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.

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.

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).

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.

MCPS Expenditures and Educational Outcomes

In 2007, MCPS continued to top the state in Expenditure per Pupil, outspending Howard County by $1,415, beating Baltimore City by $1,273, and administering a knock-out to Caroline County by $3,612.

Howard was able to provide 73.4 Instruction Staff per Thousand, Baltimore City 72, and Caroline 69. MCPS gave us 70.5 Instruction Staff per Thousand.

Moving to Professional Support Staff per Thousand, MCPS managed 12, Howard 12.4, Baltimore City 10.5, and Caroline 10.7.

When it came to Instructional Assistants per Thousand, Howard had a whopping 24.2, Baltimore City 19.8, and Caroline 18.9. In comparison to Howard’s 24.2, MCPS scraped up 16.3.

Then again, MCPS is “leading with equity” and “closing the achievement gap” like no other jurisdiction. Is it?

The Parents’ Coalition of Montgomery County hosts a number of reports, I have based on data from the State Department of Education that help us make an assessment of the efficacy of our tax dollars in the hands of MCPS.

Begin with a look at graduation rates through 2008 (the report can also be accessed here). Graduation rates for Hispanic and African American males are plummeting.

Thereafter, consider the “gap” in the third-grade reading scores between White and African American students on the third grade MSAs. Despite differing expenditures per pupil, the MCPS, Howard County, and Statewide third-grade reading score gap averages were essentially the same (the report can also be accessed here).

“MSA third-grade reading gap shrinks 22 percentage points,” shrieks a MCPS produced PowerPoint presentation. Once again, data available from the state, presented by this author shows that the gap is smaller or similar in other jurisdictions with smaller expenditure per pupil (the report can also be accessed here).

When it comes to gifted education, MCPS claims to identify an average of approximately 40% of its second graders as GT, with identification numbers that run the gamut from a low of about 17% to a high of over 87%. It is generally accepted that the national average is about 5%. The lowest MCPS figure is about 3-times the national average, while the highest is almost 17-times! Alas, that too seems to be a smoke-and-mirrors illusion bolstered by lower identification standards, gaming of the identification process, etc.

Let me end with a few thoughts:

Contact the president of a local university and you will get, at the very least, an acknowledgment. Contact the insular, isolated Superintendent of Montgomery County Public Schools and you will likely hear nothing.

The MCPS cost-per-pupil is the highest in the state...

There is absolutely no published accounting of how the additional dollars are spent by MCPS ….

There are no benchmarks, measures, levels, or trends that reflect how effectively these additional resources are used or what results they have achieved …

Don’t we owe it to OUR CHILDREN to make sure that OUR money is spent wisely, transparently and accountably on THEIR education?

Don’t we need leadership that can step up to the plate to answer our questions?

Don’t we need leadership that has the courage to make the right decisions, however unpopular?

Don’t we need leadership that is accessible to the public that pays his salary?

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.

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?

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: 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.

ONE, WELL-MADE KEY to Unlock the Door to Educational Success

I have often used this medium to advocate a different approach to addressing minority underperformance. If there is a succinct way to describe what I have said in many words, it would simply be HARD WORK. I have oft quoted Gifted Hands: The Ben Carson Story, and cited the examples of high performing schools in support of my contention that parental involvement, support system, and yes, hard work, seem to have been the determining factor. Then I read more about the Meyerhoff Model pioneered at UMBC (see http://www.diverseeducation.com/artman/publish/article_11378.shtml and http://www.umbc.edu/Meyerhoff/the_meyerhoff_model.html , etc.) and recognized a philosophical kin.

The program, a brainchild of an African-American, Dr. Freeman A. Hrabowski, President, University of Maryland Baltimore County, embodies the very concepts I have been advocating. I reached the conclusions of the Meyerhoff Model through a simple question: Why do Asian-Americans, in disproportionate numbers, do well in any environment?

The answer, as I have repeatedly asserted, is in our cultural values. If you visit the national site honoring Dr. King, you will find, prominently featured outside, a sculpture of Mahatma Ghandi. It symbolizes Dr. King’s foresight in embracing a strategy pioneered by another community. Success, I assert, is recognizing a good strategy, be it the brainchild of someone else, and embracing it. Overwhelming success is recognizing a good strategy and making it better.

With that philosophy, I advocate what I fervently believe is a reasonable strategy to address the “achievement gap” --use what can be learned from successful groups. If another minority is a good example, then learn from them.

When Jerry D. Weast, the schools superintendent in Montgomery County, Md., was asked what he was doing to improve low-performing schools, his answer was “that his public school district spends big bucks every year trying to teach low-income parents “how to kick my butt … how to work the system just like affluent people.” Here is a better strategy to improve school performance—create, support, and enhance programs like the Meyerhoff Model adapted for schools. Learn from the Asian-American cultural model of education.

I challenge Dr. Weast to prove me wrong in my belief that a pilot program of this type will be far more academically successful than gutting GT, steamrolling Special Education, and shoving Seven-Keys in the lock on the door to educational success.

My idea won't be a quick fix. It sure might turn out to be a permanent fix. So, why not give it a try?

It takes just ONE, WELL-MADE KEY to unlock the door to educational success.

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.

An end to secret “Advisory Committees?” A first look at draft policy-IOA

Draft Policy IOA Feb 11, 09 Version

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

Recently, in a tacit acknowledgement to the conclusion that Advisory Committee meetings are “open meetings” under the Open Meetings Act, the April 16, 2009 meeting of the AEI Advisory Committee (with the BOE in attendance) was placed on the BOE calendar.

In what can only be interpreted as a vindication of the assertion that committee members improperly agreed to the secrecy of documents, MCPS released the draft policy IOA and other documents.

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.