The AEI Advisory Committee Saga

AEI Appointment Email and MPIA Response

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Essays Academic Work accountability advisory committee

Recently, the super sleuths at Parents’ Coalition “outed” another one of those secret “advisory” committees chosen by MCPS—the Mathematics Joint Work Group.

Dedicated to changing the educational policies that irrevocably alter the futures of our children for a decade or more, these committee members sell their souls to the devil by agreeing to a vow of secrecy. Don’t you forget that standard operating procedure (“SOP”) at the Kremlin is to ensure that there are no bona fide experts in the field sitting on these committees.

The fact that these committees are perfunctory rubber stamps to a predetermined course of action is no longer an ethereal construct of the misinformed of the disenfranchised. These committees apparently formed under, and acting at, the direction of the BOE, routinely flaunt applicable laws and regulations.

Here is an example of MCPS SOP.

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 21:41:57 -0500, Martin Creel, Director, Enriched and Innovative Programs, wrote “[w]e will review the parent nominations … in the next few weeks, … and expect to have a decision in time for the March AEI Advisory meeting” (the email is attached on the second page).

Common sense will dictate that if the “we” was the AEI Advisory Committee, the minutes of meetings will reflect this important decision making.

Of course, you ask the powers-that-be, with suitable genuflecting and penance, for a copy of such minutes that may be disclosed under the law.

Okay, okay, you can go “hee, hee,” like a Tickle-me-Elmo doll.

In response, MCPS, in a letter dated March 25, copied to Marty Creel, Dr. Lacey, and Edwards, asserts “… Mr. Creel has never claimed that the Accelerated and Enriched Instruction Advisory Committee reviewed nominations for the committee.”

Aw shucks, maybe it was all a misinterpretation.

Wait, wait, take a look at the letter.

It asserts, I asked for “… copies of any and all documents pertaining to the meetings held by the AEI Advisory Committee.” The letter does not deny that these letters must be provided under the law. Yet, none were provided.

MCPS ethics for you.

Next step for MCPS: use all means to threaten and destroy the requester who caused so much embarrassment.

Gotta go hide.

Remember data driven change with transparency and accountability is the only defensible change.

The AEI Advisory Committee and the Open Meetings Act

It is my understanding from the Maryland Attorney General's Office that if the AEI committee "was in fact created by a resolution of the Board of Education, it would fit the definition of a "public body" under the Open Meetings Act ["the Act"]. See §10-502(h) of the State Government Article, Annotated Code of Maryland." The April 16, 2009 meeting between the BOE Policy Committee and the AEI Advisory Committee seems to further confirm the link between the BOE and the Committee.

Unless, the Committee and the BOE publicly, and in writing, discloses reasons why the AEI Advisory Committee is not subject to the Act, I would respectfully request that the Committee proceedings conform to applicable law.

President Obama, in a memorandum to government agencies, stressed "Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.” It is time we in Montgomery county heartily embraced this view.

What the Advisory Committee Members say in Public & in Committee

January 15, 2009 AEI Committee Feedback

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Presentations & Spre accountability etics

If we are to believe the public pronouncements of AEI Advisory Committee members, they are doing battle against a hostile MCPS, fighting to be heard but often, if not always, ignored.

The feedback forms submitted by these very same committee members show no such dissension or disagreement.

Asked if the meeting addressed the “charge” of the committee, six-members strongly agreed, while one-agreed. NONE disagreed!! One-had no comment.

When asked if they provided “input of Policy Revision Overview” seven out of eight agreed or strongly agreed (one had no comment).

When asked if they provided “input on Revision of Policy IOA” seven out of eight agreed or strongly agreed (one disagreed).

Take a look at the minutes of AEI Committee Meetings, there are two versions available: one produced by MCPS, and the other by a committee member. Neither version documents the voting that took place within the committee, even though law apparently requires that they do.

How about the meetings between individual groups and MCPS representatives, ostensibly to conduct the public's business? No minutes produced by any party--even though the law apparently requires it.

No wonder that Policy IOA has been turned into a political manifesto instead of a document stating a cogent, coherent policy on gifted education.

It is only through direct parental involvement that we can accomplish change.

It is with this basic principle in mind that we urge you to help make April 16, 2009 [and, perhaps, every April 16, thereafter] *Stand Up for Your Children Day*. Please see:

http://parentscoalitionmc.blogspot.com/2009/03/make-april-16-day-to-stand-up-for-your.html

*WHEN*: April 16, 2009 from 6:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.

WHERE: At The *Carver Educational Services Center*, 850 Hungerford
Drive, Rockville, MD 20850

*WHAT TO DO*: You can simply show your commitment to your child’s education by joining other parents in the parking lot. Just show up and make a statement by the number of vehicles.

You could voice your opinion personally with posters, etc., and make sure the BOE understands our commitment to our children, by visiting Conference Room 127 where the Advisory Committee will be meeting.

AEI Advisory Committee Members, where's the BEEF?

The AEI Advisory Committee is discussing a proposed Overview of GT education, and a proposed policy IOA, both of which are discussed in public, displayed in public, debated in public, voted in public, but have never been made public.

The Advisory Committee members vote on specific language changes/amendments--without the authority of their constituencies--creating, in my opinion, a personal Overview and Policy, not necessarily reflective of the view of the public.

It is only when the public can view the unvarnished document that a meaningful debate can take place. The Overview and the Policy are available to ALL Advisory Committee members. Some Committee members are proposing various motions and amendments related to these documents to be voted upon by their respective constituencies. Until the Policy and Overview are made public, the resolutions and amendments being proposed are, in my view, meaningless.

I believe that these Committee members have no right to withhold from the public view a document that they are apparently amending to conform to the view of their constituencies.

While the view that both the Overview and the Policy are embargoed by MCPS , i.e., they are secret, seems reasonable, I would posit that it is made possible by the Advisory Committee membership being complicit to the process. My question is to the whole Advisory Committee membership: On what justifiable grounds are you withholding the proposed the Overview and the Policy IOA from the public?

This question must be answered if Committee members are proposing that the public, i.e., their respective constituencies, support various motions and amendments based on this ephemeral Overview and Policy.

So, AEI Advisory Committee Members, where's the BEEF?

MCPS Travel Freeze Lifted!

Didn't Superintendent Jerry Weast tell the County Council there was a travel freeze until further notice? 
Fooled 'em!


Superintendent Weast and staff just LOVE to travel. And the Board of Education members love it too! So don't expect the Board to enforce any cut back of travel, even during a budget crisis!


Maybe the MCPS travelers will send the furloughed county employees a postcard!


Board of Education Vice-President Christopher Barclay is just back from the April 10-12 National School Board's Association conference in Chicago. 


Here's a sample of travel for MCPS staff. Please note that these are conferences where MCPS staff is listed as a presenter. We have no idea how many conferences MCPS staff are attending just as participants! 


August 2-6, 2009 Las Vegas, Nevada John Brewer, MCPS Foundations Office at CompTIA Breakaway 2009.


October 5-7, 2009 Chicago, Illinois Janine Bacquie, MCPS Director Early Childhood Programs and Services at Grantmakers for Education Annual Conference.


October 15-16, 2009 Minneapolis, Minnesota William McGrath, MCPS Occupational Therapist - HIAT; Linda Bastiani Wilson, MCPS Special Education - HIAT; Denise DeCoste, MCPS OTR Special Education - HIAT.


January 22-24, 2010 Louisville, Kentucky Jerry Weast, MCPS Superintendent at Kentucky School Boards Association Annual Conference.


February 7-10, 2010 Columbus, Ohio Michelle Pace, MCPS Reading Coach at the Reading Recovery of North America Conference.


March 4, 2010 Baltimore, Maryland Lynn Wiegand, MCPS Staff Development Teacher and Richard Jolles, MCPS Coordinator Student E-Learning at Maryland Distance Learning Conference.


March 10-12, 2010 Williamsburg, Virginia Sherry Watts, MCPS Division of AEI - Instructional Specialist at the National Curriculum Network Conference. 


March 12, 2010 Union, New Jersey Jerry Weast, MCPS Superintendent at New Jersey Network for Student Success 


April 21-24, 2010 San Diego, California Robyn Silbey, MCPS Focus Teacher at National Conference of Teachers of Mathematics.


April 25-27, 2010 Denver, Colorado Jerry Weast, MCPS Superintendent at the 2010 Council on Foundations Annual Conference.


April 29-30, 2010 Atlanta, Georgia Christian Anderson, MCPS Division of AEI at the College Board A Dream Deferred Conference.


April 30-May 1, 2010 Baltimore, Maryland Beth Poss, MCPS Speech Pathologist at the MSET Conference.


April 30-May 3, 2010 Denver, Colorado Shahpar Modarresi, MCPS Supervisor Shared Accountability, Huafang Zhao, MCPS Coordinator Shared Accountability, Shihching Liu, MCPS Shared Accountability Evaluation Specialist, and Janine Bacquie, MCPS Director Early Childhood Program and Services, at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting.


July 15-17, 2010 San Antonio, Texas Robyn Silbey MCPS Focus Teacher at the CAMT 2010 Conference.


July 17-21, 2010 Seattle, Washington Keith Adams,  MCPS Resource Teacher at the National Staff Development Council Conference. 


MCPS travel compiled by Lyda Astrove.

Does MCPS want two-way communication?

Shall we talk? Yep/Maybe/Naw
Commentary
by Frederick Stitchnoth

The jarring coincidence of the "Closing the Gap" report of the Deputy's Minority Achievement Advisory Council (being considered today by the BOE) with the last AEI Advisory Committee meeting got me thinking about MCPS' indecision on talking.

Yeah: let's talk.
The Deputy's Minority Achievement Advisory Council says that, at the core of addressing the achievement gap is "a two-way communication paradigm, where MCPS is fully engaged in genuine conversation and partnership with students, parents/guardians and community members;" it calls this "a real back and forth."

Likewise, MCPS' guru Glenn Singleton says "We believe that the primary and essential way of addressing these gaps is to create a culture that encourages educators, both Whites and people of color, to discuss race safely and honestly in the school environment."

Tentative Policy ABC, being considered today by the BOE, follows the DMAAC through a policy of "Communicating effectively--families and school staff engage in regular, meaningful two-way communication about student learning."

Policy AEB on strategic planning, revised by the BOE in 2009, says that a broad range of stakeholders will participate on the schools' school improvement teams, and the SIT will be available to parents.

There's the excellently titled "continuing dialogue about race."

Wait: let's think about it

The BOE, at its May 8, 2009 retreat, discussed "How can 'reframing the terms of engagement' with out community, including both our vocal critics and our 'silent' constituents, help us to move from where we are now, to where we want to be, in a way that is aligned with ('stays true to') our core values."? (Doesn't the faith in "our silent constituents"--as opposed to the vocal critics--remind you of the bad old "silent majority?" And doesn't "vocal" = talk?)

Nope: let's don't
Thinking about it resulted in an astounding circling of the wagons. In the 2009 Our Call to Action, the new central "Framework for Equity and Excellence," the BOE and MCPS say "This organizational culture also will serve to protect the ongoing work to promote equity and excellence from external factors that could possibly disrupt the work or distract staff from their focus. These external factors include political factors, legal considerations and economic realities." (Doesn't the BOE's single-minded determination bask in the glow of our recent president's rejection of the "reality-based community?" But then, why should an elected Board be influenced by political factors? Why let legal considerations influence our direction? And doesn't our budget situation prove the wisdom of just saying no to economic realities?) Why talk?--we know where we're headed.

The Board (really just its officers) has deployed its OCA no-talk policy by deriding parents requesting further openness in the strategic planning policy as "pain-in-the-ass parents;" saying that the parents are "not agreeable" and "don't know how to agree to disagree;" and should disagree in a "respectful" and "professional" way. (Yet, there was no real back and forth regarding the parents' respectfully written AEB comments.)

One pretty high level MCPS official asked me rhetorically "Do you expect the system to talk to you?" (this after I had been probing "accountability" in MCPS). Actually, without going into the counter-intuitive reasoning here, I do expect the system to talk to me.

Then there's the school improvement plan addressed by the let's talk a little bit Policy AEB. My school--Springbrook High--has not posted on the website. I've gotten the formulaic linkages chart, but it's not generally available. I can't get the whole SIP despite my repeated request--apparently the Community Super hasn't finally blessed it. Broad-based parent participation?--one parent, the PTSA president, sits on the SIT. I can't find out even who the school staffers are. And this is the end of the first half of the school year. Maybe next year.

The AEI Advisory Committee: just because the agenda schedules a talk about equity doesn't mean that we should break the overriding don't talk policy.

I'm ambivalent

Mostly I'm for talk. But I differ from the DMAAC, Singleton and the BOE: I really don't think talk therapy can cure the achievement gap. I harp on making green zone opportunities available in the red zone. Finally, I agree with Dr. Weast's old, talk-eclipsed "differentiation" approach: top management responsibility and just send money.

Let's hope Dr. Lacey and DMAAC co-chairs Crystal De Vance-Wilson and Enrique Zaldivar can clear things up in their talk with the Board today.

Reprinted from the GTA listserv with permission of the author.

Must the GT Advisory Committee Conform to the Law?

The Open Meetings Act Manual states “The scope of the Act is determined in part by the “function” carried out by the public body. If, at a meeting, a public body is engaged in an “advisory function,” “legislative function,” or “quasi-legislative function,” the Act applies.” The Manual continues, “An advisory function is “the study of a matter of public concern or the making of recommendations on the matter, under a delegation of responsibility” by law, gubernatorial or other chief executive designation, or formal action by a public body.”

Dr. Jerry Weast, Superintendent, MCPS has long insisted that the public school system is a state entity. The AEI Advisory Committee is charged with advisory functions related to policy and regulations implemented by the state entity, MCPS, for compliance with state law.

Consequently, it is my belief that the AEI Advisory Committee, involved in an “advisory function” in developing policies and/or regulations consistent with applicable state law, is subject to the Open Meetings Act.

To reiterate, the General Assembly’s statement of legislative policy speaks of the public’s entitlement “to witness the phases of the deliberation, policy formation, and decision making of public bodies ....” §10-501(b)(1).

The Act requires that the following information be set out in the minutes, whether the meeting is open or closed: “each item” considered, the action taken on each item, and each recorded vote. §10-509(c)(1).35 Although the Act does not specify the level of detail in the description of an “item,” the description should be sufficient so that a member of the public who examines the minutes of an open meeting (or of a closed meeting, if the minutes are later released) can understand what the issue was. As we now know, know, the Committee votes on language related to proposed changes to policy IOA and such votes are tabulated on an enlarged photocopy taped to cabinets in the meeting room. The official minutes of the meeting fail to reflect these votes or a description of the related events.

The Compliance Board found unlawful “routine delays of several months or longer in preparing minutes.” For example, copies of March 2008 minutes have not been posted to date.

The demands for secrecy by members of the public and/or committee members who are expressly charged with reflecting the opinions of their constituencies on matters before the committee also seem to violate the act.

The onus is upon the committee to justify its penchant for secrecy, apparent violations of the Open Meetings Act, and Mr. Marty Creel has been expressly asked to do so.

On the other hand, there may be arguments that justify the Committee’s immunity to the Open Meetings Act. In which case the public must be informed of the reasons there for.

Gifted, is a bad word only when misused

According to the LSU biography, Dr. Martin Luther King, "[b]ecause of his high score on the college entrance examinations in his junior year of high school, he advanced to Morehouse College without formal graduation from Booker T. Washington. Having skipped both the ninth and twelfth grades, Dr. King entered Morehouse at the age of fifteen." In 1964, this gifted young man went on to win the Nobel Peace Prize.
Yes, Dr. King was a gifted student who skipped grades. He would have been denied that opportunity had he been a student at MCPS. A website quotes an MCPS administrator as insisting, "The district's systemwide model for acceleration ensures that students can access an appropriate, above-grade-level curriculum every day without skipping a grade." I personally offered the administrator the opportunity to post her comments here and received no answer. Courageous conversations … .
In a review of a book on Lincoln, the New York Times wrote, "Having received almost no formal education, Lincoln embarked on a quest for learning and self-improvement. He read incessantly, beginning as a youth with the Bible and Shakespeare. During his single term in the House of Representatives, his colleagues considered it humorous that Lincoln spent his spare time poring over books in the Library of Congress. The result of this ''stunning work of self-education'' was the ''intellectual power'' revealed in Lincoln's writings and speeches. He relied, [the author] notes, on in-depth research and logical argument to persuade his listeners rather than oratorical flights." In Montgomery County, the AEI Advisory Committee, presently revising the gifted and talented policy, cares for neither. To quote the Committee notes, "One Board member asked what research the committee had conducted in preparation for policy revision. Members were silent." Yes, Lincoln wouldn't have felt at home with the MCPS AEI Committee.

MCPS & Community Involvement - Letter from MCCPTA

May 28, 2007

Martin Creel, Director, AEI
Montgomery County Public Schools
850 Hungerford Drive
Rockville, MD 20850


Dear Mr. Creel:

I am writing with regard to the Accelerated and Enriched Instruction
Advisory Committee. As you recall, when you first contacted MCCPTA to
ask for two representatives to sit on this advisory committee, you were
advised that the proposed meeting dates of the fourth Tuesday of the
month were extremely problematic for our organization. The fourth
Tuesday of the months of September, October, November, January,
February, March, and April are our Delegates Assemblies.

I informed you at that time that MCCPTA desired to place two
representatives on the advisory committee who were active within MCCPTA
and who would be able to report to our delegates at the assemblies as
well as take parent input back to the advisory committee. You were also
informed that any MCCPTA representative who was active within MCCPTA
would have schedule conflicts and would also not be able to report to
our delegates at the assemblies as they would be attending an advisory
committee meeting on the very same evening.

You expressed an understanding of these conflicts and agreed to revisit
the dates of the meetings. It is my understanding that the committee
did vote to continue with the fourth Tuesday of the month. It is
disappointing that the group was not apprised that this meeting date
severely compromises MCCPTA’s ability to fully participate in the work
of the advisory committee.

As we move forward, I will likely have to replace one of our representatives, if not both on this advisory committee due to the scheduling conflict. I also want to be very clear regarding the
consequences of meeting on the fourth Tuesday of the month. If the
occasion arises that the advisory committee wants comments or input from
MCCPTA, there will be at the very least a two month turn around time.
If information is released for comment at an advisory committee meeting,
MCCPTA will be unable to discuss this information until the next month’s
delegate assembly and then, even if we ask our delegates to act on any
recommendations or endorse any comments without having had the chance to
take the information back to their local PTAs for discussion, our input
will not get back to the AEI Advisory Committee until the next month’s
meeting. If issues arise that delegates want to be able to discuss with
their local PTAs, this turn around time will be increased to at least
three months.

I am belaboring this point because I want it to be well understood that
when the time comes to offer comments on the final policy on accelerated
and enriched instruction and MCCPTA includes in their comments that
their ability to solicit feedback and give input into the policy was
knowingly limited by the choice of meeting dates, that the advisory
committee was advised of this conflict and the problems it posed before
the committee began its work.

MCCPTA is still hopeful that another day of the month could be selected
for these meetings so that our 52,000 members can be fully represented
on this advisory group.

Sincerely,

Jane de Winter

Cc Dr. Frieda Lacey
Ms Nancy Navarro
Ms Sharon Cox
Mr. Steve Bedford
Ms Kay Romero

Carver, We Have a Problem

When the AEI meeting last night was over, I asked Board of Education Vice-President Pat O’ Neill in a private conversation to look at me straight in the eyes and to tell me if she thought it was right to deny some children access to providers of instruction. Her response? “I am sorry, I don’t know.” I repeated my question. She repeated her answer. I thanked her for at least having the courage to look at me straight in the eyes when she confessed her ambivalence.

So there you have it, people. We all sat through a two-hour meeting the stated objective of which was to provide comments to the BOE Policy Committee (chaired by Vice-President Pat O’ Neill) and Special Populations Committee on the draft policy for advanced and enriched instruction. Pat O’Neill conveyed her appreciation several times for the comments made by the members of the AEI Advisory Committee, but coming right out of the meeting she was still unsure whether or not it was right to deny access to education to some children.

In all fairness to Pat O’ Neill, I have to add that there was an unstated context to my question that she was aware of and she clearly did not want to be treading on Superintendent Weast’s turf. Let me tell you my story.

I have been homeschooling our younger son, now in 10^th grade, since kindergarten. The COMAR regulations pertaining to homeschooling state that parents must provide instruction in a set number of subjects and agree to have their children’s portfolio reviewed by an umbrella group approved by MSDE or, for free, by the school system.

At my last county review in December, my reviewer told me that she would have to find me out of compliance with the COMAR regulations if my son received more than 20% of his instruction from providers other than mom and dad. That semester, he had taken a Chemistry class at Montgomery College and a Music Theory class for music majors at the University of Maryland at College Park (on a scholarship earned in 8^th grade). Fortunately, the 3 AP classes he is self-studying for this school year, plus instruction in Latin at home with me, allowed us to pass our review. But I was warned not to have him take “too many classes” in college or elsewhere.

I never thought that a parent could be found guilty of educating her child too much, but in MCPS everything is possible. No doubt a mind is a terrible thing to weast!

In a 3-page letter to Superintendent Weast in January, I challenged his interpretation of the COMAR regulations, arguing that “provide instruction” means “provide access to instruction,” and not “plan and implement yourself a set percentage of the curriculum content” He is the one with a Ph.D. in education, and I am just a plain homeschooling mom, but I thought I supported my argument well.

To make a long story short, suffice to say that I had to bring my appeal to MSDE in February. When my letter was still unanswered after 5 weeks, I first most politely asked when I could hope to receive an answer. To shorten that part of the story too, I was later told the Department was in the process of answering it… but only after I informed MSDE that I am now represented by counsel.

So there you have it! A parent who homeschools a high-achieving student in Montgomery County has to hire a lawyer in order to defend her right to spend her own money on her son’s education while MCPS is spending taxpayers’ money right and left on we don’t often know even what! Spend, baby, spend...

Gifted Policy Overview Draft Dated February 10, 2009

Draft Policy IOA Overview Feb 10, 2009

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Presentations & Spre ethics accountability

The Draft Policy IOA Revision Overview is a document being voted upon by members of the handpicked, secretive AEI Advisory Committee. Contrary to published claims, the document states "AEI Advisory members provided input in developing the majority recommendations (column three)". Four pages of this document, reproduced here, are part of the 10-page set provided in response to a Freedom of Information request. The document copy, provided by MCPS, had missing information.

Committee members did not discuss the issues contained in this document with their constituencies before voting on the language at meetings.

The willingness of various groups to sit on these committees and not disclose the changes to educational policies they are approving on our behalf has resulted in MCPS being able to present educational policy changes as a "done deal" and insisting stakeholder had an opportunity to provide an input.

It is time to put an end to these secretive committees and the havoc they wreck on our educational system, by demanding open, transparent, public discourse on policy changes. This culture of secretive "advisory committees," has generated power groups seeking to influence the direction of a policy at any and all costs. These groups, "lobbyists" of sorts, can be seen to manipulate public opinion in an effort to get their singular view across at the expense of all else.

I advocate an inclusive process where these lobbyists hanging on to these secretive committees are a thing of the past.

Remember, any member of the Advisory Committee with a commitment to transparency, openness, and applicable law, could have requested the release of this document, as well as any other, at any time. It is significant, that despite repeated requests, none chose to do so.

It is now the time for a robust, well-informed, public debate and input. It is only proper that we, as parents, speak for ourselves. Our voices, raised in support of what is morally, ethically, and legally right can accomplish more than any hand-picked committee meeting in secret.

Remember April 15 is for taxes.

April 16 is for standing up for your child. It is when parents answer the call of their conscience that transparency and accountability becomes a reality. Please join in a protest by concerned parents.

WHEN: April 16, 2009 from 6:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.
WHERE: At Carver ESC in Conference Room 127

Join the fight for data driven, open, transparent change in public education.

Examiner: Instead of "GT" for Gifted & Talented how about "M" for mediocrity?

The Examiner's Barbara Hollingsworth writes about MCPS' public relations expert Brian Edwards and MCPS' Director of AEI Marty Creel's efforts to keep one parent off the AEI Advisory Board.

Is It Right to Stereotype to Achieve a Noteworthy End?

by Joseph Hawkins

Is it right to stereotype an entire section of the county to achieve a noteworthy end? I know we engage in this behavior all the time; however, is it right? And given that today is Dr. Martin Luther King’s birthday celebration it is a question worth thinking about.

Using Head Start—clearly a proven and noteworthy program that helps the development of poor children—let’s step outside of the county for a moment to illustrate what I mean. When arguing for its continued federal financial support, supporters frequently say something along the following lines. “If you don’t invest in these poor children of color, you will end paying later when they become criminals and you send them off to prison for 20 years.” In fact, when doing Head Start research contract work at the American Institutes for Research (AIR), I even heard Head Start supporters—off the record—say more direct things such as, “If you don’t support these children now they will end robbing you when they grow and turn into anger uneducated young adults.” There are other variations on this theme; however, the basic notion here is to use a negative stereotype about a group to frighten lawmakers and others into funding Head Start.

But in life not everyone uses the negative to motivate. Let’s step back into the county.

I have lived in Bethesda for more than 25 years. My own two children went through schools in the Whitman Cluster. In my Bethesda neighborhood parents using negative stereotype to achieve noteworthy ends is probably a rare thing. Personally, when my children were Head Start age it never crossed my mind that if I did not do something for one of my children—spend that preschool tuition money—it might cause them to end up in the criminal justice system later in life. Instead, I invested in my children because it was the morally right thing to do. And the neighbors that I knew did the same. And simply doing the morally right thing was sufficient. Okay, perhaps there was the neighbor who insisted on “just” the right preschool program because it meant a step up in the queue for the right private school which then provided an advantage to the right Ivy League college. But even then there were motives driven by something negative.

So, the other day when reading one of my regular bookmarked blogs I came across this academic paper written by Stacey Childress of Harvard University. The Childress paper was presented at a January 11th Washington D.C. conference, sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. Click here to view the conference agenda:
www.aei.org/event/100164#doc.

Click here to read the Childress paper:
www.aei.org/docLib/Investing%20in%20Improvement-%20Childress.pdf.

The Childress paper profiles several public schools districts’ spending efforts to support programs to eliminate the achievement gaps. The Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) is one district profiled in the paper. Being curious about anything MCPS, I read the paper. This quote caught my attention,

But along with the big demographic shifts, board members and community leaders were faced with the troubling reality that, along with some of the best schools in the country, Montgomery County had many schools that performed at levels similar to some of the lowest performing urban schools in America.

Hum! So, are we suppose to believe that Montgomery County has Jonathan Kozol like urban schools—those are poor dysfunctional urban schools profiled in his 1991 book Savage Inequities? Obviously, this seems to be the point here. Heck, I know this is the point here. This Harvard researcher has been working with MCPS for years now and I have read other statements similar to this one. And I know our current MCPS superintendent—Jerry Weast—likes going around the country and world saying the exact thing.

Click here to see how Childress has been researching the achievement gap in MCPS:
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/10/in-pursuit-of-everyday-excellence/

I guess the problem I have with all of this is I fail to understand why it is necessary to “ghettoize” parts Montgomery County. And isn’t this ghettoizing—I’m sure I made this word up—basically stereotyping at its worst? Why is necessary to make us believe that parts of Silver Spring or Gaithersburg, for example, are just as bad as parts of inner city Philadelphia or Baltimore? And then of course if you ghettoize the geography don’t you also stereotype the people in those communities? And doesn’t that stereotyping cause some harm?

Unfortunately, my professional work has taken me into some of the worst urban ghettoes in America, as well as some of the worst dysfunctional urban schools in America—Kozol-like schools. Again, anyone who has read his book Salvage Inequities knows what this means. Frankly, nothing in this county begins to remotely come close to these settings. And keep in mind that I worked as a researcher for MCPS for 18 years, and I think I stepped foot in and visited nearly every MCPS school and community. And, no Montgomery County community’s scale of issues and problems matches anything Kozol-like. Nothing in this county is Harlem-like (New York City), Roxbury-like (Boston), or Compton (Los Angeles).

But I think I get it. Two reasons come to mind for ghettoizing our neighbors. First, it helps with the messaging that centers around the need to continue funding the extra stuff for the kids that need the extra stuff. I’m not suggesting here that we should debate the need for the extra stuff. The need for extra funding is well-documented. Yet those making the case for the extra stuff still continue to frame from the negative. Regardless of the progress made on narrowing achievement gaps, we still see our colored and poor neighbors as “others” who might turn on us if we do not continue to step up to the plate. Isn’t time we stopped the stereotyping?

Second, I believe we ghettoize our colored neighbors because in a really weird way when we succeed with them it makes us look good. If you convince the public that you have kids of color that are just as worse off than those in major American cities and you succeed academically with these kids than you obviously have achieved something that most school districts and communities never achieve. You sort of earn the right to be king of the gap closing hill. You become a freaky miracle-worker. And aren’t we actually engaged in such behavior? Isn’t that the point to the recent book Leading for Equity? Well, the book serves other points and purposes, but it has been used to frame a few some of us as morally right miracle workers. Which I think is another unfortunate stereotype for our colored neighbors. Have you even noticed that when individuals achieve things with the worse of the worse—those in the ghetto—they are proclaimed miracle workers? Geoffrey Canada and his work the Harlem Children’s Zone has earned such a label—although I do not think he views himself this way. And why is it a miracle when poor children learn to read? By the way, I would encourage folks in this county to read the recent book Whatever It Takes by Paul Tough. Great book. Even though it is clear from test score data that the Children’s Zone has a long ways to go.

Click here to view test score data:
http://gothamschools.org/2009/05/08/just-how-gullible-is-david-brooks.

But all of this still brings me back to my original question, is it okay to stereotype to achieve a noteworthy end? And further, is anyone harmed when we engage in this behavior? And is there a point in time, when we no longer must stereotype to do the right thing by all children—regardless of their skin color? I hope so, and I hope it is soon because I’m sort of sick of reading and hearing about how ghetto certain parts of Montgomery County are.

Vehicle Emissions and GT Identification

It is my belief, nay, my philosophy, that an intractable problem is often easily solved by dividing it into its component parts.

The first issue I sought to address is the ubiquitous label.

A large amount of human capital has been expended in addressing the issue of a label. That expenditure has been fueled in no small part by an interpretation of the law put forth by MCPS parent, and MCPS AEI Advisory Committee member Fred Stichnoth.

That argument is summarized by Fred as follows: "State law (binding on both MCPS and MSDE) and current Policy IOA require identification of students as “gifted and talented” on a binary (gifted or not gifted) basis—the 'label.'". It fails muster on several grounds.

The MCPS GT Selection Process

The first, and obvious being that the law does not demand a label be affixed. It merely requires the identification and the appropriate provision of services.

The second argument is that a title, oops, I mean label, somehow provides leverage to demand appropriate services. A label carries no specificity of the tests administered to the child, the scores the child received, the services identified by MCPS for the child, or the criteria used to determine eligibility. A legally binding letter, instead of a label, would be a far more powerful tool.

Ever taken your motor vehicle for an emissions inspection in Maryland? You get a nice piece of paper clearly spelling out the emissions profile (modern cars simply have the On Board Diagnostics system which communicate the compliance info). The “certificate,” known as the “Vehicle Emissions Inspection Certificate” is a legally binding document from the State of Maryland, which “must be kept in the vehicle.” Ever gone back and asked the folks for a label? No, we are perfectly satisfied with a far more detailed letter, or certificate.

Why then do we demand a label when it comes to GT education? Isn’t a clear and enforceable document stating names of all tests administered, affirming that the child has been tested in conformity with applicable law, policy, regulation, AND stating that the child has been identified for X, Y, Z, services, using the well-publicized criteria A, B, C, a far better alternative?

My proposal will

(a) place the assessment information squarely in the hands of parents by requiring it be included in the letter to the parents or parent (CURRENTLY NOT DONE);
(b) articulate the selection criteria in detail (CURRENTLY NOT DONE);
(c) enunciate in concrete terms the specific services that the child has qualified for (CURRENTLY NOT DONE); and
(d) the specificity mandated by (c) will require a subject-by-subject statement of services-for all subjects --"to progress with appropriate enrichment and at a pace matched to a child's achievement and readiness." (CURRENTLY NOT DONE)

A very basic form of the letter is available for view.

That brings me to a question posed by a former (John, correct me if I am wrong) MCPS parent John Hoven. I hope John will forgive me my reproducing it in its entirety: “I am asking you to clarify your intentions with respect to one issue, which you phrased as follows:

(c) enunciate in concrete terms the specific services that the child has qualified for (CURRENTLY NOT DONE);

Are you willing to interpret that statement as a demand for an explicit scope and sequence of accelerated and enriched objectives in math, science, reading/language arts, and social studies?”

Let me not mince words and be unequivocal in my answer-yes, yes, yes.

However, my insistence is that such an explicit scope and sequence must be expressed by MCPS in an unambiguous, legally enforceable manner.

Remember, it was my child who was kept away from public school for two-days by MCPS. Do you think I am willing to settle for buzz words and ethereal statements?

It is time we as parents acted reasonably and rationally just as we demand the school system should. That means the nonsense about the label should end.

I conclude with a simple request to John Hoven: Will you be equally unambiguous in asserting that my proposal for a Parent Letter is far more feasible than a label?

Teachers Cut, Consultants Kept!

In a memo to employees last week, MCPS Superintendent Jerry Weast outlined the cutbacks to classroom teaching staff for the upcoming year, complete with his plans for a class size increase.

But buried in the Answers to Budget Questions, we learn that Jerry Weast proposes to spend $2.4 million dollars on "consultants" during FY 2011: an increase of over $100,000 from the year before!

Some of the funds for "consultants," which could be going to pay for classroom teaching positions, are listed below:

$196,950: Facilitators for school groups and teams, outside consultants to provide professional development to school staff, consultants to run first aid classes and other courses where specific certification is required, AmeriCorps services, adjudicators for instrumental music festivals and choral music festivals, and consultants to work with drama groups.

$38,820: Downcounty Consortium: Contract professional speakers to train and inform teachers of current educational trends. Contract professionals to assist teachers with various academy activities. (...)DCCAPS Office: school assignment lottery process.

$6,600: North East Consortium schools: Contract professionals for audio-visual, sound, and lighting support and a professional to educate Health Education Students about HIV/Aids ($600). DCCAPS: lottery process ($6000)

$10,400: School Based AEI: Funds for Destination Imagination program

$6,922: School Based CTE: Signature Schools: To contract professional speakers to train and inform teachers of current educational trends. Contract professionals to assist teachers with various academy activities and funding for students to participate in Orientation Program at UMCP.

$5,070: Summer School Program: Professional musicians and clerical support for local programs.

$10,000: Div. Early Childhood: Consultants deliver parent outrach workshops in Kennedy Cluster to support achievement of young children. Distribute PAL kits and train parents to use kits. Provide Literacy Learning Party (10 session parent classes) for at risk children from birth through 5 ($3600). (...) Consultant for professional development activities for staff to support continuous improvement such as grant development, Study Circles for Diversity, and strategic planning ($3,075). Speaker/consultant for Early Childhood Conference-MCPS expert panel discussion $2,000.
Next: More Consultants!

The TAO of data-driven educational change TODAY at Carver Educational Services Center

On Tax day, April 15, the day before the scheduled meeting, the MCPS AEI Advisory Committee posted a change in its usual meeting time and venue. This meeting includes the BOE Policy Committee that ostensibly directs changes in educational policy that directly impact your child or children’s education.

It will now take place at the

Carver Educational Services Center AUDITORIUM

On Thursday, April 16, 2009 7:15– 9:15 PM

I have attached a copy of the agenda posted by MCPS.

It is a rare opportunity for parents to express their opposition to the MCPS philosophy of secretive changes to our children’s education, often rolled out as a “done deal.”

It is no secret that the Parents’ Coalition was the first to roll out the proposed policy on gifted education. The secretive committee was complicit in withholding this crucial document that would have clearly demonstrated that gifted and talented was barely mentioned in this “policy,” and its attendant “overview.” The Parents’ Coalition has accomplished more in bringing factual information to the table in the interest of promoting rational, meaningful debate. It has enjoyed a great deal of success, often where giants have failed, because of the extraordinary commitment of a determined, intrepid, committed few. Please join in this philosophy, if just for a day, by making April 16 a day to Stand Up for Your Children.

What I call the TAO of MCPS reform: Transparency, Accountability, and Openness have been sorely missing in the BOE and its handpicked, secretive committees that have “approved” controversial budgets, orchestrated changes in class periods, developed curricula, and the likes. These committees are amazingly bereft of anyone remotely qualified to speak on their stated mission.

Don’t our children deserve better?

I urge parents to embrace the TAO of change that is in essence the core of the Parents’ Coalition’s efforts.

It is with this basic principle in mind that we urge you to help make April 16, 2009 [and, perhaps, every April 16, thereafter] Stand Up for Your Children Day and join us in making your voice heard. Your presence is the most essential component of driving home your commitment to ensuring the TAO of data-driven educational change.

Directions to the Carver Educational Services Center are available at http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/boe/meetings/directions.shtm.

Please come and be a part of change. Help start a revolution. Our nation has embraced openness, accountability and let us, as a united community, join that embrace.

Reading the writing on the wall

The Nobel Committee announced today, Friday, October 9, 2009 that it had awarded its annual peace prize to President Obama "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples," while NASA returned to the moon with, shall we say, a loud bang!

We live in the shadow of these noteworthy accomplishments with a school system that aspires to be "world class." How fortunate our children.

Our school system tells us that a system-wide average of about 40% of our second graders perform above-grade level. Yes, in some schools it is more than 70%. If, true, isn't it the most compelling evidence of the need to raise standards?

At the end of a child's educational journey through public school, graduation, our school system acknowledges a declining trend (note this is a very rudimentary analysis). Again, aren't we acknowledging a failure to provide a challenging, well-articulated curriculum for our children that imbues them with the knowledge and skills to graduate?

It is not a debatable matter that we fail our best and brightest with incessant filibustering debates over labeling, and keeping parents from participating in the policy making process.

Washington Post columnist Jay Mathews wrote back in 2006, "UCLA professor Jeannie Oakes, a leading opponent of tracking, said she agreed with the Iowa report's case-by-case approach. If a sixth-grader understands advanced mathematical concepts, she said, "the solution is to send that child to high school," not to put the child in a class with other bright sixth-graders and just call it accelerated, even if it isn't." The school system argues such an intervention is unnecessary.

Parents with the means who realize that their child is capable of performing at a higher level of education generally seek interventions outside the school, or are capable of sound advocacy. It is the economically disadvantaged families that can't provide for their high performing children. Consequently, it is imperative that a public school system provide the necessary interventions for these students irrespective of economic strata.

"All parents want their children to achieve at high levels and to learn at an appropriate pace, depth, and level of complexity. To blame parents for wanting challenge for their children or to accuse them of creating a meritocracy ignores the very real evidence that some students are not being challenged in school. Instead of attacking the parents of these students, we invite them to participate in the dialogue on school improvement by encouraging open discussion about how schools can address the needs of all children and, indeed, how parents can be active partners in achieving this goal," wrote Sally M. Reis, Sandra N. Kaplan, Carol A. Tomlinson, Karen L. Westberg, Carolyn M. Callahan, and Carolyn R. Cooper in Educational Leadership, 56 (3), 74-77. Yes, you read it right—those are the words of MCPS' latest expert du jour Carol Ann Tomlinson. Yet, it is a piece of wisdom that the MCPS division of Accelerated and Enriched Instruction seems supremely unable or unwilling to follow.

The minutes of the April 2009, AEI meeting states, "A Board member clarified that the purpose of policy revision is to update language to be consistent with other policies that do not contain regulatory language. All changes made will be consistent with COMAR." Ah, yes "All changes made will be consistent with COMAR." THE ANNOTATED CODE OF THE PUBLIC GENERAL LAWS OF MARYLAND, § 8-202 unequivocally states "A gifted and talented student needs different services beyond those normally provided by the regular school program in order to develop the student's potential." Consequently, shouldn't the committee realize that its charge is limited to creating a policy for identifying students:
(1) Having outstanding talent and performing, or showing the potential for performing, at remarkably high levels of accomplishment when compared with other students of a similar age, experience, or environment;
(2) Exhibiting high performance capability in intellectual, creative, or artistic areas;
(3) Possessing an unusual leadership capacity; or

(4) Excelling in specific academic fields, and providing them the appropriate services? "The committee has met 23 times since February 2007," and has failed to accomplish anything tangible.

Wonder why? Just read the April 2009 minutes: "One Board member asked what research the committee had conducted in preparation for policy revision. Members were silent."

In our schools, hardworking dedicated professionals strive daily to do their best with the resources at their disposal. Carver seems unable to read the writing on the wall.