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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Equal opportunity does not lead to equal outcomes. There is no vast amount of untapped talent. Throwing resources at low performers won't significantly lift them. If equity is the goal, the only way to get there is to handicap the very top performers. This is exactly what MCPS is doing.

Who pissed in your cornflakes?

MCPS when it decided to destroy its gifted offerings.

Such rhetoric hurts your credibility. It suggests you don't have well-justified complaints when you refuse to state them.

Gifted kids thrive when they are able to be academically challenged in a cohort of their peers. MCPS in implementing things like “honors for all” or getting rid of ELC is making it so gifted students no longer have that opportunity. Period, end stop.

Exactly, so we need to create more opportunities for the gifted kids like mine who get no support and schools don't have enough AP and other classes for them to thrive in. So, does it make sense to spend that kind of money for a few hundred kids, when many other kids have zero opportunities, not even a stem club at their school?

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

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

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

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

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

Yes. That would be a huge start.

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

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

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

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

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

+10000

Why aren't more people talking about this?

Because, for some, segregation is the goal. And everyone likes to think their kid will be one of the chosen ones.

Have schools do something about misbehaving students and then parents wouldn't be trying to flee classrooms. Teachers might stop leaving in droves too.

So only gifted children behave in class?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

We don't have an infinite amount of resources though. And why should high performers be ignored? Making the magnets all regional is ignoring the very high performers.

FWIW, I grew up lower income and went to an awful school.

+100

The state should really invest the most in the top quartile in order promote excellence and achievement to benefit our society overall.

Any honest teacher will tell you that the differences intellectual capacity are significant and important. Some kids work hard and have good personalities but are never going to be acing organic chemistry or advanced calculus. And that is OK. There are many low-skilled jobs that are essential to our society and confer value and dignity to those who perform them.

99% of successful professionals don't need organic chemistry. What even is this post?

It's the other 1% that drives the most advancement of humanity or science/technology, or possibly making U.S. not beaten down by China. But whatever....

With AI, it won't even matter

If you are fine to be slaves of AI ...
By the way, more than 50% of AI publications nowadays are from China.

Maybe you should send your kid to boarding school in China

[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:Equal opportunity does not lead to equal outcomes. There is no vast amount of untapped talent. Throwing resources at low performers won't significantly lift them. If equity is the goal, the only way to get there is to handicap the very top performers. This is exactly what MCPS is doing.

Who pissed in your cornflakes?

MCPS when it decided to destroy its gifted offerings.

Such rhetoric hurts your credibility. It suggests you don't have well-justified complaints when you refuse to state them.

Gifted kids thrive when they are able to be academically challenged in a cohort of their peers. MCPS in implementing things like “honors for all” or getting rid of ELC is making it so gifted students no longer have that opportunity. Period, end stop.

Exactly, so we need to create more opportunities for the gifted kids like mine who get no support and schools don't have enough AP and other classes for them to thrive in. So, does it make sense to spend that kind of money for a few hundred kids, when many other kids have zero opportunities, not even a stem club at their school?

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

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

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

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

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

Yes. That would be a huge start.

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

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

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

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

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

+10000

Why aren't more people talking about this?

Because, for some, segregation is the goal. And everyone likes to think their kid will be one of the chosen ones.

Have schools do something about misbehaving students and then parents wouldn't be trying to flee classrooms. Teachers might stop leaving in droves too.

There you have it.

[Anonymous]

Equity efforts in areas like MCPS will only intensify. The best you can do for your kid is avoid those that the equity is designed to support. You won’t win an argument or get more support. Avoidance is best. Private, homeschool, or move.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Equity efforts in areas like MCPS will only intensify. The best you can do for your kid is avoid those that the equity is designed to support. You won’t win an argument or get more support. Avoidance is best. Private, homeschool, or move.

There is no equity. Equity is a buzzword for show.

[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:Equal opportunity does not lead to equal outcomes. There is no vast amount of untapped talent. Throwing resources at low performers won't significantly lift them. If equity is the goal, the only way to get there is to handicap the very top performers. This is exactly what MCPS is doing.

Who pissed in your cornflakes?

MCPS when it decided to destroy its gifted offerings.

Such rhetoric hurts your credibility. It suggests you don't have well-justified complaints when you refuse to state them.

Gifted kids thrive when they are able to be academically challenged in a cohort of their peers. MCPS in implementing things like “honors for all” or getting rid of ELC is making it so gifted students no longer have that opportunity. Period, end stop.

Exactly, so we need to create more opportunities for the gifted kids like mine who get no support and schools don't have enough AP and other classes for them to thrive in. So, does it make sense to spend that kind of money for a few hundred kids, when many other kids have zero opportunities, not even a stem club at their school?

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

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

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

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

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

Yes. That would be a huge start.

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

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

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

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

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

+10000

Why aren't more people talking about this?

Because, for some, segregation is the goal. And everyone likes to think their kid will be one of the chosen ones.

Have schools do something about misbehaving students and then parents wouldn't be trying to flee classrooms. Teachers might stop leaving in droves too.

We are at two different schools and how they are run is night and day. One principal lets the kids run the show and just complains, another is very clearly in charge, enforces the rules, etc. Teachers also need to enforce the rules and there needs to be consistency between classrooms and schools.

[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:Equal opportunity does not lead to equal outcomes. There is no vast amount of untapped talent. Throwing resources at low performers won't significantly lift them. If equity is the goal, the only way to get there is to handicap the very top performers. This is exactly what MCPS is doing.

Who pissed in your cornflakes?

MCPS when it decided to destroy its gifted offerings.

Such rhetoric hurts your credibility. It suggests you don't have well-justified complaints when you refuse to state them.

Gifted kids thrive when they are able to be academically challenged in a cohort of their peers. MCPS in implementing things like “honors for all” or getting rid of ELC is making it so gifted students no longer have that opportunity. Period, end stop.

Exactly, so we need to create more opportunities for the gifted kids like mine who get no support and schools don't have enough AP and other classes for them to thrive in. So, does it make sense to spend that kind of money for a few hundred kids, when many other kids have zero opportunities, not even a stem club at their school?

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

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

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

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

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

Yes. That would be a huge start.

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

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

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

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

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

+10000

Why aren't more people talking about this?

Because, for some, segregation is the goal. And everyone likes to think their kid will be one of the chosen ones.

Have schools do something about misbehaving students and then parents wouldn't be trying to flee classrooms. Teachers might stop leaving in droves too.

So only gifted children behave in class?

Yeah there's the deep dark secret of education which is that being gifted doesn't really make you better behaved.

[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:Equal opportunity does not lead to equal outcomes. There is no vast amount of untapped talent. Throwing resources at low performers won't significantly lift them. If equity is the goal, the only way to get there is to handicap the very top performers. This is exactly what MCPS is doing.

Who pissed in your cornflakes?

MCPS when it decided to destroy its gifted offerings.

Such rhetoric hurts your credibility. It suggests you don't have well-justified complaints when you refuse to state them.

Gifted kids thrive when they are able to be academically challenged in a cohort of their peers. MCPS in implementing things like “honors for all” or getting rid of ELC is making it so gifted students no longer have that opportunity. Period, end stop.

Exactly, so we need to create more opportunities for the gifted kids like mine who get no support and schools don't have enough AP and other classes for them to thrive in. So, does it make sense to spend that kind of money for a few hundred kids, when many other kids have zero opportunities, not even a stem club at their school?

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

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

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

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

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

Yes. That would be a huge start.

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

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

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

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

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

+10000

Why aren't more people talking about this?

Because, for some, segregation is the goal. And everyone likes to think their kid will be one of the chosen ones.

Have schools do something about misbehaving students and then parents wouldn't be trying to flee classrooms. Teachers might stop leaving in droves too.

You know you're saying the quiet part out loud, right?

[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:Equal opportunity does not lead to equal outcomes. There is no vast amount of untapped talent. Throwing resources at low performers won't significantly lift them. If equity is the goal, the only way to get there is to handicap the very top performers. This is exactly what MCPS is doing.

Who pissed in your cornflakes?

MCPS when it decided to destroy its gifted offerings.

Such rhetoric hurts your credibility. It suggests you don't have well-justified complaints when you refuse to state them.

Gifted kids thrive when they are able to be academically challenged in a cohort of their peers. MCPS in implementing things like “honors for all” or getting rid of ELC is making it so gifted students no longer have that opportunity. Period, end stop.

Exactly, so we need to create more opportunities for the gifted kids like mine who get no support and schools don't have enough AP and other classes for them to thrive in. So, does it make sense to spend that kind of money for a few hundred kids, when many other kids have zero opportunities, not even a stem club at their school?

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

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

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

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

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

Yes. That would be a huge start.

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

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

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

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

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

+10000

Why aren't more people talking about this?

Because, for some, segregation is the goal. And everyone likes to think their kid will be one of the chosen ones.

Have schools do something about misbehaving students and then parents wouldn't be trying to flee classrooms. Teachers might stop leaving in droves too.

So only gifted children behave in class?

Yeah there's the deep dark secret of education which is that being gifted doesn't really make you better behaved.

And bored kids are more likely to misbehave… so perhaps we should support them to not be so bored?

[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:Equal opportunity does not lead to equal outcomes. There is no vast amount of untapped talent. Throwing resources at low performers won't significantly lift them. If equity is the goal, the only way to get there is to handicap the very top performers. This is exactly what MCPS is doing.

Who pissed in your cornflakes?

MCPS when it decided to destroy its gifted offerings.

Such rhetoric hurts your credibility. It suggests you don't have well-justified complaints when you refuse to state them.

Gifted kids thrive when they are able to be academically challenged in a cohort of their peers. MCPS in implementing things like “honors for all” or getting rid of ELC is making it so gifted students no longer have that opportunity. Period, end stop.

Exactly, so we need to create more opportunities for the gifted kids like mine who get no support and schools don't have enough AP and other classes for them to thrive in. So, does it make sense to spend that kind of money for a few hundred kids, when many other kids have zero opportunities, not even a stem club at their school?

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

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

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

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

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

Yes. That would be a huge start.

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

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

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

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

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

+10000

Why aren't more people talking about this?

Because, for some, segregation is the goal. And everyone likes to think their kid will be one of the chosen ones.

Have schools do something about misbehaving students and then parents wouldn't be trying to flee classrooms. Teachers might stop leaving in droves too.

So only gifted children behave in class?

Yeah there's the deep dark secret of education which is that being gifted doesn't really make you better behaved.

And bored kids are more likely to misbehave… so perhaps we should support them to not be so bored?

We should try to make school engaging for students, but kids are always going to get bored at times. That's a challenge that we all have to deal with. Hopefully parents help their kids learn and practice coping mechanisms, recognizing that they won't always be entertained.

[Anonymous]

It's easier to get good kids not to do their work and have no respect for themselves than to get lazy kids to start working and have respect for themselves. It is however difficult to find teachers after the system burns them out, pushes them out, and blames all the problems on them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's easier to get good kids not to do their work and have no respect for themselves than to get lazy kids to start working and have respect for themselves. It is however difficult to find teachers after the system burns them out, pushes them out, and blames all the problems on them.

When are you going to get over being fired?

[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:Equal opportunity does not lead to equal outcomes. There is no vast amount of untapped talent. Throwing resources at low performers won't significantly lift them. If equity is the goal, the only way to get there is to handicap the very top performers. This is exactly what MCPS is doing.

Who pissed in your cornflakes?

MCPS when it decided to destroy its gifted offerings.

Such rhetoric hurts your credibility. It suggests you don't have well-justified complaints when you refuse to state them.

Gifted kids thrive when they are able to be academically challenged in a cohort of their peers. MCPS in implementing things like “honors for all” or getting rid of ELC is making it so gifted students no longer have that opportunity. Period, end stop.

Exactly, so we need to create more opportunities for the gifted kids like mine who get no support and schools don't have enough AP and other classes for them to thrive in. So, does it make sense to spend that kind of money for a few hundred kids, when many other kids have zero opportunities, not even a stem club at their school?

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

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

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

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

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

Yes. That would be a huge start.

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

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

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

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

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

+10000

Why aren't more people talking about this?

Because, for some, segregation is the goal. And everyone likes to think their kid will be one of the chosen ones.

Have schools do something about misbehaving students and then parents wouldn't be trying to flee classrooms. Teachers might stop leaving in droves too.

So only gifted children behave in class?

Yeah there's the deep dark secret of education which is that being gifted doesn't really make you better behaved.

And bored kids are more likely to misbehave… so perhaps we should support them to not be so bored?

We should try to make school engaging for students, but kids are always going to get bored at times. That's a challenge that we all have to deal with. Hopefully parents help their kids learn and practice coping mechanisms, recognizing that they won't always be entertained.

+1 from a NP

Learning how to occupy yourself is a crucial life skill. Raw intellectual horsepower isn’t going to go far with no ability to direct it. We make a point of not giving our kids easy entertainment too often. They need to learn how to handle being bored without falling apart or acting out.

[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:Equal opportunity does not lead to equal outcomes. There is no vast amount of untapped talent. Throwing resources at low performers won't significantly lift them. If equity is the goal, the only way to get there is to handicap the very top performers. This is exactly what MCPS is doing.

Who pissed in your cornflakes?

MCPS when it decided to destroy its gifted offerings.

Such rhetoric hurts your credibility. It suggests you don't have well-justified complaints when you refuse to state them.

Gifted kids thrive when they are able to be academically challenged in a cohort of their peers. MCPS in implementing things like “honors for all” or getting rid of ELC is making it so gifted students no longer have that opportunity. Period, end stop.

Exactly, so we need to create more opportunities for the gifted kids like mine who get no support and schools don't have enough AP and other classes for them to thrive in. So, does it make sense to spend that kind of money for a few hundred kids, when many other kids have zero opportunities, not even a stem club at their school?

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

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

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

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

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

Yes. That would be a huge start.

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

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

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

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

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

+10000

Why aren't more people talking about this?

Because, for some, segregation is the goal. And everyone likes to think their kid will be one of the chosen ones.

Have schools do something about misbehaving students and then parents wouldn't be trying to flee classrooms. Teachers might stop leaving in droves too.

So only gifted children behave in class?

I wish all gifted kids would behave in class. I had to make phone calls on Thursday and Friday.

[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:Equal opportunity does not lead to equal outcomes. There is no vast amount of untapped talent. Throwing resources at low performers won't significantly lift them. If equity is the goal, the only way to get there is to handicap the very top performers. This is exactly what MCPS is doing.

Who pissed in your cornflakes?

MCPS when it decided to destroy its gifted offerings.

Such rhetoric hurts your credibility. It suggests you don't have well-justified complaints when you refuse to state them.

Gifted kids thrive when they are able to be academically challenged in a cohort of their peers. MCPS in implementing things like “honors for all” or getting rid of ELC is making it so gifted students no longer have that opportunity. Period, end stop.

Exactly, so we need to create more opportunities for the gifted kids like mine who get no support and schools don't have enough AP and other classes for them to thrive in. So, does it make sense to spend that kind of money for a few hundred kids, when many other kids have zero opportunities, not even a stem club at their school?

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

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

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

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

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

Yes. That would be a huge start.

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

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

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

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

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

+10000

Why aren't more people talking about this?

Because, for some, segregation is the goal. And everyone likes to think their kid will be one of the chosen ones.

Some of us know that our kids wouldn’t be chosen if DCUM was the one admitting. They’d exclude the Black and Brown kids on general principle as well as any child with a disability.

Even a colleague at my school was incensed that my child made the cut and his son did not despite knowing that my kid had done engineering from 3rd grade onward and won an award for coding an app. He felt certain that my kid took his kid’s spot because he couldn’t conceive that a child of color could be gifted.