No More Gifted in MoCo?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How could 2/5 of the children of any county be gifted? The bar should be raised.

Same way 4/5ths of the children of basketball players are significantly taller than average.

Parents in this area imagine they're raising geniuses. Most of this "giftedness" is the fruit of privilege. I am a granddaughter of sharecroppers whose parents were the only ones in their large families to graduate from college. My mother picked cotton in Mississippi and attended a segregated school but obtained an advanced degree at a top school. Two fifths of these coddled children are not gifted; they are just lucky.

You are seeing the label "gifted" as some kind of value judgment, or an unearned blessing.

How would you feel about a different statement, instead, one that does not use the loaded label "gifted"?

Somehting like this, perhaps?

"40% of the second graders tested in (a certain county) scored above 125 on a specific test, where 100 points is the average score for children nationally?"

Does that statement manage not to get your ire up? Do you think that statement is acceptable?

If so, maybe it is a good idea to drop the label "gifted" and just use test scores.

[Anonymous]

People need to have an elementary grasp of statistics in order to understand this issue. Here goes, in a nutshell and for the layperson: it is entirely possible for 2/5 (40%), or indeed 100%, or any percentage at all, to be identified as gifted if the identification is made based on an objective test. People are confusing objective tests with normed curves. For example, if a test is graded on a curve, then with a normed bell-shape distribution, by definition a certain percentage will be higher and lower and in the middle. (Call it 10% top, 10% bottom, and 80% in the middle.) On an objective, non-curved test, everyone could theoretically score a high score and be identified as gifted. With an objective test, test-takers aren't graded against one another, but against an objective measure, and everyone could theoretically get a perfect score.

[Anonymous]

I think you're too quick with the condescension. I did not read PPs as asking how it is statistically possible for 40% of kids to be identified as gifted but rather how meaningful that label is if it is applied to such a large percentage of the population.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
What is Montgomery County's IQ cut offpoint?

120 = 90th percentile, on at least one (but not all) of the tests they use. Teacher and parent comments also enter into the rubric.

[Anonymous]

120 sounds low to me... If we're gonna accept that IQ tests are reliable and not culturally biased, etc., I would expect to hold the bar around 135 at least. I'd call 120 "high average."

Every child should be educated to his full potential, though. In my experience teaching elementary school, high average kids can often do the same enrichment work the "gifted" kids can do. I do object to losing the label, though, because it obligates the teacher to make sure a child's needs are met... or at least to demonstrate some kind of attempt. I'm worried at least some teachers will consider themselves as off the hook in MoCo as they do in DCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:120 sounds low to me... If we're gonna accept that IQ tests are reliable and not culturally biased, etc., I would expect to hold the bar around 135 at least. I'd call 120 "high average."

Every child should be educated to his full potential, though. In my experience teaching elementary school, high average kids can often do the same enrichment work the "gifted" kids can do. I do object to losing the label, though, because it obligates the teacher to make sure a child's needs are met... or at least to demonstrate some kind of attempt. I'm worried at least some teachers will consider themselves as off the hook in MoCo as they do in DCPS.

That is exactly my concern. Of course there are good teachers and administrators who go the extra mile to make sure each child is being taught appropriately, but let's be realistic. How easy will it be to disregard a child's needs if there is no label, nothing "official" to hold the teachers accountable. It will be very easy for them to brush off any concerns parents might have, or struggles their children are facing.

[Anonymous]

Amen PP.

[Anonymous]

I had a somewhat jaundiced view of the MoCo G&T programs because I saw parents scheming and gaming them. Appealing to the head of school can get your kid into a gifted program. Emphasizing that 1/8 part of diversity will do it. Heck, I know a family that appealed a G&T screening test all the way to Rockville (MoCo HQ), with the result that the kid took the G&T test twice within just a few months, something which is discouraged by the testers because, natch, the kid did way better the second time.... To me, a lot of it was gamed anyway, so not very meaningful to begin with.

[Anonymous]

That's a shame, but it still seems to me, then, that what they should do is hold the line rather than abolish the program. Just as parents might "game the system," teachers might otherwise slack off if they're not under pressure to provide specific accommodations to individual children.

[Anonymous]

So let's examine why parents try so hard to get their kids into the GT programs in the first place. Isn't because they don't feel like their kids are getting adequate instruction/attention/challenges in the regular classroom? The gifted child, or say, just the really bright child, who doesn't have behavioral issues, can be easily overlooked and neglected in a regular classroom if the teacher is dealing with a large class, or kids with behavioral issues, or whatever. I'm sure my GT/LD DD would do ok (maybe) in a regular class, but there is no way she would excel without some accommodations. She is extraordinarily quiet, and would be easy to overlook, especially if she was doing ok academically. I would like to see the county schools do more than just make sure our kids do "ok". All of our kids should have the opportunity to excel.

[Anonymous]

2/5 of students have IQ > 120? That's a pretty non-normal distribution.

[Anonymous]

I hope they will keep the screening tests and assign those students far ahead of their levels to special classes.

Also I feel the labeling some as "gifted" and other "non-gifted" can be unfair. The funny thing is that MY DC who is now way ahead of his class in math was once labeled as "cannot learn math" in the pre-school.

[Anonymous]

It seems to me that the true problem here is curriculum designed to reach minimum standards coupled with agonizing repetition and busywork in the classrooms to ensure that the lower performing students are able to pass their tests (while holding back students that are ready to move forward). The only way to get out of this abhorrent situation is to get into gifted and and "approved" ability based classroom....... 120 is not gifted. 130 is the true cutoff, but honestly it shouldn't matter if the kids can do the work. LOTS of kids can do better work. Its insane to think that teachers can teach to all of these levels at once. The one-size-fits all classroom has ruined our educational system and makes NO SENSE. Nobody wins. Sorry - I moved to private last year and hated to do it, but, it is so much better academically because of the flexibility in the curriculum - the kids are a diverse bunch and performing at various levels but what a difference. That said, my heart is in the public schools and if they made curriculum changes, I'd be there in a second (and yes, my kids were both in TAG but it was a test-fest and I saw little difference from the regular classroom. We need to stop pretending that this is about our gifted kids - it is a ridiculous label to be used so liberally - the problem is not that our kids are overlooked - the problem is NCLB, and the fantasy that teaching to the MINIMUM STANDARD TEST to bright motivated kids makes any sense in the world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How could 2/5 of the children of any county be gifted? The bar should be raised.

Same way 4/5ths of the children of basketball players are significantly taller than average.

I disagree. Many students in that 2/5 group simply have parents who are engaged and care about their children's education (which is a good thing!) That is more about nurture than nature.

When GT programs were begun in Fairfax over 20 years ago it was about NATURE not NURTURE. The iq cut-off was 140 with first grade testing. Extremely unusual children were in the program. FCPS is still more about nature than Montco on the label but the bar is so low the program does not serve it's original purpose.

What is Montgomery County's IQ cut offpoint?

There is no IQ cutoff for MOCO GT identification. MoCo does not do IQ testing. GT Identification is based on the following factors -- parent survey form, teacher survey, performance 1 year or more above grade level in Math and/or reading, and hitting a performance target on 3 or 4 tests (some of which are non verbal, and none of which are the MSA type or the "IQ" testing if by IQ you mean WISC/WPPSI). Within these set of factors, there are "cutoffs" for the tests (Ravens tests, and verbal/quant) tests. But, in theory, if your child is ID'd by the parent or teacher or is performing ahead of grade level, and missed the mark narrowly on the testing segment, this should not prohibit GT services.

I believe, although I'm not 100% sure, that kids who meet some of these criteria but not all can still be labeled GT; in part this is a response to the fear of the minority community that under-performance on one or more of the GT criteria can not be used to "gatekeep" a child out of services. (A justifiable fear in my book.) In theory, if the parent demands a particular service, they should get it. Of course, theory and practice are 2 different things.

This GT identification is used to provide services w/in a home school environment. So, based on the GT identification, a child might be pushed ahead a year in math, or might participate in a reading group based on ability if the GT identification process shows performance ability that warrants those response for that child. The problem is that even this kind of acceleration is not enough for some GT students; thus, the existence of the application only Centers for the Highly Gifted.

Even for these Centers, MoCo says there is no hard and fast "testing cutoff" for admission.

The BoE press release basically says that the same GT identification process will still be used to provide the same services to kids, but the "label" will be left off. What this means exactly is unclear. Will parents still receive a letter at home detailing all the factors for identification and whether their child met them?

Frankly, my experience has been that the current GT identification process, while alerting parents that their child is capable of higher level work, doesn't exactly tell parents WHAT the child needs. For example, my child reads many many grade levels ahead of chronological age, yet the GT identification letter only says that my child reads "at least one year" ahead of grade level. Also, testing scores are reporting with "cutoff" numbers for the identification but without percentile scores, so one has no way of knowing whether the cutoff is at the 80% or 99%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My concern is that once the label is removed, parents will not have leverage with the schools to get any special accomodations. My DD is gifted and LD, and while we are in private now, we are thinking about public next year. It is my understanding that at least if you are armed with a "label", you have a better chance at getting your child's needs met. Plus, it already seems difficult to get an IEP, and wouldn't this make it more difficult? Or am I mixing up my labels?

I'm guessing that this fact is part of the reason for the change.

I agree that leverage is needed. Providing individualized education is extra work for teachers (and administrators). Ideally, this could continue without the labels, but I expect it won't consistently. As a former teacher, I'll tell you that teachers love to put demanding parents off with vague promises and later sneer among themselves about how that crazy Ms. Johnson thinks her child is soooo gifted she needs special accommodations. As a DCPS parent, I'll tell you I could really use the leverage the label would offer, because my child's teachers don't even have to make promises-- most don't bother, but simply tell me "DCPS doesn't have an accelerated program," or "There's so much pressure from NCLB that the principal isn't interested in enrichment." And this is at a Ward 3 school!

First, the GT identification and LD/IEP process are totally separate. So, dropping GT identification should have no effect on IEP or 504 services. What makes this confusing is that MoCo system does actually have specific GT/LD programs, what will happen to these if the GT identification goes, who knows.

Second, I want to agree with the experience of the parent above in DCPS. I spent all last year trying to get GT-like services for my child in an upper NW DCPS school that is generally well-regarded. These accommodations would have required a little extra effort from the teacher (and would have benefited at least 2 other kids in the class) but would not have required any extra money. I got nothing, and worse than that, I was explicitly told that teaching to any segment of the class by creating reading groups or other differentiation would "make other kids feel bad" so it wouldn't be done. We left that school.

This year in MCPS, after getting a GT identification letter, I had an excuse to meet with a specific teacher who coordinates the homeschool's GT. Based on the letter, I described a problem my child was having (a problem that is way beyond current grade level, but is hampering development beyond where my child is now) and asked for some specific accommodations. The GT teacher made some suggestions as to what *I* could do at home with my child. Needless to say, I am already doing everything I can, and I'm not a professional, so I'm not really qualified to fix the problem. Armed with the letter, I pushed back (politely) and suggested that the GT teacher, the subject area teacher, and the subject area specialist discuss the problems my child was having and get back to me with a plan for services commensurate with my child's GT identification and assessed reading level.

For the next few days, I wondered if things would go down the same as in DCPS. But, instead, by day 3 I got a phone call back from the subject area teacher with a multi point plan for addressing the problem by bringing some material down from the teacher 3 grades ahead, tailoring the current grade work to include some aspects that would address the problem, and some suggestions for home.

So, based on my experience, I do worry about the effect of not labeling for GT anymore.