I think there should be a cut score and everyone over gets in. Might need to juggle classes some, but it would be manageable. The grad school analogy is a bit strained, not sure how much of a CV you can build by 3rd grade.

So are you proposing something like everyone with a 120-135 has their recommendations read and evaluated for admission, but everyone with a 135 (or whatever) and above automatically gets in? Or maybe to take into account for the different median scores, it could be "X above the median score automatically gets in..." Like 20 points. That would allow for a kid with a 133+ to automatically get in for the PC/OV cluster, and the kid with a 144+ to automatically get in at Cold Spring (to use the lowest and highest median, if I recall correctly).

Although the parents who post here don't form an adequate sample size, there were not *that* many parents who reported their child got in with a sub 125 score, and perhaps those kids were outliers in other tests/recommendations. And it didn't seem like there were *that* many kids with 136+ scores who *didn't* get in (outside of the Cold Spring feeder schools). Where it gets tricky is that there were some kids who were wait-listed with scores equal to or higher than kids who got in, but again, that is likely because of the other factors.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Teacher recommendations also are unreliable. In general, teachers are not adequately trained to recognize gifted students and have many biases. It's just as likely a teacher does not realize a child is gifted as does recognize

So you see no value in a teacher's recommendations? Sometimes teachers see things parents don't. At least at our elementary school, we've known several kids who only took the test because the teachers recommended to the parents that they be tested. And almost always those kids got in... And of course recommendations are subjective, because every teacher and every student is different. But together -- the test score and the recommendation -- paint at least a decent picture of the kid's readiness. The same can be said about parents. Many parents assume their kids are gifted, while others don't have a sense of just how gifted their kid is -- without a teacher pointing it out to them.

Just give everyone the test and grab the highest scoring ones. I have no real confidence in teachers identifying gifted kids in 3rd grade.

But what happens when several kids have the same scores. This happens in higher ed. When I review applications for grad school students we often have to consider other items beyond test scores and GPA because often there are several students with very close or similar scores. We have to consider recommendations and essays as the deciding factor.

I think there should be a cut score and everyone over gets in. Might need to juggle classes some, but it would be manageable. The grad school analogy is a bit strained, not sure how much of a CV you can build by 3rd grade .

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Teacher recommendations also are unreliable. In general, teachers are not adequately trained to recognize gifted students and have many biases. It's just as likely a teacher does not realize a child is gifted as does recognize

So you see no value in a teacher's recommendations? Sometimes teachers see things parents don't. At least at our elementary school, we've known several kids who only took the test because the teachers recommended to the parents that they be tested. And almost always those kids got in... And of course recommendations are subjective, because every teacher and every student is different. But together -- the test score and the recommendation -- paint at least a decent picture of the kid's readiness. The same can be said about parents. Many parents assume their kids are gifted, while others don't have a sense of just how gifted their kid is -- without a teacher pointing it out to them.

Just give everyone the test and grab the highest scoring ones. I have no real confidence in teachers identifying gifted kids in 3rd grade.

But what happens when several kids have the same scores. This happens in higher ed. When I review applications for grad school students we often have to consider other items beyond test scores and GPA because often there are several students with very close or similar scores. We have to consider recommendations and essays as the deciding factor.

In a public school, all.children with the same or similar abilities should be given a curriculum to meet their needs. There are limited spaces in these programs for artificial reasons. I do believe that teaching this curriculum to an entire class in every school is possible given the plethora of high test scores throughout the county. The county just has to give up their "differentiation is best" policy to do it...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Teacher recommendations also are unreliable. In general, teachers are not adequately trained to recognize gifted students and have many biases. It's just as likely a teacher does not realize a child is gifted as does recognize

So you see no value in a teacher's recommendations? Sometimes teachers see things parents don't. At least at our elementary school, we've known several kids who only took the test because the teachers recommended to the parents that they be tested. And almost always those kids got in... And of course recommendations are subjective, because every teacher and every student is different. But together -- the test score and the recommendation -- paint at least a decent picture of the kid's readiness. The same can be said about parents. Many parents assume their kids are gifted, while others don't have a sense of just how gifted their kid is -- without a teacher pointing it out to them.

Just give everyone the test and grab the highest scoring ones. I have no real confidence in teachers identifying gifted kids in 3rd grade.

But what happens when several kids have the same scores. This happens in higher ed. When I review applications for grad school students we often have to consider other items beyond test scores and GPA because often there are several students with very close or similar scores. We have to consider recommendations and essays as the deciding factor.

Anonymous wrote:I don't disagree that some kids are not getting chosen because they still have a peer group at their home school. What greatly upsets me is that these other children get a completely different curriculum.

In the example above, shouldn't Betty and Veronica both have access to the same curriculum? Especially when you have some much lower performing children/schools having full classes taught with it? If there is such a need for expansion (which there is) why not try at least one home school hgc model in the cluster with the most high performing children? No, they didn't because... well you can fill in the blank.

Leaving children that are very gifted in their home schools bored is not beneficial and the defense of at least they have a peer group to be bored together is not adequate.

I agree with this. If the home school could give this peer group enriched curriculum to meet their needs, I would accept this. Unfortunately they are not.

Anonymous wrote:

Teacher recommendations also are unreliable. In general, teachers are not adequately trained to recognize gifted students and have many biases. It's just as likely a teacher does not realize a child is gifted as does recognize

So you see no value in a teacher's recommendations? Sometimes teachers see things parents don't. At least at our elementary school, we've known several kids who only took the test because the teachers recommended to the parents that they be tested. And almost always those kids got in... And of course recommendations are subjective, because every teacher and every student is different. But together -- the test score and the recommendation -- paint at least a decent picture of the kid's readiness. The same can be said about parents. Many parents assume their kids are gifted, while others don't have a sense of just how gifted their kid is -- without a teacher pointing it out to them.

Just give everyone the test and grab the highest scoring ones. I have no real confidence in teachers identifying gifted kids in 3rd grade.

Teacher recommendations also are unreliable. In general, teachers are not adequately trained to recognize gifted students and have many biases. It's just as likely a teacher does not realize a child is gifted as does recognize

So you see no value in a teacher's recommendations? Sometimes teachers see things parents don't. At least at our elementary school, we've known several kids who only took the test because the teachers recommended to the parents that they be tested. And almost always those kids got in... And of course recommendations are subjective, because every teacher and every student is different. But together -- the test score and the recommendation -- paint at least a decent picture of the kid's readiness. The same can be said about parents. Many parents assume their kids are gifted, while others don't have a sense of just how gifted their kid is -- without a teacher pointing it out to them.

Teacher recommendations also are unreliable. In general, teachers are not adequately trained to recognize gifted students and have many biases. It's just as likely a teacher does not realize a child is gifted as does recognize

Considering other factors in addition to tests and broadening the applicant pool are admirable. Factoring in the home school seems equitable but the problem is I'm not aware of schools being proactive in helping kids get the instruction they need. The schools talk of differentiation and have some special math classes but these are not comparable to in depth instruction. This is why the HGCs are so valuable

But there are always bright and talented kids who don't get in from every part of the county; that's why the test is only part of the equation. There's no blanket "all kids who score over 135 get to attend an HGC school. There are kids placed on the waitpool who would obviously be able to do the work, but there just isn't room. This is true in the middle and high school programs as well as in college. Bright and talented kids don't always get in, and sometimes you find out a kid with a lower SAT score or lower GPA did get in; but you only know part of the story.

I do agree that if there are whole classes (can someone explain how the pilot whole-class programs work) who get HGC curriculum, perhaps they should just add one of those in the CS cluster and that would solve the problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't disagree that some kids are not getting chosen because they still have a peer group at their home school. What greatly upsets me is that these other children get a completely different curriculum.

In the example above, shouldn't Betty and Veronica both have access to the same curriculum? Especially when you have some much lower performing children/schools having full classes taught with it? If there is such a need for expansion (which there is) why not try at least one home school hgc model in the cluster with the most high performing children? No, they didn't because... well you can fill in the blank.

Leaving children that are very gifted in their home schools bored is not beneficial and the defense of at least they have a peer group to be bored together is not adequate.

I have to agree with this PP. I'm at a Focus school and kid goes to an HGC (not Coldspring), but it's crazy that kids who score so well on the test aren't afforded the same opportunity as kids in other parts of the county.

+1. I agree with the poster. My DS was accepted to Cold Spring. Some of his very bright peers were wait listed and I am sadden to know this. He also has a handful of other peers who did apply. In my opinion, any of his peers could/should have made it given how motivated and bright they were. I don't disagree with providing more support to the focus or title I schools and provide those kids with opportunities. However, I don't agree that kids in my son's current school's cohort should not have a much more accelerated and enriched program. I do take issue with having to remove my child from his current group of bright peers to join another group of bright if I want to access a more enriched curriculum. A smart group of bright kids bored together is not acceptable and is such a waste of their potential.

Also to the other PP who alluded to these bright kids at Cold Spring scoring high because they were prepped. None of the kids I know who made it in prepped. These 4-5 kids I know who got into the Cold Spring cluster are 1st or 2nd generation Asians or mixed children who other than their skin color are just normal, happy, well rounded children. Please don't always assume these kids were prepped.

Anonymous wrote:I don't disagree that some kids are not getting chosen because they still have a peer group at their home school. What greatly upsets me is that these other children get a completely different curriculum.

In the example above, shouldn't Betty and Veronica both have access to the same curriculum? Especially when you have some much lower performing children/schools having full classes taught with it? If there is such a need for expansion (which there is) why not try at least one home school hgc model in the cluster with the most high performing children? No, they didn't because... well you can fill in the blank.

Leaving children that are very gifted in their home schools bored is not beneficial and the defense of at least they have a peer group to be bored together is not adequate.

I have to agree with this PP. I'm at a Focus school and kid goes to an HGC (not Coldspring), but it's crazy that kids who score so well on the test aren't afforded the same opportunity as kids in other parts of the county.

I don't disagree that some kids are not getting chosen because they still have a peer group at their home school. What greatly upsets me is that these other children get a completely different curriculum.

In the example above, shouldn't Betty and Veronica both have access to the same curriculum? Especially when you have some much lower performing children/schools having full classes taught with it? If there is such a need for expansion (which there is) why not try at least one home school hgc model in the cluster with the most high performing children? No, they didn't because... well you can fill in the blank.

Leaving children that are very gifted in their home schools bored is not beneficial and the defense of at least they have a peer group to be bored together is not adequate.

Anonymous wrote:I hear what you are saying, but are you understanding the other side? The cold spring clusters are constantly told that the reason we have larger classes, no focus or title one teachers, etc is because we are one big county that shares all taxes in the way that benefits all.Now they have greatly increased the number of hgc seats in almost all areas except for ours and this has caused kids that are 15-20 points lower to be accepted and taught a different curriculum. The standards should be the same across the county. This is not the case right now. Some schools are getting full classes for advanced students- do they really have 30 highly gifted students or have the standards been lowered for them?

Insomnia-induced post--It's not the same, because it's not like the home schools are the same or the median scores are the same. It sounds like what you want is for MCPS to make HGCs like Stuyvesant in NYC or Thomas Jefferson in Fairfax, where it's all about The Test.

Obviously the high-scoring cohort is so large in your cluster that the county feels the kids remaining at their home schools will still be taught in a relatively accelerated or appropriate manner that just isn't the case in a cluster where there are far fewer kids scoring above a 120. Maybe in your cluster the kids read The Giver or A Wrinkle in Time in 5th grade whereas in a lower-performing cluster they might not read comparable books until 7th or 8th grade. It's not like we are all sharing the curricular differences between our home schools for 4th and 5th grade.

Also, do you really think that the county would send a ridiculously high % of kids from your cluster and leave behind, what, the 25% (I'm making a wild guess) who opt not to test or don't score above a 135? That would leave your home school with basically no kids.

Your cluster doesn't get Title I funding or Focus designation because you don't have the FARMS rate to qualify. Should we compare PTA endowments? No, because you would rightfully say it's not Ashburton or Wayside parents' fault that they can give more money, right? They don't take your parent contributions to the PTA and give half to the kids at New Hampshire Estates, Highland, Arcola, etc. *That* would be unfair. Some of those schools don't have room parents or a majority of parents who speak English as a first language, much less PTAs with anything but bare-minimum operating budgets. They get smaller class sizes and health centers; they also get weekend snacks, but they probably don't have kids taking prep tests to get into a gifted center. And since anecdotally, it sounds like there is definitely a much larger % of kids prepping on the West side of the county, should there be an asterisk next to the Cold Spring cluster's median score?

Let's say there are two kids who got 140: Veronica and Betty. Veronica's score is 27 points above the median score and her teachers are absolutely convinced that she must go to the center, because she's basically one of only 2 or 3 gifted kids in her entire grade. Betty's score is 16 points above the median score, and her teachers love her but know she's one of many, many bright kids in her grade. IMO, yes that makes Veronica stand out more and need a center placement "more" IMO than Betty. Same score, different kids, different home school environment, different peer group, different needs. Doesn't mean Betty couldn't have also thrived at a center, just that at her particular school, she's less in need of it.

I hear what you are saying, but are you understanding the other side? The cold spring clusters are constantly told that the reason we have larger classes, no focus or title one teachers, etc is because we are one big county that shares all taxes in the way that benefits all.Now they have greatly increased the number of hgc seats in almost all areas except for ours and this has caused kids that are 15-20 points lower to be accepted and taught a different curriculum. The standards should be the same across the county. This is not the case right now. Some schools are getting full classes for advanced students- do they really have 30 highly gifted students or have the standards been lowered for them?