Anonymous wrote:Last year the GT identification could come from any of three (I think) factors - test scores, teacher assessment or parent assessment.

This year, my undestanding is that GT identification requires multiple test/performance-related measures and either teacher or parent assessment. Some schools opted not to have 2nd graders take all the tests (trying to preserve class time for instruction as we move on from pandemic learning disruption), so there is missing data and re-screening will be needed in 3rd grade. Of course this only gives them one shot at identification instead of two.

I think the enrichment paradigm is different between ELA and Math. Benchmark Advance enrichment (or ELC, if your school is lucky enough) is designated for GT learners (and others, too, sometimes). For elementary Math, there is the enrichment ladder that is supposed to be applied to each student for each module, whether or not identified as GT. I think that is why there isn't a "Math - enriched" designation on the letter for next year's recommendation, but, rather, the verbiage about enrichment below that. Terrible clarity of communications, but, then, we're talking MCPS, so par for the course...

Of course, there are the accelerated 4/5 & 5/6 courses. I don't know if GT letters for current 3rd graders are showing 4/5 placement or not -- my understanding is that accelerated placement is a separate process from GT identification -- but current 2nd graders wouldn't see that anyway, short of, perhaps, being identified as needing hyper-acceleration (e.g., Math 4/5 in 3rd), and those cases are relatively rare.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But does the designation have any practical impact? DC “meets the criteria” but does not seem to be offered anything beyond opportunities for enrichment/ acceleration - which I think he (and some other classmates) were already getting in 2nd grade…?

Wouldn’t you be confused if your straight A, 99th percentile child was getting enrichment now and was recommended for no enrichment for next year?

That's the part that also confused me. Basically the recommendation seem to be on grade level with enrichment within grade level curriculum using tiered support provided or some similar language ( I don't have the letter on front of me). Is this what they were getting in 2nd grade already (we had pull out groups this year) or these are within class small groups?

Also anyone know how to request a rescreening? I somehow thought the rescreening even if requested will not happen until next year? Or is that totally off? We are all new to this and normally would leave it be, as G&T designation doesn't have much meaning from what I can gather. But our child needs the enrichment to be engaged, so it may be time to advocate for them... Thanks in advance to anyone who can provide insights to this!

But why a rescreening? As far as I can tell, kids who are designated G&T are only getting grade-level enrichment. (Ie, the same as what they seemed to be getting in 2nd), so what’s the point?

We only got the not meeting the criteria letter (child held back due to EOL district assessment)*. And that letter does say "on grade level with enrichment" for reading (which still boggles my mind for a kid that reads at middle school level but oh well- but I guess it means grade-level enrichment?), while for math only "on grade level" then a separate para underneath which I am having a hard time deciphering. Now if those identified as G&T also get a similar verbiage, fine I won't bother with the rescreening (I could not care less about the designation itself). My worry is if this means they won't get enrichment in math, which they need to be engaged (the pull out math groups in second grade were the highlight for my child, as they had a more challenging but also fun curriculum from the snippets we heard).

*I understand now EOL was the end MP2 assessments of Eureka and Benchmark Reading. It makes now more sense that my child got a 4 on those rather than the required 5, since they were going through some transitions and were not engaged at school (that was also when we decided to get them evaluated).

Haha! If your kid actually did read at middle school level (both of mine did in third grade) they would certainly have been identified as gifted. It’s not hard to meet that criteria. So you are completely off base in your assessment of your kid. Honestly. Take a deep breath and take a look. It’s not as of this means anything anyway.

My kid has similar scores. That’s why we’re here. This doesn’t make sense. These kids should certainly be identified as gifted as evidenced by reading levels and MAP scores. But some random assignment(?) they did in the classroom is holding them back? Super weird.

That seems to be the issue. Maybe the criteria were different previously and high MAP scores were all it took and not a random assignment they did at the end of the MP2.

And to the poster that finds this incredulous, it seems that your kids are out of elementary school. Seems that things have changed, they need to satisfy not only high reading level and high math MAP scores, but also a perfect 5 in at least one of those EOL district assessments- currently seeming more like the random assignments/assessments at the end of MP2. So even if your kid read at high school level in second grade they would have NOT been identified as G&T solely based on that; they need to satisfy other criteria as well.

In any case, what I care about is my child getting some enrichment to keep him interested in school, nothing more. I understand that they have to have criteria and like any broad metric it won't be perfect, but it needs to be at least somewhat consistent (and not seemingly random). And what does a 5 mean any way, when everything in ParentVue is rated out of a 4 Hopefully the school will tell me that he'll get the enrichment anyway so I won't have to do anything more (fingers crossed)...

Nope, I have a fourth grader and the criteria was exactly the same last year (no second grade identification because of the pandemic). It literally means NOTHING! Your kid can fail to be identified by this criteria and still her enrichment. It meant literally nothing to my kid to get identified as such, nor my older child earlier.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But does the designation have any practical impact? DC “meets the criteria” but does not seem to be offered anything beyond opportunities for enrichment/ acceleration - which I think he (and some other classmates) were already getting in 2nd grade…?

Wouldn’t you be confused if your straight A, 99th percentile child was getting enrichment now and was recommended for no enrichment for next year?

That's the part that also confused me. Basically the recommendation seem to be on grade level with enrichment within grade level curriculum using tiered support provided or some similar language ( I don't have the letter on front of me). Is this what they were getting in 2nd grade already (we had pull out groups this year) or these are within class small groups?

Also anyone know how to request a rescreening? I somehow thought the rescreening even if requested will not happen until next year? Or is that totally off? We are all new to this and normally would leave it be, as G&T designation doesn't have much meaning from what I can gather. But our child needs the enrichment to be engaged, so it may be time to advocate for them... Thanks in advance to anyone who can provide insights to this!

But why a rescreening? As far as I can tell, kids who are designated G&T are only getting grade-level enrichment. (Ie, the same as what they seemed to be getting in 2nd), so what’s the point?

We only got the not meeting the criteria letter (child held back due to EOL district assessment)*. And that letter does say "on grade level with enrichment" for reading (which still boggles my mind for a kid that reads at middle school level but oh well- but I guess it means grade-level enrichment?), while for math only "on grade level" then a separate para underneath which I am having a hard time deciphering. Now if those identified as G&T also get a similar verbiage, fine I won't bother with the rescreening (I could not care less about the designation itself). My worry is if this means they won't get enrichment in math, which they need to be engaged (the pull out math groups in second grade were the highlight for my child, as they had a more challenging but also fun curriculum from the snippets we heard).

*I understand now EOL was the end MP2 assessments of Eureka and Benchmark Reading. It makes now more sense that my child got a 4 on those rather than the required 5, since they were going through some transitions and were not engaged at school (that was also when we decided to get them evaluated).

Haha! If your kid actually did read at middle school level (both of mine did in third grade) they would certainly have been identified as gifted. It’s not hard to meet that criteria. So you are completely off base in your assessment of your kid. Honestly. Take a deep breath and take a look. It’s not as of this means anything anyway.

My kid has similar scores. That’s why we’re here. This doesn’t make sense. These kids should certainly be identified as gifted as evidenced by reading levels and MAP scores. But some random assignment(?) they did in the classroom is holding them back? Super weird.

That seems to be the issue. Maybe the criteria were different previously and high MAP scores were all it took and not a random assignment they did at the end of the MP2.

And to the poster that finds this incredulous, it seems that your kids are out of elementary school. Seems that things have changed, they need to satisfy not only high reading level and high math MAP scores, but also a perfect 5 in at least one of those EOL district assessments- currently seeming more like the random assignments/assessments at the end of MP2. So even if your kid read at high school level in second grade they would have NOT been identified as G&T solely based on that; they need to satisfy other criteria as well.

In any case, what I care about is my child getting some enrichment to keep him interested in school, nothing more. I understand that they have to have criteria and like any broad metric it won't be perfect, but it needs to be at least somewhat consistent (and not seemingly random). And what does a 5 mean any way, when everything in ParentVue is rated out of a 4 Hopefully the school will tell me that he'll get the enrichment anyway so I won't have to do anything more (fingers crossed)...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anybody know of any 2nd grade children who were designed GT per the letter that came home this month? So far, I know zero. Something fishy is going on.

Yes, mine was, but also listed as on grade level with no enrichment. Which seems odd. We’re not aiming for a magnet so I’d rather have the enrichment.

Anonymous wrote:Does anybody know of any 2nd grade children who were designed GT per the letter that came home this month? So far, I know zero. Something fishy is going on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But does the designation have any practical impact? DC “meets the criteria” but does not seem to be offered anything beyond opportunities for enrichment/ acceleration - which I think he (and some other classmates) were already getting in 2nd grade…?

Wouldn’t you be confused if your straight A, 99th percentile child was getting enrichment now and was recommended for no enrichment for next year?

That's the part that also confused me. Basically the recommendation seem to be on grade level with enrichment within grade level curriculum using tiered support provided or some similar language ( I don't have the letter on front of me). Is this what they were getting in 2nd grade already (we had pull out groups this year) or these are within class small groups?

Also anyone know how to request a rescreening? I somehow thought the rescreening even if requested will not happen until next year? Or is that totally off? We are all new to this and normally would leave it be, as G&T designation doesn't have much meaning from what I can gather. But our child needs the enrichment to be engaged, so it may be time to advocate for them... Thanks in advance to anyone who can provide insights to this!

But why a rescreening? As far as I can tell, kids who are designated G&T are only getting grade-level enrichment. (Ie, the same as what they seemed to be getting in 2nd), so what’s the point?

We only got the not meeting the criteria letter (child held back due to EOL district assessment)*. And that letter does say "on grade level with enrichment" for reading (which still boggles my mind for a kid that reads at middle school level but oh well- but I guess it means grade-level enrichment?), while for math only "on grade level" then a separate para underneath which I am having a hard time deciphering. Now if those identified as G&T also get a similar verbiage, fine I won't bother with the rescreening (I could not care less about the designation itself). My worry is if this means they won't get enrichment in math, which they need to be engaged (the pull out math groups in second grade were the highlight for my child, as they had a more challenging but also fun curriculum from the snippets we heard).

*I understand now EOL was the end MP2 assessments of Eureka and Benchmark Reading. It makes now more sense that my child got a 4 on those rather than the required 5, since they were going through some transitions and were not engaged at school (that was also when we decided to get them evaluated).

Haha! If your kid actually did read at middle school level (both of mine did in third grade) they would certainly have been identified as gifted. It’s not hard to meet that criteria. So you are completely off base in your assessment of your kid. Honestly. Take a deep breath and take a look. It’s not as of this means anything anyway.

My kid has similar scores. That’s why we’re here. This doesn’t make sense. These kids should certainly be identified as gifted as evidenced by reading levels and MAP scores. But some random assignment(?) they did in the classroom is holding them back? Super weird.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But does the designation have any practical impact? DC “meets the criteria” but does not seem to be offered anything beyond opportunities for enrichment/ acceleration - which I think he (and some other classmates) were already getting in 2nd grade…?

Wouldn’t you be confused if your straight A, 99th percentile child was getting enrichment now and was recommended for no enrichment for next year?

That's the part that also confused me. Basically the recommendation seem to be on grade level with enrichment within grade level curriculum using tiered support provided or some similar language ( I don't have the letter on front of me). Is this what they were getting in 2nd grade already (we had pull out groups this year) or these are within class small groups?

Also anyone know how to request a rescreening? I somehow thought the rescreening even if requested will not happen until next year? Or is that totally off? We are all new to this and normally would leave it be, as G&T designation doesn't have much meaning from what I can gather. But our child needs the enrichment to be engaged, so it may be time to advocate for them... Thanks in advance to anyone who can provide insights to this!

But why a rescreening? As far as I can tell, kids who are designated G&T are only getting grade-level enrichment. (Ie, the same as what they seemed to be getting in 2nd), so what’s the point?

We only got the not meeting the criteria letter (child held back due to EOL district assessment)*. And that letter does say "on grade level with enrichment" for reading (which still boggles my mind for a kid that reads at middle school level but oh well- but I guess it means grade-level enrichment?), while for math only "on grade level" then a separate para underneath which I am having a hard time deciphering. Now if those identified as G&T also get a similar verbiage, fine I won't bother with the rescreening (I could not care less about the designation itself). My worry is if this means they won't get enrichment in math, which they need to be engaged (the pull out math groups in second grade were the highlight for my child, as they had a more challenging but also fun curriculum from the snippets we heard).

*I understand now EOL was the end MP2 assessments of Eureka and Benchmark Reading. It makes now more sense that my child got a 4 on those rather than the required 5, since they were going through some transitions and were not engaged at school (that was also when we decided to get them evaluated).

Haha! If your kid actually did read at middle school level (both of mine did in third grade) they would certainly have been identified as gifted. It’s not hard to meet that criteria. So you are completely off base in your assessment of your kid. Honestly. Take a deep breath and take a look. It’s not as of this means anything anyway.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For my 2nd grader, the “EOL district assessments” held her back. What are those?! She’s 99th percentile on map scores. Reading over a year above grade level (always been this way since K). She’s always gotten straight As. She’s always been in the math enrichment groups at school. Teachers always comment on how brilliant she is. This is bizarre!!!! I don’t understand.

Totally on the same boat. Seems that EOL district assessments held our kid back, who reads at middle school level, and is great at math (if they are not bored). We recently had them tested for potential attention issues and full scale IQ came back in extremely high range. No sure if it's worth requesting a rescreen- they definitely need the enrichment (already bored in class)- but we don't want to seem like one of those pushy MCPS parents that think their kid is of course gifted

Remember that this is the same board and lady who were under multiple asian discrimination complaints. "EOL district assessment" is probably an "equity" adjustment if you're white or asian. In 2019, the middle school magnet went lottery, if you recall. This is the elementary school equivalent.

Unless the current board of education is voted out in July, I'll bet it won't change anytime soon under the current sup, and even then not until she's fired.

The score is between 1 and 5. There's no equity adjustment, and even then it was never based on race. It was always based on SES of the home school. But you knew that already.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But does the designation have any practical impact? DC “meets the criteria” but does not seem to be offered anything beyond opportunities for enrichment/ acceleration - which I think he (and some other classmates) were already getting in 2nd grade…?

Wouldn’t you be confused if your straight A, 99th percentile child was getting enrichment now and was recommended for no enrichment for next year?

That's the part that also confused me. Basically the recommendation seem to be on grade level with enrichment within grade level curriculum using tiered support provided or some similar language ( I don't have the letter on front of me). Is this what they were getting in 2nd grade already (we had pull out groups this year) or these are within class small groups?

Also anyone know how to request a rescreening? I somehow thought the rescreening even if requested will not happen until next year? Or is that totally off? We are all new to this and normally would leave it be, as G&T designation doesn't have much meaning from what I can gather. But our child needs the enrichment to be engaged, so it may be time to advocate for them... Thanks in advance to anyone who can provide insights to this!

But why a rescreening? As far as I can tell, kids who are designated G&T are only getting grade-level enrichment. (Ie, the same as what they seemed to be getting in 2nd), so what’s the point?

We only got the not meeting the criteria letter (child held back due to EOL district assessment)*. And that letter does say "on grade level with enrichment" for reading (which still boggles my mind for a kid that reads at middle school level but oh well- but I guess it means grade-level enrichment?), while for math only "on grade level" then a separate para underneath which I am having a hard time deciphering. Now if those identified as G&T also get a similar verbiage, fine I won't bother with the rescreening (I could not care less about the designation itself). My worry is if this means they won't get enrichment in math, which they need to be engaged (the pull out math groups in second grade were the highlight for my child, as they had a more challenging but also fun curriculum from the snippets we heard).

*I understand now EOL was the end MP2 assessments of Eureka and Benchmark Reading. It makes now more sense that my child got a 4 on those rather than the required 5, since they were going through some transitions and were not engaged at school (that was also when we decided to get them evaluated).