Starr on Kojo's Show on Math Acceleration

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some magnet programs are inconveniently located 1 + hour from the home.

ES magnets are not +1 hour away from ANYONE in the county.

You are wrong. Factor in traffic, you have more than 1 hour.

Is the drive not worth it for your kid's education? I think I would try to make it work if I could.

It is simply a factual observation: some children are over an hour away. This isn't relative to my kids b/c of their ages. That said, for a family dealing with a chronically ill child, cancer, job loss, financial issues, etc., yes I can certainly imagine a family deciding that adding a 1 hour commute for the child on top of all that would be too much. Life isn't always black and white.

None of this really answers the original question as to why such a gifted child would not be at a magnet. The poster complained that the child should be accelerated and had the testing done on the child. I thought perhaps magnets might be an option.

It's simple - not enought resourses.
Magnet schools can accomodate 2-3% of the kids, while statistically, 35-40% of all children in MoCo were tested as gifted.
So, we're talking about 1/3 of the children in the county without proper accomodation.

This is absolutely untrue. the 35-40% isn't the number of gifted. The number gifted is really comparable to national numbers. One of the PPs posted the Examiner links and it provides an explanation of what the numbers mean.

Well, I did get numbers from Gazette
http://ww2.gazette.net/stories/03092011/montnew184800_32540.php

I got
http://www.examiner.com/article/the-montgomery-county-gifted-and-talented-identification-process-for-spring-2009
http://www.examiner.com/article/gifted-and-talented-education-montgomery-county-maryland
http://www.examiner.com/article/gifted-and-talented-education-is-not-a-cachet-it-is-a-need

quote from your first link
"As reported in this column, a system wide average of 40.9% were identified as gifted and talented in 2007–2008, compared with 39.4% in 2006–2007, 39.5% in 2005–2006, 33.8% in 2004–2005 and 44.5% in 2003–2004. "

What did that identification mean? If you had followed through in the series you would have come across http://www.examiner.com/article/do-38-7-of-montgomery-county-second-graders-find-the-curriculum-too-easy and this http://www.examiner.com/article/in-montgomery-county-maryland-does-the-gifted-label-mean-above-grade

It quotes MCPS---"Instead, according to school administrators, “gifted and talented” has come to mean “above grade level,” and some parents have come to wonder whether that means much at all.”" It seems to me--looking at the comments--that some parents hate to acknowledge that the school system has been duping them.

So what? I don't care about labels
My point is still valid:
40% of the children are capable of performing above grade level, those kids are denied proper education with 2.0 curricuclum.
Rare exception Mr. Starr was refering to - 3-4% of highly gifted kids that have an option to go to magnet school.

Common sense tells me that something wrong with this picture when interests of the 1/3 of the students are ignored.

[Anonymous]

I think the point is that MCPS is claiming that under C 2.0 they will meet the needs on the not gifted kids--the ~35% in the regular classroom. They also seem to be saying these not gifted kids were not learning--they were being pushed ahead w/o learning well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the point is that MCPS is claiming that under C 2.0 they will meet the needs on the not gifted kids--the ~35% in the regular classroom. They also seem to be saying these not gifted kids were not learning--they were being pushed ahead w/o learning well.

I think you are right that that is what MCPS is saying. The problem is that they have done virtually nothing to support that claim. From what I've seen and heard, MCPS wants to denigrate parents who believe their kids need more substance than 2.0 will provide. Instead of demonstrating that those parents fears are unfounded (if that is their position), MCPS uses some facile talking-points about how too many kids were accelerated in the past.

I'm concerned about 2.0, but I'm open to MCPS's case. MCPS simply hasn't presented a compelling case yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the point is that MCPS is claiming that under C 2.0 they will meet the needs on the not gifted kids--the ~35% in the regular classroom. They also seem to be saying these not gifted kids were not learning--they were being pushed ahead w/o learning well.

Actually, the point is PREVIOUSLY 40% were considered gifted.... A new curriculum is in place and 40% of the children are CURRENTLY not gifted any longer.

The curriculum is not the same so what got a student advancement before will not get you advancement now. Parents are not willing to accept that.... Its understandable, reality shattering in fact... but some people need to let it sink in.

Its not that CS 2.0 is addressing kids previously not identified as gifted... Its addressing the kids that were considered gifted previosly under a new set of criteria.

This is the nature of the problem and the point can be driven home ad nauseum but some will choose to ignore the new landscape placed plainly in front of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the point is that MCPS is claiming that under C 2.0 they will meet the needs on the not gifted kids--the ~35% in the regular classroom. They also seem to be saying these not gifted kids were not learning--they were being pushed ahead w/o learning well.

I think you are right that that is what MCPS is saying. The problem is that they have done virtually nothing to support that claim. From what I've seen and heard, MCPS wants to denigrate parents who believe their kids need more substance than 2.0 will provide. Instead of demonstrating that those parents fears are unfounded (if that is their position), MCPS uses some facile talking-points about how too many kids were accelerated in the past.

I'm concerned about 2.0, but I'm open to MCPS's case. MCPS simply hasn't presented a compelling case yet.

Have you openly asked MCPS to present its case, while clearly citing your concerns?

[Anonymous]

Yes. Answers are unclear and have changed. So far, MCPS can not point to any written policy for acceleration in math. In the past, there were documents clearly describing "pathways." Nothing like that exists under 2.0. We have recently heard that acceleration will be possible, but no one can describe what the procedure or mechanism for evaluating a child would look like (or when it would happen in the school year).

So far, in my experience, MCPS cannot provide answers to these questions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the point is that MCPS is claiming that under C 2.0 they will meet the needs on the not gifted kids--the ~35% in the regular classroom. They also seem to be saying these not gifted kids were not learning--they were being pushed ahead w/o learning well.

Actually, the point is PREVIOUSLY 40% were considered gifted.... A new curriculum is in place and 40% of the children are CURRENTLY not gifted any longer.

The curriculum is not the same so what got a student advancement before will not get you advancement now. Parents are not willing to accept that.... Its understandable, reality shattering in fact... but some people need to let it sink in.

Its not that CS 2.0 is addressing kids previously not identified as gifted... Its addressing the kids that were considered gifted previosly under a new set of criteria.

This is the nature of the problem and the point can be driven home ad nauseum but some will choose to ignore the new landscape placed plainly in front of them.

Your arguments assumes certain facts that simply haven't been proven yet. You assume that 2.0 is, in fact, more rigorous than the previous curriculum. So far, we don't know that. In fact, some of the curriculum for the rest of the year hasn't even been presented to the schools yet. You seem to have blind-faith that what MCPS says about the curriculum is true. Some of us are more skeptical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the point is that MCPS is claiming that under C 2.0 they will meet the needs on the not gifted kids--the ~35% in the regular classroom. They also seem to be saying these not gifted kids were not learning--they were being pushed ahead w/o learning well.

Actually, the point is PREVIOUSLY 40% were considered gifted.... A new curriculum is in place and 40% of the children are CURRENTLY not gifted any longer.

The curriculum is not the same so what got a student advancement before will not get you advancement now. Parents are not willing to accept that.... Its understandable, reality shattering in fact... but some people need to let it sink in.

Its not that CS 2.0 is addressing kids previously not identified as gifted... Its addressing the kids that were considered gifted previosly under a new set of criteria.

This is the nature of the problem and the point can be driven home ad nauseum but some will choose to ignore the new landscape placed plainly in front of them.

Your arguments assumes certain facts that simply haven't been proven yet. You assume that 2.0 is, in fact, more rigorous than the previous curriculum. So far, we don't know that. In fact, some of the curriculum for the rest of the year hasn't even been presented to the schools yet. You seem to have blind-faith that what MCPS says about the curriculum is true. Some of us are more skeptical.

I'm not assuming 2.0 is more rigorous I am stating a fact that the standards are different and students are not evaluated the same as they were before.

[Anonymous]

Sorry, fake math PhD: elementary math is simply elementary. And the assessment or evaluation of performance in elementary school math is elementary. There is no way in hell you can dress this up. Anyone who tells you otherwise is simply smoking something or maximizing billable hours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, fake math PhD: elementary math is simply elementary. And the assessment or evaluation of performance in elementary school math is elementary. There is no way in hell you can dress this up. Anyone who tells you otherwise is simply smoking something or maximizing billable hours.

Who are you addressing? I am the person who had the bad judgment to try and reason with the troll by mentioning my educational background. I agree with you, and I think the person you are disagreeing with may be the same troll I had tried to argue with. This is the person who insists that there is some new way of learning 1st grade math that even kids who have mastered 3rd grade curriculum could learn from and that requires brand new assessment methods. This is the person who keeps implying that everyone who wants acceleration does so out of delusions about their special snowflake's superior intelligence. (Not true.) This is also the person who keeps insisting that PPs, all of whom have stated their questions about 2.0 eloquently and concisely, either don't know what they are talking about or would rather rant on an anonymous forum than address their questions to MCPS, when in fact it sounds like most of them have tried to ask questions of MCPS leadership and were rebuffed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, fake math PhD: elementary math is simply elementary. And the assessment or evaluation of performance in elementary school math is elementary. There is no way in hell you can dress this up. Anyone who tells you otherwise is simply smoking something or maximizing billable hours.

Who are you addressing? I am the person who had the bad judgment to try and reason with the troll by mentioning my educational background. I agree with you, and I think the person you are disagreeing with may be the same troll I had tried to argue with. This is the person who insists that there is some new way of learning 1st grade math that even kids who have mastered 3rd grade curriculum could learn from and that requires brand new assessment methods. This is the person who keeps implying that everyone who wants acceleration does so out of delusions about their special snowflake's superior intelligence. (Not true.) This is also the person who keeps insisting that PPs, all of whom have stated their questions about 2.0 eloquently and concisely, either don't know what they are talking about or would rather rant on an anonymous forum than address their questions to MCPS, when in fact it sounds like most of them have tried to ask questions of MCPS leadership and were rebuffed.

Fake math PhD: could you provide specific info on how PPs tried to ask MCPS administrators and were rebuffed? Did they attend the MCCPTA sponsored event on C 2.0?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the point is that MCPS is claiming that under C 2.0 they will meet the needs on the not gifted kids--the ~35% in the regular classroom. They also seem to be saying these not gifted kids were not learning--they were being pushed ahead w/o learning well.

Actually, the point is PREVIOUSLY 40% were considered gifted.... A new curriculum is in place and 40% of the children are CURRENTLY not gifted any longer.

The curriculum is not the same so what got a student advancement before will not get you advancement now. Parents are not willing to accept that.... Its understandable, reality shattering in fact... but some people need to let it sink in.

Its not that CS 2.0 is addressing kids previously not identified as gifted... Its addressing the kids that were considered gifted previosly under a new set of criteria.

This is the nature of the problem and the point can be driven home ad nauseum but some will choose to ignore the new landscape placed plainly in front of them.

Those kids might not be considered gifted, but testing/assesment won't changed the fact that 40% of the children have higher aptitude.
2.0 or not 2.0, it is impossile to create one-size fits all curriculum.
Previously, MCPS had a system in place to assess kids and create somewhat homogeneous groups. That system wasn't perfect, but it worked for most kids.
I am not willing to accept that 2.0 is suitable for all kids, and no advancement is nessesery.
I am not willing to accept BS from principals telling me that teachers can accomodated my kids needs within the class. It's impossile giving current class sizes (27 kids in my DS 1st grade class).
So, I'm not against 2.0 as a whole, but only against "one size fits all" aproach. And I won't stop complaing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the point is that MCPS is claiming that under C 2.0 they will meet the needs on the not gifted kids--the ~35% in the regular classroom. They also seem to be saying these not gifted kids were not learning--they were being pushed ahead w/o learning well.

Actually, the point is PREVIOUSLY 40% were considered gifted.... A new curriculum is in place and 40% of the children are CURRENTLY not gifted any longer.

The curriculum is not the same so what got a student advancement before will not get you advancement now. Parents are not willing to accept that.... Its understandable, reality shattering in fact... but some people need to let it sink in.

Its not that CS 2.0 is addressing kids previously not identified as gifted... Its addressing the kids that were considered gifted previosly under a new set of criteria.

This is the nature of the problem and the point can be driven home ad nauseum but some will choose to ignore the new landscape placed plainly in front of them.

Those kids might not be considered gifted, but testing/assesment won't changed the fact that 40% of the children have higher aptitude.
2.0 or not 2.0, it is impossile to create one-size fits all curriculum.
Previously, MCPS had a system in place to assess kids and create somewhat homogeneous groups. That system wasn't perfect, but it worked for most kids.
I am not willing to accept that 2.0 is suitable for all kids, and no advancement is nessesery.
I am not willing to accept BS from principals telling me that teachers can accomodated my kids needs within the class. It's impossile giving current class sizes (27 kids in my DS 1st grade class).
So, I'm not against 2.0 as a whole, but only against "one size fits all" aproach. And I won't stop complaing.

No one said no advancement is necessary.... Super just said as much in interview but your child obviously hasn't demonstrated the necessarys to do so. Complain all you want it will not transform your child to gifted

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, fake math PhD: elementary math is simply elementary. And the assessment or evaluation of performance in elementary school math is elementary. There is no way in hell you can dress this up. Anyone who tells you otherwise is simply smoking something or maximizing billable hours.

Who are you addressing? I am the person who had the bad judgment to try and reason with the troll by mentioning my educational background. I agree with you, and I think the person you are disagreeing with may be the same troll I had tried to argue with. This is the person who insists that there is some new way of learning 1st grade math that even kids who have mastered 3rd grade curriculum could learn from and that requires brand new assessment methods. This is the person who keeps implying that everyone who wants acceleration does so out of delusions about their special snowflake's superior intelligence. (Not true.) This is also the person who keeps insisting that PPs, all of whom have stated their questions about 2.0 eloquently and concisely, either don't know what they are talking about or would rather rant on an anonymous forum than address their questions to MCPS, when in fact it sounds like most of them have tried to ask questions of MCPS leadership and were rebuffed.

No the person calling you fake phd is a completely different poster. We don't even write alike

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
No one said no advancement is necessary.... Super just said as much in interview but your child obviously hasn't demonstrated the necessarys to do so. Complain all you want it will not transform your child to gifted

My kids are gifted and special no matter what I don't need MCPS proof of that.
I spent some time listening to Starr, 2.0 videos, principals and other officials on 2.0 meeting.
They repead several times that with 2.0 acceleration is not nessesery (might be true), advancement will be provided by teacher within class enviromet.
What they could not explain clearly - how it is possible to accommodate individual needs of 25+ kids in class.
So, I call it BS... I will continue to ask this question every time I have a chance to speak about it.