Well, Dan deVise’s Washington Post article on MoCo’s plans to eliminate the GT designation has set off a firestorm of sorts in the area.
The Board of Ed (or at least some of its members) saw fit to issue a midday clarification (see previous post). Meanwhile it’s being pointed out that elimination of the label is illegal under Maryland law. [The system must identify students having outstanding "general intellectual abilities" in addition to "specific academic aptitudes." [emphasis added] COMAR 13A.01.04.02B(8), 13B.07.01.02B(18). And identification “should serve as a basis for planning the student’s instructional program.” Criteria for Excellence: Gifted and Talented Education Program Guidelines (2007), Maryland State Department of Education, page 3.]
The last time I checked the Post article’s comment section had 10 pages (!) of comments. The local NBC affiliate has a story on their website with yet more comments to wade through.
Listservs on both sides of the Potomac are chattering. And among many things, people are scratching their heads over this paragraph: “Montgomery officials say their formula for giftedness is flawed. Nearly three-quarters of students at Bannockburn Elementary School in Bethesda are labeled gifted, but only 13 percent at Watkins Mill Elementary in less-affluent Montgomery Village are, a curious disparity given that cognitive gifts are supposed to be evenly distributed.” Who are the “education leaders” and “officials” referenced? And where did anyone ever get the idea that “cognitive gifts” are supposed to be evenly distributed by geography?
Well here is one clue. The Montgomery County Education Forum, also previously blogged about here, sent out this e-mail to supporters:
Dear Friends –
If you have not already seen it, please see the article below. We have just received our first major — hopefully of many – holiday gift!
This victory is indicative of what can happen when we all work together as a community in the best interest of all our children. MCEF has been at the forefront of this work for many years, and we are grateful for all of the support that we have received in our effort to be a voice and take action — and for all of the many other voices: parents, students, teachers, community organizations that have worked alongside us and added volume to our collective shout of “NO LABELS, NO LIMITS!”
This victory is an affirmation of our work and of our need for your continued support. Together we can make sure that “no labels” truly means “no limits”!
(BTW, nicely redesigned website, MCEF. Someone’s getting $$. The GTA, meanwhile, makes do with a yahoo list.)
I think that somehow the argument that intellectual giftedness is not an “elitist” concept because it can be found among children of all races/ethnicities and classes (which is true) got twisted in the reporter’s mind to mean that it’s supposed to be evenly distributed among all groups.
There is huge controversy over the causes of disparities in IQ distribution and entire books have been written on the subject (Charles Murray’s “Bell Curve” vs. Claude Fischer’s “Inequality by Design”). But while the reason(s) are hotly disputed, neither side denies the existence of unequal distribution.