Anonymous wrote:I thought the letter was very respectfully put but cited the clearly negative past experience this group has had with having its concerns dismissed. Given that GTA put the letter and comments together, I think it's entirely appropriate for them to have posted the final to help share it with others. I haven't belonged to GTA since DC is not yet in K but I plan to join since they seem most actively focused on the ability grouping issue I care most about.

But I'm sure 17:13/17:21 will simply cry "she's the GTA in disguise, unlike us who are clearly identified and non-anonymous posters!"

There must be a reason your group gets dismissed. When you become dangerously irrelevant there is a reason. What do you think it is?

I thought the letter was very respectfully put but cited the clearly negative past experience this group has had with having its concerns dismissed. Given that GTA put the letter and comments together, I think it's entirely appropriate for them to have posted the final to help share it with others. I haven't belonged to GTA since DC is not yet in K but I plan to join since they seem most actively focused on the ability grouping issue I care most about.

But I'm sure 17:13/17:21 will simply cry "she's the GTA in disguise, unlike us who are clearly identified and non-anonymous posters!"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are planning to go to the meeting MCPS Superintendent Gifted Education Forum tomorrow at 7pm in Magruder High School, please plan to wear something "Green" to support "Gifted Education.

Don't get it. Why wear green? If you go, don't you support gifted education? If you don't care, chances are you aren't going. The question is what form will gifted education take in the future, etc... not whether we support it or not. I can see doing that if the question arises at a Board of education meeting to differentiate the crowd advocating for gifted students from those there concerned about other issues that are being discussed then, but that's not the case.

I was thinking the same thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are planning to go to the meeting MCPS Superintendent Gifted Education Forum tomorrow at 7pm in Magruder High School, please plan to wear something "Green" to support "Gifted Education.

Don't get it. Why wear green? If you go, don't you support gifted education? If you don't care, chances are you aren't going. The question is what form will gifted education take in the future, etc... not whether we support it or not. I can see doing that if the question arises at a Board of education meeting to differentiate the crowd advocating for gifted students from those there concerned about other issues that are being discussed then, but that's not the case.

Wonder why some posters supporting the GTA call themselves the "dumb guys"? This whole campaign of posting anonymously and the congratulating themselves; claiming to know the GTA well and not being part of it ... makes you realize that this whole thing is just a project of the Montgomery County Clown College!!

The fun part is that the GTA prez claims that MCPS and the BOE ignored them (read his letter on another thread)!!! Wonder why? The GTA wants its own format for the meeting. Be respectful and don't try to pull over the eyes of everyone around you and you'll get somewhere.

Anonymous wrote:If you are planning to go to the meeting MCPS Superintendent Gifted Education Forum tomorrow at 7pm in Magruder High School, please plan to wear something "Green" to support "Gifted Education.

Don't get it. Why wear green? If you go, don't you support gifted education? If you don't care, chances are you aren't going. The question is what form will gifted education take in the future, etc... not whether we support it or not. I can see doing that if the question arises at a Board of education meeting to differentiate the crowd advocating for gifted students from those there concerned about other issues that are being discussed then, but that's not the case.

Anonymous wrote:very well said 00:13.

+1

I agree with the "Challenge every child" campaign. I think at the end of the day most people don't care how it's done, only that it is being done. I've always thought if there was sort of assessment to show your child is being challenged and is growing each year, and equally as important accountability by MCPS to have some sort of recourse if that isn't happening, it would go a long way towards calming parents and making sure children got what they needed. Right now from what I've been reading it seems teacher dependent (does the teacher go out of his/her way for kids meeting benchmarks when there is a critical mass of kids needing extra help to meet benchmarks), peer dependent (are there enough kids at the same level as your child so the teacher wouldn't be going so outside the norm for the class to make sure the work is challenging), and principal dependent (how has your principal interpreted 2.0 in regards to allowing acceleration and do they allow ability grouping or not). The transition report by the Superintendent highlighted inconsistency within schools as well as among schools as one of the big challenges in MCPS.

IMO, not really having a clear system assessment that the work is at the right level of challenge, a defined system of accountability and defined recourse (other than moving or private school), has contributed to the zero sum game mentality. Every magnet school spot has how many qualified people that didn't get a spot? People are debating labels, resources going to home school versus resources going to HGC
ability grouping versus differentiating in same classroom etc. Sometimes I feel like we, parents in MCPS, are focusing on the wrong questions. At the end of the day, the challenging work for the child and the hands-on enrichment seem to be what most parents want yet it seems so elusive that we will get to the point that no matter what school or teacher your child has, they will get those things.

If you are planning to go to the meeting MCPS Superintendent Gifted Education Forum tomorrow at 7pm in Magruder High School, please plan to wear something "Green" to support "Gifted Education.

Anonymous wrote:If one is interested in above-grade-level instruction, it seems like a key question needs to be asked. It should be an easy question for MCPS to answer:

Under Curriculum 2.0, what is the MCPS policy on how home schools will provide appropriately advanced instruction for students working above grade level?

One would think there would be a consistent, unified policy, right?

The policy to provide above-grade-level instructions exist. What do not exist are specific tools, training, measures, monitoring and control. Without these, policy alone cannot achieve any goal. So, let us be specific and ask for these to be in place.

Goal is to ensure every child gets at least (some child can handle a lot more than that and should get it) a year worth of education every school year, irespective of where they start. Let us ask for MCPS to provide tools, training, measures, monitoring and control to achieve the goal.

If one is interested in above-grade-level instruction, it seems like a key question needs to be asked. It should be an easy question for MCPS to answer:

Under Curriculum 2.0, what is the MCPS policy on how home schools will provide appropriately advanced instruction for students working above grade level?

One would think there would be a consistent, unified policy, right?

very well said 00:13.

I subscribe to the GTA listserve and it very often appears to be a forum for the same 5 or 6 people to continue a debate that I have a hard time comprehending. I wish they would take their debate offline. I am reluctant to post messages because the debates often get very heated and personal.
The GTA itself, on the other hand seems to be very different and I fully support their "Challenge every child" memo and I encourage everyone interested in education policy to read it.
I read all 100+ comments on the GTA website that will hopefully reach Mr. Starr before the meeting and there were some common threads. Most of them were from the parents of children who are either in a HGC/magnet or were good candidates for these programs. My daughter is in an elementary school magnet but we have more or less decided we cannot send her to one in middle school because of the commute (we live on the west and both middle school magnets are on the east side). There are lots of families like ours who posted comments. Many of us want our children to receive an the best possible education without having to uproot them from their neighbors and community and make them ride on a bus for 15 hours a week. We would like our home schools to provide our children with an appropriate education and I (and looking at the comments I am in good company) think that is best achieved by having the school offer these children a more challenging curriculum and a robust peer group (at least 8 children at the same level in any class). This is not a zero sum game folks - all our children are better off when every child gets what they need. If your child was struggling and needed remedial help, I would support your effort to get those resources. Likewise, asking for what my child needs is not an attempt to take something away from someone else's child.
What is happening at MCPS is that middle schools are gradually jettisoning honors level classes. They do offer "advanced" classes but these are open to anyone who wishes to take them which means that the instruction has to be on grade to make sure the teacher is reaching all the students. I fail to see how the above-average or below-average flourishes under this approach. These children are not asking for something "extra", they are asking for what is "appropriate". Keeping a highly gifted child in a regular classroom just to ensure "equity" for the other students is unfair to the highly gifted child. It is also wrong-headed and cruel.

"ability grouping is not a threat to magnet programs. "

+1

Anonymous wrote:Most of the posters on here concerned about ability grouping have stated they do not belong to GTA at this point. Not sure why a PP keeps insisting many of us are lieing about this.

I think the very small % of parents happy w/ the centers/HGC since their kids are among the few who got into those programs are being quite narrow minded in insisting that only their views count and that, despite MCPS clearly including many above grade level kids in its GT designation (and not only the truly highest level gifted kids), it's inappropriate for parents to use the MCPS definition of GT to advocate for much needed ability grouping. Ability grouping, by the way, should of COURSE include not only in-school grouping but also the centers/HGCs for those highly exceptional kids who don't fit in a normal school at all. No one advocating ability grouping seems to be anti centers/HGC....not sure why some of those parents seem to be anti-ability grouping for the rest of the much larger group of parents struggling to get appropriate instruction for their own kids in their local schools. If anything, appropriate home school instruction would lessen competition for the HGC/centers since it would not be such a high stakes game for those left to stay in the home school.

Actually, I think the anti-GTA posts you are seeing is from only one or two people posting the same thing again and again. It is not true that all parents of HGC and magnet students disagree with GTA. I have magnet kids, and I agree with GTA's "Challenge Every Child". I know how tough it is for kids when they do not get accepted. I am very active in local school and know what they are not providing. Ability grouping is not a threat to magnet programs.

"I am not part of GTA and I was the one who called the Superintendent office"

PP, you know you're lying, why not just admit it now! and no one makes mistakes - it was clear your evil doer ways were uncovered!!

+1 for your whole post.
You've been a very reasonable poster in the face of this crazy PP who apparently "knows" much more about GTA than any of us who are learning about it and are inclined to sympathize w/ their goals of ability grouping.

Anonymous wrote:

MCPS has made it very clear what the label means. I am using the same tone the GTA uses to preach to us. So far the GTA has been anonymously posting ... refusing to give answers ... and misleading us that the meeting wont be about HGC. I am disgusted.

Can you please tell me which MCPS document you are referring to?

BTW, I am not part of GTA and I was the one who called the Superintendent office. I also clarified in one of the thread that the superintendent office said the meeting is not going to be focused on HGC or magnet programs only. It is about all students identified as "GT". If you did not trust me, you could have called the number yourself and report back.

I am posting anonymously like you are. You are the one attacking the integrity of a group of volunteers by constantly blaming them that they are doing all this for years for their kids. It seems you know GTA very well. Why do not you provide the names of the GTA officers and what grade/schools their kids attend. You are slandering people without proof. Can you please enlighten the rest of us, how GTA folks want to label their incapable kids GT and using the rest of us for their agenda to get service for their kids with actual proof. If you cannot answer these questions please stop posting against a particular set of individual. You might not agree with them, but you are taking this disagreement too far by slandering their names (which is not anonymous) in anonymity.

If you have unanswered questions for GTA, call them. I am sure someone will be able to answer your questions.