GT notification letters

[Anonymous]

What are some of you planning to do about it now? Please post here if you receive additional info from teachers or principals etc. Thanks

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would let this go if my kid hadn’t been locked out of public school for over a year in mcps. I’m all out of grace. No patience for errors that make my child look incapable.

🙄

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What are some of you planning to do about it now? Please post here if you receive additional info from teachers or principals etc. Thanks

Correct, complaining here does not move the ball forward or adjust MCPS processes. If you think this new process is flawed, you should alert BOE, write to the superintendent, etc. I don't think principals can fix it themselves, although they might have some insight into problems their staff experienced in completing the new format this year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anybody know of any 2nd grade children who were designed GT per the letter that came home this month? So far, I know zero. Something fishy is going on.

Yes, mine was, but also listed as on grade level with no enrichment. Which seems odd. We’re not aiming for a magnet so I’d rather have the enrichment.

Did your child get 5s in both EOL assessments?

(NP) My kid got the designation and only even had records for three of four academic measures (i.e. the first EOL was just blank); he "met the criteria" for parent and teacher input though, so I think all of that together was sufficient under whatever standard they are applying now. It's sort of unfair that kids only got three chances to meet four academic markers; even though it did not affect my kid, it seems problematic.

In terms of impact, he just got some sort of verbiage about "enrichment on grade level," which seems like what he is already getting, so even if the G&T designations is not "meaningless," practically speaking, it seems close...

I'd be curious if anyone managed to leverage the designation (or lack thereof) to skip to Math 4 (which is what I think DC really needs).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anybody know of any 2nd grade children who were designed GT per the letter that came home this month? So far, I know zero. Something fishy is going on.

Yes, mine was, but also listed as on grade level with no enrichment. Which seems odd. We’re not aiming for a magnet so I’d rather have the enrichment.

Did your child get 5s in both EOL assessments?

(NP) My kid got the designation and only even had records for three of four academic measures (i.e. the first EOL was just blank); he "met the criteria" for parent and teacher input though, so I think all of that together was sufficient under whatever standard they are applying now. It's sort of unfair that kids only got three chances to meet four academic markers; even though it did not affect my kid, it seems problematic.

In terms of impact, he just got some sort of verbiage about "enrichment on grade level," which seems like what he is already getting, so even if the G&T designations is not "meaningless," practically speaking, it seems close...

I'd be curious if anyone managed to leverage the designation (or lack thereof) to skip to Math 4 (which is what I think DC really needs).

So your child had a 5 on the Math EOL district assessment?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What are some of you planning to do about it now? Please post here if you receive additional info from teachers or principals etc. Thanks

I’ve been on the phone with the AEI office. Apparently they’re being flooded with calls. This is good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are some of you planning to do about it now? Please post here if you receive additional info from teachers or principals etc. Thanks

I’ve been on the phone with the AEI office. Apparently they’re being flooded with calls. This is good.

Please report here what u find out

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anybody know of any 2nd grade children who were designed GT per the letter that came home this month? So far, I know zero. Something fishy is going on.

Yes, mine was, but also listed as on grade level with no enrichment. Which seems odd. We’re not aiming for a magnet so I’d rather have the enrichment.

Did your child get 5s in both EOL assessments?

(NP) My kid got the designation and only even had records for three of four academic measures (i.e. the first EOL was just blank); he "met the criteria" for parent and teacher input though, so I think all of that together was sufficient under whatever standard they are applying now. It's sort of unfair that kids only got three chances to meet four academic markers; even though it did not affect my kid, it seems problematic.

In terms of impact, he just got some sort of verbiage about "enrichment on grade level," which seems like what he is already getting, so even if the G&T designations is not "meaningless," practically speaking, it seems close...

I'd be curious if anyone managed to leverage the designation (or lack thereof) to skip to Math 4 (which is what I think DC really needs).

My kid met the teacher and parent input and the MAP cut off. But got 4’s on the assessments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anybody know of any 2nd grade children who were designed GT per the letter that came home this month? So far, I know zero. Something fishy is going on.

Yes, mine was, but also listed as on grade level with no enrichment. Which seems odd. We’re not aiming for a magnet so I’d rather have the enrichment.

Did your child get 5s in both EOL assessments?

(NP) My kid got the designation and only even had records for three of four academic measures (i.e. the first EOL was just blank); he "met the criteria" for parent and teacher input though, so I think all of that together was sufficient under whatever standard they are applying now. It's sort of unfair that kids only got three chances to meet four academic markers; even though it did not affect my kid, it seems problematic.

In terms of impact, he just got some sort of verbiage about "enrichment on grade level," which seems like what he is already getting, so even if the G&T designations is not "meaningless," practically speaking, it seems close...

I'd be curious if anyone managed to leverage the designation (or lack thereof) to skip to Math 4 (which is what I think DC really needs).

So your child had a 5 on the Math EOL district assessment?

Yes. The ELA EOL is just blank tho...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anybody know of any 2nd grade children who were designed GT per the letter that came home this month? So far, I know zero. Something fishy is going on.

Yes, mine was, but also listed as on grade level with no enrichment. Which seems odd. We’re not aiming for a magnet so I’d rather have the enrichment.

Did your child get 5s in both EOL assessments?

(NP) My kid got the designation and only even had records for three of four academic measures (i.e. the first EOL was just blank); he "met the criteria" for parent and teacher input though, so I think all of that together was sufficient under whatever standard they are applying now. It's sort of unfair that kids only got three chances to meet four academic markers; even though it did not affect my kid, it seems problematic.

In terms of impact, he just got some sort of verbiage about "enrichment on grade level," which seems like what he is already getting, so even if the G&T designations is not "meaningless," practically speaking, it seems close...

I'd be curious if anyone managed to leverage the designation (or lack thereof) to skip to Math 4 (which is what I think DC really needs).

My kid met the teacher and parent input and the MAP cut off. But got 4’s on the assessments.

PP here. My kids Reading MAP RF is blank

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anybody know of any 2nd grade children who were designed GT per the letter that came home this month? So far, I know zero. Something fishy is going on.

Yes, mine was, but also listed as on grade level with no enrichment. Which seems odd. We’re not aiming for a magnet so I’d rather have the enrichment.

Did your child get 5s in both EOL assessments?

(NP) My kid got the designation and only even had records for three of four academic measures (i.e. the first EOL was just blank); he "met the criteria" for parent and teacher input though, so I think all of that together was sufficient under whatever standard they are applying now. It's sort of unfair that kids only got three chances to meet four academic markers; even though it did not affect my kid, it seems problematic.

In terms of impact, he just got some sort of verbiage about "enrichment on grade level," which seems like what he is already getting, so even if the G&T designations is not "meaningless," practically speaking, it seems close...

I'd be curious if anyone managed to leverage the designation (or lack thereof) to skip to Math 4 (which is what I think DC really needs).

My kid met the teacher and parent input and the MAP cut off. But got 4’s on the assessments.

So your child is not GT?

[Anonymous]

Our DD received the GT designation week. It seems the scores were largely based on winter tests.

Academic Measures included:

Winter MAP Reading Fluency - Indicator is 650L or above. DD tested above 950.
Winter ELA/EOL District Assessment - Scale Score = 5. DD tested at 5.
Winter MAP Growth Math - 80th percentile or higher. DD tested at 99.
Math EOL District Assessment MP2 - Scale Score = 5. DD tested at 5.

Then, there are a bunch of behavioral checklists (e.g., Parent Input, Teacher Survey, etc) with DD at or above threshold. It says that DD meets criteria for the designation and will receive opportunities for enrichment and/or acceleration at their school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anybody know of any 2nd grade children who were designed GT per the letter that came home this month? So far, I know zero. Something fishy is going on.

Yes, mine was, but also listed as on grade level with no enrichment. Which seems odd. We’re not aiming for a magnet so I’d rather have the enrichment.

Did your child get 5s in both EOL assessments?

(NP) My kid got the designation and only even had records for three of four academic measures (i.e. the first EOL was just blank); he "met the criteria" for parent and teacher input though, so I think all of that together was sufficient under whatever standard they are applying now. It's sort of unfair that kids only got three chances to meet four academic markers; even though it did not affect my kid, it seems problematic.

In terms of impact, he just got some sort of verbiage about "enrichment on grade level," which seems like what he is already getting, so even if the G&T designations is not "meaningless," practically speaking, it seems close...

I'd be curious if anyone managed to leverage the designation (or lack thereof) to skip to Math 4 (which is what I think DC really needs).

My kid met the teacher and parent input and the MAP cut off. But got 4’s on the assessments.

So your child is not GT?

Nope. Also reading MAP was blank

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anybody know of any 2nd grade children who were designed GT per the letter that came home this month? So far, I know zero. Something fishy is going on.

Yes, mine was, but also listed as on grade level with no enrichment. Which seems odd. We’re not aiming for a magnet so I’d rather have the enrichment.

Did your child get 5s in both EOL assessments?

(NP) My kid got the designation and only even had records for three of four academic measures (i.e. the first EOL was just blank); he "met the criteria" for parent and teacher input though, so I think all of that together was sufficient under whatever standard they are applying now. It's sort of unfair that kids only got three chances to meet four academic markers; even though it did not affect my kid, it seems problematic.

In terms of impact, he just got some sort of verbiage about "enrichment on grade level," which seems like what he is already getting, so even if the G&T designations is not "meaningless," practically speaking, it seems close...

I'd be curious if anyone managed to leverage the designation (or lack thereof) to skip to Math 4 (which is what I think DC really needs).

My kid met the teacher and parent input and the MAP cut off. But got 4’s on the assessments.

So your child is not GT?

Nope. Also reading MAP was blank

How is this equitable!?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Last year the GT identification could come from any of three (I think) factors - test scores, teacher assessment or parent assessment.

This year, my undestanding is that GT identification requires multiple test/performance-related measures and either teacher or parent assessment. Some schools opted not to have 2nd graders take all the tests (trying to preserve class time for instruction as we move on from pandemic learning disruption), so there is missing data and re-screening will be needed in 3rd grade. Of course this only gives them one shot at identification instead of two.

I think the enrichment paradigm is different between ELA and Math. Benchmark Advance enrichment (or ELC, if your school is lucky enough) is designated for GT learners (and others, too, sometimes). For elementary Math, there is the enrichment ladder that is supposed to be applied to each student for each module, whether or not identified as GT. I think that is why there isn't a "Math - enriched" designation on the letter for next year's recommendation, but, rather, the verbiage about enrichment below that. Terrible clarity of communications, but, then, we're talking MCPS, so par for the course...

Of course, there are the accelerated 4/5 & 5/6 courses. I don't know if GT letters for current 3rd graders are showing 4/5 placement or not -- my understanding is that accelerated placement is a separate process from GT identification -- but current 2nd graders wouldn't see that anyway, short of, perhaps, being identified as needing hyper-acceleration (e.g., Math 4/5 in 3rd), and those cases are relatively rare.

Imagine if MCPS told parents, teachers, students and administrators that they would be changing their criteria for their process before they administered the assessments they’d be using! Instead, they say nothing, tell no one, and after the fact change all the criteria and back into the process and weaponize this data against children who clearly should have enrichment. Also those Benchmark EOLs are very confusing, poorly written tests. I have upper el kids who say the questions are multiple choice and two of four are usually correct and it’s impossible to infer based on limited text which one is the right answer.

THIS DESIGNATION IS MEANINGLESS!! It does not determine whether your kid gets enrichment. There is no reason to get bent out of shape. Also it was the same last year.

I was just coming in to say this. My current 5th grader is was not ID’d as G/T but the letter said she’d get enrichment in both English and Math and she did. She was in compacted math and read above grade level from the beginning of Elem. she’s continuing on to AIM Math, HIGH social studies and Adv English.

Just got my 3rd graders letter that IDs him as G/T (he was not ID’d in 2nd - but apparently was in 3rd). His scores are nearly identical to his sisters. Letter says same thing hers did - enrichment in math and literacy. He’s doing compacted math next yr and ELC.

G/T Designation is meaningless.

We are joking around about our sons miraculous leap into being gifted this yr vs last yr.