Reply to Is MCPS positioning to shut down the GT/magnet programs?

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "Is MCPS positioning to shut down the GT/magnet programs?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]But isn’t it beneficial for all to provide enriched classes in all schools? I agree with the County that we need to reduce the amount of busing in any way possible and if we can meet the needs of the kids in their home schools, then we should![/quote]

I agree. While I don’t think the instruction provided in the home schools is sufficient, it’s the right model. Ultimately a kid should be able to find what they need in a home school, especially at the K-8 level.[/quote]

+1. My kids aren’t of magnet age yet, but the whole McPS model of choosing the top 1% as determined by standardized testing seems bizarre to me when you’re talking about 2nd graders. I would have no objection to the junking of the whole busing/magnet model in favor of well-designed enrichment classes that benefit the top 10-20% at each school.  Probably would be cheaper anyway without the busing.[/quote]

For larger schools, perhaps. For smaller schools, with only one or two classes per grade, you might have only a handful of kids who are several grades ahead of the rest of their class in ability. Would those kids get a specialist for just a few hours a week? Would that be enough to support them?[/quote]

How many small schools like this actually exist in MiCo? Seems like one solution for those schools is to combine the enrichment class with a neighboring school to achieve critical mass. It will be interesting to see if/how MCPS rolls this out but I like the idea of having enriched classes at all schools and serving more kids. I was in something similar in ES.[/quote]

It's fine.  It is similar to Fairfax but it is not going to be the same program you have now because the top 25% does not work at the same level as the top 5%.  Maybe it is better to ignore the very top to provide for more kids where they are but if you read the AAP threads there are often complaining that it is not a very advanced curriculum..which is probably appropriate given how many kids are involved.  [/quote]

Parents will complain no matter what.  But I like the Fairfax model better than the MCPS model because the 1% chosen in MCPS is so dependent on testing.  No matter what you'll have false positives and false negatives, but at least with the top 15 or 20% the consequences of including/excluding a kid are less dramatic.  And more kids will get enrichment services, which is good.[/quote]

I've posted this in the APP forum but I'll post it here as well.  None of this stuff actually matters in the real world

We can all predict who will be taking honors/AP in high school, going to the good colleges, and being successful and none of it is related to who was in AAP or magnets.[/quote]

Do you have any evidence that those who participate in magnet or GT programs have the same outcomes as those who do not? My kids are not magnet age, but I've heard anecdotally that the curriculum is better and that teachers are often stronger in the gifted/magnet programs.  That would influence learning outcomes, which would influence a kid's chance for success.[/quote]

Based on the data that Bethesda magazine publishes each year, the outcomes are not much different.  The W's and BCC high schools do well in college admissions just like RM, Poolesville and Blair magnet students. I don't have upcounty data, but I'm sure it is similar for the top 2 high schools. There are only 200 MS magnet seats in the downcounty so the majority of the kids have to go to a high school other than the magnets. [/quote]

I'm talking about actual data on learning outcomes, not on college admissions, which as you probably know are influenced by demographics, legacy status, and income level. Eyeballing the college admissions outcomes of two high schools and saying they're roughly the same as the magnet programs does not qualify as analysis, without controlling for other factors that could influence admissions.[/quote]

Sorry, I wrongly assumed you were referring to college outcomes as you didn't specify and most parents on this forum are obsessed with getting their child into a top 20 school.  Yes, there is research on learning outcomes for gifted/magnet programs in general.  The Metis Report also reported data on MCPS outcomes (positive) and this is one of the arguments behind expanding access to the magnet programs. Here is a summary of a study that you may find interesting:

https://doi-org.proxy-bc.researchport.umd.edu/10.1177/0016986207306320

Cognitive and Affective Learning Outcomes of Gifted Elementary School Students	
Marcia A. B. Delcourt, Dewey G. Cornell, and Marc D. Goldberg
Gifted Child Quarterly 
Vol 51, Issue 4, pp. 359 - 381
First Published January 1, 2007

The main purpose of this study was to improve our understanding of the cognitive and
affective outcomes of students in gifted programs, rather than to ascertain which program was “best.” Results showed
that no single program fully addressed all the psychological and emotional needs of gifted students. In terms of
achievement, gifted children attending special programs performed better than high-achieving peers who were not in
programs. Specifically, children in special schools, separate class programs, and pullout programs for the gifted
showed substantially higher levels of achievement than did both their high-achieving peers not in programs and those
attending within-class programs. Policy makers should know that students from within-class grouping arrangements
received the lowest scores in all areas of achievement. Given that within-class programs are a popular model in gifted
education, their curricular and instructional provisions for the gifted must be carefully maintained lest they disintegrate
into a no-program format. In addition, there were no differences between any groups in the study regarding their social
perspectives. These elementary school students felt comfortable with the numbers of friends they had and with their
own popularity. The type of grouping arrangement did not appear to influence student perceptions of their social relations,
whether they were gifted, high-achieving, or nongifted. Self-perceptions were relatively low, however, for at least
one group. Students from the separate class program scored at the highest levels of achievement yet had the lowest
perceptions of academic competence, preference for challenging tasks, sense of acceptance by peers, and internal orientation
when compared with their gifted and nongifted peers. In programs that stress academics, one should not lose
sight of the attention students require for healthy adjustment to the environment. To address this necessity, teacher
preparation for working with gifted children should include instruction for incorporating academic progress within the
development of a realistic and positive self-concept.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics