Do unmotivated kids get into HGC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is off-topic, but is it easier #s-wise to get into a local center rather than an off-site regional center? It seems like that would be the case...right?

Yes! For sure.

There is no way all the kids in those centers would have been taken at the HGC. There is a limit to how many kids get to attend an HCG/CES from a particular school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And I have no dog in this fight. I had one DC go through HGC and another who didn't make it, which is fine. I don't need them to lower the standards just so that my DC could've gotten in.

There is no evidence that anybody is lowering standards.

There is no evidence that they didn't lower the standards, either. The test used to take 2 hours. Now it takes 30min. They want to "broaden the definition of giftedness". Coupled with the fact that their goal is to get more URM in, well... And yes, I know there are smart URM. My Dc's HGC had several of them. But, stats do show that URM score lower than other groups. It's not racist to state that. It's a fact.

You can't prove a negative, eh?

Yes, that's the point. You can prove or disprove it, but you can look at how they have changed the entrance criteria, the recommendations of the METIS report, and mcps's desire to close the "achievement gap", which in and of itself is a good thing, but lowering any standards, HGC entrance or otherwise, is not the way to achieve it, except superficially. Again, that doesn't help any student.

Metis didn't talk about lowering standards. MCPS isn't talking about lowering standards. BoE isn't talking about lowering standards. Nobody is talking about lowering standards except posters on DCUM -- who seem to assume that the only way to increase participation in special programs by kids who are Latino/black/poor is to lower standards.

+1 -- why are folks assuming they lowered standards?

Do you honestly think METIS and MCPS will explicitly state that they would be lowering standards?

Look at how the ivy leagues changed their admissions standards when there were too many Jews getting in. Did they say, "we are going to lower our test score standards", or did they say, "we are going to go with a holistic approach."

Now this is the opposite of what's going on in mcps, but you get the meaning. No one is going to outright say that they are lowering standards. Now, they just say "broaden the definition of giftedness".

What is your real problem with this? You kid didn't get in?

I had one kid get in and one not. I don't think the one who didn't get in would've gotten in prior to the change, either. The problem is that MCPS is not doing any student a favor by this change. MCPS should keep the standards high for everyone, but especially for the highly gifted. I don't want the caliber of MCPS magnet programs to suffer even if my DC isn't it.

I honestly don't think the caliber of MCPS magnet programs is suffering. I think that is a gross exaggeration and I'm not sure what you are basing it on.

This is the first year of the change, so you won't see the change immediately, and MCPS will never admit it either.

conjecture. but I supposed you will believe what you want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I am all for this. I do worry that if the regional programs are expanded more bright kids from our school will leave and that there will no longer be a group of strong peers to be role models for the rest of the kids like DC. I wish they could figure out ways to bring more of the HGC type programming to neighborhood schools. I wouldn't want them to ability group classes but even one intellectually challenging pull out group a week would make a huge difference.

They are doing that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Being unmotivated in a non-gifted curriculum is essentially the definition of being gifted[b]. So all of you suggesting that an unmotivated child shouldn't get into an HGC are essentially suggesting that the HGCs should be for high-achieving kids rather than gifted kids. Why don't we just go ahead an rename them "Centers for Highly Motivated for Not Gifted Kids" then? Oh, you don't like that name because you want to think your kids are gifted when they're really not?

What the what?? That can't possibly be true. Where did you come up with that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being unmotivated in a non-gifted curriculum is essentially the definition of being gifted. So all of you suggesting that an unmotivated child shouldn't get into an HGC are essentially suggesting that the HGCs should be for high-achieving kids rather than gifted kids. Why don't we just go ahead an rename them "Centers for Highly Motivated for Not Gifted Kids" then? Oh, you don't like that name because you want to think your kids are gifted when they're really not?

+1, lol--and that is why Fairfax has AAP (Advanced Academic [i]Programs)

That is why we don't have HGC any more. It is CES now.

I would rather have a center that is geared to the top 2 to 3%, or "highly gifted" than what fcps has. And my one DC didn't make it to HGC. Why don't they just up the standards in the home school and give the opportunity to ALL kids be more challenged, and leave the "highly gifted" program alone?

Some schools put all kids in compacted math -- which would meet the definition of giving opportunity to all kids. And yet people are complaining about that too.

This doesn't mean everyone should be pushed ahead. My DD's math group met twice, maybe three times last year. Another group which had children who were bright but struggling with the pace of the curriculum met every single day. During those times DD and the rest of the 20 students not in that group played on the computer. That isn't creating "opportunity" for anything. There was nothing challenging or stimulating about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

MCPS representatives said this at various meetings. It was a pilot and they stated their goals for the pilot clearly.

MCPS representatives said, "We're putting a pilot at Matsunaga because Matsunaga has a high percentage of poor, black, and Latino students who are high-performing"?

They said something about it had the right demographic targets and a high percentage of high performing students in those target groups. They did not mention black and Latino students. It was pointed out earlier in this thread that those schools are not particularly poor.

Which target groups? If they didn't mention black or Latino students, and there aren't that many low-income students at the school.

Are you dense? The whole report was about closing the achievement gap between white and Asian students and under-represented minority students.

Which is who? Not black or Latino students, or poor students -- to go by the PP's report about what MCPS representatives said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I agree with this PP. That's what MCPS seems to be doing. And, I also agree that it would be more beneficial to the URM population to offer more resources such as smaller class sizes, and additional support versus pushing those students into the HGCs or pushing them into Compacted Math (as is being done at some schools, where every student ends up in CM).

You know what's beneficial to bright kids who are Hispanic/poor/black? Having the same access to MCPS special programs as bright kids who aren't.

And how did they not have access a couple of years ago?

I agree with PPs that the best way to close the achievement gap is not to water down the curriculum and artificially increase magnet numbers. That doesn't help any student. Provide more after school enrichment activities and tutoring for free, maybe even add more para-educators in those schools.

Here is some reading for you: http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/i...dyReport-Version2-20160307.pdf

Tutoring can help kids who are behind. Kids who are ahead have different needs. Not all black, Hispanic, and poor kids are behind.

If you are referring to the METIS report, here's what it says on pg 79 - your link doesn't work.

http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/info/choice/ChoiceStudyReport-Version2-20160307.pdf

- 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.

"Broaden the definition of giftedness" IMO just means "lower the entrance bar". I'd like to know what how MCPS has defined "broaden the definition of giftedness".

No one cares if there are more URM in HGC as long as the standards are the same for everyone. Setting the standards artificially low to "broaden the definition of giftedness" does a disservice to all students.

How was the previous standards eliminating URM from HGC other than the lower income parents may not have been aware of the program? In such a case, it would've better just to test ALL kids, and let parents opt out of the testing if they choose. Why do they need to "broaden the definition of giftedness" to increase URM participation? The answer is obvious. It is because many of them don't score well on standardized tests. I'm not saying that should be the ONLY thing they look at. Clearly, there are some kids who don't do well on such tests but are really smart. Then the other factor should be how they do in class, and if you are not participating and showing in your work that you are "gifted" then how else do you determine that a child is "gifted"? They really should look at both.

And I have no dog in this fight. I had one DC go through HGC and another who didn't make it, which is fine. I don't need them to lower the standards just so that my DC could've gotten in.

I think this right here is very telling. MCPS wants to 'broaden the definition of giftedness'. That is absolutely equivalent, IMO to lowering the bar to entrance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am all for this. I do worry that if the regional programs are expanded more bright kids from our school will leave and that there will no longer be a group of strong peers to be role models for the rest of the kids like DC. I wish they could figure out ways to bring more of the HGC type programming to neighborhood schools. I wouldn't want them to ability group classes but even one intellectually challenging pull out group a week would make a huge difference.

They are doing that.

How is this happening? Don't see any evidence at our school which is one of those where 80 or more percent are identified as gifted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being unmotivated in a non-gifted curriculum is essentially the definition of being gifted. So all of you suggesting that an unmotivated child shouldn't get into an HGC are essentially suggesting that the HGCs should be for high-achieving kids rather than gifted kids. Why don't we just go ahead an rename them "Centers for Highly Motivated for Not Gifted Kids" then? Oh, you don't like that name because you want to think your kids are gifted when they're really not?

+1, lol--and that is why Fairfax has AAP (Advanced Academic [i]Programs)

That is why we don't have HGC any more. It is CES now.

I would rather have a center that is geared to the top 2 to 3%, or "highly gifted" than what fcps has. And my one DC didn't make it to HGC. Why don't they just up the standards in the home school and give the opportunity to ALL kids be more challenged, and leave the "highly gifted" program alone?

Some schools put all kids in compacted math -- which would meet the definition of giving opportunity to all kids. And yet people are complaining about that too.

Perfect example of lowering the standrads to get more kids in.

That's not the way to do it. Giving them the opportunity means letting them choose to do it or not. In a very small way, they do this by giving the "brighter" kids more challenging worksheets. In CM, they don't have the choice to do harder worksheets. The pace is fast, and if you can't keep up you just get left behind. That doesn't help the student.

Why not have similar projects in home schools as they do in HGC -- and yes, they are different. Teachers should give the students the opportunity to do more for that project. If some kids can't do it, then they shouldn't be ding for it. Another example, in HGC, students must participate in the Science Fair. Why not have the same at the home school? Another example: HGC students study some subject and they put on a play. They write their own scripts, direct, make costumes... why can't they do that in the home schools for those who want to?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being unmotivated in a non-gifted curriculum is essentially the definition of being gifted[b]. So all of you suggesting that an unmotivated child shouldn't get into an HGC are essentially suggesting that the HGCs should be for high-achieving kids rather than gifted kids. Why don't we just go ahead an rename them "Centers for Highly Motivated for Not Gifted Kids" then? Oh, you don't like that name because you want to think your kids are gifted when they're really not?

What the what?? That can't possibly be true. Where did you come up with that?

You're going too far. It is not "essentially the definition of being gifted." But there is a lot of research into how gifted kids may present as unmotivated or disruptive kids due to not being challenged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And I have no dog in this fight. I had one DC go through HGC and another who didn't make it, which is fine. I don't need them to lower the standards just so that my DC could've gotten in.

There is no evidence that anybody is lowering standards.

There is no evidence that they didn't lower the standards, either. The test used to take 2 hours. Now it takes 30min. They want to "broaden the definition of giftedness". Coupled with the fact that their goal is to get more URM in, well... And yes, I know there are smart URM. My Dc's HGC had several of them. But, stats do show that URM score lower than other groups. It's not racist to state that. It's a fact.

You can't prove a negative, eh?

Yes, that's the point. You can prove or disprove it, but you can look at how they have changed the entrance criteria, the recommendations of the METIS report, and mcps's desire to close the "achievement gap", which in and of itself is a good thing, but lowering any standards, HGC entrance or otherwise, is not the way to achieve it, except superficially. Again, that doesn't help any student.

Metis didn't talk about lowering standards. MCPS isn't talking about lowering standards. BoE isn't talking about lowering standards. Nobody is talking about lowering standards except posters on DCUM -- who seem to assume that the only way to increase participation in special programs by kids who are Latino/black/poor is to lower standards.

+1 -- why are folks assuming they lowered standards?

Do you honestly think METIS and MCPS will explicitly state that they would be lowering standards?

Look at how the ivy leagues changed their admissions standards when there were too many Jews getting in. Did they say, "we are going to lower our test score standards", or did they say, "we are going to go with a holistic approach."

Now this is the opposite of what's going on in mcps, but you get the meaning. No one is going to outright say that they are lowering standards. Now, they just say "broaden the definition of giftedness".

What is your real problem with this? You kid didn't get in?

I had one kid get in and one not. I don't think the one who didn't get in would've gotten in prior to the change, either. The problem is that MCPS is not doing any student a favor by this change. MCPS should keep the standards high for everyone, but especially for the highly gifted. I don't want the caliber of MCPS magnet programs to suffer even if my DC isn't it.

I honestly don't think the caliber of MCPS magnet programs is suffering. I think that is a gross exaggeration and I'm not sure what you are basing it on.

This is the first year of the change, so you won't see the change immediately, and MCPS will never admit it either.

conjecture. but I supposed you will believe what you want.

And I suppose some people just want to ignore the obvious and stick their heads in the sand about what's going on. That's not helping either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being unmotivated in a non-gifted curriculum is essentially the definition of being gifted. So all of you suggesting that an unmotivated child shouldn't get into an HGC are essentially suggesting that the HGCs should be for high-achieving kids rather than gifted kids. Why don't we just go ahead an rename them "Centers for Highly Motivated for Not Gifted Kids" then? Oh, you don't like that name because you want to think your kids are gifted when they're really not?

+1, lol--and that is why Fairfax has AAP (Advanced Academic [i]Programs)

That is why we don't have HGC any more. It is CES now.

I would rather have a center that is geared to the top 2 to 3%, or "highly gifted" than what fcps has. And my one DC didn't make it to HGC. Why don't they just up the standards in the home school and give the opportunity to ALL kids be more challenged, and leave the "highly gifted" program alone?

Some schools put all kids in compacted math -- which would meet the definition of giving opportunity to all kids. And yet people are complaining about that too.

I'm at an ES that does this, and that is absolutely not 'giving opportunity' to all kids. You may want to give them the choice, but placing all kids on a Math Track that they are not prepared to does not benefit anybody. It doesn't benefit the kids who are getting taught at a speed that is too fast for them. And, it doesn't benefit the kids who should be getting instruction at that level. It is a waste of everyone's time.

What schools need to do, IMO is focus on IMPROVEMENT in kids. All parents want to know that they time their kid is spending at school is fruitful.

We should be teaching kids at their level (regardless of what color/SES they are) and providing them APPROPRIATE challenges. CM is not appropriate for ALL kids. Opening it to all kids just to increase the numbers of URM kids in CM is not helpful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am all for this. I do worry that if the regional programs are expanded more bright kids from our school will leave and that there will no longer be a group of strong peers to be role models for the rest of the kids like DC. I wish they could figure out ways to bring more of the HGC type programming to neighborhood schools. I wouldn't want them to ability group classes but even one intellectually challenging pull out group a week would make a huge difference.

They are doing that.

How is this happening? Don't see any evidence at our school which is one of those where 80 or more percent are identified as gifted.

Are they finally teaching to potential in the neighborhood schools or not? Tracking? Differentiation is back after being taken out for Common Core curriculum 2.0?
Many of us are not going to put our children in a 1 hour early morning and late afternoon bus ride to a HGC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am all for this. I do worry that if the regional programs are expanded more bright kids from our school will leave and that there will no longer be a group of strong peers to be role models for the rest of the kids like DC. I wish they could figure out ways to bring more of the HGC type programming to neighborhood schools. I wouldn't want them to ability group classes but even one intellectually challenging pull out group a week would make a huge difference.

They are doing that.

How is this happening? Don't see any evidence at our school which is one of those where 80 or more percent are identified as gifted.

Matsunaga ES, Rachel Carson ES, Stonegate ES, and Piney Branch ES are neighborhood schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I honestly don't think the caliber of MCPS magnet programs is suffering. I think that is a gross exaggeration and I'm not sure what you are basing it on.

This is the first year of the change, so you won't see the change immediately, and MCPS will never admit it either.

conjecture. but I supposed you will believe what you want.

Have you ever had a kid in HGC? I have, and I can tell you that a big part of the HGC is the cohorts, the caliber of the peers. Even if the standards within HGC curriculum doesn't change, I can tell you that if the students there are not as high caliber, the caliber of the program will change. And the only ones who suffer are the "highly gifted" kids who really do need such a program. I don't need to make any assumptions to realize this.