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?