Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Wondering.. why the MAP cut off is 80th percentile but the ela and math assessment scores need to be a 5 to meet the criteria? Meaning you gave to score đź’Ż on the assessments.. weird.
It’s a good thing because many students test differently and many more are above 80%. The assessments really separate the kids. It’s pretty easy to do and you don’t need the behavior assessments if your child hit all academic indicators (5/5 on assessments, high dibels and map).
I don’t even know why they have behavioral checklists they should just do academic (Increase map criteria to 95% and all GT students have to get 5/5 on assessments).
The behavior checklist is actually a critical part of identifying GT students vs just academically advance students. Often GT persons exhibit different behaviors and emotional regulation that doesn’t align with the rest of their profile. They also can have poor academic scores but really high test scores which may indicate that they are bored in class. Can you imagine if you’re a 7yr that can do HS math but you have to sit still and pay attention while kids learn addition?
Most of what schools do is just identify the academically advance kids (including the gifted) but little is actually done to engage gifted students.
What are on behavior checklists? My special need kid has IEP for behavior problem. My child will be 2nd grader in the fall. Do they give out GT notification letter in 2nd grade 4th quarter? I will have my kid's private neuropsychoical testing results in the fall (that includes IQ test), should I share that with the school IEP team? Would that be helpful for GT or ELA/Math placement later?
If they hit the cutoffs for all 4 academic items they don't need any behavior checklists. Otherwise they need at least 3 academic and 1 behavioral but the behavioral one could come room the parent input form.
Again, my issue is that I think it's silly to combine reading and math for this because... that's not how it works in real life, and secondarily, I find the DIBELS assessment kind of silly, but it also seems like for 2nd graders this doesn't matter for much... I assume my kid will still get "math enrichment" (which is really very minimal) given that she scores 99th percentile on the math MAP.
Also, since I realize I didn't answer you... yes, the notification is 4th quarter of 2nd grade, but if you meet some of the indicators but not all, you get rescreened in grades 3, 5, 7 and considered for enrichment and acceleration at your local school. I don’t think you can get them to include other criteria (like an IQ test), but you can ask. I think the GT designation gets used for CES? We're not really interested in moving to a different school, so for us, the only real enrichment/acceleration is Compacted Math starting in 4th grade. Which is a separate process and doesn't include reading scores.
GT designation is not used for CES or accelerated Math ("compacted"). For CES, some of the same measures are used (e.g., MAP scores), but the cutoffs are different (including the FARMS rate adjustments), and the other criteria change (e.g., grades & reading levels instead of curricular assessment scores). I don't think they've publicized the accelerated Math recommendation criteria this year, but, in the past, schools have been allowed to change the recommended list that central provides, based on what they know about each student; that could include knowing of a GT designation, but that very probably is ignored.
GT designation might be used for CM per se
but the cut off for enrichment and/or acceleration is 80th percentile which means if your child was at 80th percentile or above in either math or reading they will be eligible for cm or elc despite not having met the gifted criteria. But the gifted designation is important for getting enrichment or acceleration. I am the PP whose DC did not meet gifted criteria in 2nd grade due to a missing map rf. As a result he was not getting reading enrichment in 3rd and was placed in the lowest reading group. But his 3rd grade mapr was 97th percentile and he was eventually moved to an appropriate reading group.
This is not accurate. ELC and CM have different criteria for placement from GT designation, and that criteria is not an 80th percentile cutoff. Schools have latitude in placement into those curricula, but they begin based on MCPS-provided guidance. ELC was to have been offered (where available -- still not all schools will have it) to anyone eligible for the CES pool. The CM criteria have not been made public yet for this year's cycle, but have been more restrictive than 80th MAP-M percentile in the past.
That said, if you have a link to the criteria, please post it. Otherwise, I'd suggest you ask for clarification from AEI.
I don’t have a link. Its from my own experience and inference that I have arrived that CM and ELC is at 80th percentile because on the GT notification letter it says your child should receive enrichment and acceleration.
What is that if not CM and ELC? I know it depends on the schools and they might add more kids and I know that CES pool kids automatically get ELC but by definition CES pool kids are above 80th percentile.
This is part of the point. GT designation, as it exists now in MCPS, is part of the SIPPI/GT Identification process that is mandated by COMAR (COde of MARyland/MD law). Also mandated is GT programming to meet the needs of any identified, but COMAR is
really short on specifics.
MCPS advanced programming predates the COMAR requirement -- they've had a variety of GT approaches over the past several decades -- and the SIPPI process has been treated as something of a less-than-convenient necessity so as not to have to be sure that the existing programs -- CES (as they are now called), accelerated elementary/middle Math (being formalized in C 2.0 some years back and continued within the newer curricula), the criteria-based magnet middle school and high school programs -- are weighed down by some need to conform to that state standard.
Instead, MCPS has chosen curricula that have "built in enrichments" (nearly all now do) and state that this satisfies the COMAR requirement (again, nebulously written, so the claim is easy). Among the problems is the quality of the enrichments (which is why there has been so much advocacy for ELC everywhere -- Benchmark Advance enrichments were/are pretty limited) and the high variability across schools and teachers of employing those enrichments for students identified as GT.
Still, this bare nod to the state requirements allows MCPS to go its own way with the more robust options for providing accelerated and enriched programming. They can be as selective as they wish (or might need to be), even if that results in these programs not being offered to all kids designated as GT. Often, that comes down to two things -- local cohort and budget.
If the local cohort of GT kids at a school is big enough, homogenous enough (ability-wise) and right-sized enough to keep them together, the administration has an easier time with the logistics -- numbers of teachers, class splits, training for advanced curricula, etc. If it isn't, there become disincentives to matching appropriate curricular options to the GT population. It can happen both ways -- if the natural split results in a close-to-class-sized group, an administrator might choose a few edge-case students to add to that group to right-size it; heavy on the class size can mean edge cases are left out. On top of that, not all admins are inclined to make any of such changes, sticking with whatever recommendations are provided by MCPS central.
We've seen other examples where the group is so great a percentage (or parents so vociferously advocate) that administration goes with, essentially, GT programming for everyone, but that both creates a sense of have and have-not among schools and can cause ineffective implementations where there are struggling students in the same class as those needing to stretch.
Of course, the 800 lb. gorilla is budget. Triple constraint theory suggests that increased/proper budget could significantly ameliorate the inconsistencies -- whether from better training, manipulatives (my goodness, a textbook!), more personnel, more centers/seats, you name it. That requires tax $ and a willingness from the County Council to prioritize its use towards education.
And that fiscal reality makes very attractive newer educational philosophies that run counter to the ideas of GT education from years ago.
Who really needs it? They're already ahead! They'll do fine! It's inequitable! Plenty of logical fallacies and misunderstandings underpin those...but, then again, when have we ever seen elected and appointed officials fail in that regard
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}