I think that a.) that is the exception, rather than the rule and b.) I don't think "coaching" would be terribly effective and any gains w would at best be marginal, given the nature of many of the questions. They are typically not knowledge-based questions, nor are they typically formulaic problem solving questions like normal testing that one can more effectively coach someone on.

Agree, to a point. When kids are given "practice tests" that are exactly like the test they are given for real, you can expect the scores to be significantly higher

Regardless of how they do in the test, most are regular smart kids, who work hard. The whole "highly gifted" label I will buy if they are Doogie Howser or Jimmy Neutron!

You DO realize that Doogie Howser and Jimmy Neutron aren't real people?

It doesn't work like it does in TV fantasy land.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Sure, there may be some over-the-top parents here and there getting "coaching" for their kids but I think that a.) that is the exception, rather than the rule and b.) I don't think "coaching" would be terribly effective and any gains w would at best be marginal, given the nature of many of the questions. They are typically not knowledge-based questions, nor are they typically formulaic problem solving questions like normal testing that one can more effectively coach someone on.

Agree, to a point. When kids are given "practice tests" that are exactly like the test they are given for real, you can expect the scores to be significantly higher

I don't think many of the WISC "sample questions" or "practice tests" that one encounters are actually legitimate - not to mention that it would be highly unethical for anyone to ever give out actual questions. Sure, there might be some "this is the type of thing you might encounter" which might make the questions less of a surprise and less unfamiliar but it still isn't going to necessarily ensure better performance.

[Anonymous]

I don't think many of the WISC "sample questions" or "practice tests" that one encounters are actually legitimate - not to mention that it would be highly unethical for anyone to ever give out actual questions. Sure, there might be some "this is the type of thing you might encounter" which might make the questions less of a surprise and less unfamiliar but it still isn't going to necessarily ensure better performance.

You are incredibly naïve. This now goes on on a regular basis. There are prep classes for the GT program and TJ that use tests that used to be under "lock and key". it is unethical.

[Anonymous]

Sure, there might be some "this is the type of thing you might encounter" which might make the questions less of a surprise and less unfamiliar but it still isn't going to necessarily ensure better performance.

Of course, it ensures better performance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not the PP but I will respond to you 9:20 - if you were the one who posted suggesting that the number of G&T kids was not sufficient to warrant meaningful G&T programs, then you are patently wrong. 80 per grade is more than enough. Even 40 per grade would be more than enough. Your objections are baffling. Evidently you don't seem to understand that many of us (particularly those of us in DC) are not so lucky as you to have ready access to those programs, and also might not be so well off as to be able to afford a $500k home in the burbs to get access to the programs that you evidently have access to. You are free to be as frustrated as you like but your frustration is purely a function of your own incapacity to understand the situations that many others here are in.

Uh, the question was not whether 5 or 80 or 800 kids, considered in isolation, is "enough." It's whether that number of kids justifies addressing all the DC political issues and/or spending probably millions on new facilities, new teachers. Most of the shuttered DC schools are now DMVs and clinics and such so even if you took the school facilities back you'd have to spend $$$ to relocate the DMVs. Also, taking 1-2 gifted kids from a class in each school won't free up teachers from the home schools, so you'd have to hire new teachers. That's the issue (and your incapacity to understand). Basic math.

NP here. You are misinformed about the current state of DCPS properties. The vast majority of the buildings, including those that have undergone recent renovations are sitting empty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sure, there may be some over-the-top parents here and there getting "coaching" for their kids but I think that a.) that is the exception, rather than the rule and b.) I don't think "coaching" would be terribly effective and any gains w would at best be marginal, given the nature of many of the questions. They are typically not knowledge-based questions, nor are they typically formulaic problem solving questions like normal testing that one can more effectively coach someone on.

Agree, to a point. When kids are given "practice tests" that are exactly like the test they are given for real, you can expect the scores to be significantly higher

Regardless of how they do in the test, most are regular smart kids, who work hard. The whole "highly gifted" label I will buy if they are Doogie Howser or Jimmy Neutron!

You DO realize that Doogie Howser and Jimmy Neutron aren't real people?

It doesn't work like it does in TV fantasy land.

Exactly. In real life the "highly gifted" label that is bestowed on 3% of students at MCPS is not appropriate. There are other kids who do not get in because there are not enough seats to accommodate these kids. But they are equally smart. The HGC curriculum can be handled by many other kids outside of HGC - and so to declare an arbitrary number of kids as "Highly Gifted" is a misnomer.

A number of these HGC kids do not make it to the magnet MS program, and quite a few kids from normal schools get in. That just proves that the human brain is continuously evolving. And if it is evolving then this "giftedness" is not fixed.

Just so you know, my HGC kid does extremely well IQ tests and any standardized test you can throw at him. He was an early admission kid and took Raven at 7 and his score was way higher than 95th percentile for 9 and 1/2 yrs old. (http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/curriculum/enriched/about/Understanding%20Screening.pdf ). Same goes for every single test he takes - HGC, JHU-CTY. Raven, InView, MSA etc. He just does well effortlessly at tests - and is usually at 99 percentile on everything. At school, he has to put in as much effort as the next kid for every thing. Not just in HGC but his previous school as well. So in my estimation he is smart and he has to work hard. He is lucky that the one thing that he can do effortlessly (ie - be a ridiculously high test scorer), gets recognized as some sort of "giftedness" by MCPS..

But, if I start believing that he is special, based on his test results, I feel I will do him a disservice, because this "gift" of being an extremely good test taker does not translate into academic success and a solid education. For that, he has to work hard. And then, he will have the same chances of success as any MCPS kid who works hard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I don't think many of the WISC "sample questions" or "practice tests" that one encounters are actually legitimate - not to mention that it would be highly unethical for anyone to ever give out actual questions. Sure, there might be some "this is the type of thing you might encounter" which might make the questions less of a surprise and less unfamiliar but it still isn't going to necessarily ensure better performance.

You are incredibly naïve. This now goes on on a regular basis. There are prep classes for the GT program and TJ that use tests that used to be under "lock and key". it is unethical.

Yes, it's unethical - but are those classes actually effective, though? Any metrics on scores before and after? Unless there's a demonstrable gain, it really doesn't matter much. If anything I'd wager most of the folks offering prep classes are probably scammers - many of whom probably don't even have the actual test materials.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not the PP but I will respond to you 9:20 - if you were the one who posted suggesting that the number of G&T kids was not sufficient to warrant meaningful G&T programs, then you are patently wrong. 80 per grade is more than enough. Even 40 per grade would be more than enough. Your objections are baffling. Evidently you don't seem to understand that many of us (particularly those of us in DC) are not so lucky as you to have ready access to those programs, and also might not be so well off as to be able to afford a $500k home in the burbs to get access to the programs that you evidently have access to. You are free to be as frustrated as you like but your frustration is purely a function of your own incapacity to understand the situations that many others here are in.

Uh, the question was not whether 5 or 80 or 800 kids, considered in isolation, is "enough." It's whether that number of kids justifies addressing all the DC political issues and/or spending probably millions on new facilities, new teachers. Most of the shuttered DC schools are now DMVs and clinics and such so even if you took the school facilities back you'd have to spend $$$ to relocate the DMVs. Also, taking 1-2 gifted kids from a class in each school won't free up teachers from the home schools, so you'd have to hire new teachers. That's the issue (and your incapacity to understand). Basic math.

NP here. You are misinformed about the current state of DCPS properties. The vast majority of the buildings, including those that have undergone recent renovations are sitting empty.

By my estimation there would probably be well over 3,000 potential G&T students in DCPS and DC charters if one took the top 5%. That's no small number to shrug off. Consider that there are probably 5,000-6,000 students in DCPS participating in sports for which plenty is provided in terms of extra facilities, fields, stadiums, money, resources, equipment, coaches, staff, maintenance of fields and equipment, team transportation, et cetera... Yet only a tiny percentage of those kids will ever go on to ever do anything with sports professionally or otherwise in their adult lives. MOST G&T students on the other hand would likely go on to leverage the academic skills they build in their school days toward college and professionally, making the investment in G&T a far more worthwhile and useful one.

[Anonymous]

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/274255.php

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don't think many of the WISC "sample questions" or "practice tests" that one encounters are actually legitimate - not to mention that it would be highly unethical for anyone to ever give out actual questions. Sure, there might be some "this is the type of thing you might encounter" which might make the questions less of a surprise and less unfamiliar but it still isn't going to necessarily ensure better performance.

You are incredibly naïve. This now goes on on a regular basis. There are prep classes for the GT program and TJ that use tests that used to be under "lock and key". it is unethical.

Yes, it's unethical - but are those classes actually effective, though? Any metrics on scores before and after? Unless there's a demonstrable gain, it really doesn't matter much. If anything I'd wager most of the folks offering prep classes are probably scammers - many of whom probably don't even have the actual test materials.

Why is it unethical? Is buying a house in a W cluster unethical? Is taking your kid to museums unethical? Putting him in basketball camp unethical? Having a private tutor unethical? How about hiring an educational consultant?

It would be unethical only if these prep classes used the actual test materials, which was not available to anyone else. They use test prep books. The kind that you can buy and make your kids do exercises from. And it is no way similar to the test that MCPS administers. It is more like SSAT - the kind that private schools use for admissions. So the tests they take is not at all similar to what MCPS administers. English prep is a slew of long reading comprehension passages and vocabulary, what MCPS tests is basically analogies.

Yes, the test prep folks give a pre-test and other subsequent tests to your kids, invariably they do poorly on the pre-test because they are harder than the subsequent tests. How do I know that? I know my kid, he did not do any homework that the test center assigned and had a 30% improvement by the second test.

I would guess that at the cost (approx. $ 1K), the people who are going for these preps are serious about education and can afford it and have already decided to go to HGC. So, pretty self selected (just like JHU-CTY). Approximately, 30% of the prep class gets in (higher than the 15% of regular applicants - but again - this is a self selected group of high performing kids).

The benefit - I felt that my kid learned to actually sit and focus for few hours and that helped on the day of exam, also, he learned some test taking skills and practised on the scantron sheet. I feel that he got some enrichment for basic math and english - just not very useful for the test - but definitely useful for mastering these subjects. If your kid can sit and do some worksheets at home there is nothing more that these prep course teach. Another thing - this is coaching and not tutoring. So they will show you how to tackle a question, but they will not teach content. If you are depending on your kid being taught by these test preps centers, you are mistaken. They will coach on how to take the test. Kids are expected to master content by themselves.

BTW - what the test preps make the kids practice do not look anything like the sample questions that the school system hand out.