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.

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.

Must have been DEI

[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.

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.

Must have been DEI

Test scores provide a reliable baseline for standards of achievement.

[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.

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.

Must have been DEI

Test scores provide a reliable baseline for standards of achievement.

Unless you're a minority.

[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.

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.

Must have been DEI

Test scores provide a reliable baseline for standards of achievement.

Unless you're a minority.

Minorities are unable to take standardized tests?

[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.

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.

Must have been DEI

Test scores provide a reliable baseline for standards of achievement.

Unless you're a minority.

Minorities are unable to take standardized tests?

Are you saying you're ignorant of the research on this topic?

[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.

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.

The reality is these schools are segregated based on where people live but busing isn't going to make it better. The kids don't have the same opportunities at the "lesser" schools so they aren't winning awards as they don't have access to the classes and get the support they need to win awards with outside competitions as the schools, like ours have zero stem clubs.

[Anonymous]

Once your student is in HS, they have full access to an array of advanced coursework (AP and DE). Nobody is dragging your gifted kid down.

[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:

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.

Must have been DEI

Test scores provide a reliable baseline for standards of achievement.

Unless you're a minority.

Minorities are unable to take standardized tests?

Are you saying you're ignorant of the research on this topic?

Are you saying that minorities are unable to compete on standardized tests?

You’re the one who brought up DEI.

[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:

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.

Must have been DEI

Test scores provide a reliable baseline for standards of achievement.

Unless you're a minority.

Minorities are unable to take standardized tests?

Are you saying you're ignorant of the research on this topic?

Are you saying that minorities are unable to compete on standardized tests?

You’re the one who brought up DEI.

Yes, they're often at a significant disadvantage relative to their current skills and future performance.

[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:

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.

Must have been DEI

Test scores provide a reliable baseline for standards of achievement.

Unless you're a minority.

Minorities are unable to take standardized tests?

Are you saying you're ignorant of the research on this topic?

Are you saying that minorities are unable to compete on standardized tests?

You’re the one who brought up DEI.

Yes, they're often at a significant disadvantage relative to their current skills and future performance.

Statistically minorities may be at a disadvantage. However any specific child doesn’t need to be. Any mom on DCUM should have no problem making their way to test innovators.

[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:

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.

Must have been DEI

Test scores provide a reliable baseline for standards of achievement.

Unless you're a minority.

Minorities are unable to take standardized tests?

Are you saying you're ignorant of the research on this topic?

Are you saying that minorities are unable to compete on standardized tests?

You’re the one who brought up DEI.

Yes, they're often at a significant disadvantage relative to their current skills and future performance.

Actually they’ve shown that standardized tests generally predict performance irrespective of income and race. In other words, a kid scoring 1200 on the SAT will perform about the same in college whether it’s a rich white kind or a poor black kid.

[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:

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.

Must have been DEI

Test scores provide a reliable baseline for standards of achievement.

Unless you're a minority.

Minorities are unable to take standardized tests?

Are you saying you're ignorant of the research on this topic?

Are you saying that minorities are unable to compete on standardized tests?

You’re the one who brought up DEI.

Yes, they're often at a significant disadvantage relative to their current skills and future performance.

Actually they’ve shown that standardized tests generally predict performance irrespective of income and race. In other words, a kid scoring 1200 on the SAT will perform about the same in college whether it’s a rich white kind or a poor black kid.

Except it is most likely that the poor black kid got 1200 without any tutoring while the rich white kid only got there because of $$$ spent on tutoring. Scoring the same on the SAT is then not an equitable assessment of skill or future promise.

[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:

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.

Must have been DEI

Test scores provide a reliable baseline for standards of achievement.

Unless you're a minority.

Minorities are unable to take standardized tests?

Are you saying you're ignorant of the research on this topic?

Are you saying that minorities are unable to compete on standardized tests?

You’re the one who brought up DEI.

Yes, they're often at a significant disadvantage relative to their current skills and future performance.

Actually they’ve shown that standardized tests generally predict performance irrespective of income and race. In other words, a kid scoring 1200 on the SAT will perform about the same in college whether it’s a rich white kind or a poor black kid.

Except it is most likely that the poor black kid got 1200 without any tutoring while the rich white kid only got there because of $$$ spent on tutoring. Scoring the same on the SAT is then not an equitable assessment of skill or future promise.

And the Asian kid who got 1590 without spending $$$s on tutoring is wondering, "And I guess I am not considered gifted and deserving of that college or magnet admission because everyone who looks like me gets this score"

[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:

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.

Must have been DEI

Test scores provide a reliable baseline for standards of achievement.

Unless you're a minority.

Minorities are unable to take standardized tests?

Are you saying you're ignorant of the research on this topic?

Are you saying that minorities are unable to compete on standardized tests?

You’re the one who brought up DEI.

Yes, they're often at a significant disadvantage relative to their current skills and future performance.

Actually they’ve shown that standardized tests generally predict performance irrespective of income and race. In other words, a kid scoring 1200 on the SAT will perform about the same in college whether it’s a rich white kind or a poor black kid.

Except it is most likely that the poor black kid got 1200 without any tutoring while the rich white kid only got there because of $$$ spent on tutoring. Scoring the same on the SAT is then not an equitable assessment of skill or future promise.

The top scorers on these tests are mostly non-white Asians, many of whom are poor and/or first gen. Saying that black people cannot perform well on standardized tests is an extremely racist and bigoted belief.

[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:

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.

Must have been DEI

Test scores provide a reliable baseline for standards of achievement.

Unless you're a minority.

Minorities are unable to take standardized tests?

Are you saying you're ignorant of the research on this topic?

Are you saying that minorities are unable to compete on standardized tests?

You’re the one who brought up DEI.

Yes, they're often at a significant disadvantage relative to their current skills and future performance.

Actually they’ve shown that standardized tests generally predict performance irrespective of income and race. In other words, a kid scoring 1200 on the SAT will perform about the same in college whether it’s a rich white kind or a poor black kid.

Except it is most likely that the poor black kid got 1200 without any tutoring while the rich white kid only got there because of $$$ spent on tutoring. Scoring the same on the SAT is then not an equitable assessment of skill or future promise.

And the Asian kid who got 1590 without spending $$$s on tutoring is wondering, "And I guess I am not considered gifted and deserving of that college or magnet admission because everyone who looks like me gets this score"

And he'll probably end up living in a van down by the river...