The "More" Child

You’ve heard the threat, which by now is pretty much a joke:  “This is going to go on your permanent record.”  But what exactly is in that record?  This past week I requested a complete copy of M.’s school records from the school she just left and got to find out.

Answer?  Not as much as you would like to think.

• New Student Information – MCPS Form 560-24.  Basic enrollment stuff.
• Personal Data – MCPS Form SRS-1.  More basic enrollment stuff.
• School Attendance Data – MCPS Form SRS-1 Side 2. On the right hand side are a list of codes from Entry Status, Entry Type, Entry/Withdrawal Type, and Withdrawal Type.  We’ll eventually be listed as “Transfer: Parent teaching”
• Annual School Performance Data Summary – Grade Levels Pre-kindergarten and Elementary – MCPS Form SRS-A Maryland State Department of Education.  Essentially a summary of her end-of-year grade in each class, and whether she’s been promoted.
• Student Test Record Card A – Nationally Normed Test Results.  Stickers with computer generated info.  A sticker for EIIP (??) Screening Kindergarten Level (no data).  Two stickers with MSA results for 3rd and 4th grades.
• Elementary Gifted and Talented Screening and Program Record – MCPS Form 340-1A Rev. 1/03.  Essentially blank.
• Report cards Kindergarten through 5th grade, with accompanying narrative teacher reports.
• Mathematics End of Year Parent Reports – Kindergarten through 5th grade.  Broken out by unit.  For her performance on grade level items in 5th grade Math A (actually 6th grade math) she ended the year with “Developing Understanding” in 4 out of the 6 categories and “Complete Understanding” in 2.  (Her report card grade, BTW, was a B.) For above grade level assessments (Math B), 4 weren’t attempted and the 2 that were she showed minimal understanding.  But onward to Math B!
• MSA Home Reports Grades 3 through 5. Copies of the reports that are sent home.  Way at the bottom of the 3rd and 4th grade reports are the results of the TerraNova Norm-referenced Test percentile rank (for math), and the Stanford 10 Norm-referenced Test percentile rank.  These compare students across the nation.
• Spring 2005 TerraNova Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills.
• Early Childhood Observational Record and Screening Recommendation Kindergarten. – MCPS Form 355-8.  Form notes this is “Not sent home.”
• Thumbnail photograph.

And that’s it.

Those lovingly crafted letters you write to the principal every year describing your child’s learning needs, to help in placement?  Not there.  The only narrative is the teacher’s, so if your student has a bad year/bad teacher, watch out.  Any documentation of an EMT?  Not there, at least in this case.  Outside testing results we provided, or the additional testing done by the school system?  Not there.  Also missing:  MAP-R results from grade 3-5.  (The MAP-R was administered three times a year from 3rd grade onward.)  Gone-zo.  Any documentation that M. took the test for the Center program and was wait-listed?  Submitted a middle school Magnet application and sat for testing?  Nope and nope, let alone test results.

I called the middle school back and requested the MAP-R information.  I was given the minimal MAP-R testing report for 6th grade with results from the Fall and Winter testing–not the beautiful multipage report with graphs and data that compare your student at the school, system and national levels).  I also asked for information on the 2nd grade screening, which was not filled out on the Elementary Gifted and Talented Screening and Program Record (the only information recorded was the results of testing done at Kindergarten for entrance to the Takoma Elementary School magnet).  They faxed it over later in the day, and it is the information on that form that I posted here.

However I’ve now gone ahead and scanned the forms (sans personal identifying information) so you can see exactly what we’re talking about.

• Elementary GT Screening Report
• Elementary GT Screening and Programming Form

Okay, so why am I going through all this trouble?  A.) Because I think people have a right to know the level of information that schools are operating off of.  They have a right to know what information is being being gathered on their kids (and not), what the results are, how the information is interpreted/what it means, and how it is used.  And B.) because when MCPS talks about the wonders of the “no labels” “pilots,” they talk about how they will actually be using MORE data to help meet the needs of each individual student, to determine who is ready for “accelerated and enriched instruction.”

I remain unconvinced.  On the one hand the “no-labels” “pilots” aren’t much different from what the practice probably has been all along.  I’m guessing most teachers never look at a student’s file and so are basically ignorant of potentially important information.  (Although I’m also guessing that most school staff have little to no understanding of things like subtest ceilings.) In fact, I have had parents tell me that teachers openly state they don’t look at a child’s file in order not to “bias” themselves.   The only thing that is different, MCPS tells us, is that the offensive letter telling you your kid isn’t GT, doesn’t go home to parents.  Now, if they instead sent home all the testing results with cut-offs and percentiles against county and national norms and didn’t utter the term “GT” I could perhaps be cool with it–the numbers would speak for themselves.  But to test and not send anything?   I’m sorry.  That’s just dumb.  And what’s more it’s preventing parents from being fully informed about their child and possible interventions.  Parents just have to trust that the school will know best.

On the other hand, it’s also evident that MCPS currently and in the recent past has done/is doing a horrible job of recordkeeping.  Ms. Williams, of AEI, to her credit  has admitted as much, saying that various data systems don’t talk to each other and schools haven’t really been asked to gather GT data before.  (If your School Improvement Plan has no mandate to assure the needs of highly able students are being met–just “all” or “underperforming” students–why bother?)

Looking at M.’s file, it’s pretty obvious this is the case.  How can you effectively group in a home school if you don’t know which kids, for example, are operating two (or more) grades about grade-level according to the SCAT that the school system itself administered?  How do you know which kids are underachieving?  How do you know if high achieving students are progressing if all the measures being used for reporting are on-grade level?  You don’t.  And what happens is that kids get slotted into the meager above-level outlets available:  accelerated math (great.. if that’s your thing), a smattering of William and Mary, a smattering of Junior Great Books, maybe “GT” classes in middle school, if they still exist. And lot’s of luck if science or social studies is your thing. (Suggestion:  Can we open the conversation about MCPS allowing/accepting/enabling some students to accelerate using online resources such as Thinkwell, EPGY, CTY etc. in lieu of lockstep seat time?  Hey, it’s the 21st century, guys and MCPS does not hold the monopoly on curricula.)

So yeah, I’m dubious.  Maybe MCPS has the best of intentions.  Maybe.  But change will take years.  And I have a feeling that a basic level they don’t want to know any of this information for a host of uncomfortable reasons–and don’t want parents to know either.