The biggest surprise for DS (which I didn't show him) is that his Teacher Survey was below threshold. His teacher this year loves him and was downright effusive the few times we have run into each other coming and going. I'm surprised the survey wasn't at least at threshold. He's your average 9 yo with no behavior issues. Now I'm second guessing everything.

The danger here is conflating being gifted with being a good, nice, polite, hard-working kids. Your kid could be all of the latter without being the former, and that's FINE. In fact, a lot of gifted kids do have behavioral challenges, as just another thing in the "basket" of giftedness.

Be happy you have a good kid, and check in to see what actual skills he is missing before the next school year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Imagine if MCPS told parents, teachers, students and administrators that they would be changing their criteria for their process before they administered the assessments they’d be using! Instead, they say nothing, tell no one, and after the fact change all the criteria and back into the process and weaponize this data against children who clearly should have enrichment. Also those Benchmark EOLs are very confusing, poorly written tests. I have upper el kids who say the questions are multiple choice and two of four are usually correct and it’s impossible to infer based on limited text which one is the right answer.

THIS DESIGNATION IS MEANINGLESS!! It does not determine whether your kid gets enrichment. There is no reason to get bent out of shape. Also it was the same last year.

I was just coming in to say this. My current 5th grader is was not ID’d as G/T but the letter said she’d get enrichment in both English and Math and she did. She was in compacted math and read above grade level from the beginning of Elem. she’s continuing on to AIM Math, HIGH social studies and Adv English.

Just got my 3rd graders letter that IDs him as G/T (he was not ID’d in 2nd - but apparently was in 3rd). His scores are nearly identical to his sisters. Letter says same thing hers did - enrichment in math and literacy. He’s doing compacted math next yr and ELC.

G/T Designation is meaningless.

We are joking around about our sons miraculous leap into being gifted this yr vs last yr.

Btw, everyone does “advanced” English in sixth grade.

Good to know! Yet another meaningless designation!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Imagine if MCPS told parents, teachers, students and administrators that they would be changing their criteria for their process before they administered the assessments they’d be using! Instead, they say nothing, tell no one, and after the fact change all the criteria and back into the process and weaponize this data against children who clearly should have enrichment. Also those Benchmark EOLs are very confusing, poorly written tests. I have upper el kids who say the questions are multiple choice and two of four are usually correct and it’s impossible to infer based on limited text which one is the right answer.

THIS DESIGNATION IS MEANINGLESS!! It does not determine whether your kid gets enrichment. There is no reason to get bent out of shape. Also it was the same last year.

I was just coming in to say this. My current 5th grader is was not ID’d as G/T but the letter said she’d get enrichment in both English and Math and she did. She was in compacted math and read above grade level from the beginning of Elem. she’s continuing on to AIM Math, HIGH social studies and Adv English.

Just got my 3rd graders letter that IDs him as G/T (he was not ID’d in 2nd - but apparently was in 3rd). His scores are nearly identical to his sisters. Letter says same thing hers did - enrichment in math and literacy. He’s doing compacted math next yr and ELC.

G/T Designation is meaningless.

We are joking around about our sons miraculous leap into being gifted this yr vs last yr.

You're absolutely right. But there are some really anxious parents here that are suddenly concerned that their 2nd grader is "falling behind" and this means that they no longer have a chance at an Ivy and it's a total injustice. It's a tough pill for these parents to swallow, finding out that their DD might be less than extraordinary.

PP here. Totally agree and see it with sports too. If a kid doesn’t make a travel team their chances at an NCAA scholarship are gone forever.

My hope/expectation is that my kids are nice people and can be contributing members of society. There is very little chance that my sons GT identification will get him any further in life than my daughter who wasn’t ID’d.

Anonymous wrote:The biggest surprise for DS (which I didn't show him) is that his Teacher Survey was below threshold. His teacher this year loves him and was downright effusive the few times we have run into each other coming and going. I'm surprised the survey wasn't at least at threshold. He's your average 9 yo with no behavior issues. Now I'm second guessing everything.

Similar situation for us.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Imagine if MCPS told parents, teachers, students and administrators that they would be changing their criteria for their process before they administered the assessments they’d be using! Instead, they say nothing, tell no one, and after the fact change all the criteria and back into the process and weaponize this data against children who clearly should have enrichment. Also those Benchmark EOLs are very confusing, poorly written tests. I have upper el kids who say the questions are multiple choice and two of four are usually correct and it’s impossible to infer based on limited text which one is the right answer.

THIS DESIGNATION IS MEANINGLESS!! It does not determine whether your kid gets enrichment. There is no reason to get bent out of shape. Also it was the same last year.

I was just coming in to say this. My current 5th grader is was not ID’d as G/T but the letter said she’d get enrichment in both English and Math and she did. She was in compacted math and read above grade level from the beginning of Elem. she’s continuing on to AIM Math, HIGH social studies and Adv English.

Just got my 3rd graders letter that IDs him as G/T (he was not ID’d in 2nd - but apparently was in 3rd). His scores are nearly identical to his sisters. Letter says same thing hers did - enrichment in math and literacy. He’s doing compacted math next yr and ELC.

G/T Designation is meaningless.

We are joking around about our sons miraculous leap into being gifted this yr vs last yr.

Btw, everyone does “advanced” English in sixth grade.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The designation isn't entirely meaningless.
MD law (https://www.marylandpublicschools.org/programs/Documents/Gifted-Talented/COMAR_13A0407_GT_Education.pdf) requires MCPS to identify GT students, make GT programs available to them and train staff to provide GT education.

The more who are identified, the more needs to be provided, but economies of scale usually make this feasible. The specifics of that which is to be provided are nonexistent, though. MCPS can use Benchmark Advance enrichments or ELC, Eureka enrichments or acceleration, and MCPS can say that some need is met theough one and some through the other, meaning that they can decouple Math 4/5 placement criteria from GT identification. The GT designation [b]should[b] ensure that a student is provided one or the other, however, and the notice to parents/guardians should allow them to follow up with the teacher/school administration to ensure that that happens. Lord knows that MCPS central staff (AEI) don't have the manpower to provide the oversight of all the schools, and whatever they're calling OSSI nowadays (area superintendents/directors who oversee the schools directly) doesn't seem to make adherence to this aspect of COMAR a priority.

Thank you, this is helpful. Given how opaque the admissions process is now for the 4th/5th grade CES programs, can someone who knows DEFINITIVELY say that they are sure that lack of GT designation for a rising 3rd grader will not impact his chances of CES admission this time next year? Kid is off the charts on MAP, apparently bombed EOLs.... truly not sure how a kid in 240s for map m in 2nd grade gets a 1 on EOL... I'm concerned. In the shorter term, he loves his math enrichment and will be so sad without it.

Definitely GT designation is unconnected to CES placement. Or compact math placement either for that matter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The designation isn't entirely meaningless.
MD law (https://www.marylandpublicschools.org/programs/Documents/Gifted-Talented/COMAR_13A0407_GT_Education.pdf) requires MCPS to identify GT students, make GT programs available to them and train staff to provide GT education.

The more who are identified, the more needs to be provided, but economies of scale usually make this feasible. The specifics of that which is to be provided are nonexistent, though. MCPS can use Benchmark Advance enrichments or ELC, Eureka enrichments or acceleration, and MCPS can say that some need is met theough one and some through the other, meaning that they can decouple Math 4/5 placement criteria from GT identification. The GT designation should ensure that a student is provided one or the other, however, and the notice to parents/guardians should allow them to follow up with the teacher/school administration to ensure that that happens. Lord knows that MCPS central staff (AEI) don't have the manpower to provide the oversight of all the schools, and whatever they're calling OSSI nowadays (area superintendents/directors who oversee the schools directly) doesn't seem to make adherence to this aspect of COMAR a priority.

Thank you, this is helpful. Given how opaque the admissions process is now for the 4th/5th grade CES programs, can someone who knows DEFINITIVELY say that they are sure that lack of GT designation for a rising 3rd grader will not impact his chances of CES admission this time next year? Kid is off the charts on MAP, apparently bombed EOLs.... truly not sure how a kid in 240s for map m in 2nd grade gets a 1 on EOL... I'm concerned. In the shorter term, he loves his math enrichment and will be so sad without it.

"Gifted and Talented designation is not a consideration or requirement for participation in the CES lottery process." [directly from the MCPS CES page]

In the past (recent past, anyway) GT identification and CES placement have been decoupled. GT identification checks the box for MCPS, showing that they are following the COMAR regulation (how well or to whose satisfaction clearly is debatable). MCPS GT programs like CES (formerly HGC) predated the state regulation, and placement has been a separate process, perhaps as an artifact of this predating or perhaps because crossing the streams, as it were, would be "bad"; this past year, inclusion in the CES lottery was based on grades, reading level and MAP-R scores. That may change this year, as it has many times in the past -- either to tweak the criteria (e.g., 90th %ile cutoffs instead of 85th, adjusting for SES factors) or make more significant changes (e.g., consideration of local cohort, use or abandonment of CogAT, unweighted lottery instead of rank-ordered selection, etc.).

I don't see it as at all likely that past GT identification, itself, would become one of the CES criteria, but there are similar criteria for each, and you never know what changes might be made. Also remember that CES is not a Math program -- placement into Math 4/5 is, itself, a separate process, though most CES students end up qualifying for Math acceleration, too. Further, the MCPS paradigm for elementary Math enrichment is supposed to be based on a module-by-module evaluation of each student's uptake, with three tiers of enrichment available to be employed prior to consideration for grade-skipping (very rarely employed). This is the reason the GT letters don't say "On grade level with enrichment" for Math as they do for Literacy, only "On grade level" -- enrichment options are baked into the Math curriculum, so there isn't a separate call-out (the sentence below that in the letter tries to explain that, but I doubt it's clear for anyone not intimately familiar with the curriculum). Your child should continue to receive Math enrichment next year.

As for EOL scores, they were off this year due to the lingering effects of pandemic instruction and related curricular omissions employed to manage shortened instructional time. Why they then chose to utilize them for GT identification under these circumstances is beyond me. Bottom line -- don't worry too much about it, but be willing to advocate if you ever find that any opportunities are left off the table.

Either my 2nd grader is a not-very-good test taker (which is totally possible), or DC doesn't know how to take standardized tests or understand why doing well on them is useful. In either case, the scores are very different from DC's actual work both inside and outside of school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Imagine if MCPS told parents, teachers, students and administrators that they would be changing their criteria for their process before they administered the assessments they’d be using! Instead, they say nothing, tell no one, and after the fact change all the criteria and back into the process and weaponize this data against children who clearly should have enrichment. Also those Benchmark EOLs are very confusing, poorly written tests. I have upper el kids who say the questions are multiple choice and two of four are usually correct and it’s impossible to infer based on limited text which one is the right answer.

THIS DESIGNATION IS MEANINGLESS!! It does not determine whether your kid gets enrichment. There is no reason to get bent out of shape. Also it was the same last year.

I was just coming in to say this. My current 5th grader is was not ID’d as G/T but the letter said she’d get enrichment in both English and Math and she did. She was in compacted math and read above grade level from the beginning of Elem. she’s continuing on to AIM Math, HIGH social studies and Adv English.

Just got my 3rd graders letter that IDs him as G/T (he was not ID’d in 2nd - but apparently was in 3rd). His scores are nearly identical to his sisters. Letter says same thing hers did - enrichment in math and literacy. He’s doing compacted math next yr and ELC.

G/T Designation is meaningless.

We are joking around about our sons miraculous leap into being gifted this yr vs last yr.

You're absolutely right. But there are some really anxious parents here that are suddenly concerned that their 2nd grader is "falling behind" and this means that they no longer have a chance at an Ivy and it's a total injustice. It's a tough pill for these parents to swallow, finding out that their DD might be less than extraordinary.

What a load of bs. It must be you who is worried about your 2nd grader not getting into an Ivy based on the gt letters. Other concerned parents are just confounded by the gt identification criteria especially in our case where part of the data is missing data.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Imagine if MCPS told parents, teachers, students and administrators that they would be changing their criteria for their process before they administered the assessments they’d be using! Instead, they say nothing, tell no one, and after the fact change all the criteria and back into the process and weaponize this data against children who clearly should have enrichment. Also those Benchmark EOLs are very confusing, poorly written tests. I have upper el kids who say the questions are multiple choice and two of four are usually correct and it’s impossible to infer based on limited text which one is the right answer.

THIS DESIGNATION IS MEANINGLESS!! It does not determine whether your kid gets enrichment. There is no reason to get bent out of shape. Also it was the same last year.

I was just coming in to say this. My current 5th grader is was not ID’d as G/T but the letter said she’d get enrichment in both English and Math and she did. She was in compacted math and read above grade level from the beginning of Elem. she’s continuing on to AIM Math, HIGH social studies and Adv English.

Just got my 3rd graders letter that IDs him as G/T (he was not ID’d in 2nd - but apparently was in 3rd). His scores are nearly identical to his sisters. Letter says same thing hers did - enrichment in math and literacy. He’s doing compacted math next yr and ELC.

G/T Designation is meaningless.

We are joking around about our sons miraculous leap into being gifted this yr vs last yr.

You're absolutely right. But there are some really anxious parents here that are suddenly concerned that their 2nd grader is "falling behind" and this means that they no longer have a chance at an Ivy and it's a total injustice. It's a tough pill for these parents to swallow, finding out that their DD might be less than extraordinary.

I think what drives parents crazy is that the GT screening is not actually screening children for giftedness. There is no cognitive abilities testing done in mcps. They used to use inview. Then cogat. Now nothing. It’s bizarre that they plucked a couple random unit tests and used those to determine GT status. If GT status is indeed meaningless then why torture parents/teachers/staff with these letters the last week of school?!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The biggest surprise for DS (which I didn't show him) is that his Teacher Survey was below threshold. His teacher this year loves him and was downright effusive the few times we have run into each other coming and going. I'm surprised the survey wasn't at least at threshold. He's your average 9 yo with no behavior issues. Now I'm second guessing everything.

Did you look at the report cards to see where DS might not have done as well as you thought? Did anything trend in the wrong direction?

Same with my child. Met all the testing metrics no problem, straight As, but no teacher rec.

Same here. But we had a long term sub during the screening process which I think is unfair.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The biggest surprise for DS (which I didn't show him) is that his Teacher Survey was below threshold. His teacher this year loves him and was downright effusive the few times we have run into each other coming and going. I'm surprised the survey wasn't at least at threshold. He's your average 9 yo with no behavior issues. Now I'm second guessing everything.

Did you look at the report cards to see where DS might not have done as well as you thought? Did anything trend in the wrong direction?

Same with my child. Met all the testing metrics no problem, straight As, but no teacher rec.

Anonymous wrote:The biggest surprise for DS (which I didn't show him) is that his Teacher Survey was below threshold. His teacher this year loves him and was downright effusive the few times we have run into each other coming and going. I'm surprised the survey wasn't at least at threshold. He's your average 9 yo with no behavior issues. Now I'm second guessing everything.

Did you look at the report cards to see where DS might not have done as well as you thought? Did anything trend in the wrong direction?

The biggest surprise for DS (which I didn't show him) is that his Teacher Survey was below threshold. His teacher this year loves him and was downright effusive the few times we have run into each other coming and going. I'm surprised the survey wasn't at least at threshold. He's your average 9 yo with no behavior issues. Now I'm second guessing everything.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Imagine if MCPS told parents, teachers, students and administrators that they would be changing their criteria for their process before they administered the assessments they’d be using! Instead, they say nothing, tell no one, and after the fact change all the criteria and back into the process and weaponize this data against children who clearly should have enrichment. Also those Benchmark EOLs are very confusing, poorly written tests. I have upper el kids who say the questions are multiple choice and two of four are usually correct and it’s impossible to infer based on limited text which one is the right answer.

THIS DESIGNATION IS MEANINGLESS!! It does not determine whether your kid gets enrichment. There is no reason to get bent out of shape. Also it was the same last year.

I was just coming in to say this. My current 5th grader is was not ID’d as G/T but the letter said she’d get enrichment in both English and Math and she did. She was in compacted math and read above grade level from the beginning of Elem. she’s continuing on to AIM Math, HIGH social studies and Adv English.

Just got my 3rd graders letter that IDs him as G/T (he was not ID’d in 2nd - but apparently was in 3rd). His scores are nearly identical to his sisters. Letter says same thing hers did - enrichment in math and literacy. He’s doing compacted math next yr and ELC.

G/T Designation is meaningless.

We are joking around about our sons miraculous leap into being gifted this yr vs last yr.

You're absolutely right. But there are some really anxious parents here that are suddenly concerned that their 2nd grader is "falling behind" and this means that they no longer have a chance at an Ivy and it's a total injustice. It's a tough pill for these parents to swallow, finding out that their DD might be less than extraordinary.