Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sam2 I wanted to clarify something you wrote in an earlier post.

You said that HGCs push children to work 2 to 3 years ahead. To clarify, the kids are naturally capable of working several grades ahead and the HGCs exist to meet their needs and provide an appropriate curriculum.

In fact for many 2-3 years ahead would still not meet their needs. My DD entered the HGC in 4th grade reading an eighth grade level (or perhaps higher since that's as far as the elementary teacher could assess....) and left in 5th grade having tested at a late college/graduate school reading level. Never in her life has she been assigned a challenging book in school unless it was one she selected for herself for a independent project. And, I know that there were many peers at the HGC reading at a high school level or greater. So, I agree w/ PP that "pushing" is not really what happens at an HGC. Most are already there.

Am I correct in thinking you have a blog on your DC's experience?

Are you talking about "The More Child"? or is there another one? In any case, no that's not me. I don't blog.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sam2 I wanted to clarify something you wrote in an earlier post.

You said that HGCs push children to work 2 to 3 years ahead. To clarify, the kids are naturally capable of working several grades ahead and the HGCs exist to meet their needs and provide an appropriate curriculum.

In fact for many 2-3 years ahead would still not meet their needs. My DD entered the HGC in 4th grade reading an eighth grade level (or perhaps higher since that's as far as the elementary teacher could assess....) and left in 5th grade having tested at a late college/graduate school reading level. Never in her life has she been assigned a challenging book in school unless it was one she selected for herself for a independent project. And, I know that there were many peers at the HGC reading at a high school level or greater. So, I agree w/ PP that "pushing" is not really what happens at an HGC. Most are already there.

Am I correct in thinking you have a blog on your DC's experience?

SAM 2, I think on your point one you are comparing apples to oranges. At least as I read this board, the overwhelming criticism of IQ/cognitive testing as being inaccurate is criticism around the WPPSII/WISC given at ages 3-5 years old. Many parents, believe that these are given too much emphasis in the school admissions process leading to inaccurate identification of those kids who will go on to be high peformers at the high school/college/real life level, but this is different than believing that they are inaccurate per se.

The other main criticism seems to be that since everyone on this board reports getting a 99%ile score, that the scores must be wildly inflated and thus inaccurate. But, this is a reflection of a lack of understanding of statistics, IMO.

I don't think there are many people on this board who are saying that the SSAT or raven scores inaccurately identified a "stupid" kid as really very "bright". (Whatever the hell "stupid" and "bright" really mean anyway which is often at the core of the debate....)

Sam2, thanks for the thoughtful post. I don't have any answers, but I do have some more thoughts. These are based on experience with kids in MoCo magnets.

1. A lot of the dismissing of WPPSI results seems based on the fact these are administered to 4-year-olds, where the results depend so much on the kid's mood that day, or even whether she had too much sugar for breakfast.
2. The screening process screens for both intelligence and hard work. I think some of the answer may actually be in this combination of the two. The test administered in December tests IQ, but the grades and teacher recs will show hard workers too. The magnet people also say they look for "passion" whatever that means, but it probably means a willingness to work hard at home. Anyway, some kids who may not grasp every point immediately are still likely to be the sort of kids who just work longer at it, and not the type of kids to drop out.
3) The work is hard. DH and I both went through college calculus, but we stopped being able to help DC in 7th grade algebra.
4) This is a self-selected group of kids who want to be in the magnet. Magnet horror stories are traded in every 5th and 8th grade. And for the kids whose parents made them apply, these parents aren't going to let them drop out.
5) The magnets take the top 1-2% in the county, vs. top privates which take maybe the top 10-15%. They have different missions, obviously. I don't know what the IQ standard deviations are, but it seems like a kid in the 98th would be at least somewhere in the 90 percents.

Not sure how useful some or all of this is, although I do like my point #2.

I think the statement that children rarely leave only applies to the 4-5 years. After that the number of slots available shrinks and the selection process is open to everyone again. The slots are also not geographically diverse within the county like the 4-5 slots are. From Western Rockville, my child would have to be on a bus for over 1 hour to get over to SS for either Eastern or Takoma Park. I think losing 2 hours a day to a commute when you are 11 negates any benefits of the program. I don't see much of an option but to return to our home school for MS.. I was told about 40% of the kids at our ES HGC go on a MS HGC.

SAM2 wrote:If some percentage of the students are not-quite-gifted, but all of them are doing well in the gifted classroom, then maybe the academics aren't quite as challenging as some parents like to claim.

It's hard to imagine that many kids get in who aren't capable of doing the work, just from a theoretical point of view. First, across MCPS, about 40% kids are labeled gifted. (Yes, I know there is debate over whether the label is too generously applied.) About 20% of 3rd graders apply to a HGC, and about 4% eventually get a spot. In addition to the test scores you mention, they're also looking at performance above grade level, as well as other qualitative factors (creativity, persistence, independence). In the end, it's hard to imagine kids getting in who would quality as "not-quite-gifted." If anything, I think that there are many more kids out there who are arguably equally qualified but don't get in.

It's interesting to see this thread revived after lying dormant for almost a year. The thinking behind my original point was that there seems to be a big inconsistency between two ideas:

(1) The claim from many people on DCUM that all these standardized/normed intelligence tests (WISC, SB, CogAT, Raven, etc) are all badly flawed. These critics often argue that scores are wildly inflated, and easily skewed.

(2) The fact that once children are admitted to a gifted program, most of them generally stay on a gifted track throughout school, and very few are moved back to the general student population. I've seen this claim expressed in a number of research papers on education and giftedness, and many people on this thread repeat it.

There seems to be an inconsistency between these two ideas. If the intelligence tests really are fatally flawed, then lots of those students initially admitted to the gifted programs later will be unable to keep up with the challenging work. Even if the tests are mostly accurate -- say 75% accurate -- then still 25% of the students who score highly on these tests will later struggle in the gifted classrooms because they don't actually meet the criteria.

How to reconcile the seeming inconsistency?

(A) One possibility is that the gifted classroom teachers are willing to "carry" the not-quite-gifted students based on their inaccurate test scores, and permit them to earn good grades even though they cannot keep up with the work. But this seems hard to stomach, since it means these teachers are allowing these not-quite-gifted students to occupy seats that should be filled by other students. Also, if the academics are as rigorous as everyone claims, then carrying a marginal student would be hard. And those marginal students almost certainly would bring home mediocre grades if they are struggling with the academics.

(B) Another possibility is that the gifted classrooms are not really that advanced after all. If some percentage of the students are not-quite-gifted, but all of them are doing well in the gifted classroom, then maybe the academics aren't quite as challenging as some parents like to claim. (I doubt anyone here will like this theory, but please save your flames, since I'm just brainstorming possibilities, not attacking your child!)

(C) A third possibility is that parents on this thread reject the premise #1 above: they really do believe the screening tests are accurate. Maybe I'm seeing lots of people on DCUM criticizing these screening tests, but none of the critics come from the parents of children in the MoCo gifted programs, since all you parents believe the screening tests are accurate. But even this possibility is hard for me to swallow, because several people here are saying hardly any students ever leave the gifted programs for academic reasons (only for personal preference, "organizational issues," or personal tragedy). If that's true, then that suggests the screening tests are nearly 100% accurate indicators of academic ability! Is that really what people here are saying?

Sorry for the long post. I'm just trying to spell out my thinking and curious questions on these issues. I'd appreciate any insight on other ways to reconcile these seemingly inconsistent ideas.

Sam2

Anonymous wrote:It's hard to believe that no one fails out. Certainly some kid has faced a personal experience or tragedy that has left them unable to cope.

I have a kid in a MoCo magnet. From the kids we know, I can offer the following provisional observations from our limited sample:
(a) Some kids decide they don't like the focus of the magnet. This was the reason given by the one kid we know who left the magnet.
(b) The kids we know who are struggling seem to have organizational issues rather than ability issues. As other PP's have pointed out, the magnets require more work and more long-term projects than most kids have done before, and some magnet kids take longer than others to adjust to the organizational challenges.
(c) A personal tragedy might send a kid off the rails, as you say, however I haven't heard of any such cases. I'd also think the magnets would be sympathetic, and try to accommodate or help the kid, if they were told about the personal tragedy.

It's hard to believe that no one fails out. Certainly some kid has faced a personal experience or tragedy that has left them unable to cope.

Anonymous wrote:Sam2 I wanted to clarify something you wrote in an earlier post.

You said that HGCs push children to work 2 to 3 years ahead. To clarify, the kids are naturally capable of working several grades ahead and the HGCs exist to meet their needs and provide an appropriate curriculum.

In fact for many 2-3 years ahead would still not meet their needs. My DD entered the HGC in 4th grade reading an eighth grade level (or perhaps higher since that's as far as the elementary teacher could assess....) and left in 5th grade having tested at a late college/graduate school reading level. Never in her life has she been assigned a challenging book in school unless it was one she selected for herself for a independent project. And, I know that there were many peers at the HGC reading at a high school level or greater. So, I agree w/ PP that "pushing" is not really what happens at an HGC. Most are already there.

Re -- the use of the WISC in the article to which the OP refers many posts above --

The WISC can be used as one criteria to show that a child is gifted and talented. It alone does not mean that the child will be identified as GT. Other markers considered are -- 2nd grade global screen tests, parent recommendation, teacher recommendation, evidence that the child is working in school at least one grade level ahead in reading and/or math. In addition to these 5 markers, a parent who has a child privately tested on the WISC or similar nationally normed test can submit that and it will be considered as one element of evidence for the GT designation. A child must show 3 out of 5 of these markers to be designated as GT.

This "GT" label is earned by many kids in MCPS system and really gets them not very much. In elementary school it means that a child should be exposed to the William and Mary reading program and be considered for math advancement depending on performance on specific math assessment tests. The vast majority of GT kids are served (well or otherwise) in their home school.

That GT label is very different from gaining entrance to the elementary HGCs or middle school application magnets. Very few of the kids labeled GT by MCPS go on to gain seats in either of these programs. To do so, you have to go through an additional process which involves more testing (usually a second separate cognitive entrance test) and an application including parent recs, teacher recs, essay, etc.

I agree totally with PPs points about the fact that the "inaccuracy" of the WISC and other IQ/cognitive type testing lies mostly in the fact that these tests under-identify kids and don't over-identify kids.

Re kids struggling in the HGC programs -- we have not seen it at our HGC. No one "fails" out. Some kids get worse grades than they otherwise did at their home school, presumably because they are doing more challenging work. My DC mentioned once that those with the "worst" grades were getting As and Bs and maybe one C. These tended to be kids who had attention and organizational challenges, and thus were losing points from not turning in homework or meeting project deadlines. In our HGC, these kids usually got extra support for their attention/organization challenges.

Re: 10:18 comment on math acceleration.
With MoCo slowing math acceleration these days, there is not so much as there might have been in the past, at least at our school. The highest math class available for fourth-graders at Pinecrest is 5/6, when I know several kids would otherwise qualify for a 6/7 or even a 7th grade class.

Sam2 I wanted to clarify something you wrote in an earlier post.

You said that HGCs push children to work 2 to 3 years ahead. To clarify, the kids are naturally capable of working several grades ahead and the HGCs exist to meet their needs and provide an appropriate curriculum.

There aren't very many kids who leave the centers for the highly gifted or the middle school and high school magnet programs. Many of them have to adjust to the workload and having to work harder than before, but they seem to manage.

I don't think there are a lot of kids in the programs who aren't able to do the work. In MoCo there are many fewer slots in the programs than applicants and that may be part of what's going on.

I think the tests are pretty accurate in some ways - a kid who does well on them is smart. There may be some kids from disadvantaged backgrounds who don't perform up to their potential, but there shouldn't be many kids in the programs who can't handle it.

FWIW, for the middle school magnets I believe the county uses a special test developed by Pearson, possibly even developed just for MoCo although I'm not sure about that. At least this was the case a few years ago.

I agree with the PP who said that the curriculum is close to what kids in other schools are doing in MoCo. For example, in 7th grade the TPMS magnet kids do Algebra, which lots of 7th grade kids in other MoCo schools are also doing. At TPMS though, the kids go deeper into the Algebra curriculum. And there's time to throw in extra subjects like field theory, or how to solve the Rubik's cube.

There are some kids at TPMS working a year ahead (and Algebra is currently the highest possible subject for 7th grade in the rest of MoCo), but these kids are the exception not the majority.