Forum Index
»
Schools and Education General Discussion
No More Gifted in MoCo?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
Does anyone know what this means with regards to programming and teaching?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/15/AR2008121503114.html?hpid=artslot |
Anonymous
|
Nope, but I immediately came here to see what MoCo residents think about it.
It seems like a bad idea to me, frankly. I think kids who are clearly GT have specialized needs, just like kids who are developmentally delayed. |
Anonymous
| The article points out that Fairfax County manages to offer similar programs without labeling children as gifted. |
Anonymous
|
Board of Education Issues Statement in Response to Washington Post Story, ‘Montgomery Erasing Gifted Label’
Statement from Shirley Brandman, President of the Montgomery County Board of Education, and Patricia O’Neill, Vice President of the Board and Chair of the Policy Committee “The Washington Post published a story today entitled ‘Montgomery Erasing Gifted Label’ that creates the impression that Montgomery County Board of Education has already made the decision to stop identifying students as gifted and talented. This is incorrect. The global screening process, as required by Policy IOA, Gifted and Talented Education, will be conducted for all second graders this year as it has in past years. “It is correct that Montgomery County Public Schools is conducting a pilot program in two elementary schools—Burning Tree and Georgian Forest—that provides gifted and talented services to students without labeling students. The screening process at these schools—including assessments, staff surveys and parent surveys—is st ill conducted, but staff does not label students at the end of the process. Students in these two schools still receive the same opportunity for accelerated and enriched instruction as students in schools where the label is still used. “MCPS has been engaging parent and community stakeholders in a robust discussion about the system’s policy on gifted and talented education and will continue to do so. This discussion and parental input will be important as the Board of Education’s Policy Committee considers revisions to the policy some time during 2009. “It is true that among the options that will be considered is eliminating labeling in favor of a services-based model. In this model, students are still screened for their readiness for advanced work and parents are provided the recommendations from the screening so that they are fully informed of their children’s readiness to excel at a higher level. Students are then provided advanced work based on the results of the screening process, consultation with parents, and the ongoing assessment of students’ needs. “The Board of Education’s Policy Committee will consider this and any other changes to Policy IOA as part its work. Parents and other stakeholders will be provided ample time for comment before any action takes place by the Board of Education.” |
Anonymous
|
I think it got politically awkward to have some schools with 50% of their kids, or more, termed "gifted" and other schools only having 12% with that label.
It's politically acceptable to have some schools with 90% of kids scoring proficient on a test of academic achievement, and others with only 24%, because acadmeic achievement is not considered to be innate. But people think of "gifted" or "high IQ" as being an innate quality that should be randomly distributed, and at least as measured by the testing instuments MCPS is currently using, it clearly is NOT a randomly distributed quality. If you test kids, but don't label them, then you can set up your academic centers and they can have all sorts of criteria to enter them, and stay at them... just being labeled gifted doesn't mean in and of itself that you will be going there; and failure to be labeled gifted won't have to keep you out for that matter. |
Anonymous
| How could 2/5 of the children of any county be gifted? The bar should be raised. |
Anonymous
Same way 4/5ths of the children of basketball players are significantly taller than average. |
Anonymous
| My concern is that once the label is removed, parents will not have leverage with the schools to get any special accomodations. My DD is gifted and LD, and while we are in private now, we are thinking about public next year. It is my understanding that at least if you are armed with a "label", you have a better chance at getting your child's needs met. Plus, it already seems difficult to get an IEP, and wouldn't this make it more difficult? Or am I mixing up my labels? |
Anonymous
I disagree. Many students in that 2/5 group simply have parents who are engaged and care about their children's education (which is a good thing!) That is more about nurture than nature. |
Anonymous
When GT programs were begun in Fairfax over 20 years ago it was about NATURE not NURTURE. The iq cut-off was 140 with first grade testing. Extremely unusual children were in the program. FCPS is still more about nature than Montco on the label but the bar is so low the program does not serve it's original purpose. |
Anonymous
I'm guessing that this fact is part of the reason for the change. |
Anonymous
What is Montgomery County's IQ cut offpoint? |
Anonymous
Assume none if about 75% of students assigned to a school based on geography are classified as gifted. Perhaps that was a way to get extra funds or the standard curriculum is so low nurtured students need more. |
Anonymous
I agree that leverage is needed. Providing individualized education is extra work for teachers (and administrators). Ideally, this could continue without the labels, but I expect it won't consistently. As a former teacher, I'll tell you that teachers love to put demanding parents off with vague promises and later sneer among themselves about how that crazy Ms. Johnson thinks her child is soooo gifted she needs special accommodations. As a DCPS parent, I'll tell you I could really use the leverage the label would offer, because my child's teachers don't even have to make promises-- most don't bother, but simply tell me "DCPS doesn't have an accelerated program," or "There's so much pressure from NCLB that the principal isn't interested in enrichment." And this is at a Ward 3 school! |
Anonymous
Parents in this area imagine they're raising geniuses. Most of this "giftedness" is the fruit of privilege. I am a granddaughter of sharecroppers whose parents were the only ones in their large families to graduate from college. My mother picked cotton in Mississippi and attended a segregated school but obtained an advanced degree at a top school. Two fifths of these coddled children are not gifted; they are just lucky. |