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?

Well, the test is easier these days, meaning it's easier for everyone to score higher, including those who wouldn't have fared well in the past. That gives the selection committee the opportunity to apply other criteria as they see fit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

This is the first year of the change, so you won't see the change immediately, and MCPS will never admit it either.

conjecture. but I supposed you will believe what you want.

Have you ever had a kid in HGC? I have, and I can tell you that a big part of the HGC is the cohorts, the caliber of the peers. Even if the standards within HGC curriculum doesn't change, I can tell you that if the students there are not as high caliber, the caliber of the program will change. And the only ones who suffer are the "highly gifted" kids who really do need such a program. I don't need to make any assumptions to realize this.

Who says the caliber of student will not be as high?

What does "broaden the definition of highly gifted" mean to you?

I read the report and it means to not rely so heavily on test scores as a criteria -- which I happen to agree with. Some folks are practicing tests with their kids way in advance so their kid scores well. That should not be the deciding factor.

I agree.. then what should? How do you define "highly gifted"?

I think for enriched education centers should choose the top 3% on a standardized test. All 3rd grade students should be made to take this test at their school.

Poor students in the school system should be provided with food and supplies also so that they can catch up. Standardized test prep booklet should be provided to all students. Teachers should also be made to prepare their students well so that they can take these tests and do well. Teachers should be measured by how well the students do in standardized tests to measure progress.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
And if that is the case, then great. But MCPS hasn't stated that. No one really knows how MCPS defines it.

And I highly doubt that there would be significantly more URM based solely based on those other standarized tests given that they typically as a group don't score very high on such tests.

MCPS conducted pilots last year. MCPS has data. These are empirical questions. You don't have to speculate. Look at the actual stuff that MCPS is actually doing.

The public doesn't have access to the test scores for admitted students. They even stopped showing the median scores of the accepted students like they used to do on the test results of the students.

It's a big secret, and I wonder why they are so secretive about the stats.

Anonymous wrote:

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"?

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?

I'm not sure what you are asking. There are children of H1B immigrants in HGC.

Yes, there are children of East European, Chinese, Indian H1B legal immigrants in HGC. They may NOT be financially well off, but they are educated. Just like there are children of Blacks and Latino immigrants - who are educated in the HGC. That is not the same as the children of poor and poorly educated AA and HI students.

The children of poor and uneducated African-American (not immigrant Blacks from Africa and Caribbean countries) are unicorns in the HGC. The affirmative action is not being used by their children or the children of non-English speaking illegal Hispanic immigrants.

Fixed it above.

Sparks Matsunaga ES is not a poor school. Here is the data on that school. Mainly Asian and just 21% FARMS.

http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/regulatoryaccountability/glance/currentyear/schools/02523.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, there are children of East European, Chinese, Indian H1B legal immigrants in HGC. They may be financially well off, but they are educated. Just like there are children of Blacks and Latino immigrants - who are educated in the HGC. That is not the same as the children of poor and poorly educated AA and HI students.

The children of poor and uneducated African-American (not immigrant Blacks from Africa and Caribbean countries) are unicorns in the HGC. The affirmative action is not being used by their children or the children of non-English speaking illegal Hispanic immigrants.

There is no affirmative action here.

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"?

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?

I'm not sure what you are asking. There are children of H1B immigrants in HGC.

Yes, there are children of East European, Chinese, Indian H1B legal immigrants in HGC. They may be financially well off, but they are educated. Just like there are children of Blacks and Latino immigrants - who are educated in the HGC. That is not the same as the children of poor and poorly educated AA and HI students.

The children of poor and uneducated African-American (not immigrant Blacks from Africa and Caribbean countries) are unicorns in the HGC. The affirmative action is not being used by their children or the children of non-English speaking illegal Hispanic immigrants.

Anonymous wrote:
And if that is the case, then great. But MCPS hasn't stated that. No one really knows how MCPS defines it.

And I highly doubt that there would be significantly more URM based solely based on those other standarized tests given that they typically as a group don't score very high on such tests.

MCPS conducted pilots last year. MCPS has data. These are empirical questions. You don't have to speculate. Look at the actual stuff that MCPS is actually doing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

This is the first year of the change, so you won't see the change immediately, and MCPS will never admit it either.

conjecture. but I supposed you will believe what you want.

Have you ever had a kid in HGC? I have, and I can tell you that a big part of the HGC is the cohorts, the caliber of the peers. Even if the standards within HGC curriculum doesn't change, I can tell you that if the students there are not as high caliber, the caliber of the program will change. And the only ones who suffer are the "highly gifted" kids who really do need such a program. I don't need to make any assumptions to realize this.

Who says the caliber of student will not be as high?

What does "broaden the definition of highly gifted" mean to you?

I read the report and it means to not rely so heavily on test scores as a criteria -- which I happen to agree with. Some folks are practicing tests with their kids way in advance so their kid scores well. That should not be the deciding factor.

I agree.. then what should? How do you define "highly gifted"?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

This is the first year of the change, so you won't see the change immediately, and MCPS will never admit it either.

conjecture. but I supposed you will believe what you want.

Have you ever had a kid in HGC? I have, and I can tell you that a big part of the HGC is the cohorts, the caliber of the peers. Even if the standards within HGC curriculum doesn't change, I can tell you that if the students there are not as high caliber, the caliber of the program will change. And the only ones who suffer are the "highly gifted" kids who really do need such a program. I don't need to make any assumptions to realize this.

Who says the caliber of student will not be as high?

What does "broaden the definition of highly gifted" mean to you?

It means "broaden the definition of highly gifted". The admissions process was previously based on teacher recommendations and that one test that was probably the CogAT. Now they're looking at more information -- MAP and PARCC scores, for example.

And if that is the case, then great. But MCPS hasn't stated that. No one really knows how MCPS defines it.

And I highly doubt that there would be significantly more URM based solely based on those other standarized tests given that they typically as a group don't score very high on such tests.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

This is the first year of the change, so you won't see the change immediately, and MCPS will never admit it either.

conjecture. but I supposed you will believe what you want.

Have you ever had a kid in HGC? I have, and I can tell you that a big part of the HGC is the cohorts, the caliber of the peers. Even if the standards within HGC curriculum doesn't change, I can tell you that if the students there are not as high caliber, the caliber of the program will change. And the only ones who suffer are the "highly gifted" kids who really do need such a program. I don't need to make any assumptions to realize this.

Who says the caliber of student will not be as high?

What does "broaden the definition of highly gifted" mean to you?

I read the report and it means to not rely so heavily on test scores as a criteria -- which I happen to agree with. Some folks are practicing tests with their kids way in advance so their kid scores well. That should not be the deciding factor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

This is the first year of the change, so you won't see the change immediately, and MCPS will never admit it either.

conjecture. but I supposed you will believe what you want.

Have you ever had a kid in HGC? I have, and I can tell you that a big part of the HGC is the cohorts, the caliber of the peers. Even if the standards within HGC curriculum doesn't change, I can tell you that if the students there are not as high caliber, the caliber of the program will change. And the only ones who suffer are the "highly gifted" kids who really do need such a program. I don't need to make any assumptions to realize this.

Who says the caliber of student will not be as high?

What does "broaden the definition of highly gifted" mean to you?

It means "broaden the definition of highly gifted". The admissions process was previously based on teacher recommendations and that one test that was probably the CogAT. Now they're looking at more information -- MAP and PARCC scores, for example.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

This is the first year of the change, so you won't see the change immediately, and MCPS will never admit it either.

conjecture. but I supposed you will believe what you want.

Have you ever had a kid in HGC? I have, and I can tell you that a big part of the HGC is the cohorts, the caliber of the peers. Even if the standards within HGC curriculum doesn't change, I can tell you that if the students there are not as high caliber, the caliber of the program will change. And the only ones who suffer are the "highly gifted" kids who really do need such a program. I don't need to make any assumptions to realize this.

Who says the caliber of student will not be as high?

What does "broaden the definition of highly gifted" mean to you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

This is the first year of the change, so you won't see the change immediately, and MCPS will never admit it either.

conjecture. but I supposed you will believe what you want.

Have you ever had a kid in HGC? I have, and I can tell you that a big part of the HGC is the cohorts, the caliber of the peers. Even if the standards within HGC curriculum doesn't change, I can tell you that if the students there are not as high caliber, the caliber of the program will change. And the only ones who suffer are the "highly gifted" kids who really do need such a program. I don't need to make any assumptions to realize this.

Who says the caliber of student will not be as high?

Not me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am all for this. I do worry that if the regional programs are expanded more bright kids from our school will leave and that there will no longer be a group of strong peers to be role models for the rest of the kids like DC. I wish they could figure out ways to bring more of the HGC type programming to neighborhood schools. I wouldn't want them to ability group classes but even one intellectually challenging pull out group a week would make a huge difference.

They are doing that.

How is this happening? Don't see any evidence at our school which is one of those where 80 or more percent are identified as gifted.

Are they finally teaching to potential in the neighborhood schools or not? Tracking? Differentiation is back after being taken out for Common Core curriculum 2.0?
Many of us are not going to put our children in a 1 hour early morning and late afternoon bus ride to a HGC.

I think they should just leave HGC alone to the top 2 to 3% the way it was and provide the differentiation at the home schools for the advanced but not gifted.

I am a PP who stated that they should provide similar curriculum/projects at the home school that they do in HGC. Obviously, the caliber of the projects will be different, and thus, they shouldn't be necessarily held to the same standards as those in the HGC, but give them the opportunity to have more challenging work, and not just worksheets. Obviously, in the low income schools, this will be more challenging, but in those schools where there are a good number of higher achieving kids, make certain things like the science projects at the science fair mandatory. The standards can be lower, but give them the chance to achieve more.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

This is the first year of the change, so you won't see the change immediately, and MCPS will never admit it either.

conjecture. but I supposed you will believe what you want.

Have you ever had a kid in HGC? I have, and I can tell you that a big part of the HGC is the cohorts, the caliber of the peers. Even if the standards within HGC curriculum doesn't change, I can tell you that if the students there are not as high caliber, the caliber of the program will change. And the only ones who suffer are the "highly gifted" kids who really do need such a program. I don't need to make any assumptions to realize this.

Who says the caliber of student will not be as high?