Gifted and Talented, education in the Washington suburb of Montgomery County has always been a community flash point. Montgomery County Public Schools, MCPS, identify an average of approximately 40% of its second graders as GT. This figure belies the fact that identification numbers run the gamut from a low of about 17% to a high of over 87%. The generally accepted norm for Maryland is on par with the national average of about 5%.
The governing State statute defines a "'gifted and talented student' as an elementary or secondary student who is identified by professionally qualified individuals as 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; exhibiting high performance capability in intellectual, creative, or artistic areas; possessing an unusual leadership capacity; or, excelling in specific academic fields."
With nearly half its second grade population labeled as GT, the expectation would be that the school system supports a robust GT program. Not so, asserted Eric Marx, Co-President of Gifted & Talented Association of Montgomery County, in his February 23, 2009 testimony to the MCPS Board of Education. Stating that "Outside of math, in most schools, there is virtually no GT education left to gut." GT, it would seem, has been reduced to an honorific label without attaching tangible educational benefits.
Adherents of the current system argue that the GT identification rates are justifiable, by claiming that the county boasts a highly educated populace.
The label, they argue, is needed for advocacy, and by law. Opponents are equally vehement that minorities, in particular, African Americans and Hispanics, are underrepresented. Furthermore, they insist, the label stigmatizes those who are excluded.
MCPS stubbornly resists all attempts to elicit public disclosure of its GT selection criteria and, has gone as far as to keep secret, documents related to a proposed revised policy being discussed by an "Advisory Committee." This contrasts to most school systems, such as Ohio, that make a very concrete and, public declaration of their GT selection criteria.
Evidence indicates that MCPS students who outscore 75 percent of their peers on the Raven's Progressive Matrices, or receive a minimum score on the three InView subsets of Quantitative Reasoning, Reading, Math; and satisfy one other criterion, qualify as GT. The smorgasbord of choices for the remaining criteria include: reading above grade level, performing math above grade level, having a parent nomination that satisfies certain criteria, being nominated by school staff, etc.
Even if the student cannot meet the benchmarks on the InView or the Raven tests, but meets three of the remaining qualifications, they still qualify for the GT label. In contrast, an Ohio student must demonstrate superior cognitive ability by scoring "two standard deviations above the mean minus the standard error of measurement on an intelligence test," or specific academic ability in a field by performing "at or above the 95th percentile at the national level on a standardized achievement test of specific academic ability in that field," etc. Renzulli, Director of the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, recommends "students who score at or above the 92nd percentile, using local norms in the Talent Pool," when using the standardized tests.
In the Spring 2008 Global Screening, barely 30% met the lower MCPS threshold on InView and Raven. When it came to Parent surveys, about 24% met the bench mark, as did about 19% of Teacher Advocacy. School-by-school GT identification data released by MCPS, does not seem to correlate with academic performance in subsequent years. Schools with higher GT rates don't seem to post a better academic performance from their counterparts with barely half the GT identification--even when the schools had a common catchment boundary and similar population demographics.
If the accepted standards and norms are followed, it is highly likely that identified population will fall close to the generally accepted parameter of around 5%. This in turn will negate the argument that children, who are not identified, constituting the vast majority, will be stigmatized.
Furthermore, I have proposed a Parent Letter that would substitute the ubiquitous label, and become a blueprint for every child's success. The letter would spell out in detail the test administered; the scores received, the benchmarks attained, and contain a well articulated scope and sequence of recommended services. It would shine a bright light on the GT identification process, empower parents to advocate for their child, and eliminate the label.
I would argue that the Parent Letter must be particularly informative to children who don't qualify as GT, delineating a specific, recommended program of instruction that would address their particular needs. In other words, GT identification becomes a means of addressing the needs of all students. Annual academic progress will determine the need for screenings in future grades.
The GT debate can be solved, if someone shows the leadership and courage to make an unpopular but legally and professionally defensible decision. We, as parents must insist on a transparent, accountable, educational system that discharges its obligation in a legal, moral, ethical manner, and gives every child an opportunity to succeed—gifted children included.
Thanks so much for this post. As a pediatrician I totally agree with everything you are saying. The bottom line is that if the "GT" curriculum is good for such a high proportion of students, it probably is close to what should be offered to all kids in all schools. Particularly undemocratic is the role of parents in writing persuasive essays about their children as well as the role of teachers in nominating students for the program. Such factors have nothing to do with an objective determination of who truly is "gifted and talented" and are so obviously unfair (in the case of truly gifted kids with uneducated parents) and subject to bias on the part of classroom teachers that it is hard to believe that a progressive county like MC is considering them. I actually know parents who have practically forced MCPS to place their kid into the GT program. Finally, the small percentage of children who truly are "gifted" (which is certainly less than 5% of kids across the board) by definition are probably just as bored in the so-called "GT" curriculum as they would have been in the mainstream curriculum. Your post focuses on the harm that the GT "label" does to children who don't have it. But I think that most of the MC children who have been labelled "GT" also are harmed in that they, and their parents, have a false set of expectations about what they will achieve. The day will come when they learn that they aren't Einsteins, that they aren't, truly, gifted and talented. It doesn't hurt for children to have fantasies but the adult world shouldn't be manufacturing them. I am all in favor of supporting children's self-esteem but it isn't fair to mislead them (or their parents) about their abilities and that's what MCPS is doing.
ReplyDeleteLynn
Lynn, I respectfully disagree with you as a parent of a current first grader and current kindergartener. My daughter is bright. She was identified as TAG through the PG County School System and has won a lottery spot for an all-day TAG program. (The debate about the quality of a PG County education is a separate debate, but let's say that we are planning to move within 12-18 months and leave it at that.)
ReplyDeleteThe idea that there is harm by placing high expectations on a capable child (one who is identified TAG and has enthusiasm for challenging curriculum) baffles me. My daughter hates worksheets but when she is given a project, she flourishes. Why shouldn't we nurture great expectations in our children, and help them explore subjects with more rigor and more depth? Who does that hurt?
I agree that all children should have the opportunity to experience challenging curriculum, but as the parent of a kid who is reading chapter books in a class of kids who mostly are learning to spell cat and house, I have to stand up and fight for my daughter here. She needs to be in a classroom with other children at (or hopefully above!) her academic abilities, so she can be challenged and continue to excel. Every child deserves that, which is why I favor grouping by capability by subject matter. Some children are brilliant in math, others in the arts, others in language. Some, like my daughter, seem to have abilities across the board (although she is like her mother and isn't a huge math fan, although she comprehends above grade level math skills).
I don't believe it's misleading to tell a child, regardless of their academic ability, that they can achieve great things. Why not challenge children? And for children like my daughter, who has shown abilities far outpacing her peers, they deserve to be supported as a special needs group just like exceptional children with learning disabilities.
To receive services, support, or resources, you need to apply a label for a group of similarly-abled children. The gifted and talented label is necessary for that purpose. Yet, I don't know that the label achieves what it should.
I have never understood why special needs children on the low end receive IEPs, resources, and funding, but special needs children on the high end get very little in the way of services. And to be a parent of a high achieving child means that people assume you are elitist and holier than thou. Not so.