Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘In the News’ Category

Buh-Bye Jerry Weast, Hello Joshua Starr

Posted in In the News, School, tagged , , , , , , on April 25, 2011 | 1 Comment »

As you can probably guess, I have absolutely zero sadness at the departure of Jerry Weast. Words cannot adequately capture the smarmy arrogance of the man.  I had one final chance to catch him in action at the March 28 Board of Education meeting.  An overflow crowd of parents representing  various interests  — including GTA’s Challenge Every Child campaign (do be sure to check out the online petition and read the 850 comments) — had turned out that evening.  In the midst of public testimony, which people were trying to listen to, Jerry strolled in to tell the gathered crowd that they should be sure to show up at the County Council budget meetings to support his budget. Lame.  Condescending.  I short, you won’t find me at the Jerry Farewell Lovefest. (www.WeastLegacy.com.  Really? So modest.)

So it was with great interest that I awaited the announcement of the new MCPS superintendent.  This evening, with much drama, the announcement was made (pending Board Approval):  Joshua Starr, Superintendent from Stamford, Connecticut.

Starr, 41, has three children and began his career in special education.

Since July 2005, Starr has been schools chief for the Stamford school district, which has around 15,000 students and 20 schools. He began his career as a special education teacher in Brooklyn and later helped guide reforms in early childhood education and gifted and talented education in the New York City school district, according to his career biography. Starr has a doctorate in Education Administration, Planning and Social Policy from the Harvard University.

Starr, 41, is married and has three children.

You can read the MCPS announcement here, and a story from the Stamford Times here. And more are being published by the minute.

By comparison to MCPS, Stamford is tiny. Its entire gifted and talented program takes one webpage, this.

Here’s a link to the Stamford School Profile from 2008.  20 public schools.  3.6% percent identified as Gifted and Talented!  That was all of … 529 students!  Dr. Starr, you’re not in Kansas anymore.

Connecticut News Teacher Talk blog ran a interesting series of stories about and interviews with Dr. Starr earlier this year.  You can see them here:

This comment does not bode well for those interested in GT (from Connecticut News Teacher Talk blog):

…what you hear here from Stamford parents and teachers is the frustration of a group of people that want all kids to excel and not only the lowest group. We are in the process of alienating and shutting out our highest performing students and their parents.

The whole heterogeneous grouping movement and forcing higher achieving students to become academic role models to inspire lower performing students to improve academically serves only one student group.

I, as most parents, are not against heterogeneous classrooms. They are appropriate for non-core subjects. But for math, science, reading and writing it is a recipe for disaster. Especially if you consider the diversity of the Stamford school population.

Here’s some more skinny on gifted education in Stamford (from StamfordParents.com). (StamfordParents.com, meet Parents’ Coalition):

Gifted and Talented Program: the program that never happened agai

The gifted and talented program called “Extraordinary Learners Program” was cut in 2003/04 after nearly 10% of 2nd and 20% of 5th graders participated. Board members said it failed to serve the truly gifted students because the selection process became watered down, and some students were staying in the program because of parental pressure.  So in early 2007 a new gifted and talented program was proposed. We have some kids who are very, very high achievers, and we want to make sure we have the right instructional environment for them,” Superintendent Joshua Starr said. “It’s a distinct educational need that a certain segment, albeit a small one, has.” The district will hire four teachers trained in gifted and talented instruction. The program would cost $575,000 next year and be geared towards 3rd and 4th graders.  Albeit it never happened. As far as I know, is was cut out of the budget and there is no program in place as of now, to help the kids that are truly gifted and challenge them at an appropriate level.

In 2008 a  9 week long Math/Science Enrichment program was offered for students in grades 5 and 8. Students had to score in the 95th percentile and above on the 2007 CMT  in math. Students would meet one day per week for two hours at Turn of River Middle School.

Uh oh, and here we really have it:  Stanford Residents for Excellence in Education:  http://stamfordree.org/.  Looks like Dr. Starr was engaged in quite a nasty fight over “detracking.”

  • Detracking in the Stamford, CT Public School System – Pablo Corcel Relincha blog 12/11/09
  • Another View Regarding Middle School Reform – Stamford Advocate 1/14/10
  • Forum sparks dialogue over middle school reform – Stamford Advocate 1/22/10
  • Middle School Reform:  Superintendent’s Response – Stamford Advocate 10/28/10
  • Nasty tactic regarding mid-school reform unnecessary – Stamford Advocate 11/3/10
  • Response to Stamford Residents for Educational Excellence - longer response by Dr. Starr
  • 1/21/10 Forum on Middle School Reform at Rogers – the good, the bad and the ugly.  Quote: “During the Q&A came some good news.  In response to an SREE member’s question, Dr. Starr FINALLY went on record in front of a crowd saying that tracking and grouping are different, and that, for instance, Westover’s model of flexible ability grouping in math and reading is not tracking and gets good results.  Pretty big breakthrough.
    THE BAD: But then, as if catching himself for giving away too much, he continued down an unfortunate path, switching gears mid-answer to address tracking again.  He said that many people in the community would like to keep the practice of tracking in place for the benefit of their own kids in the top tracks, with the side effect of denying kids in the low tracks (many of who are minorities) the opportunity to grow.  This is a disturbing tactic — to make up a non-existent “other side” that is pro-tracking and then position their beliefs, agenda and goals in order to try to manipulate support. Unfortunately, given control of the microphone, Dr. Starr was left mostly unchallenged on this. And left unchallenged, it seemed plausible to some who have not been closely following the conversation..
    THE UGLY: When many SREE members in the audience raised hands to comment that no one supports tracking, and remind him that he even just said 5 minutes earlier that tracking and grouping are not the same and that grouping works, Dr. Starr abruptly cut off Q&A.  Some of this dialog was covered in the Advocate’s article.  One SREE member commented, “if this is how he treats the public, no wonder the teachers and administrators won’t come forward to voice dissent.”
  • Dr. Starr quoted in Should Your School Detrack to Close the Achievement Gap?  In the April Education Update feature, “Should Your School Detrack to Close the Achievement Gap?,” Stamford School District (Conn.) Superintendent Josh Starr discussed one of the barriers to community support for detracking: language. Being able to explain things clearly and simply—parsing for parents terms like differentiated instruction, tracking versus ability grouping, professional learning communities, and how tests will be used—is a vital, ongoing part of Starr’s work. “Without being too technical, parents need to understand what’s going to change and need to see evidence of their kids doing solid academic work,” he says.

Oh dear.  So much for hoping to start off with a reasonable person on a positive note.  Looks like GTAMC is going to have its work cut out for it.  Challenge Every Child couldn’t have come at a better time.

On what was a positive note, Gifted and Talented Association President Fred Stichnoth was invited to take part in off the record interview of the Superintendent candidates.  Fred has always been very forthcoming in his reporting of GT issues, and I look forward to his take on the new Superintendent.

UPDATE:  There have been many more stories published, plus information gathered.  GTAMC has rounded it up in an announcement here.

Read Full Post »

Under a Bushel

Posted in education, Gifted, In the News, School, tagged , , , , , , , on February 28, 2011 | 5 Comments »

Congratulations to Montgomery Blair High School!  Blair was honored on February 16 with the Maryland Excellence in Gifted and Talented Education (EGATE) award. It is one of just five schools statewide—and the only high school—to receive the prestigious award, which recognizes outstanding gifted and talented education.  MCPS actually issued a press release!  For those readers outside of MCPS, Blair’s Math Science and Computer Science program is a perennial of rival of Fairfax’s Thomas Jefferson High School for most Intel wins.  The school also houses a highly regarded communications arts program.

Here are the application requirements for an award to the school.  ALL criteria must be met to qualify:

  • Administrator shows leadership in expanding/improving programs and services for gifted and talented students in the school or school system.
  • Administrator allocates resources (time, people, money) to expand and improve gifted and talented education programs and services.
  • Administrator leads the expansion or improvement of parent, community, and/or business partnerships that directly support the education of gifted and talented students.

But wait!  There hasn’t been any mention of this on the school’s own website.  No announcement on the school listserv.  Nor in the school’s award winning paper.  What gives?  Isn’t the school justifiably proud of the award?

Hmmm.  Well there is this story in Silver Chips.

…Student Member of the Board of Education (SMOB) Alan Xie spoke with members of Blair’s Students for Global Responsibility (SGR) about the Gifted and Talented (GT) label Today. SGR is working with the countywide organization Montgomery County Education Forum (MCEF) to remove the GT label in elementary schools across the county.

Student Member of the Board of Education (SMOB) Alan Xie met with Blair’s SGR after school today.
According to SGR sponsor George Vlasits, the club is currently working to inform Blazers about how the Montgomery County Public School (MCPS) system begins separating students in second grade. After seven-year-olds take a test, they are sorted into the GT track or the non-GT track. “The [non-GT] kids get very little opportunities,” Vlasits said. “They would like to try more challenging material but those things won’t fly.” According to Vlasits, due to a discrepancy in teacher expectations, it is hard for students not on the GT track to get into magnet middle schools or magnet high schools. “If [non-GT] are constantly told they cannot perform as well as GT kids, they will eventually believe it,” he said. “It gets back to what we do early on….”
Ah, it’s our good friends the MCEF, they of the “no labels, no limits” campaign!  (I’ve written about them in the past, such as here.) I don’t know about you, but it strikes me as rather…icky…to have a club adviser pushing a personal agenda through a student group.   Particularly one that essentially is about sowing divisiveness in the school’s community.
Worse, Mr. Vlasits’ comments are patently wrong.  “They would like to try more challenging materials but those things won’t fly.”  Fly by whom?  Please!  Last time I checked there is no gatekeeping for accelerated and enriched instruction in MCPS (some would argue that’s the problem).  Any student or parent of a student showing the willingness and interest for more advanced instruction ask for it and get it.  Not there is a lot to ask for–we’re essentially talking accelerated math instruction, and in future that is going to be ratcheted back now that MCPS has decided that it over-accelerated in the past.  Plus a smattering of William and Mary.  So please show me this “GT Track” because I and other GT parents haven’t been able to find it in the 10+ years I’ve been around MCPS.  Instead we hear over and over and over again that GT identification is completely meaningless.  (40%+ identified as GT.  Thanks MCPS!)  Is he talking the Centers for the Highly Gifted perhaps?  Well, that program is there to meet the legitimate needs of outlier students whose needs can’t be met in a regular classroom.  Kids who would otherwise be bored and alienated in school. Is that what he’s advocating?   Denying the right of every student to learn something new every day?  Because it seems like the total elimination of all honors, magnet, Center, accelerated etc. etc. classes and programs is the only thing that will satisfy.

Read Full Post »

Race to Nowhere: Counterpoint

Posted in education, Gifted, In the News, School on December 8, 2010 | 3 Comments »

Welcome new readers!  I’ve been told that the link to my previous blog about the recent Race to Nowhere screening was shared on a local high school listserv….

Yesterday morning’s New York Times greeted the nation with a stark rebuke to the message of Race to Nowhere.  The headline reads, “In PISA Test, Top Test Shanghai Scores Stun Educators.”

With China’s debut in international standardized testing, students in Shanghai have surprised experts by outscoring their counterparts in dozens of other countries, in reading as well as in math and science, according to the results of a respected exam…..

…“Wow, I’m kind of stunned, I’m thinking Sputnik,” said Chester E. Finn Jr., who served in President Ronald Reagan’s Department of Education, referring to the groundbreaking Soviet satellite launching. Mr. Finn, who has visited schools all across China, said, “I’ve seen how relentless the Chinese are at accomplishing goals, and if they can do this in Shanghai in 2009, they can do it in 10 cities in 2019, and in 50 cities by 2029.”

This isn’t really news.  Back in 2007, the film 2 Million Minutes hit the screen.  (I checked my archives, and sure enough I had blogged about it.  Seems like an eternity ago.)  Here’s the trailer:

But should we really be worried?  Last week the New York Times’ Room for Debate hosted a discussion on college education in China.  The piece, “High Test Scores, Low Ability” argued,

Keju is dead now but its spirit is very alive in China today, in the form of gaokao, or the College Entrance Exam. It’s the only exam that matters since it determines whether students can attend college and what kind of colleges they can attend. Because of its life-determining nature, gaokao has become the “baton” that conducts the whole education orchestra. Students, parents, teachers, school leaders and even local government officials all work together to get good scores. From a very young age, children are relieved of any other burden or deprived of opportunity to do anything else so they can focus on getting good scores.

The result is that Chinese college graduates often have high scores but low ability. Those who are good at taking tests go to college, which also emphasizes book knowledge. But when they graduate, they find out that employers actually want much more than test scores….

Sounds kind of like where we’re headed with AP…

For years, Americans have been able to dismiss Chinese education for the reasons noted above.  “They’re machines,” we scoffed.  “They lack the creativity of Americans.  We care about the ‘whole person’.” But now it seems that the Chinese are harnessing their famously killer work ethic to meaningful educational reforms, such as improving teacher salaries and freedom to experiment in the classroom.  Couple that with the fact that “Chinese students spend less time than American students on athletics, music and other activities not geared toward success on exams in core subjects” and one can see that the prognosis for U.S. competitiveness is not looking so good.

So where does this leave us?  Throwing every kid into AP classes is not the answer.  I say, for starters, let loose our brightest kids.  Reward and don’t shy away from excellence.  Confront the forces of anti-intellectualism and feel-good self esteem that are often found in the teaching profession itself.  And let’s take another look at the role of sports in school.  Seriously, the amount of energy and resources and recognition that goes into sports is insane.  School should be primarily about… school.  Schools should be trying to do fewer things really really well.  For example, algebra–and none of this MCPS  “everyone take it in middle school but a C demonstrates mastery.”  Make sure every kids is rock solid with algebra, whether they take it “early” or “late.”  Writing–real, substantive writing.  By middle school kids should be writing 5 paragraph essays in their sleep.  A semester for health?  A full year of some bogus tech class?  In my world, they’d be gone.

I like this diagram that I found on blog Headrush:

Read Full Post »

It’s Official: Homeschooling is Hot

Posted in education, Gifted, Homeschooling, In the News, tagged , on August 21, 2010 | 2 Comments »

No lesser authority than the New York Times Magazine has decreed it:  Homeschooling is “in vogue.”  Just check out the piece “School’s In,” about Mini-R.A.D,

short for Revolutionary Artistic Development: a fledgling home school cooperative started by the fashion photographers Tom Betterton and Jenny Gage three years ago with three other sets of Brooklyn hipster parents (a cinematographer, a dancer-choreographer and a sculptor among them) when the local schools didn’t quite pass muster. Meanwhile, a small, customized school founded in 2007 by members of the Blue Man Group — attended by the offspring of various magazine editors and photographers — thrives in NoHo, in what could be called a burgeoning micromovement. New York City private schools are vexingly exclusive, after all, and passing through the public-school bureaucracy can feel like an outtake from Shel Silverstein’s “Boa Constrictor” (also on Krista’s lesson plan this morning). Since the city’s bobos are now making their own pickles and ice cream, why not mold little minds as well?

Or, maybe not.  The entire piece has a thinly-veiled overlay of the author’s smirk.  “But is this a school, or artists trying to render a New York City childhood in perfect brush strokes?”  Ms. Jacobs asks.  And of course the inevitable question about socialization and diversity: “But what of the socioeconomic diversity such classrooms afford, and the oft-leveled charge that home schooling isolates children in a privileged bubble of their parents’ making?”  In her choice of a response, the author shows she’s clearly not a fan.

“It’s hard,” Betterton concedes. “It’s a self-selecting group of people. But that’s one of the reasons we are constantly outside in the world.” Their frequent field trips include Governors Island, the American Museum of Natural History and the Mast Brothers Chocolate Factory in Williamsburg — Hershey Chocolate World it ain’t — many of these outings lovingly documented in lush color on the school’s blog. (The annual class photos are in black and white).

Ms. Betterton, you’ve been set up.

Then over to the Motherlode, the Times parenting blog.  Lisa Belkin confesses “I have flirted over the years with home schooling. I decided that neither I nor my boys would thrive with that much of each other. And I couldn’t get past the blurring of roles — as a parent I am the unconditional support section, yet a teacher needs to critique and judge.” She turns her column over to Chandra Hoffman, who writes on “Why I’m Homeschooling This Fall,” mentioning at the end that she wants to “really look into her son’s eyes.”

Hoffman is getting slammed for being “selfish,” “ridiculous,” and “handicapping” — among other things.  What I find interesting is the number of critics who are saying that homeschooling is fine when “appropriate,” when the public schools are a “problem” or have failed someone’s child.  That’s real progress.  Be sure to check her rejoinder comment, number 104 (You go!  I smiled at the references to John Taylor Gatto and Sir Ken Robinson) as well as the many lucid, well-presented arguments in favor of homeschooling.  I can’t help but feel that the tide has already turned.

Ms. Hoffman, have a wonderful “school” year.

Read Full Post »

What’s the Matter with Kansas?

Posted in education, Gifted, In the News, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 7, 2010 | 3 Comments »

Really, what’s up with those people in Kansas?  There they go again, pushing some crazy-ass notion, out of step with the nation…  Except, um, maybe this time they’re onto something.

GT listservs are humming with the news that Kansas City, Missouri schools are experimenting with the elimination of grade levels, following on the heels of the schools in Colorado and Alaska.  Here’s the Kansas story as it appeared in EdWeek the other day.

Forget Grade Levels, Kansas City, Mo., Schools Try Something New

…Students—often of varying ages—work at their own pace, meeting with teachers to decide what part of the curriculum to tackle. Teachers still instruct students as a group if it’s needed, but often students are working individually or in small groups on projects that are tailored to their skill level.

For instance, in a classroom learning about currency, one group could draw pictures of pennies and nickels. A student who has mastered that skill might use pretend money to practice making change.

Students who progress quickly can finish high school material early and move forward with college coursework. Alternatively, in some districts, high-schoolers who need extra time can stick around for another year.  Advocates say the approach cuts down on discipline problems because advanced students aren’t bored and struggling students aren’t frustrated….

Now the “drawing pictures of pennies” gives me pause, but I’m guessing (hoping) this is a lower elementary lesson, a simple example the reporter latched onto to make a point.  Further into the article it quotes a student who “used to get bored after plowing through his assignments. He had to bring books from home or the library if he wanted a challenge because the ones at his old school were one or two grade levels too easy.”  His parents moved him into the district specifically for the experimental approach, and are thrilled:  “I wish school was like this when I was growing up,” said the dad.

So yes, that cry of “Hallelujah!” you’re hearing across the nation at this news is from parents of GT kids, frustrated beyond belief by the arbitrary barriers posed by lockstep age/grade-based education.  You know, the “but what will we do if we run out of curriculum?”

Could the Kansas experiment ever happen in Montgomery County?  Let’s just say I’m not holding my breath.  Note that these initiatives are happening in school systems described as “bedraggled” and “low performing” with “abysmal test scores.”  That alone could make the idea a non-starter here in Lake Wobegone, where we’re an urban school district only when it suits our purposes.  Or, one could expect the PR jujitsu approach favored by the good Dr. Weast, wherein–wait for it–it’s touted that MCPS is already doing this!  “We have blah, blah, blah number of X graders taking Y grade math–in elementary school! Blah, blah, blah number of X graders taking Y grade math–in middle school!  Highest number of AP tests in the nation…”  Well, you get the point.

But that’s not to say that this approach isn’t needed.  The current GT screening and articulation process, and the piloted SIPPI process both operate under the official notion that “students may accelerate learning and participate in advanced-level course work at their local schools.” (This from the MCPS Strategic Plan, Our Call to Action).  Sounds lovely, but eyeballing sample screen shots of the Course Placement and Articulation data screens shows that in cases where a grade level of acceleration is recommended (and the school and MCPS recommendations always jibe) the only areas where acceleration can take place are math and reading, with the recommended intervention/remedy for reading being William and Mary.  Local GT advocates remain unconvinced that there is a “continuum of services” available at local schools, rather that–as one advocate waggishly put it–MCPS’s identification and articulation process is “a bridge to nowhere.”  If there is acceleration available, it is only within strictly drawn parameters.  As the Singam case and others show, it takes extraordinary pressure, or a principal willing to buck the system (equally extraordinary) to accommodate the more-numerous-than-one-would-suspect outlier kids who need more than in-grade William and Mary or one or two years of math.  And let’s remember that the whole idea of what constitutes “grade level” is suspect, with MCPS itself having admitted that that a child performing just fine at grade level would not be prepared to meet it’s vaunted 7 Keys to College readiness.

I would love to see MCPS embrace true experimentation of the kind happening in Kansas, Colorado and Alaska.  Charter school anyone?  Oh, never mind.

Read Full Post »

Too Early?

Posted in education, Gifted, In the News, tagged , , , , , on July 5, 2010 | 11 Comments »

Clara, Clara, Clara.

I was resisting wading into the recent story from New York City, that officials are seeking a new exam for admissions of gifted students that may involve testing children as young as 3, because hey, that’s in New York, while the demoralizing reality here in MoCo is that MCPS officials are moving inexorably in the opposite direction, doing their darnedest to obliterate the definition of giftedness while serving up a meager gruel and calling it gifted curriculum.  Also, I am no testing expert.  The tests they have been using in New York, the OLSAT and the Bracken School Readiness Assessment, are not ones they use here in MoCo.

But thanks to Clara (that would be Clara Hemphill, founder of Insideschools.org), I can no longer resist.  Yesterday, as a followup to those stories, the NYTimes Room for Debate blog invited several “experts” to weigh in with their perspectives, in a blog post titled The Pitfalls in Identifying a Gifted Child.  Ms. Hemphill was one of them.  (The others are Susan K. Johnsen, Butler University; Joseph S. Renzulli, University of Connecticut; Tonya R. Moon University of Virginia; and Bige Doruk, founder, Bright Kids NYC)

Let’s look at some of Ms. Hemphill’s whoppers. One of the biggest comes in her second sentence, and frankly it leaves me scratching my head, wondering How can this woman possibly know anything about gifted education?

She says, “Children need to learn that hard work is more important than being born with a high IQ. Putting them in a “gifted” class sends the opposite message.” Clara, (and yes, I noted your use of quotes around the word “gifted”) the very point of grouping children in a gifted class with their intellectual peers is so, for maybe the first time in their lives, they WILL work hard. That they will be stretched, challenged and pushed.  That they will learn that they in fact AREN’T the smartest kid in the room.  In my humble opinion, there is more risk of high IQ kids developing that dreaded attitude of superiority if they remain in a regular on-grade level class, severely unchallenged.

Ms. Hemphill thinks it “important for academically successful children be exposed to and to learn from children who are talented in ways that are not measured by early gifted and talented tests.”  Newsflash, Clara:  a) Academically successful kids don’t live in a box.  Our culture celebrates those other kinds of giftedness at every turn; b) Chances are many of those academically gifted kids are also “musical or athletic or good at resolving playground squabbles.”  Just sayin’;  c) Why in music  and sports do we not have a problem acknowledging that kids thrive when grouped with others at their ability level and don’t pretend that they improve by playing with/competing with less gifted/talented kids–and yet “academically successful” kids don’t deserve the same?

And let’s take a look at that on-grade level class, according to Ms. Hemphill.

The things you need to learn in kindergarten are pretty much the same whether you have Downs Syndrome or an IQ of 170: how to tie your shoes, sit in a circle, play nicely, take turns and share your toys. Sure, academics are important, but a good teacher should be flexible enough to challenge children with a range of abilities in one class, giving Frog and Toad to a beginning reader and Harry Potter to a more advanced reader, or finding a 200-piece puzzle for a child who has finished the 100-piece puzzle.

The operative phrase is “but a good teacher should be flexible enough to challenge children with a range of abilities in one class.”  Sadly, many teachers simply aren’t flexible enough, or more importantly, able to be flexible.  Kindergarten teachers are looking at a classroom of 20 or so kids, who most likely range from don’t-know-which-way-to-hold-a-book-don’t-know-their-shapes to, well, reading Harry Potter.  Meanwhile, at least in MCPS, there is an increasingly scripted, gotta move ‘em along curriculum.  A kid reading Harry Potter, quite frankly, will be seen as a pain in the neck, a distraction, extra work. There is no kindergarten assessment rubric for Harry Potter, just Frog and Toad.  After a while, in addition to going crazy with the focus on “how to tie your shoes, sit in a circle, play nicely, take turns and share your toys,” that child is going to internalize the teacher’s resentment, is going to stop raising his/her hand–because they never get called on anyway, so why bother?

Towards the end of her remarks Ms Hemphill states,

Gifted programs are appropriate in the older grades, beginning at middle school or in certain circumstances upper elementary school. But giving tests to a child who hasn’t even started kindergarten is ridiculous.

Ridiculous. Ridiculous? Really? What’s ridiculous is Ms. Hemphill’s apparent belief that it’s okay for some children to have to wait SIX YEARS before being given an appropriate education.  Six years.  Just think of the damage that can be done in that span of time.  I can.  Social isolation.  Alienation.  Being bullied.  Anxiety.  Anger.  Disdain for classmates, adults and school. Underachievement and disengagement.  Not exactly the kinds of outcomes we’re looking for, no?  Personally, I envy the parents of five year olds who learn through testing that their child is EG/PG and can get the advice and information that I didn’t have access to.

Clara, doing away with gifted identification is not the answer.  Those kids exist–yes the spark of giftedness can be seen in three year olds.  They have needs.  We need to identify them and provide the supports and academics they need and deserve.  But gifted identification is not enough.  What is needed is a sea change in attitude towards our nation’s brightest kids from the highest education circles on down to the classroom, where it’s needed most.  Resources need to be devoted to gifted education programs, curriculum, teacher training.  At minimum there needs to be a real commitment to flexibility in meeting the academic needs of gifted learners–with concurrent commitment to social and emotional support for these kids.

In reading the news reports of what’s happening in New York, the thing that give me hope  is that the school system says it is committed to its gifted programs that start in Kindergarten and is committed to figuring out this identification conundrum, rather than obfuscating the existence of giftedness and/or finding a watered down, politically easy solution.

“We are not looking for a test that identifies qualities other than giftedness in young children,” said David Cantor, press secretary for the city’s Department of Education. “Our responsibility remains ensuring that gifted students are properly identified and placed in programs they need to learn best.”

Ms. Hemphill ends her piece by quoting gifted expert (note, I use no quotes) Dona Mathews on when to test.  I happen to agree with Mathews’ advice, as it pertains to seeking out expensive private educational testing in addition to group testing already carried out by the schools, realizing full well that this is a luxury few can afford.  But then Ms. Hemphill throws in her $.02:  “Do test your child if your regular neighborhood school is inadequate. Don’t test your child if you have a solid neighborhood school.”  Say wha’?  She just spent the previous three paragraphs decrying testing.  She ostensibly is concerned about equitable access to gifted services for all kids–then suggests that those who most likely don’t have the resources to begin with, or else their school wouldn’t be “inadequate,” get testing.  Sorry, but Clara makes my head hurt.

Read Full Post »

Not the straight and narrow

Posted in Gifted, In the News on June 29, 2010 | 2 Comments »

A friend and reader (;-)) recently posted two snippets of articles from the New York Times to her Facebook wall, a reminder that the smooth, well-behaved path doesn’t always lead to a noteworthy life:

Ben made himself unwelcome at a series of private schools. Precocious, pretentious and incorrigible, he took Oscar Wilde as his role model and doted on the writings of the Marquis de Sade…. At 13, inspired by Casanova, he began writing his memoirs. He did not manage to finish high school.

Ben Sonnenberg, Founder of Literary Journal, Dies at 73

At 11, he decided school was useless to his future as a circus clown or
pirate and refused to learn any more. At 13, he stopped going to class
and joined Reykjavik’s punk scene. At 14, he was sent to a boarding
school for troubled teenagers and stayed until he was 16, when he left
school for good.

Icelander’s Campaign Is a Joke, Until He’s Elected (Story on the new mayor of Reykjavik)

Read Full Post »

Let’s Talk About Choice

Posted in education, In the News, tagged , , , , , , on June 19, 2010 | 4 Comments »

In the reportage following the rejection of the Global Garden Public Charter School, the comment that leapt out to me was one made by Superintendent Jerry Weast on the issue of “choice.”  I wanted to be sure it was transmitted correctly, so I dug around to find his actual words. [Note: the MCPS website's Watch Meeting by Agenda Item feature continues to be an utter fail for this Mac/Firefox/Safari user.  Thank you Parents Coalition, for independently recording board meetings and putting them up on YouTube.]

So what did he say?  (Watch the video here.)

As you know, you are charged with providing an education to students throughout the county, one of the things charter schools are charged to do…I’ve been a proponent of charter schools…in fact I tried to start a KIPP school, if you remember, back when, even to helping furnish the facility and training Alison Serino (sp.?) as the “Kippster” and that didn’t …you know so it isn’t, ah…but it’s business. And you are in very lean budget times. And in very lean budget times you have to share your revenues with other schools. So we look at things about school choice and there’s over 150 private schools in our community, and so there’s choices, and there are our 200 schools with all their thematic approaches. Choice is something that is in abundant supply in Montgomery County.

Wow.  I call bullshit.  The trying to start a KIPP school?  According to someone closely involved with the earlier Jaime Escalante charter school effort, “There was a verbal agreement that MCPS would honestly move towards bringing a KIPP school to the county.  One of the Escalante organizers even traveled to New York City with Superintendent Weast to visit a KIPP school.  A lot of talking took place, but nothing concrete ever developed.  End of story.”  Other sources report that the effort failed because Weast insisted on having the power to appoint the KIPP charter’s principal, rather than the KIPP organization. Understandably, they demurred.   But in the Gazette the other day, an MCPS spokesperson is quoted as saying

“This idea that we’re anti-charter is just not reality; that’s not the case,” said Dana Tofig, a spokesman with the Montgomery County school system.

Tofig also said Superintendent Jerry D. Weast supported a “Knowledge is Power” Program that intended to start a charter school in the county in 2004. But the deal fell through when KIPP, a national network of nonprofit charter schools, decided against moving forward with the plan, Tofig said.

Show me a news story, press release, memo, letter, speech, comment in the media, board minutes, anything, that shows Jerry Weast forthrightly supporting a KIPP charter school in the county.  Show me one example of him exerting his considerable national starpower and local arm-twisting clout to make known his desire for a charter school to happen in MoCo, let alone initiating a concrete step.  Please.  Because I have done The Google and there’s nothing there.  If he really wanted it to get done, we would have heard about it, no?  [Note: To read posts from last year about starting a charter, click So You Want to Start a Charter - Part 1 and Part 2.]

But I didn’t even mean to get hung up on the KIPP thing.  What really grabbed me was the claim that the presence of 150 private schools in the county constitutes “choice,” as do all the “thematic choices” of MCPS’s 200 schools.  I heard that and thought, “Did he really just say that?”  What kind of choice, I have to ask, is Holton-Arms, tuition $29,450?  Oneness Family School, tuition $19,175?  Grace Episcopal Day School, tuition $20,000?  Georgetown Day School, tuition $29,830?  If you can even get in.  If the schools are even in your vicinity.  Assuming you don’t have a deep commitment to the idea of pubic education.  The idea that these schools present a “choice” for the average MoCo family is breathtaking in its arrogance.

So let’s move onto the Montgomery County “choices.”  Certainly MCPS offers more choice than my little town in New England did, which was two elementary schools depending on where you lived, one middle and one high school.  What are the “choices” in MCPS?   (I’ll focus on elementary, as that’s where the charter applications are aimed.)  Well at the early elementary level, there is one GT magnet for the entire county, Takoma Park ES. Assuming your child makes the GT cut and you are outside of the TPES boundary, it is then a lottery for a tiny number of seats at this waaay down county school.  So choice?  Not much.  Then there are the language immersion programs–yes those pesky “boutique programs” that Mr. Weast either loves or threatens depending on the audience.  Check DCUM for the angst surrounding the odds of getting into those, and again, whether they are geographically accessible to families who want to attend (Sorry Olney).  Finally, the Centers for the Highly Gifted which serve small numbers of a special population.  And that’s it at the elementary level.  With the exception of the Centers, what do they all have in common?  Wait for it:  the exact same, to-the-letter MCPS test-test-test curriculum.  Where’s the choice in that?

“But wait!”  I hear the MCPS PR person say. “Each MCPS schools offers a comprehensive program of instruction to challenge and meet the needs of all students. Some schools also offer special programs for students attending the school. These are called local school programs.” (I confess, I got that straight off the MCPS website.) I get it.  That would be things like the whole school communications arts magnet at my neighborhood school, the arts integration program at another area school, the technology focus at another, etc.

  • Problem number one is, that not every school has them, and in these budget times, those that do have them are under threat. (My local school saved its special program teacher by cutting the math content specialist position.)
  • Problem number two is that these programs are super secret. The MCPS website instructs parents to “contact each local school for details.” (Just what parents want to spend their abundant free time on, right?  You have to be really switched on to ferret out the details.)
  • Problem number three is access.  Nice for me if I have an artsy kid and I live in the arts integration school’s catchment area. But if I don’t, if it’s the next school over, too bad.  MCPS is not going to let me transfer just to access that program.  Transfers are only for extreme hardship.  Which means that “choice” in MCPS boils down to moving houses and hoping for the best.  Really no choice at all.

At middle school you’ve heard my rant.  Where I live, if you don’t get into a GT magnet, and you don’t win the middle school consortium lottery, well sucks for you.  You’re stuck.  You literally have to move, which people do.  Or homeschool, a choice that families back into as a least worst option.  I guess that’s Jerry Weast’s version of choice.

So what is his game?  One theory is that he’s trying to trying to link charter schools to private schools in the minds of people who don’t really get the charter school concept and who already  think that charters can select students, don’t follow certification and union requirements and take money from public schools like vouchers.   Not a bad theory.  Mine?  The desire for absolute control.

P.S.  You can read an op-ed by the Global Gardens Public Charter School founders in Sunday’s Washington Post.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.