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?

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.

Vehicle Emissions and GT Identification

It is my belief, nay, my philosophy, that an intractable problem is often easily solved by dividing it into its component parts.

The first issue I sought to address is the ubiquitous label.

A large amount of human capital has been expended in addressing the issue of a label. That expenditure has been fueled in no small part by an interpretation of the law put forth by MCPS parent, and MCPS AEI Advisory Committee member Fred Stichnoth.

That argument is summarized by Fred as follows: "State law (binding on both MCPS and MSDE) and current Policy IOA require identification of students as “gifted and talented” on a binary (gifted or not gifted) basis—the 'label.'". It fails muster on several grounds.

The MCPS GT Selection Process

The first, and obvious being that the law does not demand a label be affixed. It merely requires the identification and the appropriate provision of services.

The second argument is that a title, oops, I mean label, somehow provides leverage to demand appropriate services. A label carries no specificity of the tests administered to the child, the scores the child received, the services identified by MCPS for the child, or the criteria used to determine eligibility. A legally binding letter, instead of a label, would be a far more powerful tool.

Ever taken your motor vehicle for an emissions inspection in Maryland? You get a nice piece of paper clearly spelling out the emissions profile (modern cars simply have the On Board Diagnostics system which communicate the compliance info). The “certificate,” known as the “Vehicle Emissions Inspection Certificate” is a legally binding document from the State of Maryland, which “must be kept in the vehicle.” Ever gone back and asked the folks for a label? No, we are perfectly satisfied with a far more detailed letter, or certificate.

Why then do we demand a label when it comes to GT education? Isn’t a clear and enforceable document stating names of all tests administered, affirming that the child has been tested in conformity with applicable law, policy, regulation, AND stating that the child has been identified for X, Y, Z, services, using the well-publicized criteria A, B, C, a far better alternative?

My proposal will

(a) place the assessment information squarely in the hands of parents by requiring it be included in the letter to the parents or parent (CURRENTLY NOT DONE);
(b) articulate the selection criteria in detail (CURRENTLY NOT DONE);
(c) enunciate in concrete terms the specific services that the child has qualified for (CURRENTLY NOT DONE); and
(d) the specificity mandated by (c) will require a subject-by-subject statement of services-for all subjects --"to progress with appropriate enrichment and at a pace matched to a child's achievement and readiness." (CURRENTLY NOT DONE)

A very basic form of the letter is available for view.

That brings me to a question posed by a former (John, correct me if I am wrong) MCPS parent John Hoven. I hope John will forgive me my reproducing it in its entirety: “I am asking you to clarify your intentions with respect to one issue, which you phrased as follows:

(c) enunciate in concrete terms the specific services that the child has qualified for (CURRENTLY NOT DONE);

Are you willing to interpret that statement as a demand for an explicit scope and sequence of accelerated and enriched objectives in math, science, reading/language arts, and social studies?”

Let me not mince words and be unequivocal in my answer-yes, yes, yes.

However, my insistence is that such an explicit scope and sequence must be expressed by MCPS in an unambiguous, legally enforceable manner.

Remember, it was my child who was kept away from public school for two-days by MCPS. Do you think I am willing to settle for buzz words and ethereal statements?

It is time we as parents acted reasonably and rationally just as we demand the school system should. That means the nonsense about the label should end.

I conclude with a simple request to John Hoven: Will you be equally unambiguous in asserting that my proposal for a Parent Letter is far more feasible than a label?

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.