Do unmotivated kids get into HGC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being unmotivated in a non-gifted curriculum is essentially the definition of being gifted. So all of you suggesting that an unmotivated child shouldn't get into an HGC are essentially suggesting that the HGCs should be for high-achieving kids rather than gifted kids. Why don't we just go ahead an rename them "Centers for Highly Motivated for Not Gifted Kids" then? Oh, you don't like that name because you want to think your kids are gifted when they're really not?

+1, lol--and that is why Fairfax has AAP (Advanced Academic [i]Programs)

That is why we don't have HGC any more. It is CES now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because of the way they did that. They could have easily, with the same amount of money or less, increased the number of seats at the main centers.

Instead, they purposely chose to do pilot programs at schools that do not reflect the demographics of MCPS and where URMs are overrepresented. But this wasn't enough. They also had to change the admissions criteria so the test isn't the same as what was given to the rest of the students in the county in the past. But this wasn't enough either. So they had to add other criteria for selection beyond the tests and made them pretty vague.

At some point after trying to pull this lever and that lever they found a formula that would result in a higher percentage of URMs admitted and enrolled.

Don't kid yourself about what's going on. IMO I think the county should take more of its money and put it into after school, tutoring and enrichment programs for all FARMS children and those at Title I schools. I would even be for reducing the seats at the HGCs (because really how many of the kids actually NEED the program) if the money could be used instead to target those children who are disadvantaged from a socieoeconomic standpoint but show high intellectual ability or motivation.

Rachel Carson ES and Matsunaga ES, for example.

You do realize that those schools do not have a high FARMS population and are not Title I schools right? They purpose chose schools that are more middle-class but have a high percentage of URMs. They are only 10-20% FARMS.

Rachel Carson does not have a high percentage of black, Hispanic, and poor students. Neither does Matsunaga. Find a different explanation, because this one doesn't fit the data.

They have a high percentage of high performing URMs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Being unmotivated in a non-gifted curriculum is essentially the definition of being gifted. So all of you suggesting that an unmotivated child shouldn't get into an HGC are essentially suggesting that the HGCs should be for high-achieving kids rather than gifted kids. Why don't we just go ahead an rename them "Centers for Highly Motivated for Not Gifted Kids" then? Oh, you don't like that name because you want to think your kids are gifted when they're really not?

No, we are suggesting Highly Gifted and Not-Unmotivated (which is not the same as motivated).

[Anonymous]

Ooooh, the bad ass program, smart but don't apply yourself. Yeah, hike the property taxes and rent 10% for that one!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because of the way they did that. They could have easily, with the same amount of money or less, increased the number of seats at the main centers.

Instead, they purposely chose to do pilot programs at schools that do not reflect the demographics of MCPS and where URMs are overrepresented. But this wasn't enough. They also had to change the admissions criteria so the test isn't the same as what was given to the rest of the students in the county in the past. But this wasn't enough either. So they had to add other criteria for selection beyond the tests and made them pretty vague.

At some point after trying to pull this lever and that lever they found a formula that would result in a higher percentage of URMs admitted and enrolled.

Don't kid yourself about what's going on. IMO I think the county should take more of its money and put it into after school, tutoring and enrichment programs for all FARMS children and those at Title I schools. I would even be for reducing the seats at the HGCs (because really how many of the kids actually NEED the program) if the money could be used instead to target those children who are disadvantaged from a socieoeconomic standpoint but show high intellectual ability or motivation.

Rachel Carson ES and Matsunaga ES, for example.

You do realize that those schools do not have a high FARMS population and are not Title I schools right? They purpose chose schools that are more middle-class but have a high percentage of URMs. They are only 10-20% FARMS.

Rachel Carson does not have a high percentage of black, Hispanic, and poor students. Neither does Matsunaga. Find a different explanation, because this one doesn't fit the data.

They have a high percentage of high performing URMs.

Lets also cut off Special Education completely. It is only a handful of students who need all that resources. How many Special Ed students actually NEED the program? Most are students who are physically fit but are not very good in studies. The truth is not everyone is geared towards being academically smart, and that is ok.

Give money to students who are academically smart but are unable to get resources due to poverty. They can be from any race.

High percentage of high performing URMs are children of educated Africans who have good jobs or children of educated immigrant parents from Cuba and Argentina. They do not represent the children of poorest and ill-educated AA and HI parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because of the way they did that. They could have easily, with the same amount of money or less, increased the number of seats at the main centers.

Instead, they purposely chose to do pilot programs at schools that do not reflect the demographics of MCPS and where URMs are overrepresented. But this wasn't enough. They also had to change the admissions criteria so the test isn't the same as what was given to the rest of the students in the county in the past. But this wasn't enough either. So they had to add other criteria for selection beyond the tests and made them pretty vague.

At some point after trying to pull this lever and that lever they found a formula that would result in a higher percentage of URMs admitted and enrolled.

Don't kid yourself about what's going on. IMO I think the county should take more of its money and put it into after school, tutoring and enrichment programs for all FARMS children and those at Title I schools. I would even be for reducing the seats at the HGCs (because really how many of the kids actually NEED the program) if the money could be used instead to target those children who are disadvantaged from a socieoeconomic standpoint but show high intellectual ability or motivation.

Rachel Carson ES and Matsunaga ES, for example.

You do realize that those schools do not have a high FARMS population and are not Title I schools right? They purpose chose schools that are more middle-class but have a high percentage of URMs. They are only 10-20% FARMS.

Rachel Carson does not have a high percentage of black, Hispanic, and poor students. Neither does Matsunaga. Find a different explanation, because this one doesn't fit the data.

They have a high percentage of high performing URMs.

And you know this because...?

("URMs" is dehumanizing. We are talking about people.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And I have no dog in this fight. I had one DC go through HGC and another who didn't make it, which is fine. I don't need them to lower the standards just so that my DC could've gotten in.

There is no evidence that anybody is lowering standards.

There is no evidence that they didn't lower the standards, either. The test used to take 2 hours. Now it takes 30min. They want to "broaden the definition of giftedness". Coupled with the fact that their goal is to get more URM in, well... And yes, I know there are smart URM. My Dc's HGC had several of them. But, stats do show that URM score lower than other groups. It's not racist to state that. It's a fact.

You can't prove a negative, eh?

Yes, that's the point. You can prove or disprove it, but you can look at how they have changed the entrance criteria, the recommendations of the METIS report, and mcps's desire to close the "achievement gap", which in and of itself is a good thing, but lowering any standards, HGC entrance or otherwise, is not the way to achieve it, except superficially. Again, that doesn't help any student.

Metis didn't talk about lowering standards. MCPS isn't talking about lowering standards. BoE isn't talking about lowering standards. Nobody is talking about lowering standards except posters on DCUM -- who seem to assume that the only way to increase participation in special programs by kids who are Latino/black/poor is to lower standards.

+1 -- why are folks assuming they lowered standards?

[Anonymous]

I don't follow your argument about special education at all, immediate PP.

But completely agree with our point about poverty versus race. There are a number of African and Hispanic students at our very wealthy school who are very wealthy and their parents have PhDs. These are the students who will benefit from the push to identify more "gifted" URMs. It is the Cambodian immigrants' children, the Eastern European immigrants' children who will suffer along with poor African-American and poor Hispanic children who did not have those same privileges growing up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because of the way they did that. They could have easily, with the same amount of money or less, increased the number of seats at the main centers.

Instead, they purposely chose to do pilot programs at schools that do not reflect the demographics of MCPS and where URMs are overrepresented. But this wasn't enough. They also had to change the admissions criteria so the test isn't the same as what was given to the rest of the students in the county in the past. But this wasn't enough either. So they had to add other criteria for selection beyond the tests and made them pretty vague.

At some point after trying to pull this lever and that lever they found a formula that would result in a higher percentage of URMs admitted and enrolled.

Don't kid yourself about what's going on. IMO I think the county should take more of its money and put it into after school, tutoring and enrichment programs for all FARMS children and those at Title I schools. I would even be for reducing the seats at the HGCs (because really how many of the kids actually NEED the program) if the money could be used instead to target those children who are disadvantaged from a socieoeconomic standpoint but show high intellectual ability or motivation.

Rachel Carson ES and Matsunaga ES, for example.

You do realize that those schools do not have a high FARMS population and are not Title I schools right? They purpose chose schools that are more middle-class but have a high percentage of URMs. They are only 10-20% FARMS.

Rachel Carson does not have a high percentage of black, Hispanic, and poor students. Neither does Matsunaga. Find a different explanation, because this one doesn't fit the data.

They have a high percentage of high performing URMs.

And you know this because...?

("URMs" is dehumanizing. We are talking about people.)

MCPS representatives said this at various meetings. It was a pilot and they stated their goals for the pilot clearly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Um. no.. I'm one of those PP's, and my DC is now in 7th grade, so I could care less if OP's or your PP's DC goes to HGC. Anyone can try for HGC. No one can stop a parent from applying to one. My point really was that there is such a limited space, and tons of more motivated "gifted" kids. So why not reserve it for those kids. Those kids are the ones who would suffer by not going to HGC. OP's kid is doing "fine" at the home school.

That's up to OP to decide, isn't it?

My kids did fine (or "fine") at the home school too. They also did fine (or "fine") at the HGCs.

And I can express my opinion on it, too, as you and everyone else on this forum can as well.

OP said her kid hates school. In what world is that "doing fine"???

[Anonymous]

Your child can get straight As or Ps in the old grading scheme and still not like school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

MCPS representatives said this at various meetings. It was a pilot and they stated their goals for the pilot clearly.

MCPS representatives said, "We're putting a pilot at Matsunaga because Matsunaga has a high percentage of poor, black, and Latino students who are high-performing"?

[Anonymous]

This is off-topic, but is it easier #s-wise to get into a local center rather than an off-site regional center? It seems like that would be the case...right?

[Anonymous]

My child likes school so I'm not projecting my personal biases on to this debate, but he does have some extremely bright friends who do not. Sometimes act up. It is totally within the range of normal behavior but I could see how a program like the HGC could be good for them. Many creative thinkers don't do well in traditional environments and the HGCs were originally designed to provide a richer curriculum. The alternative could be these kids checking out of school and if that happens you may have lost them forever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is off-topic, but is it easier #s-wise to get into a local center rather than an off-site regional center? It seems like that would be the case...right?

Much easier. The regional ones accept 3-4 percent and I can't remember exactly the percentage accepted in the pilots but wasn't it as high as 40 percent?