Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I did. The criteria of what makes it successful is if the program meets its goal of "meeting the needs of the top 2 to 3%". What's so hard about that? You are not really asking what makes the program successful, because clearly, the program is a success in that many parents want their kids in the program and because it meets the needs of the top 2 to 3%. You are really asking about the entrance criteria, and whether the current method is successful in identifying the top 2 to 3%.

If the entrance criteria do not successfully identify the top 2-3%, and/or there are not enough spaces in the program for the top 2-3%, then a program whose goal is "meeting the needs of the top 2 to 3%" is not successful.

By the way, "meeting the needs of the top 2 to 3%" as the goal for the HGCs is something I've only ever read on DCUM. Is there anything where MCPS says that this is the goal?

1. The program can only accommodate x of kids. It happens to represent about 2 to 3 % of incoming 4th graders. You can argue whether the program should be expanded, but then at some point, the program becomes watered down.

2. As I stated, your question really is if the entrance criteria is indeed identifying the top kids. There is no perfect way to identify "gifted" kids. One measure that is universally used is a type of cognitive ability test like the CoGat, which the HGC admissions criteria uses. Also, as I stated, one measure that does *not* identify academically gifted kids is musical or artistic talent, though these can be non academic gifted talents. But, again, HGC is not about musical or artistic giftedness, but an academic one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's laughable that someone would think the magnet program should reflect the demographics of the county. If that's what mcps is after, then those programs should be removed indeed.

Why is it laughable? I'm not laughing.

Just look at test scores by demographics. That is the answer

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:been there. lots of Whites and Blacks, some Asians. Almost none Hispanic. The speakers and table coordinators are mostly AA. After a brief introduction, each table was supposed to discuss 3 questions for 15 minutes each. Don't remember the exact questions. They are something like

1) MCPS values equity, and what do you think an equitable school system should look like?

2) For what reason should a student be able to choose a school other than home school?

3) Additional comments and concerns about the study findings.

Several parents expresses opposition on removing sibling links of immersion program. Several Asian parents expressed their concerns on recommendation 3a and feel equal standards should be held for all applicants to the magnet programs. Several African American parents voiced their concerns about the fact that the current choice programs (mostly magnet programs) don't reflect the county demographics and advocated for change the admission criteria by considering different types of talents (such as artistic talent?)

It's just my personal impression. May not be accurate.

Did they have spanish translators?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's laughable that someone would think the magnet program should reflect the demographics of the county. If that's what mcps is after, then those programs should be removed indeed.

Why is it laughable? I'm not laughing.

Anonymous wrote:been there. lots of Whites and Blacks, some Asians. Almost none Hispanic. The speakers and table coordinators are mostly AA. After a brief introduction, each table was supposed to discuss 3 questions for 15 minutes each. Don't remember the exact questions. They are something like

1) MCPS values equity, and what do you think an equitable school system should look like?

2) For what reason should a student be able to choose a school other than home school?

3) Additional comments and concerns about the study findings.

Several parents expresses opposition on removing sibling links of immersion program. Several Asian parents expressed their concerns on recommendation 3a and feel equal standards should be held for all applicants to the magnet programs. Several African American parents voiced their concerns about the fact that the current choice programs (mostly magnet programs) don't reflect the county demographics and advocated for change the admission criteria by considering different types of talents (such as artistic talent?)

It's just my personal impression. May not be accurate.

Anonymous wrote:

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:

Anonymous wrote:
I did. The criteria of what makes it successful is if the program meets its goal of "meeting the needs of the top 2 to 3%". What's so hard about that? You are not really asking what makes the program successful, because clearly, the program is a success in that many parents want their kids in the program and because it meets the needs of the top 2 to 3%. You are really asking about the entrance criteria, and whether the current method is successful in identifying the top 2 to 3%.

If the entrance criteria do not successfully identify the top 2-3%, and/or there are not enough spaces in the program for the top 2-3%, then a program whose goal is "meeting the needs of the top 2 to 3%" is not successful.

By the way, "meeting the needs of the top 2 to 3%" as the goal for the HGCs is something I've only ever read on DCUM. Is there anything where MCPS says that this is the goal?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

I have read the study. Pages 65-66 do not show meaningful data. These are kids that are 2+ years ahead. Data on an on-grade level test is not a useful data point. Of course these kids are doing well.

When the data show what you would expect them to show, that doesn't make them unmeaningful data.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

I have read the study. Pages 65-66 do not show meaningful data. These are kids that are 2+ years ahead. Data on an on-grade level test is not a useful data point. Of course these kids are doing well.

Anonymous wrote:
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:
I did. The criteria of what makes it successful is if the program meets its goal of "meeting the needs of the top 2 to 3%". What's so hard about that? You are not really asking what makes the program successful, because clearly, the program is a success in that many parents want their kids in the program and because it meets the needs of the top 2 to 3%. You are really asking about the entrance criteria, and whether the current method is successful in identifying the top 2 to 3%.

Anonymous wrote:

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.