Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘board of education’

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 »

Weast’s 2011 Budget: Protection Racket

Posted in Gifted, School, tagged , , , , , , , , , on December 28, 2009 | 5 Comments »

The Christmas/holiday/blizzard stupor is slowly lifting and as the New Year approaches, parents are beginning to focus on the resumption of school and with it, school issues.  Foremost, the Superintendent’s Recommended FY 2011 Operating Budget.   You’ll recall that the good Dr. Weast presented the behemoth $2.2 Billion (yes, that’s billion) budget in early December.  This budget includes no new initiatives or programs, but seeks an additional $106 million for expected increases in operational costs, including:

  • $15.8 million for increased enrollment and new school expenditures
  • $25.9 million for continuing salary costs and benefits for current employees
  • $33.1 million for increases in health insurance, life insurance, social security and other costs for current and retired employees
  • $30.9 million for Other Post Employee Benefits (OPEB), which safeguards insurance benefits for future retirees.

And if not approved?  Be prepared for cuts … oh and he’s provided a helpful list of cuts to programs and services most guaranteed to outrage reliably vocal parents.  Now I confess, I am not a numbers/budget girl.  Just ask Husband Dear.  So this budget stuff all sort of washed over me.  But I’m slowly getting it. And what I’m getting is that Jerry Weast is, once again, playing a cynical, cynical game.  His message to parents:   “Support our budget or something bad will happen to your magnets, your consortium and signature programs.”  And on cue, he dutifully expects us rise to his defense.  Shameless, really, when you take a look the Parents Coalition blog, where the question is rightfully being asked, “Where has all the money gone?“

So let me offer a new suggestion as to what might go onto the chopping block:  The Equity Team.  You might remember them from a previous post.

The Equity Training and Development Team (ETDT) in the Office of Organizational Development continues to focus on-1) building leadership staff capacity to lead for equity, 2) deepening capacity of OOD staff to explicitly infuse equity content and processes into all professional development programs and projects, and 3) providing direct services, consultation, and resources to support school-based and central services study and dialogue about the impact of race and ethnicity on teaching and learning. Schools receiving equity training must commit to at least a year-long program that is aligned to an equity goal in the School Improvement plan. Requests from schools for this long-term support has risen from five in FY 2005 to 66 in 2009 . In addition to working directly with several dozen schools, members of the Equity Training and Development Team also supported leadership teams in several central offices, including the Office of Special Education and Student Services and the Title I Office. Members of the team also supported a number of system project teams, including the Disproportionality Workgroup, the Equity and Excellence Process Team, and several M-Stat teams.

I don’t know exactly how much savings would result from its elimination (you can check the budget numbers for the Office of Organizational Development, of which it is a part, in Chapter 6 of the budget. (pdf)), but I nominate The Equity Team on the basis of the costs it has incurred in the past, namely the speaker fees for Glenn Singleton, the purchase of (I’m guessing) thousands of copies of Courageous Conversations About Race: A Field Guide for Achieving Equity in Schools (at $30/copy), MCPS staff participation in conferences with sessions with such titles as Rigor or Rigor Mortis: Reframing the White Construct of “Rigor” to Give All Students Access to Challenging Material that Embraces Multiple Perspectives and Experiences.

Enough with the hundreds of staff hours sucked up by book clubs and Critical Race Theory indoctrination of teachers. In tough budget times–with threatened cuts to student services–we don’t have the luxury of this kind of discredited ideological foolishness.

Read Full Post »

And So It Goes

Posted in School, tagged , , , , on July 2, 2009 | 1 Comment »

Just saw that I missed the announcement. MCPS has filled the board vacancy left by Nancy Navarro, who has joined the County Council.  There were five candidates:

  • former student member of the Montgomery County Board of Education with degrees in business and public administration
  • a parent advocate and volunteer with degrees in nursing and business administration
  • a recently retired principal of Springbrook High School in Silver Spring, Maryland
  • a long-time MCPS parent advocate with a degree in communications
    human resources practitioner who has served as a motivational speaker in schools throughout the Washington metropolitan area
  • an MCPS parent volunteer and an attorney with the Federal Communications Commission

So guess who was selected. C’mon, guess.  Of course. Just hope he’s as good as Dan says.

Read Full Post »

MPCS Draft Strategic Plan: A Closer Look

Posted in Gifted, School, tagged , , , , , , , , on June 23, 2009 | 5 Comments »

I love draft MCPS documents because it’s one of the few times where you can really see in black and white–and red–where the behemoth that is MCPS is headed.  Or at least would like to go.  I love mulling the word choices:  why all of a sudden is “blueprint” better than “foundation?”  Why the switch from “success after high school” to “college and career ready?”  Et cetera.  I imagine it’s not unlike being a Kremlinologist forty years ago.  So a big thanks once again to GTA’s Fred Stichnoth for drawing attention to the MCPS Draft Strategic Plan for 2009-2014, which is linked here.

What catches my eye? (And I’m assuming this was adopted with flying colors at last night’s Board of Education meeting.) (Update: it was.  Check comment below.)

  • Page 18, Middle School Accelerated and Enriched Math and Literacy Coaches. It has “AEI” in the name!  Those are the folks who are responsible for gifted education even though we can’t call it that because it’s not PC!  Surely they can serve as resource people for students who need, you know, acceleration and enrichment! “Coach” sounds so helpful and friendly!

The AEI literacy coach creates a process for nurturing/mentoring underachieving and/or traditionally underserved students enrolled in accelerated courses. The AEI literacy coach supports critical thinking, reading, writing, and viewing across the content areas by working directly with teachers, serving as a member of the school leadership team, and communicating with parents. As an instructional leader, the AEI literacy coach develops the school’s literacy plan, including benchmarks and a reporting schedule. The AEI literacy coach also collaborates with school staff to increase student participation, particularly African American and Hispanic students, in accelerated and enriched courses, and provides instructional, professional, and parental support for improvement of student achievement in accelerated and enriched courses these courses, and monitors and reports quarterly on student access and progress in accelerated courses.

Oh.  Never mind.

  • Page 20.  Accuplacer. Hmm.  Now this is interesting.

The ACCUPLACER is a national, computer-adaptive placement test developed by the College Board. The ACCUPLACER measures academic skills in the areas of math (arithmetic, elementary algebra, and college-level math) and English (sentence skills, reading comprehension, and writing). The ACCUPLACER is used by some community colleges, four-year universities, technical schools, and high schools to assist in course placement and/or in assessing the college readiness of students.

Could this be an out of level tool to help MCPS “see” exceptionally and profoundly gifted kids in the system?  Something frustrated parents can ask for?  Or better not?

  • Page 24.  Online Curriculum.

In the 2008–2009 school year, all available current MCPS curriculum documents were housed centrally in an online curriculum archive. The archive will allows immediate, searchable access through the Internet to new or revised MCPS curriculum documents previously available only on paper.

So it is there…parents just can’t see it.

  • Page 27.  Continuum of Accelerated and Enriched Instruction. Okay, is it me, or does this sentence completely not make sense?

Global Screening Project Team—Elimination of the long-standing disproportionate identification of African American and Hispanic students through the global screening process is a strategic initiative of MCPS.

Isn’t the point that African American and Hispanic are disproportionately under-identified or not identified in the GT screening process?  But whatever.  The paragraph continues:

This multi-stakeholder project team will make recommendations that should occur for all students prior to and as a result of the Global Screening process to address equity in access to rigor; high expectations; successful completion of rigorous instructional programs; parent communication; and barriers to instructional opportunities. is engaged in analyzing past and current global-screening practices and reviewing practices that will focus on documenting and providing above-grade-level instruction in order to prepare all students for advanced course work. A specific emphasis will include collecting school-level data to monitor the equitable provision of services for African American and Hispanic students.

So we’re over collecting and analyzing data…because the news continues to be bad?  Okay…  And if you’re not in those underserved groups?  Now I’m all for paying close attention to underserved groups.  Really.  Truly.  (That’s precisely why screening is important…to catch those kids that might fall through the cracks.) But can we at least have a little more forceful recognition then of gifted students?  A little balance?  Not to sound all white, middle class and entitled, but where are my kids in all this if I don’t have the good fortune to live in Potomac?  I guess they fall under the “all” in the previous paragraph: “At all levels, students may accelerate learning and participate in advanced-level course work at their local schools. Instruction is differentiated to provide all students, including students in traditionally underserved groups, appropriate pacing and levels of support necessary for advanced-level learning.”

  • Page 48.  Class-size reduction. Make that 17:1 rather than 15:1 in the highest impact schools.
  • Page 51.  But wait!  Can it be?  “Continuum of Accelerated and Enriched Instruction Gifted and Talented Services.” Redlining to use the term “gifted and talented.”  What’s more is this goodie:

Revised Curriculum—The curriculum revision and the subsequent development of instructional guides in both reading/language arts and mathematics provide preassessments and programming recommendations that give students access to accelerated and enriched instruction, including above-grade-level instruction, as needed. Instructional guides include references to The William and Mary Reading Language Arts program (Grades 2–8) and the Junior Great Books program (Grades K–8) are required components of the reading/language arts program for highly able students and students with potential or motivation to accept more challenging instruction.

No more with the instructional guide “references.”  W&M and JGB “are required” for highly able students.  Full-stop.

Must be a mole in the Kremlin.  Kudos!

[Update:  One thing I forgot to add earlier is a passage pointed out by Fred.  It's on page 5 of the Draft Strategic Plan, in the section "Framework for Equity and Excellence."  It says:

These support systems and conditions must be contained within, and supported by, all schools and classrooms, all MCPS workplaces, and the communities that contain our schools and offices. This organizational culture also will serve to protect the ongoing work to promote equity and excellence from external factors that could possibly disrupt the work or distract staff from their focus. These external factors include political factors, legal considerations, and economic realities.

Chew on that for a moment.  "Protect the ongoing work...from external factors..."  PIA's anyone?]

Read Full Post »

“PIA” Comment Continues to Reverberate

Posted in Gifted, In the News, tagged , , , , , , , , , on May 20, 2009 | 2 Comments »

Looks like the latest addition to the MCPS lexicon isn’t going to go away.  A local television news station has just done a story on the PIA (Pain In the Ass) comment of Board of Education member Patricial O’Neill.  No imbed code provided, but here’s the link to the page with the video.

Meanwhile the local newspaper, the Gazette, has followed up the story and gives mention to GTAMC advocate Fred Stichnoth:

And Frederick Stichnoth, a well-known advocate for a separate gifted and talented curriculum, sent an e-mail to media outlets this week, saying that his comments to the school board about school improvement team policy were both “respectful” and “professional,” which was an apparent swipe at Barclay’s comments last week.

I’ll vouch for Fred.  Yes, he’s got laserlike focus on the issues and the process–but he’s not a bomb thrower.  I’ve always found him in both written and personal communication to be personable (more a mild, wry type than than a backslapper), and yes, respectful and professional. Here’s what he has to say in response:

Marcus Moore, Gazette, has given us a follow-up on the “PIA” controversy.  I appreciate his presentation of the perspective shared by Ms. O’Neill and Mr. Barclay, and the invitation for further reflection and dialogue.

I share Mr. Barclay’s goal of a “broad interpretation” in the school improvement plans.  The plans I’ve seen focus on “cusp” kids reaching for MSA proficiency.  As Mr. Barclay says, SIPs should address the respective needs and abilities of “all kids.”

I think Mr. Barclay makes a mistake in welcoming only parents pushing for all kids, and exluding advocacy by parents who push only for their own kids.  I appreciate that leaders like Mr. Barclay and Ms. O’Neill must address the needs of all parts of our student population.  But we must acknowledge that parents have a special bond with their own children, a close view of their children’s needs and abilities, daily close experience with how those needs and abilities are being addressed by the schools, and a continuing prompt to consider how those particular needs and abilities could be better addressed.

Also, I think we accept that in our society and political system the needs of all are addressed, in fact, over time, by serial attention to first the particular needs of this group and then the particular needs of that group;  and that the respective groups clamor for their moments of attention.  And we respect parent groups that give particular attention to segments of our student population:  NAACP, Asian American Parents Advocacy Council, Latino groups, Special Education groups, MCEF–focusing on ”on-level students.”  Principals look at Ms. O’Neill’s “big picture” by looking at data segmented for disaggregated populations:  African and Asian Americans, whites, Hispanics, FARMS students, English language learners, Special Education students and even, still, gifted and talented students.  Even the BOE has its Committee on Special Populations that gives its exclusive attention to certain distinctive segments of the student population.

The Policy AEB comment, rejected by the BOE in its PIA discussion, that schools should facilitate SIP participation by parents representing “the full spectrum of students’ needs and abilities” in addition to stakeholders representing the “diversity”–in MCPS’ customary sense–of the school and the community) was intended to follow this pluralistic model so that “all kids” would be represented.

Now isn’t that respectful?

Read Full Post »

Breaking: MCPS Draft Strategic Plan 2009-2014

Posted in Gifted, School, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 19, 2009 | Leave a Comment »

This document (a fascinating must-read for MCPS edu-dweebs and alert parents) is being circulated in advance of tomorrow’s BOE’s public Strategic Planning Committee meeting, for its final review of the Strategic Plan (9 a.m.Carver Room 120, 850 Hungerford, Rockville).  Document is red-lined, showing exactly where changes to the existing Strategic Plan are being considered. Of particular interest to me, gifted education. Check page 25:

Continuum of Accelerated and Enriched Instruction
MCPS is committed to promoting rigorous performance standards and providing instructional programs that encourage all students to achieve at their highest level. A continuum of programs and services begins at pre-K through Grade 2, with an emphasis on talent development. At all levels, students may accelerate learning and participate in advanced-level course work at their local schools.  Instruction is differentiated to provide all students, including students in traditionally underserved groups, appropriate pacing and levels of support necessary for advanced-level learning. Students may also attend special programs such as centers for the highly gifted, magnet programs, or specialized programs, based on student interest and talent.

Global Screening Project Team—Elimination of the long-standing disproportionate identification of African American and Hispanic students through the global screening process is a strategic initiative of MCPS. This multi-stakeholder project team will make recommendations that should occur for all students prior to and as a result of the Global Screening process to address equity in access to rigor; high expectations; successful completion of rigorous instructional programs; parent communication; and barriers to instructional opportunities. is engaged in analyzing past and current global-screening practices and reviewing practices that will focus on documenting and providing above-grade-level instruction in order to prepare all students for advanced course work. A specific emphasis will include collecting school-level data to monitor the equitable provision of services for African American and Hispanic students.

Read Full Post »

PIAs Need Not Apply

Posted in School, tagged , , , , , , , on May 12, 2009 | 8 Comments »

Well I learned a new MCPS acronym this evening: PIA, otherwise known as Pain in the Ass (Hmm, do I need to add it to my Acronyms & Jargon tab?) Such was the term used by Board of Education member Patricia O’Neill at this evening’s meeting to describe parents who can in good conscience be excluded from School Improvement Teams. Under consideration by the board were proposed language changes to ensure that School Improvement Teams (SITs) are representational of the school community, and that the resulting School Improvement Plans (SIPs) be made publicly available. (Kudos to the Parent Coalition for the speedy posting of the video clip embedded below and prompt reporting.)

Sad to say Chris Barclay‘s comments weren’t much better, as he talked about looking for “team players” rather than parents “who aren’t necessarily being cooperative”  (see minute 3:12 onward), in the process tying himself into veritable knots in an effort not outright impugn the GT parent advocate who had weighed in in favor of the proposed changes.  Only Laura Berthiaume (minute 4:19 onward) made the excellent point (one this blog has made before) that most parents don’t even know that the SIT/SIP exists, and therefore don’t even know that they are potentially being excluded.  She went on to note that when these teams are comprised solely of people whose viewpoints agree with the principal’s “you get Iraq”–in other words, an echo chamber.

You’ll recall that I participated on a SIT last fall. You can read about my experience here and here.  Particularly laughable was Ms. O’Neill’s comment that, like the drafting of the Declaration of Independence, the SIP is written by “a small group and communicated to a large group” (minute 8:05)  As if.  Ms. Berthiaume’s experience at various schools is akin to my own.  You were lucky if you even knew that a SIT existed and who the reps were, let alone seeing the SIP itself or any information gathering or reporting by the SIP reps (and here I am guilty as well.)   The SIP was predetermined.  No meaningful changes were allowed or expected.  Ms. O’Neill went on to say that it will “never be a town hall meeting.”

Which is all quite interesting in light of the fact that the board recently held a retreat where one of its agenda items was to “Acknowledge the importance of principled debate in the application of our core values and equity in our work.”   One of the questions to be answered?  “How can ‘reframing the terms of engagement’ with our community, including both our vocal critics and our “silent” constituents, help us to move from where we are now, to where we want to be, in a way that is aligned with (“stays true to”) our core values?”  (See .pdf of agenda here.)

more about “PIAs Need Not Apply“, posted with vodpod

Read Full Post »

Newsflash: “No Labels” Presentations to the BOE

Posted in Gifted, School, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 12, 2009 | 2 Comments »

Hot off the presses: The Powerpoint presentations made to the Board of Education Policy Committee on May 5, 2009.

  • The first presentation is by Georgian Forest Elementary School, one of the “no labels” “pilots” where students are not given a Gifted and Talented “label” after 2nd grade global GT screening.
  • The second presentation is by MCPS Marty Creel, Director of the Department of Enriched and Innovative Programs

React. Discuss.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.