Forum Index
»
Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)
Challenge Every Child
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
I am a parent involved in the "Challenge Every Child" campaign. This campaign is not what the OP describes. It is actually the exact opposite; it is a response to the "No Label, No Limit" campaign advocated by MCEA/MCEF. While on the surface the NLNL campaign talks about the label, MCEA/MCEF has made their intention clear that they want to get rid of every kind of ability grouping and make the classes completely heterogeneous. For the understanding of everyone let me define what these terms mean.
Ability or homogeneous Grouping: Have classes designed so that ability (and preparedness) of students in the class have very limited range so that all the students can be taught at the same level of instruction. Something like the small reading groups practiced in some schools at a class level. In a ability grouped class, a teacher can teach remedial, standard, advanced, or accelerated and enriched curriculum based on the level of the whole class. Hetegrogeneous Grouping: Have classes designed so that all students of teh same age group mixed abilities are tought in the same class. The teacher is expected to differentiate the curriculum based on individual student's ability. These classes may have cluster of abilities within the a class. However, the teacher have to design the instruction to address each ability cluster; much harder to do for normal human teacher! MCEA/MCEF is pushing for NLNL and the heterogenous grouping for a while now. It seems like more and more adminstartions are getting sympathetic to this and trying to implement complete heterogeneous grouping in school. Since it is much harder to teach these kind of classes most teachers are either teaching to the middle or spend considebale amount of the classtime to teach to lower spectrum of ability. MCPS GTA has recognized this issue for a while and is recently trying to reverse this process. The "Challenge Every Child" campaign is the resulting campaign to get flexible ability grouping back into MCPS. It sould be flexible so that no child is locked into a ability group in every subject or every year. It should be ability groupping so that the teacher can actually teach the whole class! MCCPTA support the CEC campaign and will be testifying in front of the BOE today at 7:30pm. If you are interested to support this movement, please show up at the BOW meeting wearing GREEN. When: Monday, March 28, 7:30 p.m. to 8:15 p.m. Where: Carver: 850 Hungerford Drive , Rockville , MD 20850 . First floor Board room--entrance on the right side of the building. Wear: green, for GT HTH |
Anonymous
|
The MCCPTA letter and the GTA petition are different. The GTA petition calls for the label. The MCCPTA calls for the identification to continue.
The GTA seems to want to contunue the practice of labeling children whi don't qualify for HGCs as "gifted and talented." |
Anonymous
|
I disagree with the PP. Here is the MCCPTA letter
http://mccpta.net/GT_committee/2010-2011/Letter_to_BOE_opposing_no_labels_final.pdf and here is the GTA petition http://www.gtamc.org/challenge-every-child Both are talking about keeping the identification of GT students and promoting ability homogeneous grouping paying attention to the need of individual student. GTA is NOT suggesting - "the practice of labeling children whi don't qualify for HGCs as "gifted and talented." " The students who are accepted in the HGC programs county wide are still GT students. GT label is the identification that happens in 2nd grade. The identification is not perfect, however without the identification the students who need the acceleration cannot even question not having access to the accelerated services provided to them. MCCPTA and GTA both recognize the issue. While neither of these groups is attached to the label, they oppose the end of identification and believe ending the identification will pave the path for ending the accelerated programming available for the kids in MCPS! Please do not promote misconception that MCCPTA and GTA are at odd with each other! Read all the avilable literature before you respond. |
Anonymous
I don't think it was being suggested to hold back elementary school kids. We should make the elementary schools heterogeneous so that there is no arbitrary cutoff. Each ES should be able to handle both the entire spectrum of students. At that age they can advance from above average to High to very high within a year and should be handled accordingly if not immediately the following year. So, yes challenge every child without isolating some children in an elitist way. The benefit of having heterogeneous schools will be better equipped to challenge every child. |
Anonymous
|
The GTA wants the label. Read their petition " 'labeling the student' as the law requires ensures that these students remain a visible population within MCPS."
Does the law require a label?? Can someone tell me where I can find the label law? Seriously, when you are identified as GT you go to centers (HGCs) that makes them visible. The GTA is kind of attaching themselves to the MCCPTA and hoping to make a stealth run at the GT label for non GT students. Yeah, I moved to MoCo for a good education for my children. Now I am MOVING. |
Anonymous
|
Anonymous
I missed a keyword "NOT" in the 3rd sentence of the second paragraph. It should be read as "If a student is identified at GT in 2nd grade he/she is NOT automatically accepted in HGC and if a student is not identified as GT in 2nd grade, it does not preclude him/her from being accepted in the HGC. Sorry about the mistake.
|
Anonymous
This post makes no sense. What on earth are you talking about? I wish people wouldn't get hung up on the whole label business. It's not the point. The point is that the GT folks want the kids who need more challenge and acceleration to be able to get it. That's what "flexible grouping" is all about. The alternative is to have instruction be the same for everyone, and it's hard to see how that would serve all kids' needs. |
Anonymous
|
Anonymous wrote:The GTA wants the label. Read their petition " 'labeling the student' as the law requires ensures that these students remain a visible population within MCPS."
Does the law require a label?? Can someone tell me where I can find the label law? Maryland law requires GT identification. Yeah! The law requires identification not labeling. So, you accept the GTA is wrong? The GTA petition reads " 'labeling the student' as the law requires ensures that these students remain a visible population within MCPS." “In MCPS GT identification is done in the 2nd grade through Raven testing. HGC acceptance happens in 3rd grade, 5th grade and 8th grade for application based programs.” Wrong again. You can get recommended for HGC testing in second grade. ““In MCPS GT identification is done in the 2nd grade through Raven testing.” Wrong again. Let me find a link on the identification procedure for you. “You probably have no experience in the MCPS and confusing these two things.” This is typical of those who want their children who failed to make the grade labeled GT!! Yeah, you are right “The identification in 2nd grade provides the kids access to accelerated programming in their homeschool.” These are students who work above the curriculum. I urge parents to read the GTA petition and the MCCPTA positions and determine where the MCCPTA saya they support the GTA argument for the label. Even those who signed on to the GTA petition don’t support the GTA wish to have a label for non GT students. Read the GTA petition carefully. It bothers me. |
Anonymous
|
I think the poster who mentioned that the GTA petition wants the label is right. They do say " 'labeling the student' as the law requires ensures that these students remain a visible population within MCPS."
Too bad that gifted associations have become hostage to superficial stuff. I think the MCCPTA letter is far, far more sensible. I really know that honest to goodness gifted children need the right programs. The children who are identified for the math and reading in their homeschool are the non GT students and they deserve to get their classes too. But to insist on them being labeled GT is wrong. If the GTA doesn't want the label for the non GT students they should take the label statement out from the petition. The MCCPTA does not mention any label nonsense. |
Anonymous
|
One of the issues I have with the statement above is the idea kids who get identified in their home schools aren't really GT.
The HG Centers don't have enough spots to accommodate all the children who could benefit from them. And there's a difference between a highly gifted child (hence the "HG") and a kid who's GT. The definition of a child who goes to the HG center is a child whose needs can't easily be met at the home school. This doesn't mean that there aren't GT kids who should be able to be accommodated in his/her home school. However, without identifying them (and therefore "labeling" them), MCPS can't be held accountable for meeting their needs. I have a child with a learning disability. I don't like the idea of "labeling" her but I sure as hell want her identified so that I can make sure MCPS gives her the accommodations to which she's legally entitled. Without the label, they won't do anything. Even with the label, it's a question of being constantly vigilant. Why shouldn't parents whose kids need acceleration not be able to use this same tool to make sure their kids' needs are met? GTA is not suggesting AT ALL that enrichment and acceleration be limited to certain kids. But there has to be away to make sure kids who need it, get it. |
Anonymous
Agree 100% ! Labels, No labels, heterogeneous, homogeneous are all words which are confusing the main issue - which is - "Are we making sure that our children are getting the best possible opportunity within their school?" I however disagree with the HGC being in a separate school. The home schools should be able to take care of the HG students. |
Anonymous
|
I know that identifying students for services must continue. I also think GT identification must continue because the law requires.
There are some GT kids who don’t make it out of the home school. I disagree with your saying “However, without identifying them (and therefore "labeling" them), MCPS can't be held accountable for meeting their needs.” There is a difference between identifying them and labeling them. My neighbor just had his child identified for GT services. He got the Letter from MCPS. He is content the Letter will hold MCPS responsible. So, yes, we all want the child identified. Let us not make it a roundabout way to get a GT label for the students who are not GT. At one ES there are so many kids with the GT label (I think about 60%--I may be off a little) in advanced classes that it is pretty much a heterogeneous class with a huge range of abilities. It is just another average class. But the parents are happy because they insist their child is GT!!!!! The teacher handholds some of the kids and ignores the high ability kids who are bored to death. I think the MCCPTA position has been thought out better. The GTA is hanging on to their coattails. |
Anonymous
| Does MCPS over-identify kids as GT? Absolutely. However what the MCEF/No Labels people are aiming for is total elimination of identification and designation of kids as GT. GTA is fighting THAT. In other words, the disappearing of GT. The additional fight is to make GT actually mean something, make advanced classes actually mean advanced, allow flexible homogeneous grouping. When everyone is "advanced" no one is "advanced." The GTA and MCCPTA positions are complementary. |
Anonymous
And how do you propose they do that? |