I think the letter was very vague about what is going to happen with the curriculum next year.

But the curriculumn will not be the same if applied to a range of learners including kids needing remedial help. The research paper will become an essay. 5 sources will become 2. 8 books a year will become 4. Tests will ebcome multiple choice..

Both my kids are in hgc and magnet. They are bright, respectful, focused, social, normal kids. The reason they are in these programs are because as an East Indian parent I find the curriculum in mcps severely lacking as compared to that offered in private schools in India. Hgc and magnets in mcps actually does a semi decent job in my opinion.

So if mcps decides to implement the hgc and magnet standards and curriculum to the entire student population and close hgc and magnets, I won't object. I think that will still not be the bench mark as compared to other nations, but it will be in the respectable range.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FCPS has about 20% of its kids in GT programs..but the program is not supposed to be so great/different. If you want a truely advanced program you have to just look to the top 3%..which is about what the really gifted population is.

Heard the 3% number a few times. Here are some questions.
Is top 3% in Kentucky the same as top 3% in New York?
Is top 3% in New York the same as top 3% in Manhattan?
Is top 3% in Montgomery county the same as top 3% in Finland, Japan, Hong Kong, or what ever?

Why does that matter? Schools are local.

It is the top 3% of the local population (whatever that is). By definition, someone in the 99th percentile has needs vastly different from those of someone in the 50th percentile.

Anonymous wrote:FCPS has about 20% of its kids in GT programs..but the program is not supposed to be so great/different. If you want a truely advanced program you have to just look to the top 3%..which is about what the really gifted population is.

Heard the 3% number a few times. Here are some questions.
Is top 3% in Kentucky the same as top 3% in New York?
Is top 3% in New York the same as top 3% in Manhattan?
Is top 3% in Montgomery county the same as top 3% in Finland, Japan, Hong Kong, or what ever?

FCPS has about 20% of its kids in GT programs..but the program is not supposed to be so great/different. If you want a truely advanced program you have to just look to the top 3%..which is about what the really gifted population is.

I think it's likely that MCPS can better meet the needs of students not in the HGC by having some students in the HGC.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not all of the highly gifted kids are in the hgc. The old curriculum ought to be brought back in the home schools, too. This is an outrage that MCPS is showing favoritism. My kid deserves a more rigorous curriculum in his home school just as much as the kids in the hgcs.

MCPS is showing favoritism to the kids in the HGCs by having HGCs, period. This is not a curriculum dispute; it's a should-there-be-HGCs dispute.

I agree that the number of kids who would benefit from stuff the HGCs do is a lot bigger than the number of kids in HGCs.

It is not about favoritism. It is about meeting the needs of those students whose needs cannot be met in the home school. That is the definition of students accepted to the HGC.

If it were favoritism, then by that logic we should also eliminate middle and high school magnets, because by virtue of having them we are showing "favoritism" to students who can perform well at these levels. I do not accept that proposition.

All that said, I think there are many qualified students out there who apply to but are not invited to the HGCs and the magnets, and that is a shame. Those students' needs should be addressed as well.

And we should eliminate varsity sports, because they show favoritism to talented athletes, and my kids also could have benefitted from a rigorous athletic program!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not all of the highly gifted kids are in the hgc. The old curriculum ought to be brought back in the home schools, too. This is an outrage that MCPS is showing favoritism. My kid deserves a more rigorous curriculum in his home school just as much as the kids in the hgcs.

MCPS is showing favoritism to the kids in the HGCs by having HGCs, period. This is not a curriculum dispute; it's a should-there-be-HGCs dispute.

I agree that the number of kids who would benefit from stuff the HGCs do is a lot bigger than the number of kids in HGCs.

It is not about favoritism. It is about meeting the needs of those students whose needs cannot be met in the home school. That is the definition of students accepted to the HGC.

If it were favoritism, then by that logic we should also eliminate middle and high school magnets, because by virtue of having them we are showing "favoritism" to students who can perform well at these levels. I do not accept that proposition.

All that said, I think there are many qualified students out there who apply to but are not invited to the HGCs and the magnets, and that is a shame. Those students' needs should be addressed as well.

Anonymous wrote:Not all of the highly gifted kids are in the hgc. The old curriculum ought to be brought back in the home schools, too. This is an outrage that MCPS is showing favoritism. My kid deserves a more rigorous curriculum in his home school just as much as the kids in the hgcs.

What do you mean? If your child was accepted to an HGC and chose not to go, I don't think you have a legitimate complaint. Or was your child not accepted? If that is the case then you just sound bitter.

Anonymous wrote:Not all of the highly gifted kids are in the hgc. The old curriculum ought to be brought back in the home schools, too. This is an outrage that MCPS is showing favoritism. My kid deserves a more rigorous curriculum in his home school just as much as the kids in the hgcs.

Also, for what it's worth, I don't think that the letter says that the HGCs are going to use the old curriculum forever and ever from now on. I think that it says that the HGCs are going to use the old curriculum for the second semester of the 2013-2014 school year, while MCPS develops the new curriculum for the HGCs that will be aligned to the Common Core and 2.0.

Right so the opposite is like our Middle School that says that every student is getting an advanced curriculum..there is nothing advanced about it if everyone is doing it. I agrree that there are kids who do not get in to a center that could benefit from it but there has to be a line. I might have benefited from Harvard but I wasn't selected.

Anonymous wrote:Not all of the highly gifted kids are in the hgc. The old curriculum ought to be brought back in the home schools, too. This is an outrage that MCPS is showing favoritism. My kid deserves a more rigorous curriculum in his home school just as much as the kids in the hgcs.

MCPS is showing favoritism to the kids in the HGCs by having HGCs, period. This is not a curriculum dispute; it's a should-there-be-HGCs dispute.

I agree that the number of kids who would benefit from stuff the HGCs do is a lot bigger than the number of kids in HGCs.

[quote=Anonymous]
I have a bright, quirky kid. Socialization will unlikely to ever be a strength of his. He's very happy at our HGC and has made friends. Even at the HGC, I wouldn't say his social circle is huge.

[b]What has been most shocking for us at the HGC is the surprise that even though all of the county is doing 2.0, it is implemented VERY differently at the home schools.[/b] Our home school chose to strictly adhere to 2.0 so the kids from our home school are at a noticable academic disadvantage.

Most parents have complained 2.0 at the HGC is not much work/new information -- but it is challenging for us because our home school did not teach a lot of this.

[/quote]

It is implemented very differently at one home school compared to another home school. It's not just HGC vs. home school. My guess is that the HGC curriculum is also implemented very differently at one HGC vs. another HGC. MCPS is not a monolith.

[quote=annallalla]For us, the reason we sent our son to the HGC program was socialization. It was difficult for him to become friend with kids who did not share his interests.In the HGC program, he was able to meet kids like him and he became happier overnight.
Our second son was also accepted to the HCG program but we choose not to send him there because he was already doing well in his regular school so we did not see the point of sending him to a new school with a long commut

I have a bright, quirky kid. Socialization will unlikely to ever be a strength of his. He's very happy at our HGC and has made friends. Even at the HGC, I wouldn't say his social circle is huge.

What has been most shocking for us at the HGC is the surprise that even though all of the county is doing 2.0, it is implemented VERY differently at the home schools. Our home school chose to strictly adhere to 2.0 so the kids from our home school are at a noticable academic disadvantage.

Most parents have complained 2.0 at the HGC is not much work/new information -- but it is challenging for us because our home school did not teach a lot of this.