Challenge Every Child

[Anonymous]

I wish people would not assert that higher performing students need to raise the bar for lower performing students. The higher performing kids need to be able to bump up against students who are doing better than they are as well! A case in point. when my son was in 4th grade he got in trouble in math class because he would pull out a book to read when he got bored - which was most of the time. We met with the teacher and requested that he be moved to 5th grade math. She refused, saying that my son wasn't getting 100% on his tests (though he got A's every quarter) so there were obviously concepts he wasn't getting. In actuality, he was so bored he had trouble taking the tests seriously and wasn't engaged by the work. His guess as to why the teacher wouldn't move him up was that he helped her out by coaching the slower learners. Some would call that a nice learning opportunity or public service for my son to perform, but not at the cost of his own right to be challenged. On the flip side, my younger child was placed in a GT math group in 3rd grade and could not keep up. We moved him back to grade level math and he was relieved, the teacher was relieved and I was relieved. I would add that in general, even when kids are tracked they already have the opportunity to bump against higher achievers. Take any group of 25 students who are close to the same ability level, and some will be performing at a higher level than others. I was tracked in the "brain classes" throughout middle and high school, and even within these "homogenous groupings" some of us would make fun of the smartest kids, while secretly wishing we could perform as well as they could. And of course this happens in all class groupings - the challenge opportunities are already there. My assessment is that this whole movement is about political correctness and saving money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the issues I have with the statement above is the idea kids who get identified in their home schools aren't really GT.

The HG Centers don't have enough spots to accommodate all the children who could benefit from them. And there's a difference between a highly gifted child (hence the "HG") and a kid who's GT. The definition of a child who goes to the HG center is a child whose needs can't easily be met at the home school. This doesn't mean that there aren't GT kids who should be able to be accommodated in his/her home school.

However, without identifying them (and therefore "labeling" them), MCPS can't be held accountable for meeting their needs.

I have a child with a learning disability. I don't like the idea of "labeling" her but I sure as hell want her identified so that I can make sure MCPS gives her the accommodations to which she's legally entitled. Without the label, they won't do anything. Even with the label, it's a question of being constantly vigilant.

Why shouldn't parents whose kids need acceleration not be able to use this same tool to make sure their kids' needs are met? GTA is not suggesting AT ALL that enrichment and acceleration be limited to certain kids. But there has to be away to make sure kids who need it, get it.

Agree 100% !

Labels, No labels, heterogeneous, homogeneous are all words which are confusing the main issue - which is - "Are we making sure that our children are getting the best possible opportunity within their school?"

I however disagree with the HGC being in a separate school. The home schools should be able to take care of the HG students.

And how do you propose they do that?

By having teachers capable of teaching HG students in each school. We don't need a central administration to move students around - that is a local school issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

And how do you propose they do that?

By having teachers capable of teaching HG students in each school. We don't need a central administration to move students around - that is a local school issue.

Great idea... however "HG student" is a label, and "HG students" is a homogeneous grouping, you realise that, don't you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And how do you propose they do that?

By having teachers capable of teaching HG students in each school. We don't need a central administration to move students around - that is a local school issue.

Great idea... however "HG student" is a label, and "HG students" is a homogeneous grouping, you realise that, don't you?

What is your point? I have been saying that the homeschool and parent/guardian should be the one responsible for determining the requirements for the child not some centralized body of administrators who have no clue about the child, trying to fit the child into some standard models. These are children and not produce from the supermarket.

[Anonymous]

This is such a frustrating thread to read and so typical -- lots of people making absolute pronouncements based on half-knowledge and preconceived notions. Lots of braying about not labeling children without really seeing the issues behind the discussion, and dismissal of the idea of kids who truly need extra challenge.

It reminds me of conversations I've had with people who have very specific "I would never ..." type opinions about treating children with certain learning disabilities, when in reality they haven't lived ONE DAY with a kid who has such an LD and watched the struggles and heartache that ensue.

Add to that the teachers who think the adage "all kids are gifted" is an appropriate approach to challenging kids who need more, the teachers who've said over the years that my son's "enriched reading curriculum" would be to help other kids learn to read ... the list goes on.

It's sickening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is such a frustrating thread to read and so typical -- lots of people making absolute pronouncements based on half-knowledge and preconceived notions. Lots of braying about not labeling children without really seeing the issues behind the discussion, and dismissal of the idea of kids who truly need extra challenge.

It reminds me of conversations I've had with people who have very specific "I would never ..." type opinions about treating children with certain learning disabilities, when in reality they haven't lived ONE DAY with a kid who has such an LD and watched the struggles and heartache that ensue.

Add to that the teachers who think the adage "all kids are gifted" is an appropriate approach to challenging kids who need more, the teachers who've said over the years that my son's "enriched reading curriculum" would be to help other kids learn to read ... the list goes on.

It's sickening.

Throw up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And how do you propose they do that?

By having teachers capable of teaching HG students in each school. We don't need a central administration to move students around - that is a local school issue.

Great idea... however "HG student" is a label, and "HG students" is a homogeneous grouping, you realise that, don't you?

What is your point? I have been saying that the homeschool and parent/guardian should be the one responsible for determining the requirements for the child not some centralized body of administrators who have no clue about the child, trying to fit the child into some standard models. These are children and not produce from the supermarket.

It is clear that you don't have a child in an HCG.

For starters, there is no such thing as a "teacher capable of teaching HG students" from a certification point of view. The HGC teachers are people who are interested in working with gifted kids, and who (in general) have lots of experience doing this. It is not possible to plant such teachers in all schools.

Second, part of the point of the homogeneous grouping of highly gifted kids is for them to work with each other, be inspired by each other. If they are mixed in with the general classroom population then that is not possible.

Third, I have never met a HGC parent who thinks what you propose would be a better idea. I'm delighted that my kid is doing so well in the HGC, being inspired by his peers, benefiting from his teacher's experience with kids like him.

You don't have a clue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is such a frustrating thread to read and so typical -- lots of people making absolute pronouncements based on half-knowledge and preconceived notions. Lots of braying about not labeling children without really seeing the issues behind the discussion, and dismissal of the idea of kids who truly need extra challenge.

I see this differently. Very few of the comments have challenged the idea that some kids need an extra challenge beyond the core curriculum, nor have many challenged the proposition that these kids are only likely to get an adequate challenge if they are homogeneously grouped in accelerated classes. A couple have gotten into pointless wrangling over the role of "the label", but this always happens. So all in all, this discussion makes me rather optimistic. It means that the No Labels, No Limits rhetoric has been seen for what it is: despite all their unrealistic talk about in-class differentiated instruction, NLNL is clearly an attempt to impose one-size-fits all, no matter what the cost to students. This makes it more likely that their political pressure will fail to move the Board, as long as people speak up. One way to speak up is to sign the GTA petition. It does not matter if the petition is not perfect; it is an important contribution to the discussion. At the moment this petition is an important counterbalance to the MCEF's ideologically driven effort to eliminate preparedness-based academic grouping. Do not let perfection be the enemy of the good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is such a frustrating thread to read and so typical -- lots of people making absolute pronouncements based on half-knowledge and preconceived notions. Lots of braying about not labeling children without really seeing the issues behind the discussion, and dismissal of the idea of kids who truly need extra challenge.

It reminds me of conversations I've had with people who have very specific "I would never ..." type opinions about treating children with certain learning disabilities, when in reality they haven't lived ONE DAY with a kid who has such an LD and watched the struggles and heartache that ensue.

Add to that the teachers who think the adage "all kids are gifted" is an appropriate approach to challenging kids who need more, the teachers who've said over the years that my son's "enriched reading curriculum" would be to help other kids learn to read ... the list goes on.

It's sickening.

I agree, sickening. I would only add the teacher who assigned our son as math-helper to other students, then later commented to us in connection with his HGC application, "I don't believe in giftedness."

Nice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is such a frustrating thread to read and so typical -- lots of people making absolute pronouncements based on half-knowledge and preconceived notions. Lots of braying about not labeling children without really seeing the issues behind the discussion, and dismissal of the idea of kids who truly need extra challenge.

I see this differently. Very few of the comments have challenged the idea that some kids need an extra challenge beyond the core curriculum, nor have many challenged the proposition that these kids are only likely to get an adequate challenge if they are homogeneously grouped in accelerated classes. A couple have gotten into pointless wrangling over the role of "the label", but this always happens. So all in all, this discussion makes me rather optimistic. It means that the No Labels, No Limits rhetoric has been seen for what it is: despite all their unrealistic talk about in-class differentiated instruction, NLNL is clearly an attempt to impose one-size-fits all, no matter what the cost to students. This makes it more likely that their political pressure will fail to move the Board, as long as people speak up. One way to speak up is to sign the GTA petition. It does not matter if the petition is not perfect; it is an important contribution to the discussion. At the moment this petition is an important counterbalance to the MCEF's ideologically driven effort to eliminate preparedness-based academic grouping. Do not let perfection be the enemy of the good.

I signed it. But I am not so optimistic. The MCPS is communistic in its views and so is the NLNL is socilaist. Welcome to Montgomery County!

[Anonymous]

Do the folks who want HG programs in every school also favor having teachers take pay cuts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do the folks who want HG programs in every school also favor having teachers take pay cuts?

totally different topic - teacher pay cuts are not in themselves the same as program decisions - the teacher pay market, and the teacher pension buy-in and cash-flows over a career and the ability to attract newer and retain older teachers are one element of the total infrastructure/inputs for the school system. some teachers are in it for the length of time it takes to pension-out, some would still see MCPS as the highest-paying jurisdiction etc... none of these job-seeking decisions may really be connected to in-school hgc or across-school hgc as a program decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do the folks who want HG programs in every school also favor having teachers take pay cuts?

totally different topic - teacher pay cuts are not in themselves the same as program decisions - the teacher pay market, and the teacher pension buy-in and cash-flows over a career and the ability to attract newer and retain older teachers are one element of the total infrastructure/inputs for the school system. some teachers are in it for the length of time it takes to pension-out, some would still see MCPS as the highest-paying jurisdiction etc... none of these job-seeking decisions may really be connected to in-school hgc or across-school hgc as a program decision.

I actually disagree. You can't pay bargain prices for top talent and you should want top talent in a HGC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And how do you propose they do that?

By having teachers capable of teaching HG students in each school. We don't need a central administration to move students around - that is a local school issue.

Great idea... however "HG student" is a label, and "HG students" is a homogeneous grouping, you realise that, don't you?

What is your point? I have been saying that the homeschool and parent/guardian should be the one responsible for determining the requirements for the child not some centralized body of administrators who have no clue about the child, trying to fit the child into some standard models. These are children and not produce from the supermarket.

It is clear that you don't have a child in an HCG.

For starters, there is no such thing as a "teacher capable of teaching HG students" from a certification point of view. The HGC teachers are people who are interested in working with gifted kids, and who (in general) have lots of experience doing this. It is not possible to plant such teachers in all schools.

Second, part of the point of the homogeneous grouping of highly gifted kids is for them to work with each other, be inspired by each other. If they are mixed in with the general classroom population then that is not possible.

Third, I have never met a HGC parent who thinks what you propose would be a better idea. I'm delighted that my kid is doing so well in the HGC, being inspired by his peers, benefiting from his teacher's experience with kids like him.

You don't have a clue.

I don't have a clue because you first add your own words to my comments, then make something up like "mixed in with the general classroom," as something I said it and then third, because you and few parents feel that your kids inspire each other?

We have our younger child who goes to a better school than any the county can provide with public funds and the older is now at a top five univ. I feel that having sucked taxes out of us, we feel that they are not doing a good job for the great majority.

Your comments are not appreciated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should any child go to a GT elementary if the middle school is heterogeneous?

Are you suggesting the solution is to hold back elementary school kids because the middle school is imperfect?

Wouldn't it be better to fix the middle school? I don't have middle school kids, so I don't know what is going on there, but my approach would be to fix the problem, not create another problem.

I don't think it was being suggested to hold back elementary school kids. We should make the elementary schools heterogeneous so that there is no arbitrary cutoff. Each ES should be able to handle both the entire spectrum of students. At that age they can advance from above average to High to very high within a year and should be handled accordingly if not immediately the following year. So, yes challenge every child without isolating some children in an elitist way. The benefit of having heterogeneous schools will be better equipped to challenge every child.

Heterogeneity sounds nice, but it's not very practical, particularly for the HGC kids. The problem is particularly for the HGC kids who can be many grades ahead of their peers. At our HGC there are a significant number of kids who are 3 or more years ahead in math. Many of the HGC kids are many years ahead in reading (i.e. reading at a college level). If left in their homeschools, there are so few that they are unlikely to receive services. The concept of the HGC means that the 2-4 kids in every school who are doing reading and/or math at these very high levels can be grouped together to form a class at the HGC. That way they will receive the appropriate level instruction.