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

[Anonymous]

MCPS could use different standards to admit students from lower SES. I don't think that is illegal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
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.

No, the report does not use the term "URM", let alone use it as a collective noun ("the URM") or an adjective ("heavily URM schools").

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MCPS could use different standards to admit students from lower SES. I don't think that is illegal.

Why would MCPS use SES to select magnet kids? There are plenty of lower SES kids (of all races) in the magnet already. These kids are as smart as high SES background kids. When you are smart, you are smart. When you are not, you are not. No creative selection process can help you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS could use different standards to admit students from lower SES. I don't think that is illegal.

Why would MCPS use SES to select magnet kids? There are plenty of lower SES kids (of all races) in the magnet already. These kids are as smart as high SES background kids. When you are smart, you are smart. When you are not, you are not. No creative selection process can help you.

What is the source of your information? In my anecdotal experience of both the HGC and the middle-school application magnet, in the upcounty, the number of poor kids is actually very small.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So, what are the other ways. And if it's not the best way, then why does pretty much every single "gifted" program use mainly test scores as an entrance criteria?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS could use different standards to admit students from lower SES. I don't think that is illegal.

Why would MCPS use SES to select magnet kids? There are plenty of lower SES kids (of all races) in the magnet already. These kids are as smart as high SES background kids. When you are smart, you are smart. When you are not, you are not. No creative selection process can help you.

What is the source of your information? In my anecdotal experience of both the HGC and the middle-school application magnet, in the upcounty, the number of poor kids is actually very small.

My anecdotal experience with my 3 kids. They had plenty of friends with lower/upper SES kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
So, what are the other ways. And if it's not the best way, then why does pretty much every single "gifted" program use mainly test scores as an entrance criteria?

The report talks about this. Here is a link to the report: http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/info/choice/report.aspx

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

My anecdotal experience with my 3 kids. They had plenty of friends with lower/upper SES kids.

According to the data, 7.5% of students in the HGCs are eligible for FARMS, compared to 39.9% in Grades 4 and 5 district-wide. In the middle-school application magnets, 7.4% of students are eligible for FARMS, compared to 38.8% in Grades 6-8 district-wide. In the high-school application magnets, 6.3% of students are eligible for FARMS, compared to 36.6% of students in Grades 9-12 district-wide.

I guess it depends on how you define "plenty".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So, what are the other ways. And if it's not the best way, then why does pretty much every single "gifted" program use mainly test scores as an entrance criteria?

The report talks about this. Here is a link to the report: http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/info/choice/report.aspx

We're going around in circles. The report is not specific. One thing mentioned is using "non-cognitive" methods. I don't even know what that means, plus using a non-cognitive criteria for a program that requires cognitive abilities sounds illogical.

Since you, or the PP, stated that using tests is not the best way to determine giftedness, why don't you explain to us what methods are better? Again, people like you answer these questions like politicians - you don't answer the question, just skirt around it or tell people to read a document. Well, people have read the report, and because the report is not specific regarding "other methods", people are putting two and two together to assume it means either lowering the standards all together or having different standards for different groups. And when they mention using "different standards", the report doesn't mention specifically what "other standards" should be used. The process already looks at grades, parent and teacher recommendation, and test scores. So, what other academic standards are there? And if they are saying look at non-academic standards, then that is also a problem since this is an academic program. If it was an athletic program, then they'd look at athletic abilities. If it was an artistic program, then they'd look at artistic abilities. Get it? My one DC would love to be on the school basketball team. DC doesn't make it, and neither do most of the geeky computer kids. Should I demand that they change the criteria because that group of kids is "under represented" in the basketball team?

If we are wrong, then please do explain in detail what these "other methods" are. All you keep saying is that it won't lower the standards. How do you know it won't lower the standards when the report doesn't detail specifically what MCPS should do? You are also making assumptions that MCPS wouldn't lower the standards. What other factors can they look at that wouldn't lower the standards?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
We're going around in circles. The report is not specific. One thing mentioned is using "non-cognitive" methods. I don't even know what that means, plus using a non-cognitive criteria for a program that requires cognitive abilities sounds illogical.

It's in the report. Read the report.

Or: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=non-cognitive+skills+gifted+education

[Anonymous]

I think the real issue here is that MCPS is trying to find a cheap solution to an expensive problem. The expensive problem is that middle class kids of all races get far more enrichment opportunities than their working class counterparts. This includes summer learning, music lessons, and all sorts of other intangibles.

Now, Title I schools often are able to fill that gap to some degree with additional funding for summer school or after school programming for all kids. BUT, as I understand, the federal guidelines for Title I have changed and, as a result, schools with relatively high FARMS rates are now ineligible.

So, you get two kids from the same school, both bright, both hard working. Both have parents who are interested and engaged. Both have been exposed to decent in-school differentiation and education.

But one has been in piano since 4, is enrolled in summer reading and math boot camp in addition to their engaging summer camp, and has an adult meeting them at the bus to help them with their homework while the sun is still up.

No "in group comparison" is going to make up for the differences between those two kids. Only systematic engagement from preK on up is going to do anything about that gap, but MCPS isn't proposing anything like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
We're going around in circles. The report is not specific. One thing mentioned is using "non-cognitive" methods. I don't even know what that means, plus using a non-cognitive criteria for a program that requires cognitive abilities sounds illogical.

It's in the report. Read the report.

Or: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=non-cognitive+skills+gifted+education

Oh, that's so cute. I can just a hear a politician saying the same thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
We're going around in circles. The report is not specific. One thing mentioned is using "non-cognitive" methods. I don't even know what that means, plus using a non-cognitive criteria for a program that requires cognitive abilities sounds illogical.

It's in the report. Read the report.

Or: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=non-cognitive+skills+gifted+education

Can't you just tell us if you understand and we don't?

[Anonymous]

So how much did this report cost MCPS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the real issue here is that MCPS is trying to find a cheap solution to an expensive problem. The expensive problem is that middle class kids of all races get far more enrichment opportunities than their working class counterparts. This includes summer learning, music lessons, and all sorts of other intangibles.

Now, Title I schools often are able to fill that gap to some degree with additional funding for summer school or after school programming for all kids. BUT, as I understand, the federal guidelines for Title I have changed and, as a result, schools with relatively high FARMS rates are now ineligible.

So, you get two kids from the same school, both bright, both hard working. Both have parents who are interested and engaged. Both have been exposed to decent in-school differentiation and education.

But one has been in piano since 4, is enrolled in summer reading and math boot camp in addition to their engaging summer camp, and has an adult meeting them at the bus to help them with their homework while the sun is still up.

No "in group comparison" is going to make up for the differences between those two kids. Only systematic engagement from preK on up is going to do anything about that gap, but MCPS isn't proposing anything like that.

You make it sound like it's a good thing to be an obsessive tiger parent?! God help us all if the only paths are abject failure or summer academic boot camp.