Question about Highly Gifted Centers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The PP is correct - it has not yet been determined if 2.0 will be applied to the HGC next year, and even if it is, the HGCs will find a way to make it challenging for those in the center - either ignore it in their own way, use the 2.0 as a guideline and then teach what they need to in order to challenge the HGC students.

In any case, it is too late to apply for a 3rd grader...applications needed to be in months ago, and the test was given to the 3rd graders last week.

My post might not have been clear - my 3rd grader took the test last week. When I filled out the parent form in the fall, escaping 2.0 was a priority. The "teacher" who indicated that 2.0 was going to be implemented at the center was not, in fact, a classroom teacher (not sure why I thought I needed to protect identifying info on here in that way), but rather a senior administrator who would know what's going on (of this I am certain). I'm not saying that it is or is not true - it is simply what this (I believe) reliable source has said. All I can say is that, if true, I will avoid the center and be moving this child to a private school to escape 2.0. Before 2.0 was implemented at my kids' school, we also heard about how it would be tailored to our school's population (lots of high achievers) and that teachers would work around it to meet all students' needs, etc. What I have seen all year is an empty and ill-conceived curriculum that is failing lots of kids. Unfortunately, the very teachers and administrators who, last year, promised us that the high achievers would not be abandoned (and who seemed genuinely committed to making this curriculum work for all) have been frustrated. It is clear that MCPS has put a lot of pressure on the individual schools to toe the line on 2.0 and to not make waves about accommodating accelerated learners.

I guess this should have been obvious from the beginning. I heard the stories that Sup. Starr was no supporter or GT education and that "leveling the playing field" and "fairness" were utmost on his agenda. I don't have a crystal ball to foresee what will happen with GT implementing 2.0, but I think the indications are strong that MCPS (under Starr and 2.0) is not friendly to GT or acceleration of any kind. Hope I'm wrong.

I am equally certain that this teacher, or administrator, or whoever it was, does not know what she is talking about. Of this I am certain.

Good luck, whatever you choose to do.

[Anonymous]

How can you be so certain that you know more than the anonymous "administrator" PP spoke to. Unless..Starr is that you??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How can you be so certain that you know more than the anonymous "administrator" PP spoke to. Unless..Starr is that you??

Because I am in the system and have been present at meetings about this.

I'm not going to say more than that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can you be so certain that you know more than the anonymous "administrator" PP spoke to. Unless..Starr is that you??

Because I am in the system and have been present at meetings about this.

I'm not going to say more than that.

Yes, please MCPS staffer, continue to meet in private and continue to provide no transparency or information to the parents whose taxes pay your salary. That's great. No reason to keep parents in the loop or to provide clear information (so that parents can plan for the needs of their children). Please, continue to keep us in the dark for as long as possible. Maybe you can even change the plan right b/f the start of the school year and really keep us pesky parents twisting in the wind. After all, this is just the education of our children we're talking about here, right.

I'd love to think that your info is correct and that we could count on it--but the fact that MCPS hasn't shared anything specific and definitive with parents on this topic makes me suspicious. I'm suspicious that plans will change or that political agendas will get in the way. The lesson of MCPS so far is "don't believe it until you see it" --and even then, it might change. if only this was a student centered model (or if the student body had a representative (almost like a union rep for the kids), maybe parents would trust MCPS more. That's my 2 cents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can you be so certain that you know more than the anonymous "administrator" PP spoke to. Unless..Starr is that you??

Because I am in the system and have been present at meetings about this.

I'm not going to say more than that.

Yes, please MCPS staffer, continue to meet in private and continue to provide no transparency or information to the parents whose taxes pay your salary. That's great. No reason to keep parents in the loop or to provide clear information (so that parents can plan for the needs of their children). Please, continue to keep us in the dark for as long as possible. Maybe you can even change the plan right b/f the start of the school year and really keep us pesky parents twisting in the wind. After all, this is just the education of our children we're talking about here, right.

I'd love to think that your info is correct and that we could count on it--but the fact that MCPS hasn't shared anything specific and definitive with parents on this topic makes me suspicious. I'm suspicious that plans will change or that political agendas will get in the way. The lesson of MCPS so far is "don't believe it until you see it" --and even then, it might change. if only this was a student centered model (or if the student body had a representative (almost like a union rep for the kids), maybe parents would trust MCPS more. That's my 2 cents.

I didn't say there was a plan. I don't know of a plan. PP said that 2.0 *will* be implemented in the Center program - what I know is that this has not been decided. That's all I know.

I am not being secretive. I'm correcting PP's statement about 2.0 being planned for the Center program, which has not been decided.

[Anonymous]

9:21, I understand what you are saying, but I think my (and maybe others') frustration is the not knowing. There are MCPS staff who are saying one thing, some who say another thing. It is important to have certainty.
For ex., if the center doesn't implement 2.0, it might be a very attractive option for my DC (assuming she gets in). If the center implements 2.0, it would be completely unappealing. But, the certainty of knowing one way or the other is very important to parents making these decisions. Not finding out about the center/2.0 until the end of the school year or the summer, for example, would mean parents would have missed the deadlines to accept admission to a private school (those commitments are made in the early spring).

[Anonymous]

But the county is under no obligation to cater to private school admission schedules. You have to make a decision for yourself, but don't fault the public school system for not working around private school deadlines.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:9:21, I understand what you are saying, but I think my (and maybe others') frustration is the not knowing. There are MCPS staff who are saying one thing, some who say another thing. It is important to have certainty.
For ex., if the center doesn't implement 2.0, it might be a very attractive option for my DC (assuming she gets in). If the center implements 2.0, it would be completely unappealing. But, the certainty of knowing one way or the other is very important to parents making these decisions. Not finding out about the center/2.0 until the end of the school year or the summer, for example, would mean parents would have missed the deadlines to accept admission to a private school (those commitments are made in the early spring).

Anything you hear are rumors, not fact or even informed opinion. So I would ignore whatever you are hearing.

IMO you are worrying needlessly. The purpose/mission of the Center is to serve the needs of children that cannot be met in their home classrooms. I don't think that will change with the existence, or even the introduction of 2.0. The teachers know what they need to do, and they do it.

FWIW, I have a good friend who taught elementary school at a Big Three for years, and whose child went through the Center program (child is in middle school now). Friend reported that hands-down, the Center education was better than the grade-equivalent at her Big Three. My point is, do not assume that a private school will address the needs of your highly gifted child.

[Anonymous]

You have a group of kids who represent the top 2-5% of MCPS kids and teachers who are well aquainted with gifted education. I think they will make 2.0 work if need be. One of the complaints is that there is no differentiation..well centers don't need as much differentiation because the kids are all at a very high level.

[Anonymous]

One of the students in DC's 5th grade GT got sent to take Math classes with the regular 5th grade class room simply because that kid cannot catch up. What I'm saying is before accepting the invitations to the GT, make sure the kids are really ready, motivated, and hardworking.
I don't see 2.0 will be implemented in GT program. Most of the kids who got in are taking 3-4 grades above in Math. DC is taking IM, and Algebra 1 at the current 5th grade.
From my observation, those applicants who are taking 2 grade above math. The reason they got admitted is their exceptionally strong reading/writing skills.

[Anonymous]

Interesting..but not true at my child's center. 10 out of 75 kids are taking IM. The rest are 6 and 7. There are "neighborhood" kids in the "center" classes and "center" kids in the "neighborhood" classes. We were told after acceptance that the program was really reading/writing focused. Kids that were just math focused should consider if it was a good fit. Kids taking math 6 in 5th grade are not considered unqualified..after all they were accepted to the program.

With a combined IM/Algebra in 5th grade will your child take Geometry in 6th grade or Algebra? Never heard of that combo before so curious.. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But the county is under no obligation to cater to private school admission schedules. You have to make a decision for yourself, but don't fault the public school system for not working around private school deadlines.

I agree. Our daughter attends an HGC, and we lost our deposit at a private pulling out. Such is life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One of the students in DC's 5th grade GT got sent to take Math classes with the regular 5th grade class room simply because that kid cannot catch up. What I'm saying is before accepting the invitations to the GT, make sure the kids are really ready, motivated, and hardworking.
I don't see 2.0 will be implemented in GT program. Most of the kids who got in are taking 3-4 grades above in Math. DC is taking IM, and Algebra 1 at the current 5th grade.
From my observation, those applicants who are taking 2 grade above math. The reason they got admitted is their exceptionally strong reading/writing skills.

The kids I know who are in the HG center this year from our ES were NOT 3-4 grades above on math. Also, this year everyone is on grade level per 2.0.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting..but not true at my child's center. 10 out of 75 kids are taking IM. The rest are 6 and 7. There are "neighborhood" kids in the "center" classes and "center" kids in the "neighborhood" classes. We were told after acceptance that the program was really reading/writing focused. Kids that were just math focused should consider if it was a good fit. Kids taking math 6 in 5th grade are not considered unqualified..after all they were accepted to the program.

With a combined IM/Algebra in 5th grade will your child take Geometry in 6th grade or Algebra? Never heard of that combo before so curious.. Thanks.

DC is taking IM with above grade (alge.1). It is typical for center kids to have 2 sets of math scores - on grade (5th, 6th, 7th, IM, depends on the placement), and above grade.

[Anonymous]

Oh got it. My kids have always been tested on two levels as well..the regular and challenge sections. I thought the course was actually combining the two lessons which I hadn't heard of.