Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

NP (on this thread at least). Does GT > 90th pctile refer to the 90 pctile nationally? Is this how we get in such a pickle with 40% of MCPS students being at or above the 90th pctile nationally?

To the other poster, >90pctile would increase 98th pctile, by definition.

I guess you miss understood that sentence by the PP. What it meant the kids who are identified as GT include the ones at > 90%tile. It did not mean GT in Montgomery county is equal to >90th %tile. Anyway, this %tile reference are for MoCo students only not for national comparison.

No, I didn't misunderstand the sentence. I do econometrics (i.e., lots and lots of stats) for a living. What I am asking is, what sample does the 90th pctile come from? Is this the 90th pctile (and above) for all kids in MoCo, or is it 90th pctile for all kids in the nation? I think your second sentence may be answering my question, but it's not clear you understand the issue here.

What I'm trying to get at is an answer to this question: if MoCo administers a test and says that any kid who scores in the 90th percentile or above is "GT", how do we end up with a situation where MoCo labels 40% of kids as being "GT"? By definition, the 90th pctile kid is in the top 10%, not in the top 40%. So there is a definitional problem somewhere. from Wikipedia: "In statistics, a percentile (or centile) is the value of a variable below which a certain percent of observations fall. For example, the 20th percentile is the value (or score) below which 20 percent of the observations may be found." That's what I'm trying to pin down.

It would make sense if MoCo kids were often above the national average, so that 40% of MoCo kids were in the top 10% nationally. But that was just one guess. Maybe there's another explanation.

(And BTW, I have to laugh at "I guess you miss understood the sentence." Can't we try a little, teensy bit harder to be nice to each other? I know some of you guys frequent the GTA forum, but really!)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
GTA uses MCPS definition of "GT", which is all the kids identified as "GT" in 2nd grade by global screening process. GTA is advocating for access to accelerated education for all kids identified as "GT". This GT identification includes kids who are above >90%tile. I think, they primarily focus their energy for acceleration within the neighborhood schools, since magnet programs provides challenges for the accepted kids. I would think that is a more inclusive approach than to advocate for kids who are already selected to magnet programs.

NP (on this thread at least). Does GT > 90th pctile refer to the 90 pctile nationally? Is this how we get in such a pickle with 40% of MCPS students being at or above the 90th pctile nationally?

To the other poster, >90pctile would increase 98th pctile, by definition.

I guess you miss understood that sentence by the PP. What it meant the kids who are identified as GT include the ones at > 90%tile. It did not mean GT in Montgomery county is equal to >90th %tile. Anyway, this %tile reference are for MoCo students only not for national comparison.

Anonymous wrote:
GTA uses MCPS definition of "GT", which is all the kids identified as "GT" in 2nd grade by global screening process. GTA is advocating for access to accelerated education for all kids identified as "GT". This GT identification includes kids who are above >90%tile. I think, they primarily focus their energy for acceleration within the neighborhood schools, since magnet programs provides challenges for the accepted kids. I would think that is a more inclusive approach than to advocate for kids who are already selected to magnet programs.

NP (on this thread at least). Does GT > 90th pctile refer to the 90 pctile nationally? Is this how we get in such a pickle with 40% of MCPS students being at or above the 90th pctile nationally?

To the other poster, >90pctile would increase 98th pctile, by definition.

Anonymous wrote:
So, what you are saying is that GTA wants everybody ID'd in the global screening process to be given accelerated instruction. So, everybody at the 60t%ile and above in one class?
Where can I find the official GTA position? Where do you guys meet and on when?

I believe what GTA is saying is asking MCPS to provide appropriate challenge for everyone identified as GT through global screening in 2nd grade and continue placing the kids in appropriate level in later years through professional recommendations. That does not mean everyone in one class. Please see the “Challenge Every Child” petition someone provided a link to. GTA wants ability grouping so that kids of same ability can be placed in homogeneous group instead of the philosophy of differentiation in heterogeneous class MCPS is pushing for.

Go to gtamc.org and read about the organization. I am not one of them. So, if you want to communicate with GTA, send them email, I am sure someone from GTA will get back to you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I don't think the poster said anything about GTA not supporting the child at "97-98%tile." Like you say, you assume they support the >90% until you find something to the contrary. That is your choice, right? I want to see something that shows they support the >90%ile group before I jump on that bandwagon.

So, can you explain the meaning that the GTA links to calling a child "GT." I want the definition.

GTA uses MCPS definition of "GT", which is all the kids identified as "GT" in 2nd grade by global screening process. GTA is advocating for access to accelerated education for all kids identified as "GT". This GT identification includes kids who are above >90%tile. I think, they primarily focus their energy for acceleration within the neighborhood schools, since magnet programs provides challenges for the accepted kids. I would think that is a more inclusive approach than to advocate for kids who are already selected to magnet programs.

So, what you are saying is that GTA wants everybody ID'd in the global screening process to be given accelerated instruction. So, everybody at the 60t%ile and above in one class?

Where can I find the official GTA position? Where do you guys meet and on when?

Anonymous wrote:
I don't think the poster said anything about GTA not supporting the child at "97-98%tile." Like you say, you assume they support the >90% until you find something to the contrary. That is your choice, right? I want to see something that shows they support the >90%ile group before I jump on that bandwagon.

So, can you explain the meaning that the GTA links to calling a child "GT." I want the definition.

GTA uses MCPS definition of "GT", which is all the kids identified as "GT" in 2nd grade by global screening process. GTA is advocating for access to accelerated education for all kids identified as "GT". This GT identification includes kids who are above >90%tile. I think, they primarily focus their energy for acceleration within the neighborhood schools, since magnet programs provides challenges for the accepted kids. I would think that is a more inclusive approach than to advocate for kids who are already selected to magnet programs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Where does the GTA acknowledge support for the child at "97-98%tile?" Did you read about the challenge every child petition? I just want to know where the GTA acknowledges what they call GT?

Did you read anywhere that GTA does not support children at 97-98%tile? Until I find something to the contracry I will continue to believ they support children at 97-98%tile. Yes, I have read the petition; I do not support anything without reading? As far as I can tell, there is only one meaning to “GT” in MCPS and until GTA categorically comes up with a different meaning I will assume that is the meaning they are using.

There is something called namespace in engineering. The meaning of GT in MCPS namespace is specific. Personally we may not agree with the definition, but all conversation must assume that definition. If you want to come up with an acceptable new term for what MCPS calls “GT” that would be a different advocacy.

I don't think the poster said anything about GTA not supporting the child at "97-98%tile." Like you say, you assume they support the >90% until you find something to the contrary. That is your choice, right? I want to see something that shows they support the >90%ile group before I jump on that bandwagon.

So, can you explain the meaning that the GTA links to calling a child "GT." I want the definition.

Anonymous wrote:
Where does the GTA acknowledge support for the child at "97-98%tile?" Did you read about the challenge every child petition? I just want to know where the GTA acknowledges what they call GT?

Did you read anywhere that GTA does not support children at 97-98%tile? Until I find something to the contracry I will continue to believ they support children at 97-98%tile. Yes, I have read the petition; I do not support anything without reading? As far as I can tell, there is only one meaning to “GT” in MCPS and until GTA categorically comes up with a different meaning I will assume that is the meaning they are using.

There is something called namespace in engineering. The meaning of GT in MCPS namespace is specific. Personally we may not agree with the definition, but all conversation must assume that definition. If you want to come up with an acceptable new term for what MCPS calls “GT” that would be a different advocacy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What genuinely surprises me about this discussion, and about the whole MoCo system, is how many different interpretations there are of the GT process, etc. One would think MCPS would post online clear, transparent descriptions of every GT and magnet program and the process for entering it, as well as what that program actually consists of in terms of instruction. The same is true for differentiation of kids who are above grade level. So one might expect MCPS to standardize the services available for those kids and post online a clear policy and description. One might also expect a consistent policy about above-grade-level instruction across schools. From the posts on this forum, it seems there may be variation across schools on this point.

Where can I find the minutes of GTA meetings? It's fine and dandy to say we need to organize. But we need to be careful who we associater ourselves with. Why didn't MCPS meet with the GTA? What is the position of GTA on the label? What is the position of the GTA on GT identification?

I used to be part of this organization but no more. The same people are stuck on that long after their kids are gone and promote their old views. Why doesn't the GTA poster use his/her real name?

I do not know who the GTA poster you are referring to. I am the one who posted about organized advocacy. I am not from GTA. I am as anonymous as you are. I am voicing my opinion only. I do not worry too much about who started a a movement, I only care about what the movement about. So, I support the current movement started by GTA to challenge every child (that includes mine who are at 97-98%tile).

Where does the GTA acknowledge support for the child at "97-98%tile?" Did you read about the challenge every child petition? I just want to know where the GTA acknowledges what they call GT?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What genuinely surprises me about this discussion, and about the whole MoCo system, is how many different interpretations there are of the GT process, etc. One would think MCPS would post online clear, transparent descriptions of every GT and magnet program and the process for entering it, as well as what that program actually consists of in terms of instruction. The same is true for differentiation of kids who are above grade level. So one might expect MCPS to standardize the services available for those kids and post online a clear policy and description. One might also expect a consistent policy about above-grade-level instruction across schools. From the posts on this forum, it seems there may be variation across schools on this point.

Where can I find the minutes of GTA meetings? It's fine and dandy to say we need to organize. But we need to be careful who we associater ourselves with. Why didn't MCPS meet with the GTA? What is the position of GTA on the label? What is the position of the GTA on GT identification?

I used to be part of this organization but no more. The same people are stuck on that long after their kids are gone and promote their old views. Why doesn't the GTA poster use his/her real name?

I do not know who the GTA poster you are referring to. I am the one who posted about organized advocacy. I am not from GTA. I am as anonymous as you are. I am voicing my opinion only. I do not worry too much about who started a a movement, I only care about what the movement about. So, I support the current movement started by GTA to challenge every child (that includes mine who are at 97-98%tile).

To clarify, MCPS does meet with GTA members and invite GTA to sit at the table in the discussions that are not closed.
GTA has pretty clear positions on GT education that can be found on their website.

Anonymous wrote:What genuinely surprises me about this discussion, and about the whole MoCo system, is how many different interpretations there are of the GT process, etc. One would think MCPS would post online clear, transparent descriptions of every GT and magnet program and the process for entering it, as well as what that program actually consists of in terms of instruction. The same is true for differentiation of kids who are above grade level. So one might expect MCPS to standardize the services available for those kids and post online a clear policy and description. One might also expect a consistent policy about above-grade-level instruction across schools. From the posts on this forum, it seems there may be variation across schools on this point.

Where can I find the minutes of GTA meetings? It's fine and dandy to say we need to organize. But we need to be careful who we associater ourselves with. Why didn't MCPS meet with the GTA? What is the position of GTA on the label? What is the position of the GTA on GT identification?

I used to be part of this organization but no more. The same people are stuck on that long after their kids are gone and promote their old views. Why doesn't the GTA poster use his/her real name?

Anonymous wrote:What genuinely surprises me about this discussion, and about the whole MoCo system, is how many different interpretations there are of the GT process, etc. One would think MCPS would post online clear, transparent descriptions of every GT and magnet program and the process for entering it, as well as what that program actually consists of in terms of instruction. The same is true for differentiation of kids who are above grade level. So one might expect MCPS to standardize the services available for those kids and post online a clear policy and description. One might also expect a consistent policy about above-grade-level instruction across schools. From the posts on this forum, it seems there may be variation across schools on this point.

You nailed it. We need to demand a concise written directive for accelerated education from MCPS for schools to implement so that various interpretations would not exist and we do not have to leave our kids education to chance (in the discreation of the school principal or teachers). This requires organized advocacy and for all parents to say the same things.

What genuinely surprises me about this discussion, and about the whole MoCo system, is how many different interpretations there are of the GT process, etc. One would think MCPS would post online clear, transparent descriptions of every GT and magnet program and the process for entering it, as well as what that program actually consists of in terms of instruction. The same is true for differentiation of kids who are above grade level. So one might expect MCPS to standardize the services available for those kids and post online a clear policy and description. One might also expect a consistent policy about above-grade-level instruction across schools. From the posts on this forum, it seems there may be variation across schools on this point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The GTA seems to be desperate to drag everyone into your efforts. We elect the BOE, no? We pay the MCPS salary. Let us make them listen to them. They are the people we pay with our taxes.

I looked at the emails of the GTA listserv and saw them whining that MCPS doesn't listen to them!!! Look at the way they pick on Starr and MCPS.

Why risk being associated with a group that is famous for attacking people they don't like?

How do you read GTA listserv? Are you a GTA organization member? Exactly! GTA listserv has very little connection to GTA as an organization. Most members of GTA listserv are parents whose kids require accelerated education or political people who use the information in the listserv for their political gain. Majority of GTA listserv members are not the member of GTA organization. For example, there is one member of GTA listserve who is a prominent member of a political group who constatly opposes acceleration in schools and supports one-size-fits all education. He gathers information from the listserv and uses it for his organization's political advantage.

So, do not judge the intention of the organization from the emails that gets exchanged between people in the listserv. It is unmoderated discussion group not a representation of GTA's view. In fact I am not member of GTA, and a very inactive member of GTA listserv. I learn from discussions, am a parent of magnet school kids, and support accelerations in neighborhood schools. So, as long as GTA supports this cause, I will support them.

Now I judge the organization from what the officers of the GTA post. My DD went to school with the daughter of one of them and I started reading what they would write. In the years I have learned what they stand for. Doe the GTA post minutes of their meetings for the public to see? Do they announce meetings for the public to observe? Hey, if you want the public to participate in your efforts become open to the public in EVERY WAY.