The only way to have equity is to drag down the top performers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Equal opportunity does not lead to equal outcomes. There is no vast amount of untapped talent. Throwing resources at low performers won't significantly lift them. If equity is the goal, the only way to get there is to handicap the very top performers. This is exactly what MCPS is doing.

Who pissed in your cornflakes?

MCPS when it decided to destroy its gifted offerings.

Such rhetoric hurts your credibility. It suggests you don't have well-justified complaints when you refuse to state them.

Gifted kids thrive when they are able to be academically challenged in a cohort of their peers. MCPS in implementing things like “honors for all” or getting rid of ELC is making it so gifted students no longer have that opportunity. Period, end stop.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do people say it’s offensive to talk about special ed but so easily feel like they can tell the parent of a gift child “they’ll be fine”? It’s so clearly a double standard. Public tax dollars should support both.

I don't say gift kids will be "fine". I do think they need services. I take offense at the implication that kids with disabilities in self contained classrooms some kind of affront to your gifted child or a sign your kid is being treated unfairly.

Well you're getting triggered by things that aren't being said, so good luck with that

Here is what was said:
"We pay for special ed teachers to run tiny sheltered classes for the disabled. Why can’t we pay gifted teachers to run tiny sheltered classes (magnets!) for the highly able students?"

The answer to the question is because the special ed students need smaller classes and most of them do not get them. Calling them "sheltered" is offensive beyond belief.

Do you get there are different levels of need? That a special education student that qualifies for a self contained classroom most likely has higher needs than a child that is gifted (of course there are exceptions)? Can we stop pretending that if "those" kids get something then that means your kid should get the same thing?

Equity does not equal "same"

Can we stop pretending that this is some kind of competition? Jesus you're exhausting

And for what it's worth (which I see is nothing to you), my child is identified as both gifted, and can barely function at school because of disabilities that aren't supported.

But the PP literally stated she wants the same thing ("tiny sheltered classes") as what kids with disabilities get.

Sorry you don't think I see your worth or whatever it is you are trying to imply. I don't know who you are or anything about you except that you are an a-hole.

I know it’s difficult on an anonymous board but realize there are multiple posters here saying slightly different things. I didn’t argue for “tiny sheltered classes” but the point remains that MCPS is taking away gifted opportunities AND it is not serving students with disabilities well either.

You're at least settling back on an accurate statement.

Though, there's still the issue of priorities. Any parent, teacher, or student in MCPS is going to have legitimate complaints. And while it would be great to address all of them, that's realistically not going to happen- particularly in the current budget and political environment.

A broad call for improving programs focused on gifted and talented is not likely to be viewed by many as one of the more pressing issues in MCPS worthy of additional funding and resources. You may have more success arguing concrete proposals, particularly ones that may not have a substantial cost.

And why not? Why is gifted education never prioritized? Because people say- “they’ll be fine”. Nice people. Well meaning people.

It sucks.

The reason PPs bring up special ed is because no one disputes their need for specialized/differentiated instruction. I don’t want to take anything away from special ed. Gifted education is a type of special ed- kids who don’t learn like other kids and who deserve to be cohorted with their peers.

Why can’t parents who have to fight for their kids’ rights for special services join forces with this crop of parents whose kids’ needs are not being met? Let’s put pressure on MCPS to actually differentiate instruction. One size does not fit all!

Yes, when there are limited resources it is common to go after the biggest problems first. You're going to have a hard time convincing most people that gifted and talented programs are one of the biggest problems.

You can disagree with that, but so far you haven't made much of a case that it is. You've argued it that things aren't ideal for your child, but that is very different than arguing this is one of the most compelling problems for the district overall.

Maybe you can improve your argument. But it is probably going to be easier to convince people that there are some simple things that are worth doing.

You clearly have a bias that gifted kids don’t actually need support. Fine. But in telling you that is far from the case and we’re doing a huge disservice to our society to not engage our highest achievers. But I’m not going to convince you.

You haven't even bothered to explain what specific needs aren't being met or what programs you want to see to meet those needs. You've just complained that they're not prioritized enough.

You're really going to need to work on your argument if you want to try to convince anyone to help you.

You start — why should we as a society invest in children with disabilities? And I implore you to make the argument without referring back to “it’s the law.”

Stop using other people's children to advocate for your child you disgusting POS

See the problem when you ask these asinine questions — to prove that my kid is worthy of support — you put yourself right back in that position, too. The reality is if you look at it from an economic point of view, gifted kids when well supported are more likely to be the entrepreneurs and scholars our society needs to achieve compared to, well, you get the point. But that’s a horrible argument to make because we need to be supporting all children to succeed to their highest potential. But you do not see gifted kids as needing that support.

DP.

There is no shortage of entrepreneurs and scholars. They will always be there with or without gifted programs.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do people say it’s offensive to talk about special ed but so easily feel like they can tell the parent of a gift child “they’ll be fine”? It’s so clearly a double standard. Public tax dollars should support both.

I don't say gift kids will be "fine". I do think they need services. I take offense at the implication that kids with disabilities in self contained classrooms some kind of affront to your gifted child or a sign your kid is being treated unfairly.

Well you're getting triggered by things that aren't being said, so good luck with that

Here is what was said:
"We pay for special ed teachers to run tiny sheltered classes for the disabled. Why can’t we pay gifted teachers to run tiny sheltered classes (magnets!) for the highly able students?"

The answer to the question is because the special ed students need smaller classes and most of them do not get them. Calling them "sheltered" is offensive beyond belief.

Do you get there are different levels of need? That a special education student that qualifies for a self contained classroom most likely has higher needs than a child that is gifted (of course there are exceptions)? Can we stop pretending that if "those" kids get something then that means your kid should get the same thing?

Equity does not equal "same"

Can we stop pretending that this is some kind of competition? Jesus you're exhausting

And for what it's worth (which I see is nothing to you), my child is identified as both gifted, and can barely function at school because of disabilities that aren't supported.

But the PP literally stated she wants the same thing ("tiny sheltered classes") as what kids with disabilities get.

Sorry you don't think I see your worth or whatever it is you are trying to imply. I don't know who you are or anything about you except that you are an a-hole.

I know it’s difficult on an anonymous board but realize there are multiple posters here saying slightly different things. I didn’t argue for “tiny sheltered classes” but the point remains that MCPS is taking away gifted opportunities AND it is not serving students with disabilities well either.

You're at least settling back on an accurate statement.

Though, there's still the issue of priorities. Any parent, teacher, or student in MCPS is going to have legitimate complaints. And while it would be great to address all of them, that's realistically not going to happen- particularly in the current budget and political environment.

A broad call for improving programs focused on gifted and talented is not likely to be viewed by many as one of the more pressing issues in MCPS worthy of additional funding and resources. You may have more success arguing concrete proposals, particularly ones that may not have a substantial cost.

And why not? Why is gifted education never prioritized? Because people say- “they’ll be fine”. Nice people. Well meaning people.

It sucks.

The reason PPs bring up special ed is because no one disputes their need for specialized/differentiated instruction. I don’t want to take anything away from special ed. Gifted education is a type of special ed- kids who don’t learn like other kids and who deserve to be cohorted with their peers.

Why can’t parents who have to fight for their kids’ rights for special services join forces with this crop of parents whose kids’ needs are not being met? Let’s put pressure on MCPS to actually differentiate instruction. One size does not fit all!

Yes, when there are limited resources it is common to go after the biggest problems first. You're going to have a hard time convincing most people that gifted and talented programs are one of the biggest problems.

You can disagree with that, but so far you haven't made much of a case that it is. You've argued it that things aren't ideal for your child, but that is very different than arguing this is one of the most compelling problems for the district overall.

Maybe you can improve your argument. But it is probably going to be easier to convince people that there are some simple things that are worth doing.

You clearly have a bias that gifted kids don’t actually need support. Fine. But in telling you that is far from the case and we’re doing a huge disservice to our society to not engage our highest achievers. But I’m not going to convince you.

You haven't even bothered to explain what specific needs aren't being met or what programs you want to see to meet those needs. You've just complained that they're not prioritized enough.

You're really going to need to work on your argument if you want to try to convince anyone to help you.

You start — why should we as a society invest in children with disabilities? And I implore you to make the argument without referring back to “it’s the law.”

Stop using other people's children to advocate for your child you disgusting POS

See the problem when you ask these asinine questions — to prove that my kid is worthy of support — you put yourself right back in that position, too. The reality is if you look at it from an economic point of view, gifted kids when well supported are more likely to be the entrepreneurs and scholars our society needs to achieve compared to, well, you get the point. But that’s a horrible argument to make because we need to be supporting all children to succeed to their highest potential. But you do not see gifted kids as needing that support.

DP.

There is no shortage of entrepreneurs and scholars. They will always be there with or without gifted programs.

More like the US is going to become a colony or client state of India or China.

You don't see the benefits for society of having a thriving tax base to support all needs. You're being awfully short-sighted here.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do people say it’s offensive to talk about special ed but so easily feel like they can tell the parent of a gift child “they’ll be fine”? It’s so clearly a double standard. Public tax dollars should support both.

I don't say gift kids will be "fine". I do think they need services. I take offense at the implication that kids with disabilities in self contained classrooms some kind of affront to your gifted child or a sign your kid is being treated unfairly.

Well you're getting triggered by things that aren't being said, so good luck with that

Here is what was said:
"We pay for special ed teachers to run tiny sheltered classes for the disabled. Why can’t we pay gifted teachers to run tiny sheltered classes (magnets!) for the highly able students?"

The answer to the question is because the special ed students need smaller classes and most of them do not get them. Calling them "sheltered" is offensive beyond belief.

Do you get there are different levels of need? That a special education student that qualifies for a self contained classroom most likely has higher needs than a child that is gifted (of course there are exceptions)? Can we stop pretending that if "those" kids get something then that means your kid should get the same thing?

Equity does not equal "same"

Can we stop pretending that this is some kind of competition? Jesus you're exhausting

And for what it's worth (which I see is nothing to you), my child is identified as both gifted, and can barely function at school because of disabilities that aren't supported.

But the PP literally stated she wants the same thing ("tiny sheltered classes") as what kids with disabilities get.

Sorry you don't think I see your worth or whatever it is you are trying to imply. I don't know who you are or anything about you except that you are an a-hole.

I know it’s difficult on an anonymous board but realize there are multiple posters here saying slightly different things. I didn’t argue for “tiny sheltered classes” but the point remains that MCPS is taking away gifted opportunities AND it is not serving students with disabilities well either.

You're at least settling back on an accurate statement.

Though, there's still the issue of priorities. Any parent, teacher, or student in MCPS is going to have legitimate complaints. And while it would be great to address all of them, that's realistically not going to happen- particularly in the current budget and political environment.

A broad call for improving programs focused on gifted and talented is not likely to be viewed by many as one of the more pressing issues in MCPS worthy of additional funding and resources. You may have more success arguing concrete proposals, particularly ones that may not have a substantial cost.

And why not? Why is gifted education never prioritized? Because people say- “they’ll be fine”. Nice people. Well meaning people.

It sucks.

The reason PPs bring up special ed is because no one disputes their need for specialized/differentiated instruction. I don’t want to take anything away from special ed. Gifted education is a type of special ed- kids who don’t learn like other kids and who deserve to be cohorted with their peers.

Why can’t parents who have to fight for their kids’ rights for special services join forces with this crop of parents whose kids’ needs are not being met? Let’s put pressure on MCPS to actually differentiate instruction. One size does not fit all!

Yes, when there are limited resources it is common to go after the biggest problems first. You're going to have a hard time convincing most people that gifted and talented programs are one of the biggest problems.

You can disagree with that, but so far you haven't made much of a case that it is. You've argued it that things aren't ideal for your child, but that is very different than arguing this is one of the most compelling problems for the district overall.

Maybe you can improve your argument. But it is probably going to be easier to convince people that there are some simple things that are worth doing.

You clearly have a bias that gifted kids don’t actually need support. Fine. But in telling you that is far from the case and we’re doing a huge disservice to our society to not engage our highest achievers. But I’m not going to convince you.

You haven't even bothered to explain what specific needs aren't being met or what programs you want to see to meet those needs. You've just complained that they're not prioritized enough.

You're really going to need to work on your argument if you want to try to convince anyone to help you.

You start — why should we as a society invest in children with disabilities? And I implore you to make the argument without referring back to “it’s the law.”

Stop using other people's children to advocate for your child you disgusting POS

See the problem when you ask these asinine questions — to prove that my kid is worthy of support — you put yourself right back in that position, too. The reality is if you look at it from an economic point of view, gifted kids when well supported are more likely to be the entrepreneurs and scholars our society needs to achieve compared to, well, you get the point. But that’s a horrible argument to make because we need to be supporting all children to succeed to their highest potential. But you do not see gifted kids as needing that support.

DP.

There is no shortage of entrepreneurs and scholars. They will always be there with or without gifted programs.

More like the US is going to become a colony or client state of India or China.

You don't see the benefits for society of having a thriving tax base to support all needs. You're being awfully short-sighted here.

But can’t you see? Destroying the top is the only way we’ll achieve equity /s

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do people say it’s offensive to talk about special ed but so easily feel like they can tell the parent of a gift child “they’ll be fine”? It’s so clearly a double standard. Public tax dollars should support both.

I don't say gift kids will be "fine". I do think they need services. I take offense at the implication that kids with disabilities in self contained classrooms some kind of affront to your gifted child or a sign your kid is being treated unfairly.

Well you're getting triggered by things that aren't being said, so good luck with that

Here is what was said:
"We pay for special ed teachers to run tiny sheltered classes for the disabled. Why can’t we pay gifted teachers to run tiny sheltered classes (magnets!) for the highly able students?"

The answer to the question is because the special ed students need smaller classes and most of them do not get them. Calling them "sheltered" is offensive beyond belief.

Do you get there are different levels of need? That a special education student that qualifies for a self contained classroom most likely has higher needs than a child that is gifted (of course there are exceptions)? Can we stop pretending that if "those" kids get something then that means your kid should get the same thing?

Equity does not equal "same"

Can we stop pretending that this is some kind of competition? Jesus you're exhausting

And for what it's worth (which I see is nothing to you), my child is identified as both gifted, and can barely function at school because of disabilities that aren't supported.

But the PP literally stated she wants the same thing ("tiny sheltered classes") as what kids with disabilities get.

Sorry you don't think I see your worth or whatever it is you are trying to imply. I don't know who you are or anything about you except that you are an a-hole.

I know it’s difficult on an anonymous board but realize there are multiple posters here saying slightly different things. I didn’t argue for “tiny sheltered classes” but the point remains that MCPS is taking away gifted opportunities AND it is not serving students with disabilities well either.

You're at least settling back on an accurate statement.

Though, there's still the issue of priorities. Any parent, teacher, or student in MCPS is going to have legitimate complaints. And while it would be great to address all of them, that's realistically not going to happen- particularly in the current budget and political environment.

A broad call for improving programs focused on gifted and talented is not likely to be viewed by many as one of the more pressing issues in MCPS worthy of additional funding and resources. You may have more success arguing concrete proposals, particularly ones that may not have a substantial cost.

And why not? Why is gifted education never prioritized? Because people say- “they’ll be fine”. Nice people. Well meaning people.

It sucks.

The reason PPs bring up special ed is because no one disputes their need for specialized/differentiated instruction. I don’t want to take anything away from special ed. Gifted education is a type of special ed- kids who don’t learn like other kids and who deserve to be cohorted with their peers.

Why can’t parents who have to fight for their kids’ rights for special services join forces with this crop of parents whose kids’ needs are not being met? Let’s put pressure on MCPS to actually differentiate instruction. One size does not fit all!

Yes, when there are limited resources it is common to go after the biggest problems first. You're going to have a hard time convincing most people that gifted and talented programs are one of the biggest problems.

You can disagree with that, but so far you haven't made much of a case that it is. You've argued it that things aren't ideal for your child, but that is very different than arguing this is one of the most compelling problems for the district overall.

Maybe you can improve your argument. But it is probably going to be easier to convince people that there are some simple things that are worth doing.

You clearly have a bias that gifted kids don’t actually need support. Fine. But in telling you that is far from the case and we’re doing a huge disservice to our society to not engage our highest achievers. But I’m not going to convince you.

You haven't even bothered to explain what specific needs aren't being met or what programs you want to see to meet those needs. You've just complained that they're not prioritized enough.

You're really going to need to work on your argument if you want to try to convince anyone to help you.

You start — why should we as a society invest in children with disabilities? And I implore you to make the argument without referring back to “it’s the law.”

Stop using other people's children to advocate for your child you disgusting POS

See the problem when you ask these asinine questions — to prove that my kid is worthy of support — you put yourself right back in that position, too. The reality is if you look at it from an economic point of view, gifted kids when well supported are more likely to be the entrepreneurs and scholars our society needs to achieve compared to, well, you get the point. But that’s a horrible argument to make because we need to be supporting all children to succeed to their highest potential. But you do not see gifted kids as needing that support.

Do you have data on the efficacy of gifted and talented programs? Do they demonstrate that programs themselves lead to better long-term outcomes in those students? Or just that the students selected for those programs tend to have better outcomes due to their natural ability, separate from the programs themselves?

Because the research results on gifted and talented programs are, at best, mixed. Data from districts utilizing lotteries for gifted and talented programs suggest there's little to no impact from the programs themselves.

That's not to say there aren't (necessarily) more specific needs that can be best addressed through gifted and talented programs. But there isn't a strong case that these programs help to breed the next generation of "entrepreneurs and scholars."

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do people say it’s offensive to talk about special ed but so easily feel like they can tell the parent of a gift child “they’ll be fine”? It’s so clearly a double standard. Public tax dollars should support both.

I don't say gift kids will be "fine". I do think they need services. I take offense at the implication that kids with disabilities in self contained classrooms some kind of affront to your gifted child or a sign your kid is being treated unfairly.

Well you're getting triggered by things that aren't being said, so good luck with that

Here is what was said:
"We pay for special ed teachers to run tiny sheltered classes for the disabled. Why can’t we pay gifted teachers to run tiny sheltered classes (magnets!) for the highly able students?"

The answer to the question is because the special ed students need smaller classes and most of them do not get them. Calling them "sheltered" is offensive beyond belief.

Do you get there are different levels of need? That a special education student that qualifies for a self contained classroom most likely has higher needs than a child that is gifted (of course there are exceptions)? Can we stop pretending that if "those" kids get something then that means your kid should get the same thing?

Equity does not equal "same"

Can we stop pretending that this is some kind of competition? Jesus you're exhausting

And for what it's worth (which I see is nothing to you), my child is identified as both gifted, and can barely function at school because of disabilities that aren't supported.

But the PP literally stated she wants the same thing ("tiny sheltered classes") as what kids with disabilities get.

Sorry you don't think I see your worth or whatever it is you are trying to imply. I don't know who you are or anything about you except that you are an a-hole.

I know it’s difficult on an anonymous board but realize there are multiple posters here saying slightly different things. I didn’t argue for “tiny sheltered classes” but the point remains that MCPS is taking away gifted opportunities AND it is not serving students with disabilities well either.

You're at least settling back on an accurate statement.

Though, there's still the issue of priorities. Any parent, teacher, or student in MCPS is going to have legitimate complaints. And while it would be great to address all of them, that's realistically not going to happen- particularly in the current budget and political environment.

A broad call for improving programs focused on gifted and talented is not likely to be viewed by many as one of the more pressing issues in MCPS worthy of additional funding and resources. You may have more success arguing concrete proposals, particularly ones that may not have a substantial cost.

And why not? Why is gifted education never prioritized? Because people say- “they’ll be fine”. Nice people. Well meaning people.

It sucks.

The reason PPs bring up special ed is because no one disputes their need for specialized/differentiated instruction. I don’t want to take anything away from special ed. Gifted education is a type of special ed- kids who don’t learn like other kids and who deserve to be cohorted with their peers.

Why can’t parents who have to fight for their kids’ rights for special services join forces with this crop of parents whose kids’ needs are not being met? Let’s put pressure on MCPS to actually differentiate instruction. One size does not fit all!

Yes, when there are limited resources it is common to go after the biggest problems first. You're going to have a hard time convincing most people that gifted and talented programs are one of the biggest problems.

You can disagree with that, but so far you haven't made much of a case that it is. You've argued it that things aren't ideal for your child, but that is very different than arguing this is one of the most compelling problems for the district overall.

Maybe you can improve your argument. But it is probably going to be easier to convince people that there are some simple things that are worth doing.

You clearly have a bias that gifted kids don’t actually need support. Fine. But in telling you that is far from the case and we’re doing a huge disservice to our society to not engage our highest achievers. But I’m not going to convince you.

You haven't even bothered to explain what specific needs aren't being met or what programs you want to see to meet those needs. You've just complained that they're not prioritized enough.

You're really going to need to work on your argument if you want to try to convince anyone to help you.

You start — why should we as a society invest in children with disabilities? And I implore you to make the argument without referring back to “it’s the law.”

Stop using other people's children to advocate for your child you disgusting POS

See the problem when you ask these asinine questions — to prove that my kid is worthy of support — you put yourself right back in that position, too. The reality is if you look at it from an economic point of view, gifted kids when well supported are more likely to be the entrepreneurs and scholars our society needs to achieve compared to, well, you get the point. But that’s a horrible argument to make because we need to be supporting all children to succeed to their highest potential. But you do not see gifted kids as needing that support.

Do you have data on the efficacy of gifted and talented programs? Do they demonstrate that programs themselves lead to better long-term outcomes in those students? Or just that the students selected for those programs tend to have better outcomes due to their natural ability, separate from the programs themselves?

Because the research results on gifted and talented programs are, at best, mixed. Data from districts utilizing lotteries for gifted and talented programs suggest there's little to no impact from the programs themselves.

That's not to say there aren't (necessarily) more specific needs that can be best addressed through gifted and talented programs. But there isn't a strong case that these programs help to breed the next generation of "entrepreneurs and scholars."

Oh, you're gonna cite educational research? snort. A field widely known for poor studies. You even say these are lottery based systems. Gee, I wonder why they don't see a difference.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do people say it’s offensive to talk about special ed but so easily feel like they can tell the parent of a gift child “they’ll be fine”? It’s so clearly a double standard. Public tax dollars should support both.

I don't say gift kids will be "fine". I do think they need services. I take offense at the implication that kids with disabilities in self contained classrooms some kind of affront to your gifted child or a sign your kid is being treated unfairly.

Well you're getting triggered by things that aren't being said, so good luck with that

Here is what was said:
"We pay for special ed teachers to run tiny sheltered classes for the disabled. Why can’t we pay gifted teachers to run tiny sheltered classes (magnets!) for the highly able students?"

The answer to the question is because the special ed students need smaller classes and most of them do not get them. Calling them "sheltered" is offensive beyond belief.

Do you get there are different levels of need? That a special education student that qualifies for a self contained classroom most likely has higher needs than a child that is gifted (of course there are exceptions)? Can we stop pretending that if "those" kids get something then that means your kid should get the same thing?

Equity does not equal "same"

Can we stop pretending that this is some kind of competition? Jesus you're exhausting

And for what it's worth (which I see is nothing to you), my child is identified as both gifted, and can barely function at school because of disabilities that aren't supported.

But the PP literally stated she wants the same thing ("tiny sheltered classes") as what kids with disabilities get.

Sorry you don't think I see your worth or whatever it is you are trying to imply. I don't know who you are or anything about you except that you are an a-hole.

I know it’s difficult on an anonymous board but realize there are multiple posters here saying slightly different things. I didn’t argue for “tiny sheltered classes” but the point remains that MCPS is taking away gifted opportunities AND it is not serving students with disabilities well either.

You're at least settling back on an accurate statement.

Though, there's still the issue of priorities. Any parent, teacher, or student in MCPS is going to have legitimate complaints. And while it would be great to address all of them, that's realistically not going to happen- particularly in the current budget and political environment.

A broad call for improving programs focused on gifted and talented is not likely to be viewed by many as one of the more pressing issues in MCPS worthy of additional funding and resources. You may have more success arguing concrete proposals, particularly ones that may not have a substantial cost.

And why not? Why is gifted education never prioritized? Because people say- “they’ll be fine”. Nice people. Well meaning people.

It sucks.

The reason PPs bring up special ed is because no one disputes their need for specialized/differentiated instruction. I don’t want to take anything away from special ed. Gifted education is a type of special ed- kids who don’t learn like other kids and who deserve to be cohorted with their peers.

Why can’t parents who have to fight for their kids’ rights for special services join forces with this crop of parents whose kids’ needs are not being met? Let’s put pressure on MCPS to actually differentiate instruction. One size does not fit all!

Yes, when there are limited resources it is common to go after the biggest problems first. You're going to have a hard time convincing most people that gifted and talented programs are one of the biggest problems.

You can disagree with that, but so far you haven't made much of a case that it is. You've argued it that things aren't ideal for your child, but that is very different than arguing this is one of the most compelling problems for the district overall.

Maybe you can improve your argument. But it is probably going to be easier to convince people that there are some simple things that are worth doing.

You clearly have a bias that gifted kids don’t actually need support. Fine. But in telling you that is far from the case and we’re doing a huge disservice to our society to not engage our highest achievers. But I’m not going to convince you.

You haven't even bothered to explain what specific needs aren't being met or what programs you want to see to meet those needs. You've just complained that they're not prioritized enough.

You're really going to need to work on your argument if you want to try to convince anyone to help you.

You start — why should we as a society invest in children with disabilities? And I implore you to make the argument without referring back to “it’s the law.”

Stop using other people's children to advocate for your child you disgusting POS

See the problem when you ask these asinine questions — to prove that my kid is worthy of support — you put yourself right back in that position, too. The reality is if you look at it from an economic point of view, gifted kids when well supported are more likely to be the entrepreneurs and scholars our society needs to achieve compared to, well, you get the point. But that’s a horrible argument to make because we need to be supporting all children to succeed to their highest potential. But you do not see gifted kids as needing that support.

DP.

There is no shortage of entrepreneurs and scholars. They will always be there with or without gifted programs.

More like the US is going to become a colony or client state of India or China.

You don't see the benefits for society of having a thriving tax base to support all needs. You're being awfully short-sighted here.

DP. "The US will become a Chinese colony unless gifted classes are set up the way I want them to be" is a very normal argument that definitely doesn't make you sound deranged at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Equal opportunity does not lead to equal outcomes. There is no vast amount of untapped talent. Throwing resources at low performers won't significantly lift them. If equity is the goal, the only way to get there is to handicap the very top performers. This is exactly what MCPS is doing.

Who pissed in your cornflakes?

MCPS when it decided to destroy its gifted offerings.

Such rhetoric hurts your credibility. It suggests you don't have well-justified complaints when you refuse to state them.

Gifted kids thrive when they are able to be academically challenged in a cohort of their peers. MCPS in implementing things like “honors for all” or getting rid of ELC is making it so gifted students no longer have that opportunity. Period, end stop.

Exactly, so we need to create more opportunities for the gifted kids like mine who get no support and schools don't have enough AP and other classes for them to thrive in. So, does it make sense to spend that kind of money for a few hundred kids, when many other kids have zero opportunities, not even a stem club at their school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Equal opportunity does not lead to equal outcomes. There is no vast amount of untapped talent. Throwing resources at low performers won't significantly lift them. If equity is the goal, the only way to get there is to handicap the very top performers. This is exactly what MCPS is doing.

Who pissed in your cornflakes?

MCPS when it decided to destroy its gifted offerings.

Such rhetoric hurts your credibility. It suggests you don't have well-justified complaints when you refuse to state them.

Gifted kids thrive when they are able to be academically challenged in a cohort of their peers. MCPS in implementing things like “honors for all” or getting rid of ELC is making it so gifted students no longer have that opportunity. Period, end stop.

Now you're starting to touch on things can might resonate with more people. I support retaining honors courses that include meaningfully higher rigor and expectations.

I might disagree with you on when this sort of tracking should start, but I certainly agree with honors courses at the high school level.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Comparing kids in special education to gifted kids is really two sides of the same coin. Put aside the fact that many are twice exceptional, Maryland law REQUIRES schools serve the needs of both and MCPS is failing in both. Can we agree on that fact?

https://www.marylandpublicschools.org/programs/Documents/Gifted-Talented/COMAR_13A0407_GT_Education.pdf

No, I don't think they're failing on both in nearly the same degree. Kids and staff are getting physically harmed because special education programs are not being appropriately resourced. MCPS is failing students with special needs at the most basic level.

There's no comparison here.

You're not reading what the PP actually wrote. It's not about which students are being ignored the most, it's that MCPS is failing at differentiated education, which is required by law. Both are a symptom of a broader problem, and we won't see better outcomes for any of the children involved until there's solidarity to push back on MCPS.

Based on the sheer number of advanced programs across all schools, it's hard to make a strong case that they're failing gifted students. Could they do more? Of course. But they're certainly not failing them anywhere near the same degree as students with special needs

So… we should take away what they are doing for gifted kids to make things more equitable for kids with disabilities? I.e. “kids with disabilities aren’t getting enough so gifted kids should get even less.” Is that your argument? How does taking away gifted ed opportunities fix the special ed problem? Hint, it doesn’t.

No, I'm not arguing that at all. I'm saying your comparisons to special education are ignorant, offensive, and simply false.

You keep hammering on the same thing, but you're ignoring what's being said. BOTH special education and gifted education fall under the umbrella of special education and educational differentiation. You can get mad at the educational philosophy/system that has grouped them together all you want, but what is being said is not with the intent to offend, and it's certainly not ignorance. You seem to be ignorant to how educational systems categorize special education with gifted education. Why do you keep coming at this in such a triggered way? Why does it have to be pitting one group of students against another group of students (never mind as PP noted the many twice exceptional gifted students who have IEPs etc)? Don't you see that so much more could be accomplished in actual REAL pressure on MCPS if you approached it as an all boats rising situation? We should have parent solidarity across ALL needs of differentiation.

I'm not the one that started the comparison between gifted students and special with special needs. For example:

If education for ALL is really what we are aiming for, and if we are okay with tiny, publicly-funded classes for special ed, then we should be okay paying for similar classes for gifted kids.

But we’re not.

Because of the optics- nobody in the US really likes gifted kids! Like, culturally.

And

Comparing kids in special education to gifted kids is really two sides of the same coin. Put aside the fact that many are twice exceptional, Maryland law REQUIRES schools serve the needs of both and MCPS is failing in both. Can we agree on that fact?

Your claim that you want to pursue a "rising tide lifts all boats" strategy might be more credible if you weren't focused on a single policy aimed at advantaged students.

I have come to the conclusion that you're being willfully dense. It's the same policy. It's the same policy. It's the same policy. Full stop. What PP was pointing out was that even though its the same policy, culturally there's a lot more public support for special education than for gifted education. Like for example how you flipped out about even including those two types of education under the same umbrella. We understand and agree with you that MCPS should be doing more for special education. See? That's not hard. Now try the other way around without flipping out and using whatever shaming words you want to drag up.

One has nothing to do with the other. Two very different needs and populations though some gifted kids have SN.

Gifted kids and kids with intellectual disabilities are actually very similar. It’s all about the fact that their brains work differently than “typical” kids. There’s a whole movement to get giftedness itself recognized as a neurodivergence (https://www.prismadvocacy.com/blog/understanding-giftedness-as-neurodivergence). It’s not just that gifted kids are quicker and bored, they need fundamentally different supports just like those with a learning disability. But because these kids aren’t struggling on standardized tests (though struggling in other ways) people like this poster don’t see giftedness for what it is.

You are completely tone death and very insulting.

And you clearly don’t have a gifted kid. I do. And I watch her struggle every day. She has a 504 for anxiety too, but according to her psychiatrist the anxiety directly derives from her giftedness. I am not arguing for services to be taken away from students with disabilities yet you are arguing for services to be taken away from gifted kids. Why?

DP

You truly cannot fathom that while your child is legitimately struggling, other people's children are legitimately struggling much, much more?

And you know this ... how?

Really? You think a gifted child with a 504 for anxiety is struggling the same amount as a child with ID not on the diploma track? Do you get that basically all children with autism have anxiety in addition to social communication deficits?

Seriously, what is this competition that you've built in your head? Why is helping other kids who struggle somehow taking away help from your own? If this is really the paradigm that you're building in your mind, then you should be angry at MCPS, not other parents asking for help.

I am not the one arguing that if kids with disabilities get "tiny sheltered classes" then my kid needs one too. It's not a competition. My goal is to get you folks to stop using other people's children to advocate for your own children. Just advocate for your kids! Leave mine out of it.

The problem is, and you’re just the example of this, people see the value of special education and serving kids with disabilities (and again, not saying MCPS does it well, it doesn’t, we’ve established that) but people don’t see the value of serving gifted kids; they don’t understand that it can be debilitating for kids to not get the challenge and support and cohort they need. It’s not about your kid. It’s not about special ed at all. It’s about the need to serve gifted kids, too.

Of course people see the value! There are programs for gifted kids. Money is being allocated to this. It might not be enough, but I mean, join the club

Except right now MCPS is destroying all of the gifted programs that once made it a model for other districts serving gifted kids. ELC is gone. Cohorting for 4th grade ELA is essentially gone at most schools. The magnets are now lottery based. And they’re about to obliterate the other magnets. The point is not new programs. The point is stopping the destruction of what’s already been

ELC is a new thing as our ES never had it. You know what we did for our gifted kids? We worked with them at home.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do people say it’s offensive to talk about special ed but so easily feel like they can tell the parent of a gift child “they’ll be fine”? It’s so clearly a double standard. Public tax dollars should support both.

I don't say gift kids will be "fine". I do think they need services. I take offense at the implication that kids with disabilities in self contained classrooms some kind of affront to your gifted child or a sign your kid is being treated unfairly.

Well you're getting triggered by things that aren't being said, so good luck with that

Here is what was said:
"We pay for special ed teachers to run tiny sheltered classes for the disabled. Why can’t we pay gifted teachers to run tiny sheltered classes (magnets!) for the highly able students?"

The answer to the question is because the special ed students need smaller classes and most of them do not get them. Calling them "sheltered" is offensive beyond belief.

Do you get there are different levels of need? That a special education student that qualifies for a self contained classroom most likely has higher needs than a child that is gifted (of course there are exceptions)? Can we stop pretending that if "those" kids get something then that means your kid should get the same thing?

Equity does not equal "same"

Can we stop pretending that this is some kind of competition? Jesus you're exhausting

And for what it's worth (which I see is nothing to you), my child is identified as both gifted, and can barely function at school because of disabilities that aren't supported.

But the PP literally stated she wants the same thing ("tiny sheltered classes") as what kids with disabilities get.

Sorry you don't think I see your worth or whatever it is you are trying to imply. I don't know who you are or anything about you except that you are an a-hole.

I know it’s difficult on an anonymous board but realize there are multiple posters here saying slightly different things. I didn’t argue for “tiny sheltered classes” but the point remains that MCPS is taking away gifted opportunities AND it is not serving students with disabilities well either.

You're at least settling back on an accurate statement.

Though, there's still the issue of priorities. Any parent, teacher, or student in MCPS is going to have legitimate complaints. And while it would be great to address all of them, that's realistically not going to happen- particularly in the current budget and political environment.

A broad call for improving programs focused on gifted and talented is not likely to be viewed by many as one of the more pressing issues in MCPS worthy of additional funding and resources. You may have more success arguing concrete proposals, particularly ones that may not have a substantial cost.

And why not? Why is gifted education never prioritized? Because people say- “they’ll be fine”. Nice people. Well meaning people.

It sucks.

The reason PPs bring up special ed is because no one disputes their need for specialized/differentiated instruction. I don’t want to take anything away from special ed. Gifted education is a type of special ed- kids who don’t learn like other kids and who deserve to be cohorted with their peers.

Why can’t parents who have to fight for their kids’ rights for special services join forces with this crop of parents whose kids’ needs are not being met? Let’s put pressure on MCPS to actually differentiate instruction. One size does not fit all!

Yes, when there are limited resources it is common to go after the biggest problems first. You're going to have a hard time convincing most people that gifted and talented programs are one of the biggest problems.

You can disagree with that, but so far you haven't made much of a case that it is. You've argued it that things aren't ideal for your child, but that is very different than arguing this is one of the most compelling problems for the district overall.

Maybe you can improve your argument. But it is probably going to be easier to convince people that there are some simple things that are worth doing.

You clearly have a bias that gifted kids don’t actually need support. Fine. But in telling you that is far from the case and we’re doing a huge disservice to our society to not engage our highest achievers. But I’m not going to convince you.

You haven't even bothered to explain what specific needs aren't being met or what programs you want to see to meet those needs. You've just complained that they're not prioritized enough.

You're really going to need to work on your argument if you want to try to convince anyone to help you.

You start — why should we as a society invest in children with disabilities? And I implore you to make the argument without referring back to “it’s the law.”

Stop using other people's children to advocate for your child you disgusting POS

See the problem when you ask these asinine questions — to prove that my kid is worthy of support — you put yourself right back in that position, too. The reality is if you look at it from an economic point of view, gifted kids when well supported are more likely to be the entrepreneurs and scholars our society needs to achieve compared to, well, you get the point. But that’s a horrible argument to make because we need to be supporting all children to succeed to their highest potential. But you do not see gifted kids as needing that support.

DP.

There is no shortage of entrepreneurs and scholars. They will always be there with or without gifted programs.

More like the US is going to become a colony or client state of India or China.

You don't see the benefits for society of having a thriving tax base to support all needs. You're being awfully short-sighted here.

DP. "The US will become a Chinese colony unless gifted classes are set up the way I want them to be" is a very normal argument that definitely doesn't make you sound deranged at all.

Sigh, whatever, you just don't seem to understand that we're operating in a global market. The comforts and freedoms (and yes values around "equity") that we experience now may not be around for the next generation. It's fine if you want to live in your US-centric bubble and pretend that the decline that's happening in the US is not happening. But IFYKYK.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do people say it’s offensive to talk about special ed but so easily feel like they can tell the parent of a gift child “they’ll be fine”? It’s so clearly a double standard. Public tax dollars should support both.

I don't say gift kids will be "fine". I do think they need services. I take offense at the implication that kids with disabilities in self contained classrooms some kind of affront to your gifted child or a sign your kid is being treated unfairly.

Well you're getting triggered by things that aren't being said, so good luck with that

Here is what was said:
"We pay for special ed teachers to run tiny sheltered classes for the disabled. Why can’t we pay gifted teachers to run tiny sheltered classes (magnets!) for the highly able students?"

The answer to the question is because the special ed students need smaller classes and most of them do not get them. Calling them "sheltered" is offensive beyond belief.

Do you get there are different levels of need? That a special education student that qualifies for a self contained classroom most likely has higher needs than a child that is gifted (of course there are exceptions)? Can we stop pretending that if "those" kids get something then that means your kid should get the same thing?

Equity does not equal "same"

Can we stop pretending that this is some kind of competition? Jesus you're exhausting

And for what it's worth (which I see is nothing to you), my child is identified as both gifted, and can barely function at school because of disabilities that aren't supported.

But the PP literally stated she wants the same thing ("tiny sheltered classes") as what kids with disabilities get.

Sorry you don't think I see your worth or whatever it is you are trying to imply. I don't know who you are or anything about you except that you are an a-hole.

I know it’s difficult on an anonymous board but realize there are multiple posters here saying slightly different things. I didn’t argue for “tiny sheltered classes” but the point remains that MCPS is taking away gifted opportunities AND it is not serving students with disabilities well either.

You're at least settling back on an accurate statement.

Though, there's still the issue of priorities. Any parent, teacher, or student in MCPS is going to have legitimate complaints. And while it would be great to address all of them, that's realistically not going to happen- particularly in the current budget and political environment.

A broad call for improving programs focused on gifted and talented is not likely to be viewed by many as one of the more pressing issues in MCPS worthy of additional funding and resources. You may have more success arguing concrete proposals, particularly ones that may not have a substantial cost.

And why not? Why is gifted education never prioritized? Because people say- “they’ll be fine”. Nice people. Well meaning people.

It sucks.

The reason PPs bring up special ed is because no one disputes their need for specialized/differentiated instruction. I don’t want to take anything away from special ed. Gifted education is a type of special ed- kids who don’t learn like other kids and who deserve to be cohorted with their peers.

Why can’t parents who have to fight for their kids’ rights for special services join forces with this crop of parents whose kids’ needs are not being met? Let’s put pressure on MCPS to actually differentiate instruction. One size does not fit all!

You don't know what you are talking about. You dgaf about non gifted kids. We aren't going to join your cause.

And that’s exactly the point of the last oh how many pages have you been arguing? We’re saying MCPS isn’t serving the needs of students well — special ed or gifted — let’s team up together. And you’re arguing that only special ed deserves the support. That’s entirely the problem.

There are probably more kids who need sped than gifted so paying a fortunate for Blair makes no sense.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do people say it’s offensive to talk about special ed but so easily feel like they can tell the parent of a gift child “they’ll be fine”? It’s so clearly a double standard. Public tax dollars should support both.

I don't say gift kids will be "fine". I do think they need services. I take offense at the implication that kids with disabilities in self contained classrooms some kind of affront to your gifted child or a sign your kid is being treated unfairly.

Well you're getting triggered by things that aren't being said, so good luck with that

Here is what was said:
"We pay for special ed teachers to run tiny sheltered classes for the disabled. Why can’t we pay gifted teachers to run tiny sheltered classes (magnets!) for the highly able students?"

The answer to the question is because the special ed students need smaller classes and most of them do not get them. Calling them "sheltered" is offensive beyond belief.

Do you get there are different levels of need? That a special education student that qualifies for a self contained classroom most likely has higher needs than a child that is gifted (of course there are exceptions)? Can we stop pretending that if "those" kids get something then that means your kid should get the same thing?

Equity does not equal "same"

Can we stop pretending that this is some kind of competition? Jesus you're exhausting

And for what it's worth (which I see is nothing to you), my child is identified as both gifted, and can barely function at school because of disabilities that aren't supported.

But the PP literally stated she wants the same thing ("tiny sheltered classes") as what kids with disabilities get.

Sorry you don't think I see your worth or whatever it is you are trying to imply. I don't know who you are or anything about you except that you are an a-hole.

I know it’s difficult on an anonymous board but realize there are multiple posters here saying slightly different things. I didn’t argue for “tiny sheltered classes” but the point remains that MCPS is taking away gifted opportunities AND it is not serving students with disabilities well either.

You're at least settling back on an accurate statement.

Though, there's still the issue of priorities. Any parent, teacher, or student in MCPS is going to have legitimate complaints. And while it would be great to address all of them, that's realistically not going to happen- particularly in the current budget and political environment.

A broad call for improving programs focused on gifted and talented is not likely to be viewed by many as one of the more pressing issues in MCPS worthy of additional funding and resources. You may have more success arguing concrete proposals, particularly ones that may not have a substantial cost.

And why not? Why is gifted education never prioritized? Because people say- “they’ll be fine”. Nice people. Well meaning people.

It sucks.

The reason PPs bring up special ed is because no one disputes their need for specialized/differentiated instruction. I don’t want to take anything away from special ed. Gifted education is a type of special ed- kids who don’t learn like other kids and who deserve to be cohorted with their peers.

Why can’t parents who have to fight for their kids’ rights for special services join forces with this crop of parents whose kids’ needs are not being met? Let’s put pressure on MCPS to actually differentiate instruction. One size does not fit all!

Yes, when there are limited resources it is common to go after the biggest problems first. You're going to have a hard time convincing most people that gifted and talented programs are one of the biggest problems.

You can disagree with that, but so far you haven't made much of a case that it is. You've argued it that things aren't ideal for your child, but that is very different than arguing this is one of the most compelling problems for the district overall.

Maybe you can improve your argument. But it is probably going to be easier to convince people that there are some simple things that are worth doing.

You clearly have a bias that gifted kids don’t actually need support. Fine. But in telling you that is far from the case and we’re doing a huge disservice to our society to not engage our highest achievers. But I’m not going to convince you.

You haven't even bothered to explain what specific needs aren't being met or what programs you want to see to meet those needs. You've just complained that they're not prioritized enough.

You're really going to need to work on your argument if you want to try to convince anyone to help you.

You start — why should we as a society invest in children with disabilities? And I implore you to make the argument without referring back to “it’s the law.”

Stop using other people's children to advocate for your child you disgusting POS

See the problem when you ask these asinine questions — to prove that my kid is worthy of support — you put yourself right back in that position, too. The reality is if you look at it from an economic point of view, gifted kids when well supported are more likely to be the entrepreneurs and scholars our society needs to achieve compared to, well, you get the point. But that’s a horrible argument to make because we need to be supporting all children to succeed to their highest potential. But you do not see gifted kids as needing that support.

Do you have data on the efficacy of gifted and talented programs? Do they demonstrate that programs themselves lead to better long-term outcomes in those students? Or just that the students selected for those programs tend to have better outcomes due to their natural ability, separate from the programs themselves?

Because the research results on gifted and talented programs are, at best, mixed. Data from districts utilizing lotteries for gifted and talented programs suggest there's little to no impact from the programs themselves.

That's not to say there aren't (necessarily) more specific needs that can be best addressed through gifted and talented programs. But there isn't a strong case that these programs help to breed the next generation of "entrepreneurs and scholars."

Oh, you're gonna cite educational research? snort. A field widely known for poor studies. You even say these are lottery based systems. Gee, I wonder why they don't see a difference.

Great rebuttal. Stick with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Equal opportunity does not lead to equal outcomes. There is no vast amount of untapped talent. Throwing resources at low performers won't significantly lift them. If equity is the goal, the only way to get there is to handicap the very top performers. This is exactly what MCPS is doing.

Who pissed in your cornflakes?

MCPS when it decided to destroy its gifted offerings.

Such rhetoric hurts your credibility. It suggests you don't have well-justified complaints when you refuse to state them.

Gifted kids thrive when they are able to be academically challenged in a cohort of their peers. MCPS in implementing things like “honors for all” or getting rid of ELC is making it so gifted students no longer have that opportunity. Period, end stop.

Exactly, so we need to create more opportunities for the gifted kids like mine who get no support and schools don't have enough AP and other classes for them to thrive in. So, does it make sense to spend that kind of money for a few hundred kids, when many other kids have zero opportunities, not even a stem club at their school?

I see you're back at the keyboard. Yes, there should be expansion. No, it should not be done in a way that waters down the curriculum or creates further haves and have-nots between regions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do people say it’s offensive to talk about special ed but so easily feel like they can tell the parent of a gift child “they’ll be fine”? It’s so clearly a double standard. Public tax dollars should support both.

I don't say gift kids will be "fine". I do think they need services. I take offense at the implication that kids with disabilities in self contained classrooms some kind of affront to your gifted child or a sign your kid is being treated unfairly.

Well you're getting triggered by things that aren't being said, so good luck with that

Here is what was said:
"We pay for special ed teachers to run tiny sheltered classes for the disabled. Why can’t we pay gifted teachers to run tiny sheltered classes (magnets!) for the highly able students?"

The answer to the question is because the special ed students need smaller classes and most of them do not get them. Calling them "sheltered" is offensive beyond belief.

Do you get there are different levels of need? That a special education student that qualifies for a self contained classroom most likely has higher needs than a child that is gifted (of course there are exceptions)? Can we stop pretending that if "those" kids get something then that means your kid should get the same thing?

Equity does not equal "same"

Can we stop pretending that this is some kind of competition? Jesus you're exhausting

And for what it's worth (which I see is nothing to you), my child is identified as both gifted, and can barely function at school because of disabilities that aren't supported.

But the PP literally stated she wants the same thing ("tiny sheltered classes") as what kids with disabilities get.

Sorry you don't think I see your worth or whatever it is you are trying to imply. I don't know who you are or anything about you except that you are an a-hole.

I know it’s difficult on an anonymous board but realize there are multiple posters here saying slightly different things. I didn’t argue for “tiny sheltered classes” but the point remains that MCPS is taking away gifted opportunities AND it is not serving students with disabilities well either.

You're at least settling back on an accurate statement.

Though, there's still the issue of priorities. Any parent, teacher, or student in MCPS is going to have legitimate complaints. And while it would be great to address all of them, that's realistically not going to happen- particularly in the current budget and political environment.

A broad call for improving programs focused on gifted and talented is not likely to be viewed by many as one of the more pressing issues in MCPS worthy of additional funding and resources. You may have more success arguing concrete proposals, particularly ones that may not have a substantial cost.

And why not? Why is gifted education never prioritized? Because people say- “they’ll be fine”. Nice people. Well meaning people.

It sucks.

The reason PPs bring up special ed is because no one disputes their need for specialized/differentiated instruction. I don’t want to take anything away from special ed. Gifted education is a type of special ed- kids who don’t learn like other kids and who deserve to be cohorted with their peers.

Why can’t parents who have to fight for their kids’ rights for special services join forces with this crop of parents whose kids’ needs are not being met? Let’s put pressure on MCPS to actually differentiate instruction. One size does not fit all!

Gifted education is not a subset of special education. Those are two completely different areas of law. There are legal requirements at the state and federal levels for educational services for students with special needs. These also have legal processes intended to ensure compliance.

Gifted and talented is a programmatic requirement, on par for the programmatic requirements that schools have for fine arts, languages, and fine arts.

There are lots of different posters on here, by the way. I hope not everyone thinks we should “rot in a hole”. I am not against special ed. I just find it offensive that you assume gifted ed is privilege and entitlement.

I’m sure I’m not understanding all issues- thank you to the poster who distinguished between legal and programmatic requirements, for example- but I swear I am arguing in good faith. And am not a POS. And believe strongly that all kids need instruction and it’s NOT okay for our county to pull programs - gifted or special ed! - without carefully considering the ramifications. And without hearing from the families whose kids it would impact.

I am the poster who said it’s cultural - I really think that when parents advocate for their gifted kids no one wants to hear them because of a larger cultural bias against “nerds”. And because of a scarcity mindset- don’t ask for gifted ed because it’ll mean less for MY kid.

And I do understand that until VERY recently no one felt like we even needed to educate kids with physical and intellectual disabilities, for god’s sake! That’s terrible! I am grateful for special education in this county and in our country. It’s not a privilege but a right!

I also understand that until even more recently gifted education was a cover for racist policies- smart kids of color were not allowed in advanced classes. And there are way too few black and brown kids in the magnets now! It’s shameful.

But that doesn’t mean that my argument for my kid needing gifted education is just because I’m entitled or a POS. My point is that MCPS could do so, so much better than it is in differentiating instruction for the entire spectrum of learners it is tasked with educating. Why take away programs for the tippy top learners? It’s so short sighted.

I waded into this discussion, perhaps ill advisedly, because I am so tired of hearing parents say “your kid will be fine.” I would never say that to anyone arguing for special services for their child.