letter received today from MCPS about HGC
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Yes, the newly posted Field Test FAQ says this: Are the program and selection standards different for the traditional and the field test? Both the traditional and field test standards are the same. This field test approach ensures all students are given potential program access and is not dependent on parents initiating the process. From here: http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/curriculum/specialprograms/elementary/field%20test%20parent%20faq%2010%2010%2016_FINAL.pdf. Which is linked from here: http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/specialprograms/elementary/highly-gifted-centers.aspx# |
Anonymous
How can it not change with 50% more seats? |
Anonymous
How can the criteria NOT change? They're adding significantly more seats. Which on one hand may be a good thing - more access to enriched learning for more kids? Seems like there are many kids who would benefit from a HGC style program who don't get in. But on the other hand, if it's just a watered down program, then maybe not so great. |
Anonymous
I don't have a dog in this fight as my kids are in high school now. That said: Our child's third grade teacher told us at the P/T conference that she "doesn't believe in gifted education." And the principal at the same school doesn't like losing high performers to the Center. It seems to me that there is a conflict of interest there as well as a dependence on teachers to comply (at their option). |
Anonymous
I'm sure testing all kids will result in less Asian/white kids in these programs. |
Anonymous
You are making the assumption that the pool of qualified applicants is extremely limited. I am sure there are plenty of kids that scored similarily on the test and had similar grades but the decided factor was a teacher recommendation or something the parent wrote. This happens all the time in college admissions. Too many applicants with high SAT scores and GPA's. The only way the admissions committee can make a decision is to consider other factors. |
Anonymous
"Similarly" but, nevertheless, lower and less qualified. That's how a watered down program starts. Just look at FX county. |
Anonymous
|
I think it is a fantastic idea to routinely test all children in third grade and not have parents initiate the process. Of course you could argue they have been doing that all along with global screening in second grade but no matter, I agree that they are more likely to admit qualified URMs if everyone is tested.
I think the concern I have is that they also seem to be moving in three other directions that might lower the quality and scope of the HGCs: 1. The pilot program in two elementary schools which simply moves the top tier of students into a class that purports to offer a HGC curriculum but is likely to in fact be considerably watered down because these children while highly able are unlikely to all be highly gifted if we remember that highly gifted kids are in the top 3% of the population. There is a significant and measurable difference between the top 25% of students and the top 3% of students. 2. They are expanding the number of seats in the HGCs by 50%. This also runs the risk of lowering the standards in the program but I am less concerned by this - the difference between the top 5% and the top 3% is not as significant as the difference between the top 25% and the top 3%. It will however qualitatively alter the pace, rigor and the level of enrichment in the HGCs. 3. MCPS's track record over the last decade clearly demonstrates that their number one priority is to close the achievement gap. They have not demonstrated a similar commitment to all groups of students which is why parents of gifted children (a small minority of the school population at 3%) have needed to be extremely vigilant. It was not many years ago that MCPS threatened to do away with transportation for magnet students. They have reduced funding for staffing in magnet programs so that it is harder for teachers in Blair SMAC for instance to get the time to plan and update curriculum or to advise/mentor students during their signature research project in 11th and 12th grade. At the same time, they have redoubled their efforts to close the achievement gap. This is a laudable goal and I support some of their efforts including ensuring that schools with high FARMS and high ESOL populations receive more funding to ensure adequate staffing so that these children are able to reach their full potential. They have however also taken another approach to closing the achievement gap that I strongly disagree with: A. They have responded to gaps in testing scores by lowering standards (doing away with final exams in high school, padding final exam grades as in the case of the Algebra I, or in the case of RQE ensuring that a terrible grade on this test (which is most likely due to the curriculum not matching up with the RQE) does not affect the student's grade. In comparison, in my child's magnet classes, the expectations are very high and if my child does not master the material, his grade will reflect this. Very few kids get straight As in these demanding classes but there is no question that the tests and exams truly measure student understanding and achievement. The teachers are given enough autonomy to hold the line and maintain high standards without interference from administrators. B. Every program that has been designed to serve the brightest kids has been under attack as being "inequitable". Not so long ago in MCPS, there was a gifted track in middle school. Then MCPS decided that this was inequitable and it was better to have a "middle school reform" that would ensure higher standards for all students. This resulted in all schools offering on grade level and advanced classes. In my "W" cluster middle school, nearly all children take advanced classes which effectively means that over time, the standards have to be lowered as you have students at different levels being taught in the same classroom. C. They have nearly entirely done away with ability grouping for Mathematics. There are numerous threads on this forum dealing with the negative consequences of this hare brained scheme. D. Finally, after messing things up in our home elem, middle and high schools they have trained their sights on the HGCs and I am sure the middle school and high school magnets are next. What they have proposed so far (the pilot programs for a Fairfax County style approach and the increase in the number of seats in the HGCs) is likely to be the beginning. There was much talk during the discussions about the Choice Study Report of changing the admissions criteria and making them more "holistic" - read non-academic. This is a slippery slope. I support any academic initiative that makes it more likely for URMs to succeed in the magnet tests (universal preschool, more ESOL resources, more reading specialists in K-2), but we should not change the standards for admission in part because it is unfair to the more qualified applicant who loses his or her spot and in part because it will necessitate a lowering of standards in the program. MCPS has a dismal track record on this front so of course parents who care about these programs are right to be concerned with any attempt to change the scope of the program and the admissions criteria. |
Anonymous
One of the parents at my home school filed a request for the school HGC file from last year, and circulated the info. Admits were strictly based on test scores. The top four test scorers were the four admitted (I learned my DD was #1, which I had not known before). They had relatively close scores, but students five and below were a good bit lower. |
Anonymous
That is one school so one data point. Scores will vary across schools. At another school you could have 6 kids that scored in the same range as the 4 kids in your school. The HGC has limited seats so someone will get rejected even if the he or she scored just as well. The top 3% is not a fixed number from year to year or school to school. |
Anonymous
I think the PP's point was that at this school it seemed like the outcomes were highly correlated to test scores ie no bias. I don't think anyone believes they take the top 3% of each school, they just take the top performers for each catchment area. If there are 75 spots at Barnsley for 4th grade, they will tend to go to the 75 students that did the best in the entrance exam although they do want to ensure that the student will be successful which is why they also look at grades and teacher recs. There are other academic criteria (past academic performance, study skills observed by the teacher etc) but the most important determinant is the test score. If there are two students with identical scores but not enough spots, I am sure these other criteria are weighed more heavily. I think the most important point is that currently, the selection process is entirely based on cognitive ability and academic performance. |
Anonymous
+1 As it should be, since the HGC curriculum is intense and students must have the cognitive ability, but also work habits, to keep pace. I fully support expanding the testing pool to ensure no capable children are missed, but I suspect that the outcomes will not change much (if the question is racial balance) should the admissions criteria remain primarily test-based. |
Anonymous
I don't disagree with you--that was my original point. I was responding to the poster that said adding 50% more seats will water down the curriculum, which is not automatically true if MCPS uses the same test/grading criteria. I do think many people on this board don't understand basic statistics, i.e., variability and probability or they wouldn't make statements like that. When a program has limited spots, qualified students get rejected, even with similar scores/grades. The top 3% is not an absolute number--it's an approximation. That is why the mean score changes each year and why it is different for each center. Expanding the program by 50% more seats doesn't automatically mean water downed program if the admissions criteria stays the same, as you stated. |
Anonymous
This sounds incredibly subjective. At least the current situation is based on an objective metric i.e. CogAt Score. Under this new system there's a gate keeper who is free to arbitrarily decide who can and can't take this test. |
Anonymous
Now you are getting it. That's how MCPS plans to make up classes that reflect county's racial makeup. |