Do unmotivated kids get into HGC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just a data point.

2017 PARCC scores for Montgomery County 3rd grade students (this year's HGC pool) by race

English - Met or Exceeded expectations

Asian - 72.2%
Black - 34%
Hispanic - 24.5%
White - 67.8%

English - Did not meet or Partially met expectations

Asian - 12.2%
Black - 42.7%
Hispanic - 52.7%
White - 14.1%

Math - Met or Exceeded expectations

Asian - 82.1%
Black - 37.9%
Hispanic - 32.9%
White - 74%

Math - Did not meet or Partially met expectations

Asian - 6.8%
Black - 34.9%
Hispanic - 39.4%
White - 9.9%

Is there a point for this data point, because from what I see, there are many URM that should be tested and would thrive in a magnet environment -

Math Met or Exceeded Expectations:

Asian - 82.1%
Black - 37.9%
Hispanic - 32.9%
White - 74%

English:

Asian - 72.2%
Black - 34%
Hispanic - 24.5%
White - 67.8%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Well, one barrier would be the reliance on a high test score, so let's look at other factors, ie, "holistic" approach.

Why would MCPS commission a $1mil+ study which recommended "broadening the definition of gifted" and "increasing URM participation" and not follow the recommendations?

So you think that a single test score, on a single day, is a better measure of a student's ability? I don't.

You evidently think that the only way to increase participation by black, poor, and Latino kids is to admit unqualified kids. For this to be true, the magnets would already have to have been including ALL of the qualified black, poor, and Latino kids. Do you think that the magnets were doing this? I don't.

MCPS is following the recommendations of the Metis study -- by trying to remove the barriers that were keeping out qualified black, poor, and Latino kids.

By the way, I really hope that you don't have any kids who will be admitted to a magnet program under the new processes, or, if you do, that you have nothing to do with the black or Latino kids in your kids' classes. Yes, I'm assuming that you're not black or Latino.

NP here. Define 'qualified' for me. What are the transparent and easily quantifiable criteria for 'giftedness'?

If MCPS introduced 'the holistic approach', why did they do away with teacher's recommendations? You'd think that a homeroom teacher would notice a child who's off-the-charts gifted but just doesn't score well on standardized tests. Also, why did they simplify the test compared to years prior? The percentage of kids who actively prepped for the test was miniscule, the majority was still going in cold turkey. The only explanation that comes to mind is, MCPS wanted more kids - of all races - to score higher, which would give the system a chance to make up the racial composition of the gifted classes as they see fit using their 'broad definition of giftedness'.

If they'd truly wanted to level the playing field, they should have tested every single 3rd grader using the hard version of the test and then admit the top 3%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Well, one barrier would be the reliance on a high test score, so let's look at other factors, ie, "holistic" approach.

Why would MCPS commission a $1mil+ study which recommended "broadening the definition of gifted" and "increasing URM participation" and not follow the recommendations?

So you think that a single test score, on a single day, is a better measure of a student's ability? I don't.

You evidently think that the only way to increase participation by black, poor, and Latino kids is to admit unqualified kids. For this to be true, the magnets would already have to have been including ALL of the qualified black, poor, and Latino kids. Do you think that the magnets were doing this? I don't.

MCPS is following the recommendations of the Metis study -- by trying to remove the barriers that were keeping out qualified black, poor, and Latino kids.

By the way, I really hope that you don't have any kids who will be admitted to a magnet program under the new processes, or, if you do, that you have nothing to do with the black or Latino kids in your kids' classes. Yes, I'm assuming that you're not black or Latino.

NP here. Define 'qualified' for me. What are the transparent and easily quantifiable criteria for 'giftedness'?

If MCPS introduced 'the holistic approach', why did they do away with teacher's recommendations? You'd think that a homeroom teacher would notice a child who's off-the-charts gifted but just doesn't score well on standardized tests. Also, why did they simplify the test compared to years prior? The percentage of kids who actively prepped for the test was miniscule, the majority was still going in cold turkey. The only explanation that comes to mind is, MCPS wanted more kids - of all races - to score higher, which would give the system a chance to make up the racial composition of the gifted classes as they see fit using their 'broad definition of giftedness'.

If they'd truly wanted to level the playing field, they should have tested every single 3rd grader using the hard version of the test and then admit the top 3%.

Exactly. The only way to identify the truly top kids is to give a harder test and not a shorter test.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Well, one barrier would be the reliance on a high test score, so let's look at other factors, ie, "holistic" approach.

Why would MCPS commission a $1mil+ study which recommended "broadening the definition of gifted" and "increasing URM participation" and not follow the recommendations?

So you think that a single test score, on a single day, is a better measure of a student's ability? I don't.

You evidently think that the only way to increase participation by black, poor, and Latino kids is to admit unqualified kids. For this to be true, the magnets would already have to have been including ALL of the qualified black, poor, and Latino kids. Do you think that the magnets were doing this? I don't.

MCPS is following the recommendations of the Metis study -- by trying to remove the barriers that were keeping out qualified black, poor, and Latino kids.

By the way, I really hope that you don't have any kids who will be admitted to a magnet program under the new processes, or, if you do, that you have nothing to do with the black or Latino kids in your kids' classes. Yes, I'm assuming that you're not black or Latino.

NP here. Define 'qualified' for me. What are the transparent and easily quantifiable criteria for 'giftedness'?

If MCPS introduced 'the holistic approach', why did they do away with teacher's recommendations? You'd think that a homeroom teacher would notice a child who's off-the-charts gifted but just doesn't score well on standardized tests. Also, why did they simplify the test compared to years prior? The percentage of kids who actively prepped for the test was miniscule, the majority was still going in cold turkey. The only explanation that comes to mind is, MCPS wanted more kids - of all races - to score higher, which would give the system a chance to make up the racial composition of the gifted classes as they see fit using their 'broad definition of giftedness'.

If they'd truly wanted to level the playing field, they should have tested every single 3rd grader using the hard version of the test and then admit the top 3%.

I think there may be many factors involved. Considering teacher recommendations, I agree, teachers often have great insights about kids and their potential/abilities. However, research shows teacher recommendations are often biased and favor some groups over others. They are subjective. Many teachers have preconceived ideas about what a gifted student looks like (just like it seems many in this discussion).

I'm not sure you can conclude the test is "easier", I've heard that it is shorter, but nothing to confirm it's "easier" or measures anything different. Actually, I think it's easier to prep for the test now b/c it is more transparent what test is being used. I think they moved to something shorter b/c it allows them to test more students effectively and efficiently. Cost may also be an issue.

It is my understanding that the selection process remains race-blind so race is not considered as a factor when selecting qualified candidates. Testing and reviewing the data of a broader group makes it more likely you will find a group of qualified students from different backgrounds.

The other thing they do talk about is looking to see if a student has a peer group in their home school. That would explain why sometimes the numbers seem different. If only one or two students have consistent high scores on all the things they are looking at, they stand out, if at another school there is a group of 10 kids with similar scores, they have a group that can be taught together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It the admission was racial-blind, non of the discussion would have had started. MCPS was unhappy about the racial composition of the magnet program student body, which is why the Metis study was commissioned in the first place. The company is for-profit and the study was not reviewed by peers other than the "experts" in MCPS.

The HGC admission was notoriously non-transparent. Only student's test scores and the median scores of the ACCEPTED students were provided in the decision letter in the past. Now, it's even less transparent. Wonder what's the reason for the change?

That's what I keep asking. MCPS will never answer that because ...?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Well, one barrier would be the reliance on a high test score, so let's look at other factors, ie, "holistic" approach.

Why would MCPS commission a $1mil+ study which recommended "broadening the definition of gifted" and "increasing URM participation" and not follow the recommendations?

So you think that a single test score, on a single day, is a better measure of a student's ability? I don't.

You evidently think that the only way to increase participation by black, poor, and Latino kids is to admit unqualified kids. For this to be true, the magnets would already have to have been including ALL of the qualified black, poor, and Latino kids. Do you think that the magnets were doing this? I don't.

MCPS is following the recommendations of the Metis study -- by trying to remove the barriers that were keeping out qualified black, poor, and Latino kids.

By the way, I really hope that you don't have any kids who will be admitted to a magnet program under the new processes, or, if you do, that you have nothing to do with the black or Latino kids in your kids' classes. Yes, I'm assuming that you're not black or Latino.

NP here. Define 'qualified' for me. What are the transparent and easily quantifiable criteria for 'giftedness'?

If MCPS introduced 'the holistic approach', why did they do away with teacher's recommendations? You'd think that a homeroom teacher would notice a child who's off-the-charts gifted but just doesn't score well on standardized tests. Also, why did they simplify the test compared to years prior? The percentage of kids who actively prepped for the test was miniscule, the majority was still going in cold turkey. The only explanation that comes to mind is, MCPS wanted more kids - of all races - to score higher, which would give the system a chance to make up the racial composition of the gifted classes as they see fit using their 'broad definition of giftedness'.

If they'd truly wanted to level the playing field, they should have tested every single 3rd grader using the hard version of the test and then admit the top 3%.

I think there may be many factors involved. Considering teacher recommendations, I agree, teachers often have great insights about kids and their potential/abilities. However, research shows teacher recommendations are often biased and favor some groups over others. They are subjective. Many teachers have preconceived ideas about what a gifted student looks like (just like it seems many in this discussion).

I'm not sure you can conclude the test is "easier", I've heard that it is shorter, but nothing to confirm it's "easier" or measures anything different. Actually, I think it's easier to prep for the test now b/c it is more transparent what test is being used. I think they moved to something shorter b/c it allows them to test more students effectively and efficiently. Cost may also be an issue.

It is my understanding that the selection process remains race-blind so race is not considered as a factor when selecting qualified candidates. Testing and reviewing the data of a broader group makes it more likely you will find a group of qualified students from different backgrounds.

The other thing they do talk about is looking to see if a student has a peer group in their home school. That would explain why sometimes the numbers seem different. If only one or two students have consistent high scores on all the things they are looking at, they stand out, if at another school there is a group of 10 kids with similar scores, they have a group that can be taught together.

If they want to make it truly race blind they should assign an ID to every student, and use the ID rather than their names.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It the admission was racial-blind, non of the discussion would have had started. MCPS was unhappy about the racial composition of the magnet program student body, which is why the Metis study was commissioned in the first place. The company is for-profit and the study was not reviewed by peers other than the "experts" in MCPS.

The HGC admission was notoriously non-transparent. Only student's test scores and the median scores of the ACCEPTED students were provided in the decision letter in the past. Now, it's even less transparent. Wonder what's the reason for the change?

That's what I keep asking. MCPS will never answer that because ...?

I wonder whether they have to provide this as a FOIA request.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It the admission was racial-blind, non of the discussion would have had started. MCPS was unhappy about the racial composition of the magnet program student body, which is why the Metis study was commissioned in the first place. The company is for-profit and the study was not reviewed by peers other than the "experts" in MCPS.

The HGC admission was notoriously non-transparent. Only student's test scores and the median scores of the ACCEPTED students were provided in the decision letter in the past. Now, it's even less transparent. Wonder what's the reason for the change?

That's what I keep asking. MCPS will never answer that because ...?

I wonder whether they have to provide this as a FOIA request.

You can get FOIA on objective evaluations of the selected students but how will you get FOIA on the subjective decisions of selection committee specifically when one of the criteria is how the home middle school can fulfil the student's academic needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It the admission was racial-blind, non of the discussion would have had started. MCPS was unhappy about the racial composition of the magnet program student body, which is why the Metis study was commissioned in the first place. The company is for-profit and the study was not reviewed by peers other than the "experts" in MCPS.

The HGC admission was notoriously non-transparent. Only student's test scores and the median scores of the ACCEPTED students were provided in the decision letter in the past. Now, it's even less transparent. Wonder what's the reason for the change?

That's what I keep asking. MCPS will never answer that because ...?

I wonder whether they have to provide this as a FOIA request.

don't think so. You can request your kid's data, but I don't think they will produce statistics per request if it's not already reported.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just a data point.

2017 PARCC scores for Montgomery County 3rd grade students (this year's HGC pool) by race

English - Met or Exceeded expectations

Asian - 72.2%
Black - 34%
Hispanic - 24.5%
White - 67.8%

English - Did not meet or Partially met expectations

Asian - 12.2%
Black - 42.7%
Hispanic - 52.7%
White - 14.1%

Math - Met or Exceeded expectations

Asian - 82.1%
Black - 37.9%
Hispanic - 32.9%
White - 74%

Math - Did not meet or Partially met expectations

Asian - 6.8%
Black - 34.9%
Hispanic - 39.4%
White - 9.9%

Is there a point for this data point, because from what I see, there are many URM that should be tested and would thrive in a magnet environment -

Math Met or Exceeded Expectations:

Asian - 82.1%
Black - 37.9%
Hispanic - 32.9%
White - 74%

English:

Asian - 72.2%
Black - 34%
Hispanic - 24.5%
White - 67.8%

Yes, they and everyone should be tested. Yes, there should not be any teacher recommendation requirement.

So test them on the same test that was being administered and taken by students wanting to get into the magnet program before Metis. Let them work for their place like the rest of the people and don't hand them something that they do not deserve.

Why is there a sense of entitlement without demonstrated ability?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just a data point.

2017 PARCC scores for Montgomery County 3rd grade students (this year's HGC pool) by race

English - Met or Exceeded expectations

Asian - 72.2%
Black - 34%
Hispanic - 24.5%
White - 67.8%

English - Did not meet or Partially met expectations

Asian - 12.2%
Black - 42.7%
Hispanic - 52.7%
White - 14.1%

Math - Met or Exceeded expectations

Asian - 82.1%
Black - 37.9%
Hispanic - 32.9%
White - 74%

Math - Did not meet or Partially met expectations

Asian - 6.8%
Black - 34.9%
Hispanic - 39.4%
White - 9.9%

Is there a point for this data point, because from what I see, there are many URM that should be tested and would thrive in a magnet environment -

Math Met or Exceeded Expectations:

Asian - 82.1%
Black - 37.9%
Hispanic - 32.9%
White - 74%

English:

Asian - 72.2%
Black - 34%
Hispanic - 24.5%
White - 67.8%

Yes, they and everyone should be tested. Yes, there should not be any teacher recommendation requirement.

So test them on the same test that was being administered and taken by students wanting to get into the magnet program before Metis. Let them work for their place like the rest of the people and don't hand them something that they do not deserve.

Why is there a sense of entitlement without demonstrated ability?

You're suggesting that they are admitting kids without demonstrated ability?

And who exactly are you saying is "entitled". This was a change made by mcps. Not because someone felt entitled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It the admission was racial-blind, non of the discussion would have had started. MCPS was unhappy about the racial composition of the magnet program student body, which is why the Metis study was commissioned in the first place. The company is for-profit and the study was not reviewed by peers other than the "experts" in MCPS.

The HGC admission was notoriously non-transparent. Only student's test scores and the median scores of the ACCEPTED students were provided in the decision letter in the past. Now, it's even less transparent. Wonder what's the reason for the change?

That's what I keep asking. MCPS will never answer that because ...?

I wonder whether they have to provide this as a FOIA request.

No. FOIA only applies to the federal government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, they and everyone should be tested. Yes, there should not be any teacher recommendation requirement.

So test them on the same test that was being administered and taken by students wanting to get into the magnet program before Metis. Let them work for their place like the rest of the people and don't hand them something that they do not deserve.

Why is there a sense of entitlement without demonstrated ability?

Who is displaying a sense of entitlement, and how are they displaying it? Who is being handed something they do not deserve?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Is there a point for this data point, because from what I see, there are many URM that should be tested and would thrive in a magnet environment -

Math Met or Exceeded Expectations:

Asian - 82.1%
Black - 37.9%
Hispanic - 32.9%
White - 74%

English:

Asian - 72.2%
Black - 34%
Hispanic - 24.5%
White - 67.8%

That's what I see, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I think there may be many factors involved. Considering teacher recommendations, I agree, teachers often have great insights about kids and their potential/abilities. However, research shows teacher recommendations are often biased and favor some groups over others. They are subjective. Many teachers have preconceived ideas about what a gifted student looks like (just like it seems many in this discussion).

I'm not sure you can conclude the test is "easier", I've heard that it is shorter, but nothing to confirm it's "easier" or measures anything different. Actually, I think it's easier to prep for the test now b/c it is more transparent what test is being used. I think they moved to something shorter b/c it allows them to test more students effectively and efficiently. Cost may also be an issue.

It is my understanding that the selection process remains race-blind so race is not considered as a factor when selecting qualified candidates. Testing and reviewing the data of a broader group makes it more likely you will find a group of qualified students from different backgrounds.

The other thing they do talk about is looking to see if a student has a peer group in their home school. That would explain why sometimes the numbers seem different. If only one or two students have consistent high scores on all the things they are looking at, they stand out, if at another school there is a group of 10 kids with similar scores, they have a group that can be taught together.

Except that it is not taught anything different together, not with the same enrichment offered at HGC! My child is a high performer in a high performing school; she's in the highest reading and math group and consistently scores within top 3-10% on multiple tests, however, there's a whole lot of kids at DD's school 'qualified' for enriched instruction (to be fair, I don't think anyone is a genius reading at college level or solving differential equations, but they are all advanced). However, the HGC used to only take a couple students from our school - and the rest of them remained in place, the only 'enrichment' in 4th and 5th being compacted math.

I have a reason to believe that, with new system in place, the number of acceptances will drop even lower.

How is that fair to qualified children at a higher performing school?