Anonymous wrote: I don't think these issues are ones only a few parents care about - at least on the eastern side.
1. the GTA got about 104 comments for the Super's forum. Some comments were multiple comments from the same person, some were from people who weren't in our system! Even if all those commenters were counted it is still barely the number of parents of an incoming magnet class.
2. take out the comments that supported magnets and centers and you don't even have enough to claim anything.
Anonymous wrote:
Here are some facts
1. the GTA got about 104 comments for the Super's forum. Some comments were multiple comments from the same person, some were from people who weren't in our system! Even if all those commenters were counted it is still barely the number of parents of an incoming magnet class.
2. take out the comments that supported magnets and centers and you don't even have enough to claim anything.
this was truly a dumb idea.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I'm PP at 18:46
"I know that you don't need to be labeled as being in the GT group to get services. You can pretty much ask and they will give"
My DC is a preschooler and will soon be in K. In starting to research MCPS and the state of affairs at our local school, I have gotten exactly the opposite impression from what you posted above. My impression is that in SOME schools - if you are lucky enough to have a principal and teachers who believe in it - there is an effort made to provide above grade level kids the services/work they need to actually advance at their own pace. But this seems to not be the norm everywhere and at my red zone school w/ HUGE rates of ESOL and FARMS kids, I'm quite worried about a policy that just leaves such important decisions up to the whim of those running a given school.
I'm looking to organize w/ others that want to see ability grouping and acceleration required in a systemic way so that parents are not left on their own to try to persuade a principal/teacher to do this.
GTA seems committted to that goal, so I'm inclined to join with them. And no, I don't care about the label at all - I care about the fact that MCPS has a policy on the books for kids classified as GT that would seem to cover the issues I'm concerned about so long as they actually implement it. If they come up w/ some new policy for people to try to push in an organized fashion for adoption that focuses broadly speaking at above grade level kids w/o labeling them in any way, then fine but that seems even less likely to happen. One thing at a time...
You must join with them! You are able to parrot all their lines so well you'll fit in.
This is why the old GTA which many of us supported is being ignored by MCPS, and the BOE .... according to your letter.
Anonymous wrote:I'm PP at 18:46
"I know that you don't need to be labeled as being in the GT group to get services. You can pretty much ask and they will give"
My DC is a preschooler and will soon be in K. In starting to research MCPS and the state of affairs at our local school, I have gotten exactly the opposite impression from what you posted above. My impression is that in SOME schools - if you are lucky enough to have a principal and teachers who believe in it - there is an effort made to provide above grade level kids the services/work they need to actually advance at their own pace. But this seems to not be the norm everywhere and at my red zone school w/ HUGE rates of ESOL and FARMS kids, I'm quite worried about a policy that just leaves such important decisions up to the whim of those running a given school.
I'm looking to organize w/ others that want to see ability grouping and acceleration required in a systemic way so that parents are not left on their own to try to persuade a principal/teacher to do this.
GTA seems committted to that goal, so I'm inclined to join with them. And no, I don't care about the label at all - I care about the fact that MCPS has a policy on the books for kids classified as GT that would seem to cover the issues I'm concerned about so long as they actually implement it. If they come up w/ some new policy for people to try to push in an organized fashion for adoption that focuses broadly speaking at above grade level kids w/o labeling them in any way, then fine but that seems even less likely to happen. One thing at a time...
Anonymous wrote:""MCPS identifies tons and tons of kids as GT - more so than could possibly be "gifted" in a usual sense of the word"
So, they've got it wrong for all kinds of reasons. So, why don't you ask them to get it right? "
Because I don't imagine my child is likely to be geninuely gifted, but I do think she might fall in the GT group as currently defined and my main concern - in a red zone school - is that she be able to work at her own pace w/ other similar kids. If the only formal program to try to encourage/push for that is thru GT identification, then I'll use that. If tomorrow they want to call all kids working above grade level but not truly "gifted", the purple team, then I will advocate that the purple team kids need to be able to work at their own paces and put with similar peer groups.