"We don't all know that will never happen. I don't know it. Maybe you know it; if so, how do you know it? "

Obviously I don't literally know it, but they have been saying that they differentiate in home schools for years and years, but they in fact do not. So it is simply an educated prediction.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think you are the same poster who deliberately tries to make it a race question vs. ability question. Seriously, if you think that your community is not applying to the program then get the word out to your community. You obviously have the time to troll here, maybe you can use that energy to actually be useful. Otherwise all I have heard is that URMs need a lot of handholding, and want to get into rigorous magnet programs based on their "non-academic" talents.

If there were unlimited seats available (like it is to go to a regular schools) in the magnet programs - the most underperforming groups would still be AA and HI. If you want to prove people wrong then ask these students to work hard, not fight for freebies. This is a political stunt.

Why not talk about sports? Lets raise the bar of who can play sports in our schools. Anyone with less than 3.5 GPA should not be allowed to participate in sports in school. My kid is not allowed to play in sports because he does not have the physical advantages other kids have. Does that mean he will not grow as an athlete if he is on the school basketball team? He needs to be picked up for his non-athletic talents like participating in hackathons!

The attempt to scuttle the whole magnet program is amazing. Its just reeks of jealousy and desperation. People want to finish this program because their kid cannot compete and get in. If it costs MCPS an additional $40 dollars per child for these programs, let the parents pay the county this amount.

I think that you're the poster who likes to refer to urms instead of people.

-PP who has had two kids in the HGC and therefore knows first-hand how much the HGC and the HGC application process are stacked against poor and out-of-the-know parents

I am an ORM whose children have to work doubly hard in school, college and workplace. If my kids were eligible for affirmative action because I am a minority then I would have had no issues. However, my kids have no benefits because we are ORM or HPM ( High-Performing-Minority). Now if you do not like URM then you would like LPM even less, I am guessing.

If we were talking about people and individuals then we would concentrate on merit and performance. In such a case, there would be no need to have labels like URM or ORM. Since we are talking about quota and different criteria for different GROUPS, then these labels are the right way to refer to this demographic.

Why would giving the magnet test to every eligible student not be a solution? Why would MCPS not reveal the test results of all the candidates? Why are low performing students not given early intervention and extra tutoring? - Probably because these measures do not work in a culture of easy handouts and disinterested parents and students.

I am not well off, and I am not-in-the-know, but I paid attention when MCPS sent information about these programs and I educated myself. If the issue is that MCPS is not sending this message using the communication methods prefered by URM - a personal visit, a phone call, text, facebook, tweet, whatever -then it is an issue with MCPS.

- ORM whose 3 kids are in magnet programs, and who have watched stellar students turned down because of lack of space. All of these students who did not get in were Asians/Whites.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[
Also, according to which criteria do you think the HGC program has been a success?

Well study didn't look at that now did it? Are the needs of the gifted kids being met? No of course not because we don't care about that, only that things are equal.

I know it has been a success for my child. His needs were not being met in our home school with the generic MCPS curriculum.

Have you read the study? Pp. 65-66 talk about academic outcomes for students in the HGCs. Pp. 66-68 talk about perceptions of parents and staff.

I do think it's notable that there is so much discussion on DCUM about a program that enrolls a maximum of 884 students total in any given year. (Not including the expansion at one of the HGCs -- Oak View?) The 884 students in the HGC account for about 1 in 200 of the students in MCPS, but the HGCs are the subject of probably 1 in 10 threads on DCUM.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Agree in principle, but we all know that will never happen. Meanwhile, a successful program will have been dismantled.

We don't all know that will never happen. I don't know it. Maybe you know it; if so, how do you know it?

Also, according to which criteria do you think the HGC program has been a success?

NP. Well, I know what doesn't make it a success, having different criterias for different groups of kids. What's the goal of the program? Is it not to meet the needs of the top 2 to 3% of the kids in the entire county? If it meets those needs, then it's a success. If it doesn't, then it's a failure. Pretty simple.

You are questioning whether the current method of identifying the top 2 to 3% is adequate. The question is "how do you measure giftedness"? Here's one way that surely doesn't measure academic giftedness: musical, artistic, athletic talent. These are all great things, and I would *love* my kids to be talented in any of those areas, but it's not a measure of academic "giftedness".

No, please answer the question that I asked, not the questions that you want to answer that I didn't ask. That's what people on the Sunday political talk shows do.

Anonymous wrote:[
Also, according to which criteria do you think the HGC program has been a success?

Well study didn't look at that now did it? Are the needs of the gifted kids being met? No of course not because we don't care about that, only that things are equal.

I know it has been a success for my child. His needs were not being met in our home school with the generic MCPS curriculum.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Agree in principle, but we all know that will never happen. Meanwhile, a successful program will have been dismantled.

We don't all know that will never happen. I don't know it. Maybe you know it; if so, how do you know it?

Also, according to which criteria do you think the HGC program has been a success?

NP. Well, I know what doesn't make it a success, having different criterias for different groups of kids. What's the goal of the program? Is it not to meet the needs of the top 2 to 3% of the kids in the entire county? If it meets those needs, then it's a success. If it doesn't, then it's a failure. Pretty simple.

You are questioning whether the current method of identifying the top 2 to 3% is adequate. The question is "how do you measure giftedness"? Here's one way that surely doesn't measure academic giftedness: musical, artistic, athletic talent. These are all great things, and I would *love* my kids to be talented in any of those areas, but it's not a measure of academic "giftedness".

Anonymous wrote:
Agree in principle, but we all know that will never happen. Meanwhile, a successful program will have been dismantled.

We don't all know that will never happen. I don't know it. Maybe you know it; if so, how do you know it?

Also, according to which criteria do you think the HGC program has been a success?

I think there may be people who want to finish the program, but there are more people (like myself) who feel like a pull out program that serves the top 3% of kids may not be the best model for anyone, particularly when not paired with real differentiation at the home schools. This model, which we all know leaves highly capable kids behind, is likely too restrictive for a district in which some 30+ percent of kids are identified as gifted.

Agree in principle, but we all know that will never happen. Meanwhile, a successful program will have been dismantled.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The answer isn't to get rid of gifted programming. It is to stop offering a gifted program that is so inflexible. I think it is time to get rid of the HGC model and offer real differentiation, in schools, for all kids who qualify.

Fine, but the demographics will still be inequitable. Look at the MCPS study on compacted math. Same message there. Demographics not right, must be something wrong with the criteria.

Then they need to focus on the the K-3 years to get these kids ready for compacted math. I don't know why this is so hard for MCPS to understand.

The fact is the dumbing down hurts the bright kids from poor families the most. The upper middle class family will supplement if they find the curriculum inadequate. If the school offers a rigorous enough curriculum, then the kids from disadvantaged background can at least have a prayer to compete academically with the kids from privileged background.

Anonymous wrote:
The answer isn't to get rid of gifted programming. It is to stop offering a gifted program that is so inflexible. I think it is time to get rid of the HGC model and offer real differentiation, in schools, for all kids who qualify.

Fine, but the demographics will still be inequitable. Look at the MCPS study on compacted math. Same message there. Demographics not right, must be something wrong with the criteria.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our home ES is about 40% Latino and 35 or 40% white. In the top reading groups, there are very few Latinos. And the ones that were Latino and in the top reading group were all middle or upper middle class. At least one of these kids (whose parents are well educated and upper middle class) went to an HGC and a MS magnet. But I don't think the kids who aren't in the top reading groups (regardless of race/ethnicity) are applying to these magnets. Certainly I have never heard of any child not in a top group actually being admitted to an HGC or MS magnet. At my child's HGC there were kids on FARMs and there were minorities. But not at all in proportion to the number of kids who are minorities or receiving FARMS. But the numbers were in proportion to the number of minorities in the top groups.

I think this is pretty accurate. As stated numerous times, MCPS and parents should start with getting these kids in the upper reading/math groups rather than focusing on test in magnates.

As for choice magnets, it's a matter of being aware of the program and the desire to send your kid away from the neighborhood school. For us, we looked at the choice magnets, but the long commute turned us off to the program. For families that live not too far from the choice magnets, I would still think it's a hard decision to pull your kids away from their friends after ES.

Yes, that should be the focus. The magnets are not the problem. And can't be the solution.

Anonymous wrote:

I think you are the same poster who deliberately tries to make it a race question vs. ability question. Seriously, if you think that your community is not applying to the program then get the word out to your community. You obviously have the time to troll here, maybe you can use that energy to actually be useful. Otherwise all I have heard is that URMs need a lot of handholding, and want to get into rigorous magnet programs based on their "non-academic" talents.

If there were unlimited seats available (like it is to go to a regular schools) in the magnet programs - the most underperforming groups would still be AA and HI. If you want to prove people wrong then ask these students to work hard, not fight for freebies. This is a political stunt.

Why not talk about sports? Lets raise the bar of who can play sports in our schools. Anyone with less than 3.5 GPA should not be allowed to participate in sports in school. My kid is not allowed to play in sports because he does not have the physical advantages other kids have. Does that mean he will not grow as an athlete if he is on the school basketball team? He needs to be picked up for his non-athletic talents like participating in hackathons!

The attempt to scuttle the whole magnet program is amazing. Its just reeks of jealousy and desperation. People want to finish this program because their kid cannot compete and get in. If it costs MCPS an additional $40 dollars per child for these programs, let the parents pay the county this amount.

I think that you're the poster who likes to refer to urms instead of people.

-PP who has had two kids in the HGC and therefore knows first-hand how much the HGC and the HGC application process are stacked against poor and out-of-the-know parents

The attempt to scuttle the whole magnet program is amazing. Its just reeks of jealousy and desperation. People want to finish this program because their kid cannot compete and get in.

I think there may be people who want to finish the program, but there are more people (like myself) who feel like a pull out program that serves the top 3% of kids may not be the best model for anyone, particularly when not paired with real differentiation at the home schools. This model, which we all know leaves highly capable kids behind, is likely too restrictive for a district in which some 30+ percent of kids are identified as gifted.

So, we have a program that likely does not serve a high enough percentage of MCPS kids. Who is going to be left out? Low-income kids and kids of color.

The answer isn't to get rid of gifted programming. It is to stop offering a gifted program that is so inflexible. I think it is time to get rid of the HGC model and offer real differentiation, in schools, for all kids who qualify.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"No, it would not be bad for MCPS if the "take my ball and go home" PP took their child out of the magnet program and put the child back into the home school. Why would it be? Everybody agrees that there are far more qualified applicants for the spots than there are spots. The magnet program will get along just fine without the PP's child. "

7:09 again, LOL. Okay, I don't find this argument convincing in terms of my question. Yes, the magnet will be just fine without PP's child. Agreed. Let's stipulate that even if all those families left the magnets, the magnets would be fine. But that to me isn't the issue here and that wasn't really my question. The issue is that MCPS wanted to end income-segregated schools. And by that measure, it would be bad for MCPS *by MCPS' own admission!* I don't see how that can be in dispute at all since it was explicit on the part of MCPS. Anyway, we can just agree to disagree.

No, it wouldn't. You are assuming that

1. the application-only magnets are an effective way to end income-segregated schools (which they're not)
2. there are no other ways to achieve that goal

I think you are the same poster who deliberately tries to make it a race question vs. ability question. Seriously, if you think that your community is not applying to the program then get the word out to your community. You obviously have the time to troll here, maybe you can use that energy to actually be useful. Otherwise all I have heard is that URMs need a lot of handholding, and want to get into rigorous magnet programs based on their "non-academic" talents.

If there were unlimited seats available (like it is to go to a regular schools) in the magnet programs - the most underperforming groups would still be AA and HI. If you want to prove people wrong then ask these students to work hard, not fight for freebies. This is a political stunt.

Why not talk about sports? Lets raise the bar of who can play sports in our schools. Anyone with less than 3.5 GPA should not be allowed to participate in sports in school. My kid is not allowed to play in sports because he does not have the physical advantages other kids have. Does that mean he will not grow as an athlete if he is on the school basketball team? He needs to be picked up for his non-athletic talents like participating in hackathons!

The attempt to scuttle the whole magnet program is amazing. Its just reeks of jealousy and desperation. People want to finish this program because their kid cannot compete and get in. If it costs MCPS an additional $40 dollars per child for these programs, let the parents pay the county this amount.

Anonymous wrote:"No, it would not be bad for MCPS if the "take my ball and go home" PP took their child out of the magnet program and put the child back into the home school. Why would it be? Everybody agrees that there are far more qualified applicants for the spots than there are spots. The magnet program will get along just fine without the PP's child. "

7:09 again, LOL. Okay, I don't find this argument convincing in terms of my question. Yes, the magnet will be just fine without PP's child. Agreed. Let's stipulate that even if all those families left the magnets, the magnets would be fine. But that to me isn't the issue here and that wasn't really my question. The issue is that MCPS wanted to end income-segregated schools. And by that measure, it would be bad for MCPS *by MCPS' own admission!* I don't see how that can be in dispute at all since it was explicit on the part of MCPS. Anyway, we can just agree to disagree.

No, it wouldn't. You are assuming that

1. the application-only magnets are an effective way to end income-segregated schools (which they're not)
2. there are no other ways to achieve that goal