Easy solution, just offer the test on Saturday. |
| Which would be a solution to what? It adds an extra barrier |
And maybe we should put kids that can't even catch a ball on the travel baseball team. Just like sports, kids work at different levels. There are some kids that are of the charts "gifted" and these kids need an appropriate education just like the kids that are behind or can't speak english. |
|
Also I fail to see how testing everyone is going to help. Seems worth a try but I am skeptical.
Look at what happened with Compacted math. They had an objective test and everyone was considered. Then SURPRISE they discover that the mix of kids is also not racially/SES balanced so now they change the criteria. Now at our school anyways half the school is in compacted math. Huge mistake IMO |
What school? Our school used the same test that was used last year. There are 18 kids in 4/5 compacted math. Similar to the current 5/6 numbers. Did some schools change the criteria and others didn't? I don't think what you are claiming is true across MCPS. |
It depends on what exactly you're trying to help. If your only goal is to get more racial/SES diversity, then it may or may not help. If your goal is to ensure that *all* gifted children (above whatever threshold is in place) get access to the services that would benefit them, than testing everyone will get you closer to that goal by ensuring that all children are screened. |
Right, but right now a lot of the kids aren't even being tested for their ability to hit a home run. Maybe they have that raw talent but it has never been developed. Testing all kids should get us closer to the goal of fielding a stronger "team" because it will pick up kids with the raw talent to be great. |
Exactly - I always thought the application was a bit of a joke anyway - write an essay why your child needs this program etc. - I can't believe that this essay would tilt anything, and it does sift out truly deserving children whose parents may not know about the program. |
All kids should be tested for this reason; however, the current pilot doesn't do this. The school has the ability to arbitrarily decide who is tested which yields a different result. |
Agreed. What is the point of the INVIEW anyway? Scrap the INVIEW in 2nd grade and then just test all the 3rd graders instead. I think all kids should be tested, and you can always give parents the option to opt out if they feel like there is too much testing or whatever. I see no down side to testing all the kids. |
| Alternatively use the damn inview for what it was intended and start HGC a year earlier. Then pocket the savings for the CogAt. |
So, in order to be a universal testing instrument, inView uses a lot of pictures still in 2 no grade. The HGC test is a higher level test - it uses words, it's time pressured, and it is meant to differentiate at high performance levels. |
I believe that the Cogat measures the time to complete the problems as a scoring criteria. |
No, the HGC test does not do that. The kids are all in a big room and have a set amount of time. If they don't finish it counts against them because they do not have a correct answer. No individualized monitoring of how long it took X student to complete a particular section. |
CogArt is light years harder than 2nd grade Inview! For starters, it's about 2 hours longer, and includes some truly challenging sections. Putting every kid through CogAt is not only impractical, it's plain brutal - not just for kids, but also for test proctors who'd have to monitor a bunch of whiny children not willing to sit through that test. |