No More Gifted in MoCo?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:my mom would never tell us our IQs

Neither would mine, and I won't with my kids either. But I still went to G&T programs and they didn't make me intellectually lazy--those were the places I actually had to work hard!

10:53 here. I agree with your point about G&T programs forcing kids to work hard, and that's a good thing (maybe my limited perspective comes from the fact that G&T wasn't offered in my small PA school). But there's still the social aspect of the tagging kids as gifted or not that worries me a bit.

[Anonymous]

I attended a Fairfax County GT program from fourth grade on and am so glad that, at least back then, the qualification for entering the program was almost exclusively IQ testing. I had good grades before entering the program, so it likely would not have mattered for me, but many of the kids in the GT program with me were very smart kids who had not been doing well in the regular school program. I remember going to another program with 2 of these kids that had an IQ cut-off of 160, so, even with any testing errors, these kids were plenty smart. For them, though, entrance into the GT program wasn't some kid of reward for having gotten good grades. Rather, it was the first classroom opportunity they had in which they truly thrived. I am all in favor of letting everyone who meets academic requirements take advanced course. At least in the elementary and middle school years, though, I'm in favor of programs for those who are intellectually gifted even if their grades aren't so good. Actually, I really don't see GT and advanced classes as being the same thing at all, though who knows how much things have changed since the 80s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:my mom would never tell us our IQs

Neither would mine, and I won't with my kids either. But I still went to G&T programs and they didn't make me intellectually lazy--those were the places I actually had to work hard!

10:53 here. I agree with your point about G&T programs forcing kids to work hard, and that's a good thing (maybe my limited perspective comes from the fact that G&T wasn't offered in my small PA school). But there's still the social aspect of the tagging kids as gifted or not that worries me a bit.

11:20 here. For me, gifted programs in school and in summers were also crucial to my social development. As a teen I spent a summer in a talent identification summer camp, and it was an amazing experience to be surrounded by other bright, motivated kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just to play the devil's advocate here:

(1) Kids learn good socialization skills from being in the local public. Some recent studies have shown that social skills are as important as anything else in future success.

I'm not aware of any research showing that highly gifted children learn good socilization skills from being in their local public school, non-gifted program. Do you know of any?

[Anonymous]

Not quite what I said. I said that research shows that social skills are important to success.

If that's the case, then it would make sense that public school, with a huge diversity of kids, would be good on this front.

[Anonymous]

I think it's great for kids (and adults) to have relationships with a wide range of people, and I make choices about some of my kids' activities, and about where we live, partially on this basis. But I've been thinking of cultural, ethnic, personality, gender and religious diversity. It has never occurred to me to attempt to ensure that my kids have friends that are diverse in terms of their intelligence or in terms of their interest in school. Given the number of factors I really do care about regarding where my kids go to school, I just can't imagine that giving my kids greater exposure to kids who are either less (or more) bright or who are less (or more) interested in school would make the list. Actually, I think that kids are often put in situations that adults would not need to tolerate in that some kids who are disinterested in school can make the environment pretty bad for kids who are more academically oriented, both by fostering an environment where nerdy is not cool, and by having the teachers take a lot of time explaining or reviewing the basics again, and again, and again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it's great for kids (and adults) to have relationships with a wide range of people, and I make choices about some of my kids' activities, and about where we live, partially on this basis. But I've been thinking of cultural, ethnic, personality, gender and religious diversity. It has never occurred to me to attempt to ensure that my kids have friends that are diverse in terms of their intelligence or in terms of their interest in school. Given the number of factors I really do care about regarding where my kids go to school, I just can't imagine that giving my kids greater exposure to kids who are either less (or more) bright or who are less (or more) interested in school would make the list. Actually, I think that kids are often put in situations that adults would not need to tolerate in that some kids who are disinterested in school can make the environment pretty bad for kids who are more academically oriented, both by fostering an environment where nerdy is not cool, and by having the teachers take a lot of time explaining or reviewing the basics again, and again, and again.

We need to return to the governess system. Smart kids must be separated from the hoi polloi.

[Anonymous]

I'm the PP two above. Perhaps I didn't phrase my thinking well. Adults get irritated when other people don't bother to prepare for meetings or waste their colleagues' time, and sometimes when they have to complete work projects with a colleague who just doesn't get it. Why is it wrong to think that some kids may feele the same way in the school setting? And making people feel geekish or nerdy as a result of their being smart or hard-working really goes out of fashion after high school, so not many adults I know have to deal with the issues that so many people seem to have faced when they were younger.

I certainly do not think that people need to be separated based on intelligence in classes, but simply noted that I wouldn't go out of my way to factor academic interest or intelligence diversity in my calculus in looking at schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm the PP two above. Perhaps I didn't phrase my thinking well. Adults get irritated when other people don't bother to prepare for meetings or waste their colleagues' time, and sometimes when they have to complete work projects with a colleague who just doesn't get it. Why is it wrong to think that some kids may feele the same way in the school setting? And making people feel geekish or nerdy as a result of their being smart or hard-working really goes out of fashion after high school, so not many adults I know have to deal with the issues that so many people seem to have faced when they were younger.

I certainly do not think that people need to be separated based on intelligence in classes, but simply noted that I wouldn't go out of my way to factor academic interest or intelligence diversity in my calculus in looking at schools.

Looking at schools means searching privates. Privates other than those for specific subsets of students with disabilities [Lab School-LD's non MR, lower functionning autism, ED] usually have a standard floor of intellectual ability far beyond the floor of regular education in public schools. That is one reason many seek privates when they could send children to highly rated publics. Without any high level district "mandates" on ability grouping in public classrooms there can be far less focus on academics as compared to private school. And it's not socoeconomic since we have been there done that. Public school diversity in intelligence is not a 110 iq in class with a 140 iq. It's a range of about 70 to 140 plus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had a somewhat jaundiced view of the MoCo G&T programs because I saw parents scheming and gaming them. Appealing to the head of school can get your kid into a gifted program. Emphasizing that 1/8 part of diversity will do it. Heck, I know a family that appealed a G&T screening test all the way to Rockville (MoCo HQ), with the result that the kid took the G&T test twice within just a few months, something which is discouraged by the testers because, natch, the kid did way better the second time.... To me, a lot of it was gamed anyway, so not very meaningful to begin with.

Is it necessary to prove 1/8th race in MoCo? Colleges require no such proof. If a MoCo parent registers their child as Hispanic, or American Indian, is it questioned? How might a parent "prove" their child's race? It would seem to be a big advantage for any child to registered as one of the preferred minorities, or whatever the PC term is. It helps with getting GT services and helps with college apps too. I have to wonder why more MoCo parents don't take advantage of the race thing.

This doesn't mean you should enter "1/8 of a certain race" on the form for magnet schools (now that G&T is going away). Just that there are boxes to check for what race you are. If you can truthfully check something besides white/non-hispanic, you should definitely do so.

They don't ask income, so it's not about economic diversity. Which might be more meaningful. But at the open houses for magnets, they are quite explicit about having both racial and geographic diversity.

To MCPS, geographic diversity means that not all the kids in the magnet come from, say, Potomac. Also, apparently they like to leave a good mix of kids in the home schools, and in candid moments they will mention this at some of the magnet open houses. This was the subject of a lawsuit 10-15 years ago, when applicants to a language immersion program were told their half asian-half white kid was a good candidate for the immersion program, but MCPS just didn't want to remove too many Asians from the home school (TPES). MCPS lost the lawsuit and a result the immersion programs are now by lottery.

Sorry, 10:38 PP, your first paragraph and the story about the lawsuit in your last paragraph contradict. MCPS has been sued in the past by parents whose children were rejected from magnets on the basis of race (see Eisenberg case). MCPS lost. As a result, magnets and other special schools are NOT allowed to consider race as an aspect of admissions. This was explicitly stated at the MCPS Highly Gifted Center Info night. MCPS is allowed to balance for gender, but NOT race. As far as I remember, race is not even asked for on the admission application for the HGCs. There is some geographic balance as they try to take some kids from each elementary school in a high school cluster, and this cluster based admissions process may be a proxy for ensuring that minority kids have access to HGCs w/o explicitly asking about race as at least one HGC I can think of in the Silver Spring area has a high base minority population, but this is different than considering race as an aspect of admissions decisions.

Could you please state what magnet open house you attended where they said race was a factor? Did they say that race was a factor in admissions or only that there is diversity across the clusters? What year was that? Who was the official that made the statement?

[Anonymous]

It was at a session for applicants to middle school math and communications magnets, at some school that wasn't either Eastern or Takoma Park, probably because they were trying for a central location. The TP math and Easter communications coordinators were both there, however, and one of them said it (I won't point a finger, and I hope this is enough info). About 2-3 years ago.

[Anonymous]

OK, I stand corrected -- I just checked DC's application for a middle school magnet and race/ethnicity isn't asked. They do ask for language spoken at home, but maybe that's so they can fairly assess verbal scores.

This must have changed since Eisenberg, which was what, last year or two years ago? Because I clearly remember it being on the form when another kid applied to MoCo magnets a few years ago. Also I remember the person saying they wanted racial balance at the session I just cited, because I was a bit stunned that MCPS would possibly set themselves up for a lawsuit.

I still suspect MCPS may be trying to do this (we're mostly liberal here in MCPS, including me). But if they don't have the data, unless the teachers are saying it on the teacher recs, it would be much harder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OK, I stand corrected -- I just checked DC's application for a middle school magnet and race/ethnicity isn't asked. They do ask for language spoken at home, but maybe that's so they can fairly assess verbal scores.

This must have changed since Eisenberg, which was what, last year or two years ago? Because I clearly remember it being on the form when another kid applied to MoCo magnets a few years ago. Also I remember the person saying they wanted racial balance at the session I just cited, because I was a bit stunned that MCPS would possibly set themselves up for a lawsuit.

I still suspect MCPS may be trying to do this (we're mostly liberal here in MCPS, including me). But if they don't have the data, unless the teachers are saying it on the teacher recs, it would be much harder.

verbal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm the PP two above. Perhaps I didn't phrase my thinking well. Adults get irritated when other people don't bother to prepare for meetings or waste their colleagues' time, and sometimes when they have to complete work projects with a colleague who just doesn't get it. Why is it wrong to think that some kids may feele the same way in the school setting? And making people feel geekish or nerdy as a result of their being smart or hard-working really goes out of fashion after high school, so not many adults I know have to deal with the issues that so many people seem to have faced when they were younger.

I certainly do not think that people need to be separated based on intelligence in classes, but simply noted that I wouldn't go out of my way to factor academic interest or intelligence diversity in my calculus in looking at schools.

A child with sense of self and strong self esteem will not allow him/herself to "feel geekish or nerdy as a result of their being smart or hard-working. . . " Kids who are focused do well in any situation. I know; I teach them. I've had on level classes and honors classes filled with students at different levels. Even those who struggle work to their potential b/c they realize that by working hard and overcoming obstacles they can succeed.

For the record, you can't compare adults who slack off in the work arena to students in a classroom. All children deserve the right to learn and no one should make children feel inferior or superior. (Some of my "gifted" students were often the first to make fun of struggling students. nipped that right in the bud!)

So if you do your job as a parent by helping a child to develop a sense of self, you're helping to level the playing field in the classroom so that academic "differences" among students are ignored.

If your child is "gifted," examine how you're treating him/her at home. If you're emphasizing academics and not focusing on the whole child, you're doing him/her a disservice by either creating poor self esteem issues or making him/her overly confident and arrogant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, I stand corrected -- I just checked DC's application for a middle school magnet and race/ethnicity isn't asked. They do ask for language spoken at home, but maybe that's so they can fairly assess verbal scores.

This must have changed since Eisenberg, which was what, last year or two years ago? Because I clearly remember it being on the form when another kid applied to MoCo magnets a few years ago. Also I remember the person saying they wanted racial balance at the session I just cited, because I was a bit stunned that MCPS would possibly set themselves up for a lawsuit.

I still suspect MCPS may be trying to do this (we're mostly liberal here in MCPS, including me). But if they don't have the data, unless the teachers are saying it on the teacher recs, it would be much harder.

verbal

Is this supposed to be an insult? It's too terse to understand....