Reaction to "Study of Choice and Special Academic Programs: Report of Findings and Recommendations"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Work to address barriers to equitable access in the elementary center program by revising Board Policy IOA to broaden the definition of giftedness to focus on identifying students who are highly able from all backgrounds

Bolded is the contentious statement. What does this mean? Most are taking it to mean that they will lower the test score criteria. If that happens, but the test score is still weighed heavily, then it may end up that more Whites/Asians get in rather than the URM.

Even if you just take the top performing 3 to 4% of each ES across the board, you *may* find that the top performing kids in a heavily URM school are the few WhiteAsian kids at the school. Then what? Would they want to change the admissions criteria again?

How do you "broaden" the criteria for "giftedness" if not by lowering the test scores?

Do you define "giftedness" simply by test scores? I don't.

Also, when you talk about "the URM", which people, specifically, are you talking about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Work to address barriers to equitable access in the elementary center program by revising Board Policy IOA to broaden the definition of giftedness to focus on identifying students who are highly able from all backgrounds

Bolded is the contentious statement. What does this mean? Most are taking it to mean that they will lower the test score criteria. If that happens, but the test score is still weighed heavily, then it may end up that more Whites/Asians get in rather than the URM.

Even if you just take the top performing 3 to 4% of each ES across the board, you *may* find that the top performing kids in a heavily URM school are the few WhiteAsian kids at the school. Then what? Would they want to change the admissions criteria again?

How do you "broaden" the criteria for "giftedness" if not by lowering the test scores?

Do you define "giftedness" simply by test scores? I don't.

Also, when you talk about "the URM", which people, specifically, are you talking about?

Then, please, enlighten me, how do you define "giftedness" academically?

URM per the report I believe includes Blacks, Hispanics, low income, and, ESOL Did I get that right? Were you trying to bait me into making racist statements? I do know there are "gifted" non white/Asian kids because there are some in my DC's HGC class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'd like the PP who keeps saying "just follow the suggestions" to come here and tell us, in plain English, what those suggestions are. There's a gap. I can see it. So how do you bridge that gap in the testing process when the cause of the gap is so totally unrelated?

Here are the recommendations for the HGC. You can read them. I can read them. We can all read them.

-Work to address barriers to equitable access in the elementary center program by revising Board Policy IOA to broaden the definition of giftedness to focus on identifying students who are highly able from all backgrounds and implementing modifications to the identification process that have been developed in other districts and at the secondary and postsecondary levels, as discussed in the section on middle and high school magnets below.

-Develop and expand talent development programs and outreach efforts designed to identify, target, and recruit highly able students from underrepresented groups, including Black/African American and Hispanic/Latino students, non-native English speakers, and low-income students, to apply to the highly gifted centers.

-Develop new and enhance existing practices for all elementary centers to ensure that students in the center program and other students in hosting schools have meaningful social and academic interactions, such as expanded use of specials, common lunch or recess periods, and extracurricular programs.

-To the extent that MCPS considers expanding seat capacity for elementary centers for highly gifted students to keep pace with the overall growth in the district’s population that has occurred since the last seat expansion in 2006, the district should ensure that any expansion is fully aligned with efforts to ensure equitable access to the highly gifted programs.

Ok, so what does "broadening the definition of giftedness" and "implementing modifications to the identification process" mean, in plain English? What at they going to do?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Ok, so what does "broadening the definition of giftedness" and "implementing modifications to the identification process" mean, in plain English? What at they going to do?

Here is what it doesn't mean: "admit unqualified poor brown kids based on the color of their skin".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Ok, so what does "broadening the definition of giftedness" and "implementing modifications to the identification process" mean, in plain English? What at they going to do?

Here is what it doesn't mean: "admit unqualified poor brown kids based on the color of their skin".

I do not think any one wants unqualified brown Indian kid admitted to magnet programs - so why this big fuss?

- Indian mom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Ok, so what does "broadening the definition of giftedness" and "implementing modifications to the identification process" mean, in plain English? What at they going to do?

Here is what it doesn't mean: "admit unqualified poor brown kids based on the color of their skin".

I do not think any one wants unqualified brown Indian kid admitted to magnet programs - so why this big fuss?

- Indian mom.

I don't think that anyone wants any unqualified kid admitted to the magnet program. So why this big fuss, indeed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Ok, so what does "broadening the definition of giftedness" and "implementing modifications to the identification process" mean, in plain English? What at they going to do?

Here is what it doesn't mean: "admit unqualified poor brown kids based on the color of their skin".

Your answer is like a politician's: never answer a direct question directly. You still haven't directly answered the big questions.

"what does "broadening the definition of giftedness" and "implementing modifications to the identification process" mean"?

No one seems to want to answer this question directly. I wonder why that is?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Ok, so what does "broadening the definition of giftedness" and "implementing modifications to the identification process" mean, in plain English? What at they going to do?

Here is what it doesn't mean: "admit unqualified poor brown kids based on the color of their skin".

Your answer is like a politician's: never answer a direct question directly. You still haven't directly answered the big questions.

"what does "broadening the definition of giftedness" and "implementing modifications to the identification process" mean"?

No one seems to want to answer this question directly. I wonder why that is?

Read the report and find the answers for yourself. Here is the chapter on the HGCs:

http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/info/choice/Updated-ElementaryCenterProgram-HighlyGiftedStudents.pdf

I recommend focusing on pp. 71-78.

[Anonymous]

17:31 seems to be bitter since maybe kid not admitted.

Of course test scores are some component of gifted. Just like a soccer tryout involves actually playing soccer.

MCPS already uses some data beyond test scores. Nothing is going to be 100% perfect of course, but I see no major problems with the current system.

IMO no one in their right mind could read recommendation 3a and not come to the conclusion that Metis is proposing that MCPS admit less qualified students based on race or income level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:17:31 seems to be bitter since maybe kid not admitted.

Of course test scores are some component of gifted. Just like a soccer tryout involves actually playing soccer.

MCPS already uses some data beyond test scores. Nothing is going to be 100% perfect of course, but I see no major problems with the current system.

IMO no one in their right mind could read recommendation 3a and not come to the conclusion that Metis is proposing that MCPS admit less qualified students based on race or income level.

This? There seems to be one poster being deliberately obtuse. Maybe 17:31 is that posrer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:17:31 seems to be bitter since maybe kid not admitted.

Of course test scores are some component of gifted. Just like a soccer tryout involves actually playing soccer.

MCPS already uses some data beyond test scores. Nothing is going to be 100% perfect of course, but I see no major problems with the current system.

IMO no one in their right mind could read recommendation 3a and not come to the conclusion that Metis is proposing that MCPS admit less qualified students based on race or income level.

I am 17:31. Both of my kids went to the HGC.

Test scores are one way to measure giftedness. They are not necessarily the best way. They are certainly not the only way.

Please quote "recommendation 3a" directly. I believe that I am in my right mind.

[Anonymous]

OK 17:31 what do you propose instead?

Here is 3a again:
"Recommendation 3a: Implement modifications to the selection process used for academically competitive programs in MCPS, comprising elementary centers for highly gifted students and secondary magnet programs, to focus these programs on selecting equitably from among those applicants that demonstrate a capacity to thrive in the program, that include use of non-cognitive criteria, group-specific norms that benchmark student performance against school peers with comparable backgrounds, and/or a process that offers automatic admissions to the programs for students in the top 5-10% of sending elementary or middle schools in the district."

Don't you find the use of the terms "group-specific norms" and "benchmark against school peers with comparable backgrounds" to imply racial/socio-economic profiling?

Also the use of "non-cognitive" criteria The definition of cognition is "the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding". Not sure what a non-cognitive criteria is but to me, ability to acquire knowledge would be a key criteria for an advanced program.

Why is it not OK for these kids to be in an advanced program based on their learning abilities on a level playing field. Sports teams are chosen based on ability. To me this is the same thing. Everyone needs to be judged the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OK 17:31 what do you propose instead?

Here is 3a again:
"Recommendation 3a: Implement modifications to the selection process used for academically competitive programs in MCPS, comprising elementary centers for highly gifted students and secondary magnet programs, to focus these programs on selecting equitably from among those applicants that demonstrate a capacity to thrive in the program, that include use of non-cognitive criteria, group-specific norms that benchmark student performance against school peers with comparable backgrounds, and/or a process that offers automatic admissions to the programs for students in the top 5-10% of sending elementary or middle schools in the district."

Don't you find the use of the terms "group-specific norms" and "benchmark against school peers with comparable backgrounds" to imply racial/socio-economic profiling?

Also the use of "non-cognitive" criteria The definition of cognition is "the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding". Not sure what a non-cognitive criteria is but to me, ability to acquire knowledge would be a key criteria for an advanced program.

Why is it not OK for these kids to be in an advanced program based on their learning abilities on a level playing field. Sports teams are chosen based on ability. To me this is the same thing. Everyone needs to be judged the same.

No. Admitting on race would be illegal, and I don't know what you mean by "socioeconomic profiling".

Yes, everybody should be on a level playing field. But everybody is not currently on a level playing field. So, what can we do to get everybody on a level playing field? By which I don't just mean, get the people who are below grade-level to grade-level. I also mean, get all of the high-ability kids applying to the high-ability programs.

[Anonymous]

To 23:43 pm,
Where is the evidence that indicates everyone is not on same level currently? The test is not fair? There are smart kids who did take the test?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To 23:43 pm,
Where is the evidence that indicates everyone is not on same level currently? The test is not fair? There are smart kids who did take the test?

Are you asking, where is the evidence that shows that not all children in Montgomery County have equal opportunities in life?