Gifted Education: Time to Move Away from the Label

The primary stumbling block to providing our children the above grade education mandated by state law has been the controversy over the GT label.

Proponents of the label, like the GT Advisory Committee member Fred Stichnoth, argue "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." [see Fred’s document titled SUMMARY OF 5.14.09 ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING*, Page 1, paragraph 4]

State law, policy IOA, and regulation IOA-RA, do not mandate such a label.

The law requires identification and NOT LABELING.

I would posit that if MCPS issues a letter confirming that your child has been tested in conformity with applicable law, policy, regulation,
AND states that your child has been identified for X, Y, Z, services, using the well-publicized criteria A, B, C, everyone would be happy. As I have been suggesting for the last three-years, the letter would represent a binding and enforceable legal document, far more powerful than a mere label.

So, why this hang-up on label, when the legal arguments are, easily and demonstrably, untenable? There are far more serious issues regarding the selection process, including though not limited to, “gaming,” the seeming lack of correlation between GT ID and academic progress, etc.

Let us all move forward without putting artificial constructs in the path to our child's education. Let us demand a legally enforceable document, clearly stating services recommended, and expressing the criteria used to determine such.