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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

DP. Whatever you think of the proposed changes, I think this is an accurate description of the stakes. Do you serve the very top performers very well or do you serve a broader group but with less acceleration. There's arguments both ways, but destroying education for gifted students isn't one of the possibilities.

Tell that to all of the 4th grade students who scored a 99th percentile on their MAP but didn’t make the lottery into the CES and their schools have chosen to do model 1 of the “new” ELA program (they may get enrichment, they may not).

I'm the PP you're responding to and I have a kid like that. She gets enrichment, she's just getting it in a mixed environment. It's fine.

We luckily made it into the CES, but the “supplemental enrichment” model didn’t work for my kid the last couple of years. All they could talk about was how bored they were especially since the teacher spent a good chunk of time focused on two boys who, as she put it, “couldn’t read.” She was already at the point of potentially hating school.

Sounds like a parenting problem. Kids should be able to tolerate being bored.

All kids should have their needs met. Bored kids act poorly as they are bored for attention

[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: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.

Your post is coherent and I believe you're arguing in good faith. However, I think it's important to have specific problems and objectives in mind. As you acknowledged, these programs both have a financial cost and a cost to inclusivity. And maybe those costs are justified, but the data for gifted and talented programs doesn't support a claim that these programs lead to better outcomes for the students. So I think caution is warranted.

Even if the outcomes don't necessarily change, certain aspects of gifted and talented programs may still have meaningful benefits. For example, rigorous honors courses in high school can provide for an easier adjustment to college. But some of the ideas and motives here seem to go far beyond college prep.

As someone who went through a gifted and talented track (30 years ago, outside of Montgomery County), I'm pretty skeptical of the value of gifted and talented programs beyond honors/AP courses. My academic and professional path was much more influenced by extracurricular activities in middle/high school, and through my research and peers in grad school, than some of the advanced courses and programs I started doing in grade school. And while I recognize my own anecdotal experience doesn't mean much, it does appear to be aligned with the results of research into these programs more broadly.

To be blunt, I think some--- not all, but some--- people interested in gifted and talented programs aren't actually interested in the rigor or opportunities of the programs themselves, but rather the selection effect at play in the peer cohort. While that would be understandable, I also don't think that's healthy or advantageous for society as a whole. I suspect I'm not the only person with that jaded suspicion. So like it or not, I think people arguing for gifted and talented programs are going to be cognizant of their remarks might be taken that way.

Your experience has nothing to do with today, next week or next year.

As much as yours.

[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: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?

DP. Whatever you think of the proposed changes, I think this is an accurate description of the stakes. Do you serve the very top performers very well or do you serve a broader group but with less acceleration. There's arguments both ways, but destroying education for gifted students isn't one of the possibilities.

Tell that to all of the 4th grade students who scored a 99th percentile on their MAP but didn’t make the lottery into the CES and their schools have chosen to do model 1 of the “new” ELA program (they may get enrichment, they may not).

I'm the PP you're responding to and I have a kid like that. She gets enrichment, she's just getting it in a mixed environment. It's fine.

We luckily made it into the CES, but the “supplemental enrichment” model didn’t work for my kid the last couple of years. All they could talk about was how bored they were especially since the teacher spent a good chunk of time focused on two boys who, as she put it, “couldn’t read.” She was already at the point of potentially hating school.

Sounds like a parenting problem. Kids should be able to tolerate being bored.

All kids should have their needs met. Bored kids act poorly as they are bored for attention

"Not being bored" isn't a need.

[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: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?

DP. Whatever you think of the proposed changes, I think this is an accurate description of the stakes. Do you serve the very top performers very well or do you serve a broader group but with less acceleration. There's arguments both ways, but destroying education for gifted students isn't one of the possibilities.

Tell that to all of the 4th grade students who scored a 99th percentile on their MAP but didn’t make the lottery into the CES and their schools have chosen to do model 1 of the “new” ELA program (they may get enrichment, they may not).

I'm the PP you're responding to and I have a kid like that. She gets enrichment, she's just getting it in a mixed environment. It's fine.

We luckily made it into the CES, but the “supplemental enrichment” model didn’t work for my kid the last couple of years. All they could talk about was how bored they were especially since the teacher spent a good chunk of time focused on two boys who, as she put it, “couldn’t read.” She was already at the point of potentially hating school.

Sounds like a parenting problem. Kids should be able to tolerate being bored.

All kids should have their needs met. Bored kids act poorly as they are bored for attention

"Not being bored" isn't a need.

Being able to benefit from education is, and a kid who disengages cannot benefit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Throwing resources at low performers absolutely will lift them up. And if your kid is really a high performers, they will be a high performer with or without resources.

Yep. Most high performing kids do well at any school Their test scores say high wherever they go.

Why spend more money catering to kids who will be fine either way instead of focusing on kids who need the extra help?

This is the most ignorant, clueless thing I’ve ever read. High performers will be “fine” either way- that is so wrong. Maybe YOU’RE the racist. And YOU’RE so anti-mental health. And you’re just plain ignorant.

High performers are already prone to depression, and if they are not well supported, depression/anxiety takes hold. These kids also need extra resources, not less.

If MCPS chooses to withdraw resources from these students, they will go elsewhere and MCPS tax base will shrink.

Throwing more money at lower performers does not help. They don’t need more resources. They simply need someone who forms a relationship with them and teaches them and supports them - like a parent or a volunteer tutor. All the counselors in the world aren’t helping. Just set up a one to one volunteer tutoring network in person where the same tutor meets with the same kid weekly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

DP. Whatever you think of the proposed changes, I think this is an accurate description of the stakes. Do you serve the very top performers very well or do you serve a broader group but with less acceleration. There's arguments both ways, but destroying education for gifted students isn't one of the possibilities.

Tell that to all of the 4th grade students who scored a 99th percentile on their MAP but didn’t make the lottery into the CES and their schools have chosen to do model 1 of the “new” ELA program (they may get enrichment, they may not).

That sounds like an argument against the CES model. Maybe that was intended.

As it stands now the CES model, based in a lottery based on MAP and not a true cognitive assessment is not serving the needs of the students who could most benefit — back pre-Covid when it was truly focused on gifted it was better equipped to serve those needs. ELC was established to make up for not enough seats at the CES… and now that’s gone.

[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: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?

DP. Whatever you think of the proposed changes, I think this is an accurate description of the stakes. Do you serve the very top performers very well or do you serve a broader group but with less acceleration. There's arguments both ways, but destroying education for gifted students isn't one of the possibilities.

Tell that to all of the 4th grade students who scored a 99th percentile on their MAP but didn’t make the lottery into the CES and their schools have chosen to do model 1 of the “new” ELA program (they may get enrichment, they may not).

I'm the PP you're responding to and I have a kid like that. She gets enrichment, she's just getting it in a mixed environment. It's fine.

We luckily made it into the CES, but the “supplemental enrichment” model didn’t work for my kid the last couple of years. All they could talk about was how bored they were especially since the teacher spent a good chunk of time focused on two boys who, as she put it, “couldn’t read.” She was already at the point of potentially hating school.

Sounds like a parenting problem. Kids should be able to tolerate being bored.

All kids should have their needs met. Bored kids act poorly as they are bored for attention

"Not being bored" isn't a need.

Being able to benefit from education is, and a kid who disengages cannot benefit.

It would be lovely to consider that a need and resource public education appropriately.

We're obviously not there, but we can dream of the day where that's the sort of need we're able to focus on in schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

DP. Whatever you think of the proposed changes, I think this is an accurate description of the stakes. Do you serve the very top performers very well or do you serve a broader group but with less acceleration. There's arguments both ways, but destroying education for gifted students isn't one of the possibilities.

Tell that to all of the 4th grade students who scored a 99th percentile on their MAP but didn’t make the lottery into the CES and their schools have chosen to do model 1 of the “new” ELA program (they may get enrichment, they may not).

That sounds like an argument against the CES model. Maybe that was intended.

As it stands now the CES model, based in a lottery based on MAP and not a true cognitive assessment is not serving the needs of the students who could most benefit — back pre-Covid when it was truly focused on gifted it was better equipped to serve those needs. ELC was established to make up for not enough seats at the CES… and now that’s gone.

So what do you want to see now? Create reading groups across the classes in a grade at all elementary schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

DP. Whatever you think of the proposed changes, I think this is an accurate description of the stakes. Do you serve the very top performers very well or do you serve a broader group but with less acceleration. There's arguments both ways, but destroying education for gifted students isn't one of the possibilities.

Tell that to all of the 4th grade students who scored a 99th percentile on their MAP but didn’t make the lottery into the CES and their schools have chosen to do model 1 of the “new” ELA program (they may get enrichment, they may not).

That sounds like an argument against the CES model. Maybe that was intended.

As it stands now the CES model, based in a lottery based on MAP and not a true cognitive assessment is not serving the needs of the students who could most benefit — back pre-Covid when it was truly focused on gifted it was better equipped to serve those needs. ELC was established to make up for not enough seats at the CES… and now that’s gone.

So what do you want to see now? Create reading groups across the classes in a grade at all elementary schools?

Yes. That would be a huge start.

[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: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?

DP. Whatever you think of the proposed changes, I think this is an accurate description of the stakes. Do you serve the very top performers very well or do you serve a broader group but with less acceleration. There's arguments both ways, but destroying education for gifted students isn't one of the possibilities.

Tell that to all of the 4th grade students who scored a 99th percentile on their MAP but didn’t make the lottery into the CES and their schools have chosen to do model 1 of the “new” ELA program (they may get enrichment, they may not).

That sounds like an argument against the CES model. Maybe that was intended.

As it stands now the CES model, based in a lottery based on MAP and not a true cognitive assessment is not serving the needs of the students who could most benefit — back pre-Covid when it was truly focused on gifted it was better equipped to serve those needs. ELC was established to make up for not enough seats at the CES… and now that’s gone.

So what do you want to see now? Create reading groups across the classes in a grade at all elementary schools?

Yes. That would be a huge start.

I'm good with reading groups. I wouldn't want to see entire classes grouped that way, but you can create reading groups in a way that allows mobility between groups during the year.

[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: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?

DP. Whatever you think of the proposed changes, I think this is an accurate description of the stakes. Do you serve the very top performers very well or do you serve a broader group but with less acceleration. There's arguments both ways, but destroying education for gifted students isn't one of the possibilities.

Tell that to all of the 4th grade students who scored a 99th percentile on their MAP but didn’t make the lottery into the CES and their schools have chosen to do model 1 of the “new” ELA program (they may get enrichment, they may not).

That sounds like an argument against the CES model. Maybe that was intended.

As it stands now the CES model, based in a lottery based on MAP and not a true cognitive assessment is not serving the needs of the students who could most benefit — back pre-Covid when it was truly focused on gifted it was better equipped to serve those needs. ELC was established to make up for not enough seats at the CES… and now that’s gone.

So what do you want to see now? Create reading groups across the classes in a grade at all elementary schools?

Yes. That would be a huge start.

I'm good with reading groups. I wouldn't want to see entire classes grouped that way, but you can create reading groups in a way that allows mobility between groups during the year.

Problem is with how CKLA works, there are no books. And when a teacher is dealing with 15 students who cannot read, 10 who can but are still struggling, they’re not going to have time to meet with the 5 advanced readers. Ask me how I know.

Having ELC be its own, contained class meant they were a priority and could really focus on advanced learning. The cohort is so, so important.

[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: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.

Your post is coherent and I believe you're arguing in good faith. However, I think it's important to have specific problems and objectives in mind. As you acknowledged, these programs both have a financial cost and a cost to inclusivity. And maybe those costs are justified, but the data for gifted and talented programs doesn't support a claim that these programs lead to better outcomes for the students. So I think caution is warranted.

Even if the outcomes don't necessarily change, certain aspects of gifted and talented programs may still have meaningful benefits. For example, rigorous honors courses in high school can provide for an easier adjustment to college. But some of the ideas and motives here seem to go far beyond college prep.

As someone who went through a gifted and talented track (30 years ago, outside of Montgomery County), I'm pretty skeptical of the value of gifted and talented programs beyond honors/AP courses. My academic and professional path was much more influenced by extracurricular activities in middle/high school, and through my research and peers in grad school, than some of the advanced courses and programs I started doing in grade school. And while I recognize my own anecdotal experience doesn't mean much, it does appear to be aligned with the results of research into these programs more broadly.

To be blunt, I think some--- not all, but some--- people interested in gifted and talented programs aren't actually interested in the rigor or opportunities of the programs themselves, but rather the selection effect at play in the peer cohort. While that would be understandable, I also don't think that's healthy or advantageous for society as a whole. I suspect I'm not the only person with that jaded suspicion. So like it or not, I think people arguing for gifted and talented programs are going to be cognizant of their remarks might be taken that way.

Your experience has nothing to do with today, next week or next year.

As much as yours.

I have kids in MCPS and these decisions and lack of offerings impact our family. As does the lack of sn support.

Do you have kids in MCPS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

DP. Whatever you think of the proposed changes, I think this is an accurate description of the stakes. Do you serve the very top performers very well or do you serve a broader group but with less acceleration. There's arguments both ways, but destroying education for gifted students isn't one of the possibilities.

Tell that to all of the 4th grade students who scored a 99th percentile on their MAP but didn’t make the lottery into the CES and their schools have chosen to do model 1 of the “new” ELA program (they may get enrichment, they may not).

That sounds like an argument against the CES model. Maybe that was intended.

As it stands now the CES model, based in a lottery based on MAP and not a true cognitive assessment is not serving the needs of the students who could most benefit — back pre-Covid when it was truly focused on gifted it was better equipped to serve those needs. ELC was established to make up for not enough seats at the CES… and now that’s gone.

Years ago there were not enough spots either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

DP. Whatever you think of the proposed changes, I think this is an accurate description of the stakes. Do you serve the very top performers very well or do you serve a broader group but with less acceleration. There's arguments both ways, but destroying education for gifted students isn't one of the possibilities.

Tell that to all of the 4th grade students who scored a 99th percentile on their MAP but didn’t make the lottery into the CES and their schools have chosen to do model 1 of the “new” ELA program (they may get enrichment, they may not).

That sounds like an argument against the CES model. Maybe that was intended.

As it stands now the CES model, based in a lottery based on MAP and not a true cognitive assessment is not serving the needs of the students who could most benefit — back pre-Covid when it was truly focused on gifted it was better equipped to serve those needs. ELC was established to make up for not enough seats at the CES… and now that’s gone.

Years ago there were not enough spots either.

Which is why the Gifted committee of the PTA advocated for and secured ELC expansion for all schools. Only for it to be cut this year.

[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: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?

DP. Whatever you think of the proposed changes, I think this is an accurate description of the stakes. Do you serve the very top performers very well or do you serve a broader group but with less acceleration. There's arguments both ways, but destroying education for gifted students isn't one of the possibilities.

Tell that to all of the 4th grade students who scored a 99th percentile on their MAP but didn’t make the lottery into the CES and their schools have chosen to do model 1 of the “new” ELA program (they may get enrichment, they may not).

That sounds like an argument against the CES model. Maybe that was intended.

As it stands now the CES model, based in a lottery based on MAP and not a true cognitive assessment is not serving the needs of the students who could most benefit — back pre-Covid when it was truly focused on gifted it was better equipped to serve those needs. ELC was established to make up for not enough seats at the CES… and now that’s gone.

So what do you want to see now? Create reading groups across the classes in a grade at all elementary schools?

Yes. That would be a huge start.

I'm good with reading groups. I wouldn't want to see entire classes grouped that way, but you can create reading groups in a way that allows mobility between groups during the year.

Problem is with how CKLA works, there are no books. And when a teacher is dealing with 15 students who cannot read, 10 who can but are still struggling, they’re not going to have time to meet with the 5 advanced readers. Ask me how I know.

Having ELC be its own, contained class meant they were a priority and could really focus on advanced learning. The cohort is so, so important.

As long as you're in the "right" one at the beginning of the year.

4th grade is too early to start segregating kids. The harms outweigh the benefits.