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: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.

The bolded holds true for high performers as well. There should be more kids going to college at 13,14,15,16 or grad/professional school at 19,20. These bright kids can get support at home, breeze through middle and high school, and then go to university early. They will get quality academic support there.

This makes zero sense.

It makes a lot of sense if your is equal outcomes for everyone.

How do these kids get to college and who pays for it? Mine have no interest in college right now and how would we get them to Mc or UMD?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Equity does not equal "same"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It sucks.

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

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

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.

I wholeheartedly agree with you, you're laying out an obvious and rationale argument, but I think you're barking up the wrong tree with some of these posters. They just want to yell "privilege!" and fill up their coffers of self-righteousness and victimhood. They aren't actually interested in discussion or considering other perspectives.

Nobody has mentioned "privilege". It is horrible to:
1. Equate the needs (which I have acknowleged multiple times are real) of all gifted children with those of kids with moderate and severe disabilities in self-contained classrooms in order to argue that gifted kids (with and without disabilities) should be able to access small class sizes that non gifted kids can't access
2. Suggest that the purported economic value of gifted kids means school systems should invest money on them over kids with disabilities
3. Pretend you want to work together with families of kids with disabilities when you have ZERO INTENTION of actually advocating for kids with disabilities that aren't gifted

Once again, no one is saying these things. You really have reading comprehension problems.

They definitely did, and I have quoted (1) above multiple times. We can keep arguing about this all day, or you can just stop using other people's children to advocate for your own children.

Agree but it could be a BOE member or central office defending their bad choice.

[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.

I wholeheartedly agree with you, you're laying out an obvious and rationale argument, but I think you're barking up the wrong tree with some of these posters. They just want to yell "privilege!" and fill up their coffers of self-righteousness and victimhood. They aren't actually interested in discussion or considering other perspectives.

Nobody has mentioned "privilege". It is horrible to:
1. Equate the needs (which I have acknowleged multiple times are real) of all gifted children with those of kids with moderate and severe disabilities in self-contained classrooms in order to argue that gifted kids (with and without disabilities) should be able to access small class sizes that non gifted kids can't access
2. Suggest that the purported economic value of gifted kids means school systems should invest money on them over kids with disabilities
3. Pretend you want to work together with families of kids with disabilities when you have ZERO INTENTION of actually advocating for kids with disabilities that aren't gifted

Having a program for 400 kids makes no sense. That money would be better spent elsewhere. Many of those kids in w schools have access to advanced classes or wealthy parents who can buy them cars to get to MC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Equity does not equal "same"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It sucks.

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

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

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.

I wholeheartedly agree with you, you're laying out an obvious and rationale argument, but I think you're barking up the wrong tree with some of these posters. They just want to yell "privilege!" and fill up their coffers of self-righteousness and victimhood. They aren't actually interested in discussion or considering other perspectives.

Nobody has mentioned "privilege". It is horrible to:
1. Equate the needs (which I have acknowleged multiple times are real) of all gifted children with those of kids with moderate and severe disabilities in self-contained classrooms in order to argue that gifted kids (with and without disabilities) should be able to access small class sizes that non gifted kids can't access
2. Suggest that the purported economic value of gifted kids means school systems should invest money on them over kids with disabilities
3. Pretend you want to work together with families of kids with disabilities when you have ZERO INTENTION of actually advocating for kids with disabilities that aren't gifted

Once again, no one is saying these things. You really have reading comprehension problems.

They definitely did, and I have quoted (1) above multiple times. We can keep arguing about this all day, or you can just stop using other people's children to advocate for your own children.

Agree but it could be a BOE member or central office defending their bad choice.

Uh huh

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Equity does not equal "same"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It sucks.

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

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

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.

I wholeheartedly agree with you, you're laying out an obvious and rationale argument, but I think you're barking up the wrong tree with some of these posters. They just want to yell "privilege!" and fill up their coffers of self-righteousness and victimhood. They aren't actually interested in discussion or considering other perspectives.

Nobody has mentioned "privilege". It is horrible to:
1. Equate the needs (which I have acknowleged multiple times are real) of all gifted children with those of kids with moderate and severe disabilities in self-contained classrooms in order to argue that gifted kids (with and without disabilities) should be able to access small class sizes that non gifted kids can't access
2. Suggest that the purported economic value of gifted kids means school systems should invest money on them over kids with disabilities
3. Pretend you want to work together with families of kids with disabilities when you have ZERO INTENTION of actually advocating for kids with disabilities that aren't gifted

Once again, no one is saying these things. You really have reading comprehension problems.

They definitely did, and I have quoted (1) above multiple times. We can keep arguing about this all day, or you can just stop using other people's children to advocate for your own children.

And yet your quotes don't demonstrate what you're claiming they do.

[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.

I wholeheartedly agree with you, you're laying out an obvious and rationale argument, but I think you're barking up the wrong tree with some of these posters. They just want to yell "privilege!" and fill up their coffers of self-righteousness and victimhood. They aren't actually interested in discussion or considering other perspectives.

Nobody has mentioned "privilege". It is horrible to:
1. Equate the needs (which I have acknowleged multiple times are real) of all gifted children with those of kids with moderate and severe disabilities in self-contained classrooms in order to argue that gifted kids (with and without disabilities) should be able to access small class sizes that non gifted kids can't access
2. Suggest that the purported economic value of gifted kids means school systems should invest money on them over kids with disabilities
3. Pretend you want to work together with families of kids with disabilities when you have ZERO INTENTION of actually advocating for kids with disabilities that aren't gifted

Having a program for 400 kids makes no sense. That money would be better spent elsewhere. Many of those kids in w schools have access to advanced classes or wealthy parents who can buy them cars to get to MC.

Oh look it's the W schools poster again, welcome back. Don't you get tired of just writing the same thing over and over again, like it's going to make it true through repetition?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Equity does not equal "same"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It sucks.

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

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

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.

I wholeheartedly agree with you, you're laying out an obvious and rationale argument, but I think you're barking up the wrong tree with some of these posters. They just want to yell "privilege!" and fill up their coffers of self-righteousness and victimhood. They aren't actually interested in discussion or considering other perspectives.

Nobody has mentioned "privilege". It is horrible to:
1. Equate the needs (which I have acknowleged multiple times are real) of all gifted children with those of kids with moderate and severe disabilities in self-contained classrooms in order to argue that gifted kids (with and without disabilities) should be able to access small class sizes that non gifted kids can't access
2. Suggest that the purported economic value of gifted kids means school systems should invest money on them over kids with disabilities
3. Pretend you want to work together with families of kids with disabilities when you have ZERO INTENTION of actually advocating for kids with disabilities that aren't gifted

Once again, no one is saying these things. You really have reading comprehension problems.

They definitely did, and I have quoted (1) above multiple times. We can keep arguing about this all day, or you can just stop using other people's children to advocate for your own children.

And yet your quotes don't demonstrate what you're claiming they do.

Yes they do. They literally say kids with disabilities get small classes so why can't gifted kids get them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Equity does not equal "same"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It sucks.

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

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

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.

I wholeheartedly agree with you, you're laying out an obvious and rationale argument, but I think you're barking up the wrong tree with some of these posters. They just want to yell "privilege!" and fill up their coffers of self-righteousness and victimhood. They aren't actually interested in discussion or considering other perspectives.

Nobody has mentioned "privilege". It is horrible to:
1. Equate the needs (which I have acknowleged multiple times are real) of all gifted children with those of kids with moderate and severe disabilities in self-contained classrooms in order to argue that gifted kids (with and without disabilities) should be able to access small class sizes that non gifted kids can't access
2. Suggest that the purported economic value of gifted kids means school systems should invest money on them over kids with disabilities
3. Pretend you want to work together with families of kids with disabilities when you have ZERO INTENTION of actually advocating for kids with disabilities that aren't gifted

Once again, no one is saying these things. You really have reading comprehension problems.

They definitely did, and I have quoted (1) above multiple times. We can keep arguing about this all day, or you can just stop using other people's children to advocate for your own children.

And yet your quotes don't demonstrate what you're claiming they do.

Yes they do. They literally say kids with disabilities get small classes so why can't gifted kids get them.

omg the horrors

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Equity does not equal "same"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It sucks.

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

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

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.

I wholeheartedly agree with you, you're laying out an obvious and rationale argument, but I think you're barking up the wrong tree with some of these posters. They just want to yell "privilege!" and fill up their coffers of self-righteousness and victimhood. They aren't actually interested in discussion or considering other perspectives.

Nobody has mentioned "privilege". It is horrible to:
1. Equate the needs (which I have acknowleged multiple times are real) of all gifted children with those of kids with moderate and severe disabilities in self-contained classrooms in order to argue that gifted kids (with and without disabilities) should be able to access small class sizes that non gifted kids can't access
2. Suggest that the purported economic value of gifted kids means school systems should invest money on them over kids with disabilities
3. Pretend you want to work together with families of kids with disabilities when you have ZERO INTENTION of actually advocating for kids with disabilities that aren't gifted

Once again, no one is saying these things. You really have reading comprehension problems.

They definitely did, and I have quoted (1) above multiple times. We can keep arguing about this all day, or you can just stop using other people's children to advocate for your own children.

And yet your quotes don't demonstrate what you're claiming they do.

Yes they do. They literally say kids with disabilities get small classes so why can't gifted kids get them.

Are you angry because you want to have smaller classes? Or because others are suggesting students should be cohorted? You can't assume that just because you're outraged about something that others understand what you're frothing at the mouth about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Equity does not equal "same"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It sucks.

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

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

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.

I wholeheartedly agree with you, you're laying out an obvious and rationale argument, but I think you're barking up the wrong tree with some of these posters. They just want to yell "privilege!" and fill up their coffers of self-righteousness and victimhood. They aren't actually interested in discussion or considering other perspectives.

Nobody has mentioned "privilege". It is horrible to:
1. Equate the needs (which I have acknowleged multiple times are real) of all gifted children with those of kids with moderate and severe disabilities in self-contained classrooms in order to argue that gifted kids (with and without disabilities) should be able to access small class sizes that non gifted kids can't access
2. Suggest that the purported economic value of gifted kids means school systems should invest money on them over kids with disabilities
3. Pretend you want to work together with families of kids with disabilities when you have ZERO INTENTION of actually advocating for kids with disabilities that aren't gifted

Once again, no one is saying these things. You really have reading comprehension problems.

They definitely did, and I have quoted (1) above multiple times. We can keep arguing about this all day, or you can just stop using other people's children to advocate for your own children.

And yet your quotes don't demonstrate what you're claiming they do.

Yes they do. They literally say kids with disabilities get small classes so why can't gifted kids get them.

Omg, did you really spend almost 10 pages arguing about this last night and come back to argue some more? You must have too much time on your hands.

The posts you’re quoting are showing how asinine your arguments are right now. No one on this thread is arguing about taking things away from students with disabilities. No one. But you can’t comprehend that gifted students also need services and support and feel that them getting services is an affront to your kid, why? You’re the one who is making no sense in this thread….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Equity does not equal "same"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It sucks.

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

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

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.

I wholeheartedly agree with you, you're laying out an obvious and rationale argument, but I think you're barking up the wrong tree with some of these posters. They just want to yell "privilege!" and fill up their coffers of self-righteousness and victimhood. They aren't actually interested in discussion or considering other perspectives.

Nobody has mentioned "privilege". It is horrible to:
1. Equate the needs (which I have acknowleged multiple times are real) of all gifted children with those of kids with moderate and severe disabilities in self-contained classrooms in order to argue that gifted kids (with and without disabilities) should be able to access small class sizes that non gifted kids can't access
2. Suggest that the purported economic value of gifted kids means school systems should invest money on them over kids with disabilities
3. Pretend you want to work together with families of kids with disabilities when you have ZERO INTENTION of actually advocating for kids with disabilities that aren't gifted

Once again, no one is saying these things. You really have reading comprehension problems.

They definitely did, and I have quoted (1) above multiple times. We can keep arguing about this all day, or you can just stop using other people's children to advocate for your own children.

And yet your quotes don't demonstrate what you're claiming they do.

Yes they do. They literally say kids with disabilities get small classes so why can't gifted kids get them.

Omg, did you really spend almost 10 pages arguing about this last night and come back to argue some more? You must have too much time on your hands.

The posts you’re quoting are showing how asinine your arguments are right now. No one on this thread is arguing about taking things away from students with disabilities. No one. But you can’t comprehend that gifted students also need services and support and feel that them getting services is an affront to your kid, why? You’re the one who is making no sense in this thread….

You are so angry that I am literally pointing to something that an actual poster said, and seem to think that you can respond to me with these incoherent insults but I am not allowed to respond to you. Gmafb.

I have never once suggested gifted students shouldn't get any support. They currently do get support, and I don't doubt they would benefit from more support. Join the club. But this has absolutely nothing to do with non-gifted kids with disabilities in self-contained classrooms. These are fundamentally different situations and needs, something you continually refuse to acknowledge. Stop using other people's kids to advocate for your kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I wholeheartedly agree with you, you're laying out an obvious and rationale argument, but I think you're barking up the wrong tree with some of these posters. They just want to yell "privilege!" and fill up their coffers of self-righteousness and victimhood. They aren't actually interested in discussion or considering other perspectives.

Nobody has mentioned "privilege". It is horrible to:
1. Equate the needs (which I have acknowleged multiple times are real) of all gifted children with those of kids with moderate and severe disabilities in self-contained classrooms in order to argue that gifted kids (with and without disabilities) should be able to access small class sizes that non gifted kids can't access
2. Suggest that the purported economic value of gifted kids means school systems should invest money on them over kids with disabilities
3. Pretend you want to work together with families of kids with disabilities when you have ZERO INTENTION of actually advocating for kids with disabilities that aren't gifted

Once again, no one is saying these things. You really have reading comprehension problems.

They definitely did, and I have quoted (1) above multiple times. We can keep arguing about this all day, or you can just stop using other people's children to advocate for your own children.

And yet your quotes don't demonstrate what you're claiming they do.

Yes they do. They literally say kids with disabilities get small classes so why can't gifted kids get them.

Omg, did you really spend almost 10 pages arguing about this last night and come back to argue some more? You must have too much time on your hands.

The posts you’re quoting are showing how asinine your arguments are right now. No one on this thread is arguing about taking things away from students with disabilities. No one. But you can’t comprehend that gifted students also need services and support and feel that them getting services is an affront to your kid, why? You’re the one who is making no sense in this thread….

You are so angry that I am literally pointing to something that an actual poster said, and seem to think that you can respond to me with these incoherent insults but I am not allowed to respond to you. Gmafb.

I have never once suggested gifted students shouldn't get any support. They currently do get support, and I don't doubt they would benefit from more support. Join the club. But this has absolutely nothing to do with non-gifted kids with disabilities in self-contained classrooms. These are fundamentally different situations and needs, something you continually refuse to acknowledge. Stop using other people's kids to advocate for your kids.

Stop being so dense.

What’s happening in MCPS is they are systematically taking away supports for gifted kids. ELC is gone. Cohorting for 4th grade ELA is gone from most schools. Honors no longer is honors because MCPS want to make it available to all. And now they are taking away the magnets.

The poster who started all of this was arguing that folks would be up in arms if we started taking away services for students with disabilities but they are not with gifted kids because “they’ll be just fine.” The problem is, no they will it be. But you are the one who keeps making this about students with disabilities.

Are you okay with MCPS taking away supports for gifted kids? Yes or no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I wholeheartedly agree with you, you're laying out an obvious and rationale argument, but I think you're barking up the wrong tree with some of these posters. They just want to yell "privilege!" and fill up their coffers of self-righteousness and victimhood. They aren't actually interested in discussion or considering other perspectives.

Nobody has mentioned "privilege". It is horrible to:
1. Equate the needs (which I have acknowleged multiple times are real) of all gifted children with those of kids with moderate and severe disabilities in self-contained classrooms in order to argue that gifted kids (with and without disabilities) should be able to access small class sizes that non gifted kids can't access
2. Suggest that the purported economic value of gifted kids means school systems should invest money on them over kids with disabilities
3. Pretend you want to work together with families of kids with disabilities when you have ZERO INTENTION of actually advocating for kids with disabilities that aren't gifted

Once again, no one is saying these things. You really have reading comprehension problems.

They definitely did, and I have quoted (1) above multiple times. We can keep arguing about this all day, or you can just stop using other people's children to advocate for your own children.

And yet your quotes don't demonstrate what you're claiming they do.

Yes they do. They literally say kids with disabilities get small classes so why can't gifted kids get them.

Omg, did you really spend almost 10 pages arguing about this last night and come back to argue some more? You must have too much time on your hands.

The posts you’re quoting are showing how asinine your arguments are right now. No one on this thread is arguing about taking things away from students with disabilities. No one. But you can’t comprehend that gifted students also need services and support and feel that them getting services is an affront to your kid, why? You’re the one who is making no sense in this thread….

You are so angry that I am literally pointing to something that an actual poster said, and seem to think that you can respond to me with these incoherent insults but I am not allowed to respond to you. Gmafb.

I have never once suggested gifted students shouldn't get any support. They currently do get support, and I don't doubt they would benefit from more support. Join the club. But this has absolutely nothing to do with non-gifted kids with disabilities in self-contained classrooms. These are fundamentally different situations and needs, something you continually refuse to acknowledge. Stop using other people's kids to advocate for your kids.

Stop being so dense.

What’s happening in MCPS is they are systematically taking away supports for gifted kids. ELC is gone. Cohorting for 4th grade ELA is gone from most schools. Honors no longer is honors because MCPS want to make it available to all. And now they are taking away the magnets.

The poster who started all of this was arguing that folks would be up in arms if we started taking away services for students with disabilities but they are not with gifted kids because “they’ll be just fine.” The problem is, no they will it be. But you are the one who keeps making this about students with disabilities.

Are you okay with MCPS taking away supports for gifted kids? Yes or no?

You seem to be fine with MCPS taking away supports for kids with disabilities seeing as you don't know or care that they have done this as well.

You DGAF about my kid, so I DGAF about 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:

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.

I wholeheartedly agree with you, you're laying out an obvious and rationale argument, but I think you're barking up the wrong tree with some of these posters. They just want to yell "privilege!" and fill up their coffers of self-righteousness and victimhood. They aren't actually interested in discussion or considering other perspectives.

Nobody has mentioned "privilege". It is horrible to:
1. Equate the needs (which I have acknowleged multiple times are real) of all gifted children with those of kids with moderate and severe disabilities in self-contained classrooms in order to argue that gifted kids (with and without disabilities) should be able to access small class sizes that non gifted kids can't access
2. Suggest that the purported economic value of gifted kids means school systems should invest money on them over kids with disabilities
3. Pretend you want to work together with families of kids with disabilities when you have ZERO INTENTION of actually advocating for kids with disabilities that aren't gifted

Once again, no one is saying these things. You really have reading comprehension problems.

They definitely did, and I have quoted (1) above multiple times. We can keep arguing about this all day, or you can just stop using other people's children to advocate for your own children.

And yet your quotes don't demonstrate what you're claiming they do.

Yes they do. They literally say kids with disabilities get small classes so why can't gifted kids get them.

Omg, did you really spend almost 10 pages arguing about this last night and come back to argue some more? You must have too much time on your hands.

The posts you’re quoting are showing how asinine your arguments are right now. No one on this thread is arguing about taking things away from students with disabilities. No one. But you can’t comprehend that gifted students also need services and support and feel that them getting services is an affront to your kid, why? You’re the one who is making no sense in this thread….

You are so angry that I am literally pointing to something that an actual poster said, and seem to think that you can respond to me with these incoherent insults but I am not allowed to respond to you. Gmafb.

I have never once suggested gifted students shouldn't get any support. They currently do get support, and I don't doubt they would benefit from more support. Join the club. But this has absolutely nothing to do with non-gifted kids with disabilities in self-contained classrooms. These are fundamentally different situations and needs, something you continually refuse to acknowledge. Stop using other people's kids to advocate for your kids.

Stop being so dense.

What’s happening in MCPS is they are systematically taking away supports for gifted kids. ELC is gone. Cohorting for 4th grade ELA is gone from most schools. Honors no longer is honors because MCPS want to make it available to all. And now they are taking away the magnets.

The poster who started all of this was arguing that folks would be up in arms if we started taking away services for students with disabilities but they are not with gifted kids because “they’ll be just fine.” The problem is, no they will it be. But you are the one who keeps making this about students with disabilities.

Are you okay with MCPS taking away supports for gifted kids? Yes or no?

You seem to be fine with MCPS taking away supports for kids with disabilities seeing as you don't know or care that they have done this as well.

You DGAF about my kid, so I DGAF about yours.

And yet, multiple posters have said let's team up together and tell MCPS to stop taking away critical differentiation for both students with disabilities and gifted students... and you refuse to hear it. You've told us how you feel. There's no use arguing anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I wholeheartedly agree with you, you're laying out an obvious and rationale argument, but I think you're barking up the wrong tree with some of these posters. They just want to yell "privilege!" and fill up their coffers of self-righteousness and victimhood. They aren't actually interested in discussion or considering other perspectives.

Nobody has mentioned "privilege". It is horrible to:
1. Equate the needs (which I have acknowleged multiple times are real) of all gifted children with those of kids with moderate and severe disabilities in self-contained classrooms in order to argue that gifted kids (with and without disabilities) should be able to access small class sizes that non gifted kids can't access
2. Suggest that the purported economic value of gifted kids means school systems should invest money on them over kids with disabilities
3. Pretend you want to work together with families of kids with disabilities when you have ZERO INTENTION of actually advocating for kids with disabilities that aren't gifted

Once again, no one is saying these things. You really have reading comprehension problems.

They definitely did, and I have quoted (1) above multiple times. We can keep arguing about this all day, or you can just stop using other people's children to advocate for your own children.

And yet your quotes don't demonstrate what you're claiming they do.

Yes they do. They literally say kids with disabilities get small classes so why can't gifted kids get them.

Omg, did you really spend almost 10 pages arguing about this last night and come back to argue some more? You must have too much time on your hands.

The posts you’re quoting are showing how asinine your arguments are right now. No one on this thread is arguing about taking things away from students with disabilities. No one. But you can’t comprehend that gifted students also need services and support and feel that them getting services is an affront to your kid, why? You’re the one who is making no sense in this thread….

You are so angry that I am literally pointing to something that an actual poster said, and seem to think that you can respond to me with these incoherent insults but I am not allowed to respond to you. Gmafb.

I have never once suggested gifted students shouldn't get any support. They currently do get support, and I don't doubt they would benefit from more support. Join the club. But this has absolutely nothing to do with non-gifted kids with disabilities in self-contained classrooms. These are fundamentally different situations and needs, something you continually refuse to acknowledge. Stop using other people's kids to advocate for your kids.

Stop being so dense.

What’s happening in MCPS is they are systematically taking away supports for gifted kids. ELC is gone. Cohorting for 4th grade ELA is gone from most schools. Honors no longer is honors because MCPS want to make it available to all. And now they are taking away the magnets.

The poster who started all of this was arguing that folks would be up in arms if we started taking away services for students with disabilities but they are not with gifted kids because “they’ll be just fine.” The problem is, no they will it be. But you are the one who keeps making this about students with disabilities.

Are you okay with MCPS taking away supports for gifted kids? Yes or no?

You seem to be fine with MCPS taking away supports for kids with disabilities seeing as you don't know or care that they have done this as well.

You DGAF about my kid, so I DGAF about yours.

And yet, multiple posters have said let's team up together and tell MCPS to stop taking away critical differentiation for both students with disabilities and gifted students... and you refuse to hear it. You've told us how you feel. There's no use arguing anymore.

You have zero intention of advocating for non gifted kids with disabilities since you seem to think kids with disabilities are getting the resources your kid deserves.