Changes to gifted center admissions

[Anonymous]

The OP's PTA GT rep did not deliver the correct message. They are piloting a program this year in which teachers will recommend 3rd Graders to take the GT test. This is to overcome the barrier to entry for those parents who don't get the message about the program. All students in 3rd Grade these pilot program schools will then get a notice about their child's status with respect to the recommendation. Then parents can override the decision in either direction by opting their kid into or out of testing.

With respect to the person who said, "Just test everyone, already" the particular test they administer is designed to differentiate among high performers, and it would indeed be a frustrating experience for students who were really not suited to take that test. Could they change the testing instrument, I suppose so, but then they really would have to rejigger the entire admission process based on a different test.

I applaud MCPS for trying small incremental shifts like this one to overcome obvious barriers to entry for under represented populations. This is not instituting a quota system.

[Anonymous]

the procedure is not the issue. The goal is. If what is proposed now doesn't solve the "inequality" in GT, does that mean the procedure will be changed again until the goal is achieved?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As the parent of a third grader in one of the "field study" schools that is trying the new selection process, my understanding is that both parent applications and school selections will be used to identify children who will then be tested for admission. All parents will be notified in January about if the school thinks your kid should be further "screened" (tested) or not; at that point, parents can either decline (if their kids were selected) or ask to be screened (if the kids weren't originally selected). I don't know if this will be the case in future years, but it's the model this year for the field test.

Is this where there is a whole class from just one school? That is completely different because there are so many spots available. The "acceptance rate" will be much higher than at the centers. I hope they compare the test scores between acceptances at the two pilot schools and the centers so parents can be aware of any differences.

Nope, I'm at one of the other schools feeding into a regular hgc that is using this new process. I agree, though -- I'm really interested to see the difference in the schools that have their own whole class.

[Anonymous]

If this is true (our PTA meeting was cancelled yesterday so I didn't get any update), I whole-heartedly disagree with it for the following reasons:

1. Many teachers are not that great at identifying gifted children, and the current application already places what I believe to be disproportionate weight on the teacher recommendation checklist. I know, because my child is gifted per his IQ, reading level and interests, he is in a middle school gifted program, and he was never recognized as gifted in elementary school. He had a very difficult few years in elementary school due to lack of encouragement and challenge.

2. I am horrified that a center for GIFTED students should select for criteria other than intellectual ability. I couldn't care less that some groups are over or under represented or whether the genders are balanced. This is not what it's about. "Closing the gap" in public schools is controversial and problematic enough, but extending that to special programs catering to children who cannot be adequately taught in general education classrooms is patently unfair to the population they are supposedly attempting to serve.

I'm disgusted.

[Anonymous]

If the HGC student body reflects the county demographics, I'm not sending my kids the the so called "HGC" even if they are qualified. Call me whatever you want. My kids will be fine staying at their home schools. And there is always the option of private schools.

[Anonymous]

NP here.

I wonder if anyone on here knows how the final decision on acceptance is being made. Last year, 3 kids I know from DC's school applied to HGC, one got in, one was put on the waiting list and never received the offer, the third one was denied. Obviously, I don't know their test scores, or their regular grades, but the one that did get accepted does fit a description one of the PPs provided - a quiet, studious girl, while the rejects were rowdy boys. If anything, I thought one of the boys would definitely get in, but it wasn't the case.

Say, if all three kids score similarly well on the test, and their reports cards are comparable (Ps and ESs), how does the county decide on admission?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd rather an objective test was used to measure one's qualifications consistently than teachers opinions since their views vary and are often subjective.

consistent criteria > subjective criteria applied inconsistently

+1 how can anyone argue with this?

The problem is that standardized tests become less useful to predict which kids need a different kind of education when some of the the kids have been prepped to the teeth before the testing day. So teacher observations of how the student acts in class on a daily basis become an important part of the application process because they help to give a fuller picture of the student. Tests that take place on one or a few days plus reports of daily classroom behavior over time tell us more about a child's learning needs than only one or the other.

Quite honestly being "prepped to the teeth" is only going to help kids the who were almost there to begin with; it's not going to drastically alter scores. I also don't believe that the vast majority of kids are prepped.

I don't believe it to be the majority of kids that are prepped either. I believe it to be some of the kids, and for those kids the test is not a reliable reflection of their abilities. In Virginia, they've had problems with over prepped kids getting into TJ and then not being able to keep up with the math.

Using a combination of test scores and teacher observations is a good way to get a fuller picture of the kids and insight into their needs. In Virginia, they get input from the K, 1st, and 2nd grade teachers and the school counselors, so one teacher doesn't have an overwhelming effect on the child's application.

[Anonymous]

Whites are not over-represented in current HGC. Asians are. I think the main reason that MCPS started from the magnet programs to address the achievement-gap issue is largely because Asian parents are not as resourceful as the whites. They will have less power to fight back than their white peers. I guess MCPS's goal is to replace some Asian students in HGCs with Black and Latino students assuming parents of white students won't mind because they are not affected much, but I doubt the white parents will be as interested in HGC as before if it happens. Let's wait and see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why can't MCPS not be sued over this? We should have a demonstration against this stupidity.

because MCPS doesn't use racial quota directly. Indirectly is not only allowed but encouraged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP here.

I wonder if anyone on here knows how the final decision on acceptance is being made. Last year, 3 kids I know from DC's school applied to HGC, one got in, one was put on the waiting list and never received the offer, the third one was denied. Obviously, I don't know their test scores, or their regular grades, but the one that did get accepted does fit a description one of the PPs provided - a quiet, studious girl, while the rejects were rowdy boys. If anything, I thought one of the boys would definitely get in, but it wasn't the case.

Say, if all three kids score similarly well on the test, and their reports cards are comparable (Ps and ESs), how does the county decide on admission?

When my DC went to HGC, all five kids who were accepted were boys, and not all the "quiet" ones. Some years, it's boy heavy; others, it's girl heavy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can't MCPS not be sued over this? We should have a demonstration against this stupidity.

because MCPS doesn't use racial quota directly. Indirectly is not only allowed but encouraged.

I'm genuinely curious how that would work? Every possible way I look at this it seems illegal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can't MCPS not be sued over this? We should have a demonstration against this stupidity.

because MCPS doesn't use racial quota directly. Indirectly is not only allowed but encouraged.

I'm genuinely curious how that would work? Every possible way I look at this it seems illegal.

....that's because it is, and all you have is PP's word that this is what is happening. Unless PP is an MCPS administrator, they have no grounds for this kind of accusation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't seem like any of the PPs really know what is going on. Clarity would be nice.

I have a highly gifted second grader who has very mixed experiences with teachers. His K teacher and 2 teacher really liked him, and "got" his giftedness. His 1st grade teacher thought he unmotivated -- I doubt she'd recommend him for the program. Unfortunately, there can be kind of a negative feedback loop for some gifted kids with teachers not experienced with giftedness -- the kid is bored so opts out of the work; the teacher is irritated; the student is less motivated to do any classwork; the teacher is more irritated; etc. etc. I was ready to give up on public school for my child, and then this year he has a teacher with a master's in gifted ed and it's like the clouds have parted and the sun shines through.

Agreed. Good teacher recommendations will flow towards compliant, sitting girls. I have one. I have other children who would not get necessarily get recommendations but are in the math/magnet programs. Those that need the program most are most likely to be mislabeled. They are seen as quirky and different.

Interestingly, the two that can struggle to get recommendations were adored by the teacher who has a PhD in math education from Wisconsin. We only have one in the county and I don't think she has more than 30 students at a time.

I can't be more emphatic that relying on teacher recommendations is a terrible idea. They are not consistent across schools and, while there are wonderful teachers, there are others who are petulant bullies. I would hate for someone's access to a gifted program to be reliant upon the randomness of being assigned a good teacher.

Just make the test publicly available so that everyone can take practice tests. This isn't that complicated. Do outreach to certain schools or groups with after-school help on the practice tests. Take away the competitive advantage that well-off parents have in purchasing practice tests through a tutor for $1,500.

Oh - unless the MCPS teachers make extra money on the side tutoring for those tests....that might be why they refuse to make them public.

WTF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The OP's PTA GT rep did not deliver the correct message. They are piloting a program this year in which teachers will recommend 3rd Graders to take the GT test. This is to overcome the barrier to entry for those parents who don't get the message about the program. All students in 3rd Grade these pilot program schools will then get a notice about their child's status with respect to the recommendation. Then parents can override the decision in either direction by opting their kid into or out of testing.

With respect to the person who said, "Just test everyone, already" the particular test they administer is designed to differentiate among high performers, and it would indeed be a frustrating experience for students who were really not suited to take that test. Could they change the testing instrument, I suppose so, but then they really would have to rejigger the entire admission process based on a different test.

I applaud MCPS for trying small incremental shifts like this one to overcome obvious barriers to entry for under represented populations. This is not instituting a quota system.

I am a non-classroom teacher and end up being called upon every year to proctor the test. Every year there are kids in full-blown tears because their parent insisted they take the test but it's an extremely frustrating experience for them. I feel so badly for them because they know it means a lot to their parent but they're just not at that level. Students have enough standardized testing as it is--adding this as a required test would be a terrible idea. On the other hand, I've had students whose parents don't understand the information sent home explaining how to apply. These students could have been strong candidates for the HGC but even though the teachers advocated for them it didn't matter since the parents were the ones who needed to apply. I think that aspect of the changes to the admissions process will be positive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd rather an objective test was used to measure one's qualifications consistently than teachers opinions since their views vary and are often subjective.

consistent criteria > subjective criteria applied inconsistently

The problem is that standardized tests become less useful to predict which kids need a different kind of education when some of the the kids have been prepped to the teeth before the testing day. So teacher observations of how the student acts in class on a daily basis become an important part of the application process because they help to give a fuller picture of the student. Tests that take place on one or a few days plus reports of daily classroom behavior tell us more about a child's learning needs than only one or the other.

Exactly the problem. One of the most brilliant boys from our elementary who is now at an HGC has severe ADHD, made worse by the standard curriculum at his elementary. There are many 2e kids who would thrive in an HGC but most teachers are unfamiliar with 2e characteristics, despite the excellent materials on the MCPS website and the efforts of the leaders (past and present) of the program.