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.

Gifted and Talented Girls

Remember those words that once tore through your heart and evoked unquenchable emotion? "But it's the same with all my friends, just fun and joking, nothing more. I can never bring myself to talk of anything outside the common round.... Hence, this diary.... I want this diary itself to be my friend." They were penned by a gifted young girl—Anne Frank. Once let in, those words ricochet through your soul, it seems, forever. The words transcend the boundaries of language, race, color, and creed. Is it right, may I respectfully ask, to pretend that such talent doesn't exist?

In his book, Alpha Girls, Dan Kindlon, a clinical and research psychologist at Harvard, quotes Simone de Beauvoir: "If a caste is kept in a sense of inferiority, no doubt it remains inferior; but liberty can break the cycle. Let the Negroes vote and they become worthy of having the vote; let woman be given responsibilities and she is able to assume them. The fact is that oppressors cannot be expected to make a move of gratuitous generosity; but at one time the revolt of the oppressed, at another time the very evolution of the privileged caste itself, creates new situations; thus men have been led, in their own interest, to give partial emancipation to women: it remains only for women to continue their ascent, and the successes they are obtaining are an encouragement for them to do so. It seems almost certain that sooner or later they will arrive at complete economic and social economic equality, which will bring about an inner metamorphosis."

If nothing else, recent events are a powerful indicator that the inner metamorphosis has occurred. The Baltimore Sun reported "Carol W. Greider, who on Monday became the 33rd person associated with the Johns Hopkins University to win the Nobel Prize, is a triathlete, a mother of two and a methodical and modest genetic researcher who colleagues say shuns publicity in favor of pursuing her passion: fundamental, curiosity-driven science." Sharing the prize was Elizabeth Blackburn, a professor of biochemistry at the University of California, San Francisco and Jack Szostak of Harvard. According to the paper, the Nobel Committee made history by awarding the prize to more than one woman.

The Chicago Tribune draws our attention to a little known fact: laureate Blackburn was an alumnus of Joe Gall's laboratory at Yale University, "which had gained a reputation as one of the few places where a female postdoctoral student could do more than wash the Petri dishes." Blackburn, in turn, mentored other women and a revolution continued. Ms. de Beauvoir was right.

That is not to minimize the unique difficulties gifted girls may face in classrooms across the nation. Joan Franklin Smutny, in Understanding Our Gifted, Winter 1999 Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 9-13, states "Gifted girls often face a range of social pressures in schools, causing them to shift priorities. In an accepting home environment, they may have felt free to be themselves, to pursue with energy and interest any subject that intrigued them. But in school, the desire for friends, a disinclination to stand out, fear of ridicule, along with the need for acceptance, often impel gifted girls to make their abilities appear ordinary or even nonexistent." Smutny continues, "Kerr (1994) observes: "A society that wastes female brilliance has made it the norm for gifted women to lead an average life, and gifted women have largely adapted to that norm" (p. 171). The subtle and not-so-subtle messages downplaying the value of female achievement often begin early and accumulate over time. By age 11, many gifted girls do not know they have talents. Others, who know, guard it as a well-kept secret. This means that the abilities they could use to develop their potential are instead wasted on adjusting others' expectations (Eby & Smutny, 1990)."

Others, like Linda Kreger Silverman, describe the exceptional moral sensitivity of gifted children: "Having observed the development of gifted children for over 35 years, I am continuously impressed by the moral sensitivity of this group."

Consequently, it is not a hypothetical argument to assert that by denying the existence of a gifted population, or insisting on preserving a label that has little association with being gifted and talented (GT), society may be doing irreparable harm to these talented and sensitive children—both emotionally and educationally.

I find Silverman to be especially apropos in stating that "In the substitution of a mosaic of talents for giftedness, we have lost the entire moral dimension of giftedness. Gifted individuals, because of their greater facility with abstract reasoning, have complex inner lives, early ethical concerns, and heightened awareness of the world. As we split our understanding of the interrelated intellectual/moral/emotional structure of giftedness into many fragmented talents, we risk creating more one-sided children. And as we place too much value on performance -- with competitions, media attention, external recognition and rewards -- we may be inadvertently teaching gifted children that they are valued only for what they do, instead of who they are in their totality." In the case of gifted girls, we may be denying them their total existence and being.

Remember in 2005, when the then president of a prestigious university, Lawrence H. Summers, famously "sparked an uproar at an academic conference Friday when he said that innate differences between men and women might be one reason fewer women succeed in science and math careers?" What is true in Summers' comments, as reported by PBS, is that
"we do see gender disparity in the representation of young people among the highest performers on math achievement tests, standardized math achievement tests." It would be an interesting scientific experiment to follow the evolution of that disparity as more and more women take the stage that men once hogged, unencumbered by the stereotypes of a preceding generation.

Do I believe that such comments, however well-intentioned, have a negative impact on gifted girls? Well, at a recent event, I asked few. One looked at me with puzzlement, insisting dismissively "He needs to come to math class with me!" These gifted and talented girls don't seem to care if they are called "gifted." They are a secure, self-assured generation of girls who seem to take little umbrage at such unfortunate pronouncements. Is it possible that in the decade since Smutny wrote her paper some things have changed? God, I hope so.

Smutny also insists: "Gifted girls crave freedom. They long for someone to see who they are, open the often closed door of their minds and say, "Go, fly!" Since they cannot give themselves permission to fly, they need the aid of a discerning adult. For gifted girls, a sensitive, caring teacher may be all that stands between quiet resignation and the beginning of fulfillment of their potential. "

M. Katherine Gavin and Sally M. Reis, write in the Gifted Child Today Reader Series, that "The implications of these research results indicate that teachers need to recognize that all females are not alike and have different learning styles. They need to observe the females in their class and be especially aware of the needs of the talented females, some of whom may break the mold. They should provide some competitive, some cooperative, and some individual learning situations and allow choice whenever possible so as to maximize student interest and learning."

Sylvia Rimm, co-author of the The Rimm Report on How 1,000 Girls Became Successful Women, insists that among successful women, "Twenty-five percent skipped subjects and fifteen skipped at least one grade. Physicians, musicians, and artists had the most grade skippers." [Note: on page 110, the book expresses these facts in a slightly different fashion]

Gifted girls from minorities face even greater hurdles in having to shatter stereotypes, both inside and outside their community. Did you know that "A larger proportion of immigrant black high school graduates attend selective colleges and universities than either native black or white students in America, according to a study by sociologists at Johns Hopkins and Syracuse universities?" Gifted girls from minority communities enter college early and thirst for rigorous curricular choices.

In 2002, Sally M. Reis, in a piece titled Social and emotional issues faced by gifted girls in elementary and secondary school, writes "Kissane (1986) found that teachers are less accurate in nominating girls who are likely to do well on the quantitative subtest of the SAT than they were in naming boys who were likely to achieve a high score. Research also indicates that teachers like smart girls less than other students." Reis continues, "… even though teachers did not tend to engage in sex-role stereotyping in general, they did stereotype their best students in the area of mathematics, attributing characteristics such as volunteering answers, enjoyment of mathematics, and independence to males. Recent research has indicated that some teachers seem to expect less from females than they do from males, especially in regard to achievement in mathematics and science. Girls may internalize these lowered expectations very early in life."

Despite all the research, in the debate around GT, we find little, if any, reference to the needs of gifted girls. They don't even seem to be an avatar on the GT radar. Don't let these exceptional girls, who possess an "academic fearlessness and intellectual ability that will benefit their entire generation, become the invisible, the ignored, the forgotten few.

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.

Fixing Harvard’s Gaffes

According to the MCPS gifted and talented screening data, in 2006-2007, schools identified a minimum of 16.7% of their second graders as "gifted and talented." While the exact formula by which a student is "identified" remains undisclosed, the data in the report shows that the number identified can go as high as 86.5%. About 86 schools identified 50% or more of their second graders as GT (out of about 115 schools for which GT identification figures were released).
Marty Creel, Director, DEIP, who leads the MCPS GT program, is quoted as saying, "We're not identifying these kids as geniuses, but as ready to work above grade level," adding "the county has made remarkable progress in getting students to that mark."
Taking Mr. Creel's pronouncement for granted, we must accept that the system is claiming that ~75% of their schools have 50% or more second graders "ready to work above grade level." Obviously, the grade level curriculum is not sufficiently rigorous, at least for our second graders.
Childress, et al., on page 134, of Leading for Equity, claim "Effective differentiation of instruction requires diagnosing student needs, developing potential solutions, putting them into practice, and reflecting on their effectiveness. This is a professional endeavor, not a technical task. The strategy of differentiation respects and elevates teachers' roles as critical to the learning of all of their students."
Before we begin to elevate "differentiation" as an effective teaching practice, shouldn't a competent "diagnosis" of "student needs," have led the charge for a recalibration of the curriculum? Childress et al., continue in the same paragraph, "As we saw in several instances earlier in the book, principals used a variety of tactics to accelerate the learning of African American and Hispanic students, including abolishing on-grade-level courses and putting data in students' hands." Isn't the data pointing to the reality that "on-grade-level" courses at all schools are failing to meet the academic needs of our students?
As, for "putting data in students' hands," how does that happen?
Childress, et al., insist that "In the end, the strategy in MCPS was based on the assumption that every single child is capable of meeting rigorous standards, but each child starts from a different place." If true, why doesn't the book advocate for tougher standards?
Since "every single child is capable of meeting rigorous standards," and most of our second graders are capable of performing "above grade level," the failure to provide a curriculum recalibrated to student abilities is a serious problem.
Harvard, if it has a genuine desire to promote leadership and excellence in public education, needs to establish an independent, peer-reviewed means of assessing the progress of participants in its PELP program.
Harvard needs to retain an independent accounting firm, with no ties to Montgomery County, to perform an audit of school expenditures before claiming "Money has been important to the success in Montgomery County, and it is true that the district is well resourced. But according to the National Center for Education Statistics, at $12,000 per student in 2005, MCPS was in the same range as many other large East Coast districts with similar cost structures, such as Washington, D.C. ($13,000), and New York City ($13,500), and much lower than Boston ($16,000) and Newark, New Jersey ($20,000). These urban districts have much higher percentages of minority and low-income students than Montgomery County overall but are very similar to some of the schools we saw in the Red Zone." Incidentally, the numbers are for 2005 and recent figures are available. The comparison fails to state how the expenditures in other school systems were distributed. For example, do the other school systems support a multi-million dollar PR division? How much do the other systems pay their administrators?
Harvard also needs to undertake an independent assessment of MCPS performance data before claiming any success or failure on the part of our school system.
Any bona fide academic institution is aware that research papers must undergo a stringent per-review process before being accepted for publication in respected scholarly journals. The process often results in several revisions and re-revisions of the paper. The Harvard PELP needs to embrace that paradigm before making any claims about any school system participating in the project. Absent such a process, Harvard's PELP is simply a part of the school system's PR machine, albeit with a mightier printing press.

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.

Writing: the missing key to college success?

“American education will never realize its potential as an engine of opportunity and economic growth until a writing revolution puts language and communication in their proper place in the classroom. Writing is how students connect the dots in their knowledge. Although many models of effective ways to teach writing exist, both the teaching and practice of writing are increasingly shortchanged throughout the school and college years. Writing, always time-consuming for student and teacher, is hard-pressed in the American classroom. Of the three “Rs” writing is clearly the most neglected.”

Thus, began the April 2003 report by the National Commission on Writing. It was, for the most part, met with a collective yawn.

At the risk of dating myself, I must admit that my parents, one a teacher, taught me that grammar, rhetoric, and logical elucidation were the foundation of real learning. Yes, there was a time when writing was a much valued currency.

The panjandrums of perfect prose propel us on flights of fantasies away from a world increasingly populated by the “nattering nabobs of negativism.” Yes, that last phrase was the triumphant concoction of the late William Safire, the phrase-parsing wordsmith for the New York Times' Sunday magazine column on language usage. Writers are painters with words, capable of eliciting feelings of ecstatic pleasure or downright consternation.

Take George F. Will’s recent Op-Ed on denim, which included the following: “Writer Daniel Akst has noticed and has had a constructive conniption. He should be given the Presidential Medal of Freedom. He has earned it by identifying an obnoxious misuse of freedom. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, he has denounced denim, summoning Americans to soul-searching and repentance about the plague of that ubiquitous fabric, which is symptomatic of deep disorders in the national psyche.” Yup, you can even get verklempt with words.

At its very best, writing has overturned oppression, incited revolutions, and transformed society. Yet, it remains an art form accessible to a privileged few. Shouldn’t a public education system, marketing itself as a great equalizer, show a robust commitment to writing?

Yes, I know that MCPS does have curricular components dedicated to writing. However, I believe that we need a system-wide, uniformly implemented, well-defined writing program. One of the missing “keys” to college readiness is, in my opinion, writing at a skill level appropriate for success in the SAT writing section.

To use words from the College Board, writing to “organize and express ideas clearly; develop and support the main idea; use appropriate word choice and sentence structure,” not to mention writing mechanics such as proper “diction, grammar, sentence construction, subject-verb agreement, proper word usage, and wordiness,” should be part of any self-respecting public school curriculum.

Writing is no longer a pleasure for the privileged, it is a practical necessity. So, let us celebrate our teachers who value writing and advocate for a separate, robust writing curriculum.

Finally, a confession—I wouldn’t have written this piece if not for the requests of two teachers, one who wished to remain anonymous, and the other Mrs. V. I dedicate this piece to you and hope that you know you are appreciated.

Schools Identifying 50% or More as GT & Expenditures by Public Schools for 2007

A school that identified more than 80% as GT did so for three years until an analysis was published showing that the number was inconsistent with student performance on MSAs and TerraNova.


A significant number of schools identified 50% or more of their second graders as GT.

All this in a school system that outspent other Maryland public school systems.

GT education is mandated by state law and MCPS needs to step up to the plate and implement a GT program that conforms to established best practices and accepted standards and norms.

GT education cannot be filibustered away by an advisory committee or a political group. Nor is it a title to be awarded at whim. It is, to repeat myself, a legal requirement for a student population we need to nurture and cannot simply wish away.

Raw GT data, published by MCPS, is also available here (2005), here (2006), here (2007), and here (2008).

Does the MCPS faux GT Program hurt our children?

On 9/14/2009 an ex-officer of the MCCPTA, wrote to a public listserv “From my rough understanding of the process, I still don't see how what MCPS does fails to meet this criteria -- it's a pretty loosey- goosey definition.”

In an undated document, the then Chair, MCCF Education Committee, states, “What we are not told is that the laws fail to provide any meaningful definition of G&T … .”

These are the statements of the protagonists in the GT tug of war, playing out in slow motion in Montgomery County, Maryland. The former, a supporter of the GT system that labels between 17% and 80% of second graders as gifted, the latter an avowed opponent of GT, are both referencing Maryland GT law.

I have oft repeated that Maryland, as do many other states, subscribes to a modification of the original 1972 Marland definition of Gifted and Talented. State law, binding on local school districts, codified as The Annotated Code Of The Public General Laws Of Maryland, Education§ 8-201, defines a “gifted and talented student” as one with 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.

Elizabeth McClellan, in Defining Giftedness states “Although the definition has been criticized as being limiting (Reis and Renzulli 1982) and of promoting elitism (Feldman 1979), more than 80% of the 204 experts polled for their reactions to the Marland definition agreed with the selection of the categories of high intellectual ability, creative or productive thinking, specific academic aptitude, and ability in visual or performing arts. Approximately half of the experts agreed that social adeptness and psychomotor ability should be included (Martinson 1975).”

The Montgomery County protagonists fail to take notice that the definition has a reasonably well-defined interpretation in the field of GT education. Indeed, the Marland report “estimated that 5-7% of school children are "capable of high performance" and in need of ‘services or activities not normally provided by the school.’”

The Renzulli identification system, espoused by MCPS, clearly envisages “a total talent pool consisting of approximately 15% of the general population.”

The MCPS GT identification figures ranging from more than 15% to above 80%, with a system wide average of around 40% is nothing more than an indicator that the system is doing something wrong.

Renzulli recommends placing “students who score at or above the 92nd percentile (again, using local norms) in the Talent Pool.” MCPS uses the 75% percentile rank on Raven based on local norms established in 2004/2005. Clearly, MCPS has chosen an arbitrary, low standard that accounts for much of the bloated numbers that the system belches out.

Parents are also not without blame. According to data obtained by this author, some social groups fail to return Parent Surveys that are a criterion in the selection process.

The data shows that MCPS staff recommendations favor certain groups, and MCPS has failed to address this deficiency through appropriate training.

The simple reality is that MCPS has failed to understand GT education; failed to properly monitor and implement its GT identification system; and failed to exercise leadership and reign in a GT identification system that is out of control.

The bottom line is that ALL our children suffer-- not just the students capable of extraordinary academic performance.

Grade Skipping: The Mythology & The Facts

Grade-Skipping by Kumar Singam

Grade Skipping-Slip Sliding Away?

The Templeton National Report on Acceleration, states “Acceleration is an intervention that moves students through an educational program at rates faster, or at younger ages, than typical. It means matching the level, complexity, and pace of the curriculum to the readiness and motivation of the student. Examples of acceleration include early entrance to school, grade-skipping, moving ahead in one subject area, or Advanced Placement (AP). Acceleration is educationally effective, inexpensive, and can help level the playing field between students from rich schools and poor schools.”

“Many gifted students don’t find friends among age-peers. They tend to be more emotionally and socially mature than their age-mates. Their ideas of friendship are different. Bright students may be looking for a true friend to share thoughts and feelings, at an age when most kids see a friend as someone to play with. Parents of bright students often notice that their children seem to gravitate naturally to neighborhood children of various ages with similar academic or intellectual interests. The games they enjoy and the books they read are more like those of older children. And the older children happily accept them. So for gifted students, moving up a grade may not be a matter of leaving friends behind but of moving to a place where friends are waiting for them.”

“ … almost all bright students who are screened carefully and allowed to enter school early are as socially well-adjusted as their older classmates. In short, younger students do make friends. In fact, they are happier with older students who share their interests than they are with age-peers. The other side of that statistic may explain some of the scare stories. Children who are not specifically chosen to start school early, but somehow end up being younger—such as kids with a summer birthday—do tend to show more signs of immaturity than older classmates. That’s because age is only one indicator of readiness. But age plus advanced skills and maturity is a different equation.”

In High-Achieving Students in the Era of NCLB, a report by the Fordham Institute, we read, “To hear teachers report it, grade acceleration—or skipping a grade—rarely occurs these days. Approximately one in four teachers (27%) reports that their schools allow students to skip a grade, while a plurality (46%) says they do not. Teachers in high school (48%), middle school (45%), and elementary school (46%) are almost equally likely to report that their schools do not allow grade skipping. The fact that such a large proportion of teachers overall (27%) is unsure what their school’s policy is may also indicate that grade acceleration rarely occurs.”

“Three-quarters (76%) of teachers overall would like to see the nation “relying more on homogeneous classes for advanced students so that they learn faster and in greater depth.” More than eight in ten teachers (85%) also favor more reliance on “subject acceleration,” i.e., moving students faster when they have proven their capacity to learn at a quicker pace. But 63% oppose “encouraging advanced students to skip grades when appropriate.”

Advocating for gifted kids is an uphill battle that faces entrenched social norms and beliefs. This is precisely why I strongly believe that MCPS needs competent, qualified, leadership experienced in G/T, with the knowledge and courage to lead the debate.
 

The Tug 'o War Over Gifted Education

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.

Top 10 Facts About MCPS Gifted Education

1. MCPS subscribes to a much lower threshold for identification than is generally accepted (see here, and here).

2. Arguments justifying MCPS identification rates of more than 87% in some schools and ~40% system-wide average, on the basis of a highly educated populace in the county cannot be sustained.

3. MCPS has stubbornly resisted providing the identification data, while continuing to demonstrate that the data is available.

4. Legal arguments that Maryland law mandates a label ("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.'") are without merit.

6. A far more useful tool, that addresses the debate over labels, and places the power to determine a child's education squarely in the parent's hands is a legally enforceable "Parent Letter" that I have proposed.

7. Arguments that removing the label will result in the “balkanization” of GT are without merit. GT with the label is already a patch work of disparate services.

8. A label is not needed for counting since the MCPS data management system tracks those receiving services.

9. Gifted education is mandated by state law, which requires the identification of, and the provision of services for Gifted and Talented students.

10. Arguments that Montgomery County politics favor a move away from appropriate education for the Gifted and Talented populace are contrary to Maryland law (see above).

The way forward requires jettisoning unsustainable ideas, full compliance with the law, and an unshakable determination to provide all our children with the educational interventions they need.

Let us embrace my proposed Parent Letter, and move forward to the next step.

Justification for MCPS GT ID rates

Reported Terra Nova Scores and GT Identification Rates 2006-2007

The arguments in favor of the huge GT ID rates in Montgomery County are best summarized by a writer to a GT listserv who has not given me permission to quote her name. It goes as follows:

“One of the single most reliable factors influencing a child's propensity to excel in school is the educational attainment of the mother. The educational attainment of the father has some (less
strong) influence as well (statistically speaking).
…

More than 50% of the adults in Montgomery County have college degrees. More than 25% of the adults in Montgomery County have graduate degrees. Montgomery County has the highest concentration of PhDs of any county in the country.

A GT ID rate of 30-40% (i.e., 30-40% of kids performing above grade level) seems about right to me for Montgomery County, given all this background.”

Over the three reported periods 2004-2005, 2005-2006, and 2006-2007, while testing methods changed the distribution of GT identification rates over the school system maintained a fairly fixed pattern. For example, Westbrook Elementary, with a whopping 83.3% of 2nd graders identified as GT, dropped to 80.4% the next year, and in the most recent period rose to 86.5%. Wood Acres posted 47%, 39.2%, and 47.8 over the same period. While Wood Acres followed the rise and fall in acceptance rates with Westbrook its acceptance rates were nearly half. However, the TerraNova scores (percentage of students scoring at or above the 50th Normal Curve Equivalent) posted the by Wood Acres in 2007 bested the scores of the Westbrook counterparts in every category. Indeed, school performances on TerraNova (see graphic), or for that matter MSAs, do not seem to correlate to GT identification rates.

Actual 2008 MSA statistics for the Westbrook class that posted a mind blowing 86.5% GT ID rate, available here, tell a different story. “11 out of 14 (78.6%) 'similar' schools out performed [Westbrook] in Reading,” and “9 out of 12 (75%) 'similar' schools out performed [Westbrook] in Mathematics.” (“similar” means the White student population is between 76.8% and 86.8%). Remember Wood Acres with only about half the gifted population? They bested Westbrook!!

Here is the interesting part of the analysis: both schools share a common Service Area boundary and, are located in close proximity with a similar population demographic. What does that prove? That the argument about the sky high GT ID rates being correlated to parental educational achievement is probably suspect.

Any lingering doubts about the validity of MCPS GT ID would be erased by the reality that just after this analysis was published; the Westbrook GT ID rate plummeted to 57.9%.

My approach has the potential to empower parents and inject a dose of reality into this controversy.

Why the secrecy and intrigue over GT?

On the left is a copy of the GT Global Screening data available to MCPS. The screen shot was excerpted from a recent (May 2009)Power Point presentation by Martin Creel to the BOE.

A few months earlier (February 2009), MCPS responded to an MPIA (the State of Maryland version of FOIA) request for data collected in this precise manner, minus student names, etc. Their response, on the right, is self-explanatory.

The MCPS AEI Advisory Committee meets at the direction of the Board of Education. The meetings are open to the public but the documents, voting records, details of the meeting are not available to the public. No, not even the overview of the proposed Gifted policy, which I obtained and made available here.

Is the Advisory Committee Meeting, conducted at the direction of the BOE, immune to the Open Meetings Act? Why isn’t MCPS willing to release the data it has proved is in its possession? Why the secrecy and intrigue?

Moving away from the label: addressing the critics

I have taken the liberty of reproducing some of the arguments in favor of keeping the label in an effort to address them in a single posting. I have edited the arguments for brevity.

Argument 1: “The problem is, if you balkanize the identification process by sending each family its own letter with its own education plan, you abandon the sole unifying label, which creates an easily identified affinity group of families, and instead, cast off each family alone to advocate individually for their student(s).” [from Ian DW]

Response: There will still be a group of parents with children receiving a myriad of above-grade services, with services clearly defined and articulated. Nothing precludes them from getting together and advocating for their children. Yes, they can join a GT organization, advocate through their PTA, etc.

Those children not identified for above-grade services will have specific articulated interventions. Parents of these children, if they so desire, can band together as well and advocate as a group. Presently, the "balkanization" which exists cannot be quantified. The "label" by no means represents a group receiving uniform services.

Argument 2: “I can foresee MCPS providing nothing more than letters to parents full of encouraging boilerplate language with no real instructional impact. (For an example of such, see the MCPS curriculum frameworks, and compare that expansive language to the work your child is actually doing …” [from Christine K]

Response: The absence of a label will be contingent upon the presence of a highly informative letter that will not only provide parents with information that has been withheld to date, it will spell out with great specificity the tests, the criteria, and an explicit scope and sequence of accelerated and enriched instruction with a statement of the grade level of each.
MCPS will still be counting those receiving services. The lack of a label will not deter counting. However, I pointed out, there is an attempt to keep the count out of the public eye. That must be addressed in the policy side of the issue.

Argument 3: The Parent Letter will have its greatest impact on the most disadvantaged students.

Response: Yes, in the most beneficial way. The LABEL benefits parents who know how to work the system. The Parent Letter empowers even those who do not know how to leverage the system.

Argument 4: Gaming the system.

Response: Today, the system is gamed with impunity. Parents argue on many a listserv as to the selection criteria, tests used, etc. That will come to a crashing end with the explicit information available in the letter. Gaming by schools will also be difficult when there is a possibility of parents banding together and comparing notes.

So, let us move forward with an alternative to the vague and undefined LABEL. Let us embrace the Parent Letter, shown here in a very basic form.

How does MCPS identify a system-wide 40% gifted?

The arguments for a label are, as I have shown, easily dismissed. Which brings us to the next question: are we really identifying gifted students? A system wide average of ~40%, with some schools posting rates of more than 80%, the MCPS GT ID rates seem too good to be true.

Ever wondered how MCPS selected GT students? You could take my word for it (by clicking here, here, here, and here) or, believe the Montgomery County Gazette of Wednesday, Oct. 26, 2005. Reporter, Sean R. Sedam, wrote as follows about the MCPS GT ID system:

Students who outscore 75 percent of their peers on the Raven or receive a minimum score on three of five InView subtests must meet one other qualification:
They read at a late-third-grade reading level.

They are doing math at a late-third-grade level.

They have a parent nomination, citing at least four key characteristics, such as great curiosity, a wide range of interests, a large vocabulary, strong verbal skills, a good memory, a long attention span, a strong sense of humor, leadership ability, independence, risk-taking or reasoning skills. Parents of all second-graders receive a nomination form with a checklist of characteristics.

They are nominated by school staff.

They are enrolled in one of 19 schools that offer the Program of Assessment, Diagnosis and Instruction, which is aimed at fostering critical and creative thinking skills in lower-income students and identifying them for higher-level instruction.

They meet criteria in at lease two categories of the Renzulli-Hartman Teacher Checklist, in which teachers assess a student’s learning traits, motivation and creativity.

If a student does not meet the benchmarks on the Raven or InView tests, but meets three of the qualifications, they also are recommended for gifted and talented programs and services.
In comparison, the table shows what they do in Ohio.

According to the Ohio public schools website “In addition to defining who is considered gifted in Ohio, the rule and/or law provides that:

• Districts must have an identification plan and local board policy approved by ODE;
• Districts must have regular opportunities for assessment for giftedness based on referrals from teachers, parents or other children;
• Children who are culturally and linguistically diverse, from low socio-economic status, with disabilities and/or who are limited English proficient must be included in the identification process;
• Parents must be notified of assessment results;
• Parents have an opportunity to appeal;
• Districts must accept assessments given outside the district by trained personnel;
• Districts must distribute their gifted identification policy to parents.”

In Montgomery County, we are not identifying gifted students—we are identifying anyone above average. Thus, affixing a “gifted” label to this identification is not just unnecessary, it is plain misleading.

So, before you contact our BOE, please think if it is far more reasonable to demand that GT be done right, labels be jettisoned, and the legally enforceable Parent Letter be requested.

Do we need a label to count the GIFTED?

I must admit, I am a strong proponent of public education DONE RIGHT. Those last two words carry a lot of weight in my mind. “DONE RIGHT” means, public education must be delivered in accordance with applicable law, in a transparent and accountable manner.

Which leads us to Gifted Education—a requirement of state law. Consequently, the identification of gifted students, per state law, and the delivery of services to that population is mandatory. It is not an issue for a Maryland public school system to somehow evade.

That being said, we reach the issue of a “LABEL,” advocated by proponents.
Their first argument is that the state law somehow mandates it ("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.'"). Not so. Take a look at the ease at which that argument can be rebutted click here, here, and here).

The second argument, cogently stated by John Hoven, goes as follows, "On the other hand, if gifted children are labelled, we can count them, and determine that 20% or 30% of the student population is "gifted." Numbers like that are difficult to ignore. That puts pressure on MCPS to at least pretend to do something for them. And that makes it easier for advocates to put pressure on MCPS to do something for them that will actually help them learn something.”

This argument merits careful consideration because I BELIEVE MCPS must be compelled to keep a census of student receiving services under the law. However, the argument that a LABEL must be assigned to do so is a quantum jump there from.

Why? Take a look at the way the Information Management System (IMS) keeps track of students identified for services. Look at the right most column—it tracks if a student is indeed selected for services under the law. Modern day technology, has the way and the means to keep an accurate count. Giving a parent a LABEL has had no influence on the counting. We know how easy it was for me to show that GT was gamed. So, the absence or presence of a public label makes no difference to either the legal delivery of services or the census taking.

If parents are somehow determined to ensure MCPS is held accountable by keeping a count of students receiving GT services, then join me and demand, yes, demand, that the census must be retained even if the LABEL is replaced by my PARENT LETTER.

Gifted Education: A fresh approach

I have argued, I believe successfully, that a LABEL is neither required by law nor a useful and enforceable tool in addressing the educational needs of a child. Furthermore, groups in Montgomery County, Maryland, have objected to the practice of affixing a label.

A far more useful tool, that addresses the debate over labels, and places the power to determine a child's education squarely in the parent's hands is a legally enforceable "Parent Letter," that I have proposed.

Pressuring MCPS to issue the legally binding letter, as I propose, will
specifically address all known concerns.

Global Screening Parent Letter

Under my proposal, MCPS MUST provide copies of all tests administered and issue a letter confirming that the child has been tested in conformity with applicable law, policy, regulation, AND states that the child has been identified for X, Y, Z, services, using the well-publicized criteria A, B, C.

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. The label does not define the specific services MCPS is bound to deliver whereas my proposed legally binding letter would.

Let us move away from labels and demand something practical.

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...