Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think unmovitated kids should stay out of hgc. My DC went, and when they had to work in groups, which was a lot, DC hated working with the unmotivated kids. Why accept an unmotivated child when there are so many who are motivated?

Also, admittance is not based purely on test scores.

Sometimes kids get motivated when they're doing challenging work with other motivated kids.

There are very limited spots. Give it to a child who shows they are motivated already.

Anonymous wrote:
That change is not a process change. Going from a two hour test to 30min is a substantial test change.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And I have no dog in this fight. I had one DC go through HGC and another who didn't make it, which is fine. I don't need them to lower the standards just so that my DC could've gotten in.

There is no evidence that anybody is lowering standards.

There is no evidence that they didn't lower the standards, either. The test used to take 2 hours. Now it takes 30min. They want to "broaden the definition of giftedness". Coupled with the fact that their goal is to get more URM in, well... And yes, I know there are smart URM. My Dc's HGC had several of them. But, stats do show that URM score lower than other groups. It's not racist to state that. It's a fact.

You can't prove a negative, eh?

Yes, that's the point. You can prove or disprove it, but you can look at how they have changed the entrance criteria, the recommendations of the METIS report, and mcps's desire to close the "achievement gap", which in and of itself is a good thing, but lowering any standards, HGC entrance or otherwise, is not the way to achieve it, except superficially. Again, that doesn't help any student.

Anonymous wrote:Because of the way they did that. They could have easily, with the same amount of money or less, increased the number of seats at the main centers.

Instead, they purposely chose to do pilot programs at schools that do not reflect the demographics of MCPS and where URMs are overrepresented. But this wasn't enough. They also had to change the admissions criteria so the test isn't the same as what was given to the rest of the students in the county in the past. But this wasn't enough either. So they had to add other criteria for selection beyond the tests and made them pretty vague.

At some point after trying to pull this lever and that lever they found a formula that would result in a higher percentage of URMs admitted and enrolled.

Don't kid yourself about what's going on. IMO I think the county should take more of its money and put it into after school, tutoring and enrichment programs for all FARMS children and those at Title I schools. I would even be for reducing the seats at the HGCs (because really how many of the kids actually NEED the program) if the money could be used instead to target those children who are disadvantaged from a socieoeconomic standpoint but show high intellectual ability or motivation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I agree with this PP. That's what MCPS seems to be doing. And, I also agree that it would be more beneficial to the URM population to offer more resources such as smaller class sizes, and additional support versus pushing those students into the HGCs or pushing them into Compacted Math (as is being done at some schools, where every student ends up in CM).

You know what's beneficial to bright kids who are Hispanic/poor/black? Having the same access to MCPS special programs as bright kids who aren't.

What special programs bright kids who are URM don't have access to but white and Asian kids do? Do you mean they are underrepresented in the HGCs? How do you suppose we increase their representation then? Group specific norms as that notorious choice report recommended?

Well, we can try the new processes that MCPS is trying to reduce barriers to entry, and see how that works out.

http://www.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/ALXLAU4F2C1A/$file/Choice%20Study%20Update.pdf

^^^although, to the extent the new processes do succeed in reducing barriers to entry, I'm sure that there will be DCUMmers pointing to this as evidence of lowered standards, watered-down curriculum, only admitting kids based on skin color, etc. etc.

no.. they changed the testing, too.

Yes, they changed the testing. Why do you think that "different testing process" = "lower standards"?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And I have no dog in this fight. I had one DC go through HGC and another who didn't make it, which is fine. I don't need them to lower the standards just so that my DC could've gotten in.

There is no evidence that anybody is lowering standards.

There is no evidence that they didn't lower the standards, either. The test used to take 2 hours. Now it takes 30min. They want to "broaden the definition of giftedness". Coupled with the fact that their goal is to get more URM in, well... And yes, I know there are smart URM. My Dc's HGC had several of them. But, stats do show that URM score lower than other groups. It's not racist to state that. It's a fact.

You can't prove a negative, eh?

Yes, that's the point. You can prove or disprove it, but you can look at how they have changed the entrance criteria, the recommendations of the METIS report, and mcps's desire to close the "achievement gap", which in and of itself is a good thing, but lowering any standards, HGC entrance or otherwise, is not the way to achieve it, except superficially. Again, that doesn't help any student.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And I have no dog in this fight. I had one DC go through HGC and another who didn't make it, which is fine. I don't need them to lower the standards just so that my DC could've gotten in.

There is no evidence that anybody is lowering standards.

There is no evidence that they didn't lower the standards, either. The test used to take 2 hours. Now it takes 30min. They want to "broaden the definition of giftedness". Coupled with the fact that their goal is to get more URM in, well... And yes, I know there are smart URM. My Dc's HGC had several of them. But, stats do show that URM score lower than other groups. It's not racist to state that. It's a fact.

You can't prove a negative, eh?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I agree with this PP. That's what MCPS seems to be doing. And, I also agree that it would be more beneficial to the URM population to offer more resources such as smaller class sizes, and additional support versus pushing those students into the HGCs or pushing them into Compacted Math (as is being done at some schools, where every student ends up in CM).

You know what's beneficial to bright kids who are Hispanic/poor/black? Having the same access to MCPS special programs as bright kids who aren't.

What special programs bright kids who are URM don't have access to but white and Asian kids do? Do you mean they are underrepresented in the HGCs? How do you suppose we increase their representation then? Group specific norms as that notorious choice report recommended?

Well, we can try the new processes that MCPS is trying to reduce barriers to entry, and see how that works out.

http://www.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/ALXLAU4F2C1A/$file/Choice%20Study%20Update.pdf

^^^although, to the extent the new processes do succeed in reducing barriers to entry, I'm sure that there will be DCUMmers pointing to this as evidence of lowered standards, watered-down curriculum, only admitting kids based on skin color, etc. etc.

no.. they changed the testing, too.

Anonymous wrote:Being unmotivated in a non-gifted curriculum is essentially the definition of being gifted. So all of you suggesting that an unmotivated child shouldn't get into an HGC are essentially suggesting that the HGCs should be for high-achieving kids rather than gifted kids. Why don't we just go ahead an rename them "Centers for Highly Motivated for Not Gifted Kids" then? Oh, you don't like that name because you want to think your kids are gifted when they're really not?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And I have no dog in this fight. I had one DC go through HGC and another who didn't make it, which is fine. I don't need them to lower the standards just so that my DC could've gotten in.

There is no evidence that anybody is lowering standards.

There is no evidence that they didn't lower the standards, either. The test used to take 2 hours. Now it takes 30min. They want to "broaden the definition of giftedness". Coupled with the fact that their goal is to get more URM in, well... And yes, I know there are smart URM. My Dc's HGC had several of them. But, stats do show that URM score lower than other groups. It's not racist to state that. It's a fact.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I agree with this PP. That's what MCPS seems to be doing. And, I also agree that it would be more beneficial to the URM population to offer more resources such as smaller class sizes, and additional support versus pushing those students into the HGCs or pushing them into Compacted Math (as is being done at some schools, where every student ends up in CM).

You know what's beneficial to bright kids who are Hispanic/poor/black? Having the same access to MCPS special programs as bright kids who aren't.

What special programs bright kids who are URM don't have access to but white and Asian kids do? Do you mean they are underrepresented in the HGCs? How do you suppose we increase their representation then? Group specific norms as that notorious choice report recommended?

Well, we can try the new processes that MCPS is trying to reduce barriers to entry, and see how that works out.

http://www.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/ALXLAU4F2C1A/$file/Choice%20Study%20Update.pdf

^^^although, to the extent the new processes do succeed in reducing barriers to entry, I'm sure that there will be DCUMmers pointing to this as evidence of lowered standards, watered-down curriculum, only admitting kids based on skin color, etc. etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And I have no dog in this fight. I had one DC go through HGC and another who didn't make it, which is fine. I don't need them to lower the standards just so that my DC could've gotten in.

There is no evidence that anybody is lowering standards.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anything that talks about diversity/gaps etc is talking about watering down the application process.

This is true only if you believe that the only way to increase participation by black, Hispanic, and/or poor kids is to admit unqualified black, Hispanic, and/or poor students and exclude non-black, non-Hispanic, and/or non-poor qualified students. Do you believe that? I don't.

This is what happens in colleges and it’s trickling down to lower school levels.

The schools want to attract a certain number of AA and Latino students so they bring them in even if they are somewhat less qualified.

When I was in grad school, we had such a program. They brought in about a dozen URMs. Held a special free summer session to get the students up to speed. Offered extra financial aid. Ended up that only 3 of those students finished the program. It was fairly obvious that in the name of ‘diversity’ they were accepting students who really were not qualified to be there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I agree with this PP. That's what MCPS seems to be doing. And, I also agree that it would be more beneficial to the URM population to offer more resources such as smaller class sizes, and additional support versus pushing those students into the HGCs or pushing them into Compacted Math (as is being done at some schools, where every student ends up in CM).

You know what's beneficial to bright kids who are Hispanic/poor/black? Having the same access to MCPS special programs as bright kids who aren't.

What special programs bright kids who are URM don't have access to but white and Asian kids do? Do you mean they are underrepresented in the HGCs? How do you suppose we increase their representation then? Group specific norms as that notorious choice report recommended?

Well, we can try the new processes that MCPS is trying to reduce barriers to entry, and see how that works out.

http://www.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/ALXLAU4F2C1A/$file/Choice%20Study%20Update.pdf

Anonymous wrote:Being unmotivated in a non-gifted curriculum is essentially the definition of being gifted. So all of you suggesting that an unmotivated child shouldn't get into an HGC are essentially suggesting that the HGCs should be for high-achieving kids rather than gifted kids. Why don't we just go ahead an rename them "Centers for Highly Motivated for Not Gifted Kids" then? Oh, you don't like that name because you want to think your kids are gifted when they're really not?