Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Metis didn't talk about lowering standards. MCPS isn't talking about lowering standards. BoE isn't talking about lowering standards. Nobody is talking about lowering standards except posters on DCUM -- who seem to assume that the only way to increase participation in special programs by kids who are Latino/black/poor is to lower standards.

+1 -- why are folks assuming they lowered standards?

Do you honestly think METIS and MCPS will explicitly state that they would be lowering standards?

Look at how the ivy leagues changed their admissions standards when there were too many Jews getting in. Did they say, "we are going to lower our test score standards", or did they say, "we are going to go with a holistic approach."

Now this is the opposite of what's going on in mcps, but you get the meaning. No one is going to outright say that they are lowering standards. Now, they just say "broaden the definition of giftedness".

What is your real problem with this? You kid didn't get in?

I had one kid get in and one not. I don't think the one who didn't get in would've gotten in prior to the change, either. The problem is that MCPS is not doing any student a favor by this change. MCPS should keep the standards high for everyone, but especially for the highly gifted. I don't want the caliber of MCPS magnet programs to suffer even if my DC isn't it.

I honestly don't think the caliber of MCPS magnet programs is suffering. I think that is a gross exaggeration and I'm not sure what you are basing it on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

+1, lol--and that is why Fairfax has AAP (Advanced Academic [i]Programs)

That is why we don't have HGC any more. It is CES now.

I would rather have a center that is geared to the top 2 to 3%, or "highly gifted" than what fcps has. And my one DC didn't make it to HGC. Why don't they just up the standards in the home school and give the opportunity to ALL kids be more challenged, and leave the "highly gifted" program alone?

Anonymous wrote:Ooooh, the bad ass program, smart but don't apply yourself. Yeah, hike the property taxes and rent 10% for that one!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Metis didn't talk about lowering standards. MCPS isn't talking about lowering standards. BoE isn't talking about lowering standards. Nobody is talking about lowering standards except posters on DCUM -- who seem to assume that the only way to increase participation in special programs by kids who are Latino/black/poor is to lower standards.

+1 -- why are folks assuming they lowered standards?

Do you honestly think METIS and MCPS will explicitly state that they would be lowering standards?

Look at how the ivy leagues changed their admissions standards when there were too many Jews getting in. Did they say, "we are going to lower our test score standards", or did they say, "we are going to go with a holistic approach."

Now this is the opposite of what's going on in mcps, but you get the meaning. No one is going to outright say that they are lowering standards. Now, they just say "broaden the definition of giftedness".

What is your real problem with this? You kid didn't get in?

I had one kid get in and one not. I don't think the one who didn't get in would've gotten in prior to the change, either. The problem is that MCPS is not doing any student a favor by this change. MCPS should keep the standards high for everyone, but especially for the highly gifted. I don't want the caliber of MCPS magnet programs to suffer even if my DC isn't it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

+1, lol--and that is why Fairfax has AAP (Advanced Academic [i]Programs)

That is why we don't have HGC any more. It is CES now.

I would rather have a center that is geared to the top 2 to 3%, or "highly gifted" than what fcps has. And my one DC didn't make it to HGC. Why don't they just up the standards in the home school and give the opportunity to ALL kids be more challenged, and leave the "highly gifted" program alone?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Metis didn't talk about lowering standards. MCPS isn't talking about lowering standards. BoE isn't talking about lowering standards. Nobody is talking about lowering standards except posters on DCUM -- who seem to assume that the only way to increase participation in special programs by kids who are Latino/black/poor is to lower standards.

+1 -- why are folks assuming they lowered standards?

Do you honestly think METIS and MCPS will explicitly state that they would be lowering standards?

Look at how the ivy leagues changed their admissions standards when there were too many Jews getting in. Did they say, "we are going to lower our test score standards", or did they say, "we are going to go with a holistic approach."

Now this is the opposite of what's going on in mcps, but you get the meaning. No one is going to outright say that they are lowering standards. Now, they just say "broaden the definition of giftedness".

What is your real problem with this? You kid didn't get in?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

MCPS representatives said this at various meetings. It was a pilot and they stated their goals for the pilot clearly.

MCPS representatives said, "We're putting a pilot at Matsunaga because Matsunaga has a high percentage of poor, black, and Latino students who are high-performing"?

They said something about it had the right demographic targets and a high percentage of high performing students in those target groups. They did not mention black and Latino students. It was pointed out earlier in this thread that those schools are not particularly poor.

Which target groups? If they didn't mention black or Latino students, and there aren't that many low-income students at the school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

+1, lol--and that is why Fairfax has AAP (Advanced Academic [i]Programs)

That is why we don't have HGC any more. It is CES now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Metis didn't talk about lowering standards. MCPS isn't talking about lowering standards. BoE isn't talking about lowering standards. Nobody is talking about lowering standards except posters on DCUM -- who seem to assume that the only way to increase participation in special programs by kids who are Latino/black/poor is to lower standards.

+1 -- why are folks assuming they lowered standards?

Do you honestly think METIS and MCPS will explicitly state that they would be lowering standards?

Look at how the ivy leagues changed their admissions standards when there were too many Jews getting in. Did they say, "we are going to lower our test score standards", or did they say, "we are going to go with a holistic approach."

Now this is the opposite of what's going on in mcps, but you get the meaning. No one is going to outright say that they are lowering standards. Now, they just say "broaden the definition of giftedness".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Metis didn't talk about lowering standards. MCPS isn't talking about lowering standards. BoE isn't talking about lowering standards. Nobody is talking about lowering standards except posters on DCUM -- who seem to assume that the only way to increase participation in special programs by kids who are Latino/black/poor is to lower standards.

+1 -- why are folks assuming they lowered standards?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

MCPS representatives said this at various meetings. It was a pilot and they stated their goals for the pilot clearly.

MCPS representatives said, "We're putting a pilot at Matsunaga because Matsunaga has a high percentage of poor, black, and Latino students who are high-performing"?

Which is not the same as "...high percentage of poor Black and Latino students who are also high-performing". And it is not the same as "...high percentage of currently poor Black and Latino students of recently immigrated Black and Latino parents who are highly educated....who are high-performing".

Many recent and legal immigrants from East Europe, India and China - are making very little because they are on H1B visas. They are as poor as they come because they are in virtual slavery of the companies that have sponsored them. Their children are doing well because the parents are teaching them at home. What about them?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

MCPS representatives said this at various meetings. It was a pilot and they stated their goals for the pilot clearly.

MCPS representatives said, "We're putting a pilot at Matsunaga because Matsunaga has a high percentage of poor, black, and Latino students who are high-performing"?

They said something about it had the right demographic targets and a high percentage of high performing students in those target groups. They did not mention black and Latino students. It was pointed out earlier in this thread that those schools are not particularly poor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

MCPS representatives said this at various meetings. It was a pilot and they stated their goals for the pilot clearly.

MCPS representatives said, "We're putting a pilot at Matsunaga because Matsunaga has a high percentage of poor, black, and Latino students who are high-performing"?

Anonymous wrote:This is off-topic, but is it easier #s-wise to get into a local center rather than an off-site regional center? It seems like that would be the case...right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

MCPS representatives said this at various meetings. It was a pilot and they stated their goals for the pilot clearly.

MCPS representatives said, "We're putting a pilot at Matsunaga because Matsunaga has a high percentage of poor, black, and Latino students who are high-performing"?