GT criteria change?

[Anonymous]

In the letter soliciting parent feedback, they included a link to an FAQ site:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CBV-EdM_af3s2TzUmQr4T8bA9kMYMZ-L96jRM2spKDA/view?tab=t.0

If you look at the different pathways to get identified, there's no pathway without 85+ percentile on CoGAT. Does this mean the county is becoming more stringent around the process?

Was this how it was pre-pandemic?

[Anonymous]

Thanks for sharing the GT criteria. Interesting read.

However, as many DCUM people knew, the GT identification is not related to the CES admission

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for sharing the GT criteria. Interesting read.

However, as many DCUM people knew, the GT identification is not related to the CES admission

That could be changing with this change

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for sharing the GT criteria. Interesting read.

However, as many DCUM people knew, the GT identification is not related to the CES admission

That could be changing with this change

Doesn’t look like it, this is from the document linked above, “The gifted and talented identification process is completely separate from the MCPS elementary and middle school central review and magnet admission processes. GT designation is not considered in the elementary Centers for Enriched Studies or middle school magnet (Humanities and Communication; Math, Science, Computer Science) selection processes. GT designation is one indicator of advanced academic performance and/or potential that is considered with other data to inform opportunities for enriched and accelerated instruction at the local school. Schools will monitor and analyze student data to make informed decisions regarding enrichment and acceleration in the core content areas.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In the letter soliciting parent feedback, they included a link to an FAQ site:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CBV-EdM_af3s2TzUmQr4T8bA9kMYMZ-L96jRM2spKDA/view?tab=t.0

If you look at the different pathways to get identified, there's no pathway without 85+ percentile on CoGAT. Does this mean the county is becoming more stringent around the process?

Was this how it was pre-pandemic?

They didn’t administer the cogat to 2nd graders pre-pandemic, only 3rd and 5th. No DIBELS. I can’t recall what they used instead. There was a confusing parent survey pre-pandemic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for sharing the GT criteria. Interesting read.

However, as many DCUM people knew, the GT identification is not related to the CES admission

That could be changing with this change

Nope, not changing. These are completely separate processes run by different departments. -NP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the letter soliciting parent feedback, they included a link to an FAQ site:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CBV-EdM_af3s2TzUmQr4T8bA9kMYMZ-L96jRM2spKDA/view?tab=t.0

If you look at the different pathways to get identified, there's no pathway without 85+ percentile on CoGAT. Does this mean the county is becoming more stringent around the process?

Was this how it was pre-pandemic?

They didn’t administer the cogat to 2nd graders pre-pandemic, only 3rd and 5th. No DIBELS. I can’t recall what they used instead. There was a confusing parent survey pre-pandemic.

They did administer CogAT to 2nd graders before the pandemic.

[Anonymous]

They're adding CogAT back in, now that it is once more being administered. It has been seen as a better indicator of GT ability/need than those measures they had in the interim where they paused administering it, beginning with the pandemic and through recovery.

They institute a sliding-scale heuristic. If CogAT is high enough (90th+ %ile), the GT designation applies. If tested at 85th to 89th %ile, then high scores on academic testing measures can lead to GT designation, with fewer of those scores being needed if a teacher, administrator or parent survey provides an additional indication.

That's for grades 2 & 3. For grades 5 and 7 where CogAT has not been administered, they revert to the more recent non-CogAT paradigm of meeting 4/4 academic testing measures, with the leniency of qualifying under either spring or fall MAP, or 3 of 4 with the teacher/administrator/parent indication.

[Anonymous]

Anyone know when CogAT scores are shared?

[Anonymous]

Hopefully if they're making it more strict to get the designation, it'll mean something more in MCPS, at least for enrichment opportunities.

[Anonymous]

I know it's MCPS, but it stands to reason that if the basic GT standard gets raised then then standards for GT programs should be at least as high.

But who knows, maybe RMIB and SMCS will become non-GT interest-based programs

[Anonymous]

Not that much more strict, really, and certainly more flexible. Places the ability-related metric at the center for those grades where it is available.

The greater problem is fidelity to robust and consistently employed enrichments to meet the GT-related need. When outcomes from having been provided ELC or AIM/HIGH (or some alternate/successor curricula generally considered as checking the box for the COMAR mandate for providing GT education) become similar to outcomes from having been lotteried in to an elementary CES or criteria-based magnet MS, that would be some indication that MCPS is taking things seriously. Ditto when an identified student at a school without a particularly manageable local cohort of similarly able peers is afforded reasonably similar curricular options with reasonably similar frequency and depth as those identified where there is an easily managed cohort.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the letter soliciting parent feedback, they included a link to an FAQ site:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CBV-EdM_af3s2TzUmQr4T8bA9kMYMZ-L96jRM2spKDA/view?tab=t.0

If you look at the different pathways to get identified, there's no pathway without 85+ percentile on CoGAT. Does this mean the county is becoming more stringent around the process?

Was this how it was pre-pandemic?

They didn’t administer the cogat to 2nd graders pre-pandemic, only 3rd and 5th. No DIBELS. I can’t recall what they used instead. There was a confusing parent survey pre-pandemic.

My now-senior took the Raven in 2nd for GT identification, and the CoGAT for HGC and MS magnet admissions. And yeah, weird parent survey in 2nd.

This year’s seniors are the last group admitted to the HGC program when it was called that.

The HGC/CES switch came between their 4th and 5th grade years, but I’m pretty sure MCPS continued to consider the CoGAT until 2020. The tweaks to the now-CES criteria were relatively minimal at first, IIRC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know it's MCPS, but it stands to reason that if the basic GT standard gets raised then then standards for GT programs should be at least as high.

But who knows, maybe RMIB and SMCS will become non-GT interest-based programs

They’re not GT-based now.

The applications are achievement-based, not aptitude-based. You don’t have to take a CoGAT or similar IQ test to get into RMIB or SMCS. And MAP tests measure exposure and mastery, not aptitude.

[Anonymous]

Has the CoGAT always been the short version? It was this year.