Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Gifted – Montgomery & Fairfax County GROUPS’

Homegrown Genius

Posted in Gifted, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , on October 25, 2009 | 9 Comments »

Been busy with some In Real Life GT issues lately and yesterday evening I found myself once more combing through down county school websites.  Out of close to 40 schools, I think maybe four had GT liaisons listed on their PTA websites.  Even more discouraging was to find that some schools don’t even have a PTA website…or even a page on the school’s website that lists some officers and committees or basic parent information.

But in my Web-surfing I did have the chance to stop at the site of Silver Chips, the award-winning online newspaper of Richard Mongomery Blair High School.  There, I read a great feature story about Maneesh Agrawala, a recent MacArthur Fellow “genius award” recipient–and Blair Math Science Magnet alum.

Although Agrawala was shocked to be receiving the MacArthur grant, his entire life has been committed to the creativity and knowledge the MacArthur Fellows Program looks for. Ever since he was young, Agrawala was interested in math and computer science. Agrawala recalls that seeing his father teach computer science at the University of Maryland influenced his interest in the field.

Agrawala took his love of these subjects to Takoma Park Middle School’s Math and Science Magnet Program, where he excelled in math….

From 1986 – 1990, Agrawala continued these pursuits, enrolling in Blair’s Magnet Program and furthering his interests in computer science and math. “The Magnet was really great,” Agrawala says. “The Magnet was able to put me on my set path and helped me understand concepts.”

Agrawala’s residency in the Magnet was quite notable. He was a finalist in the Intel Science Talent Search competition and had an interest in writing.

However, his biggest impact on Blair came in 1988. Along with Sven Khatri, Dan Mall and Howard Gobioff, all in Blair’s class of 1990, he took part in the first national “SuperQuest – The High School Supercomputing Challenge,” according to notes from the Board of Education. The team won second place out of 1,480 high schools nationwide, winning Blair a Cyber 910 workstation. What’s more, Blair received its first-ever direct connection to the Internet, making it the first school in Montgomery County to have Internet access, according to the Magnet Foundation. The connection even initiated the mbhs.edu domain that Blair still uses.

Ah, those magnets.  You know, those “boutique programs” that MCPS Superintendent Jerry Weast was talking about back in April.  Wisely, believing that the strong defense is an offense, some magnet parents offered passionate testimony in support of the math science magnets at recent Board of Education-sponsored Community Forums [sic].  You can read their testimony here, on pages 5, 11, 12, 14 and 17.

Maybe their cause will be bolstered with a local screening of the documentary Whiz Kids at the National Academy of Sciences in December.

WHIZ KIDS is a coming-of-age documentary that marks the distinct paths of three remarkably passionate 16-year-old scientists who vie to compete—win or lose—in the Intel Science Talent Search, a program of Society for Science & the Public (and formerly known as the Westinghouse Science Talent Search)….   For a year and a half, they visited high schools around the country searching for teenagers who were engaged in sophisticated research.  The team found students, who at 16 and 17, were already working in university and government labs, sometimes alongside Nobel Prize-winning scientists.  They also found students with fewer resources who were making discoveries in the apocryphal basement or garage lab.  Several traits were consistent among these “whiz kids” — an insatiable curiosity, a deeply felt determination to communicate their work to the public, and a passion to make a difference in the world.

You can see a trailer of the film on the film’s website, www.whizkidsmovie.com, as well as get information on the issue of fostering excellence in science.  Which can start right here in Montgomery County.

Read Full Post »

Don’t SIPPI the KoolAid

Posted in Gifted, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , on September 15, 2009 | 2 Comments »

It’s been an interesting week for GT.  Between intense traffic on the local GT listservs (join both this one and this one if you live in MoCo and want to be informed), and a deluge of back channel emails with my GT maven peeps, I’ve been drowning.  What’s been the cause for all the, um,  intense discussion?  Superintendent Weast’s September 8 letter to the Board of Education on “Goal 2: Provide an Effective Instructional Program—Sequence of Accelerated and Enriched Instruction.” Here’s the document on Scribd.

Reading the memo, one would think that Montgomery is Gifted nirvana.  Trust me, this is so not the case.  Reading these notes on the BOE meeting put together by GT advocate Fred Stichnoth, it’s even more mind blowing.  And angry making.  It’s as if Jerry Weast and the MCPS bureaucracy are operating in an alternate universe or a bubble.  Is there is *anything* that can alter the direction of the MCPS juggernaut when the direction has clearly  been decided in advance.  All the mutual congratulating, the insularity.  Ugh.

The “news” that set off all the chatter comes on page 9 of the Weast memo, with the announcement of something called the Student Instructional Program Planning and Implementation (SIPPI).

In 2009–2010, 25 elementary schools are partnering with staff from the Office of School Performance, the Office of the Chief Technology Officer, the Office of Shared Accountability, and the Office of Curriculum and Instructional Programs to develop and pilot the Student Instructional Program Planning and Implementation (SIPPI) process with Grade 2 students that will be supported with appropriate technology and will be composed of the following steps:

  • Gathering data that best inform school staff members about the whole child—Performance data, verbal and nonverbal cognitive assessment results, and parent and staff survey responses will be gathered for review.
  • Reviewing the data and making instructional decisions—School committees will meet, review the data, and make and record data-based instructional recommendations, including appropriate acceleration and enrichment or intervention, and will identify GT students.
  • Making articulation decisions—School administrators will better tailor instructional schedules, ensuring that every child is appropriately placed.
  • Communicating decisions—Decisions about placement and articulation will be communicated through family reports and reports to next grade-level teachers prior to the beginning of the next school year. This communication will allow parents to become more engaged in student instructional programming and will allow the next grade-level team to plan with committee recommendations in mind.
  • Monitoring implementation—Use of technological resources to gather data and record decisions about instructional placement and school schedules will allow for monitoring of implementation of recommended services and verification that students are receiving the appropriate level of instruction.

By expanding Grade 2 global screening to a systemwide SIPPI process and eventually extending the process to include articulation from Grade 5 to Grade 6 and from Grade 8 to Grade 9, the following goals for this project will be met:

  • Students will be provided equitable opportunities and will be challenged by rigorous instruction.  (“Rigorous instruction”…such as?  Oh that’s right.  Math.)
  • Parents will receive a written report specifying their child’s instructional placement recommendations in addition to the current letter identifying their child as gifted or not gifted.  (Will parents be able to challenge these recommendations?)
  • A consistent process will be implemented to recommend students for  courses/classes.
  • Real-time monitoring of course/class placement will help schools ensure that students are in appropriate instructional settings.
  • A system will be in place to monitor additional advanced data points as developed. (As in, years and years after you kids have left school.)
  • Data collected will be used to inform policy decisions concerning the GT label, as well as to further explore whether students are equitably recommended for appropriate levels of service and whether students equitably receive services recommended. (Keep your eye on that word “equitable.”)
  • The ability to identify areas of need and provide targeted resources and support will be enhanced, allowing greater capacity to fulfill the monitoring requirements of Policy IOA, Gifted and Talented Education.

Data, monitoring…all good.  I’d like even more data included, such as Center and Magnet testing results.  However in light of the recent Kumar Singam case, some of this sounds rather laughable.  When MPCS talks “services” are we talking about parents insisting that 1st grader Susie needs to be in the 1st grade “advanced” reading group and that 6th grade Jorge should be in “advanced” 6th grade english?   Or are we talking kindergartner Johnny is already reading fluently and needs to be in 2nd grade reading and middle schooler Sunil needs to be taking advanced mathematics in high school?  Seems to me they are talking placement in a very MCPS proscribed way.  Anything else they will fight tooth and nail.  Because there is no “there” there.

Outside the Centers and magnets there is no advanced curriculum (new courses are being piloted in middle school…jury is out on whether they are advanced.)  At the elementary level there is no advanced scope and sequence.  A little embedded William & Mary, some Math extensions, Seven Keys and differentiation.  That’s it.  It’s not there.

Read Full Post »

Truth Out: MCPS Hates Grade Skipping

Posted in Gifted, In the News, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 31, 2009 | 8 Comments »

Well the new school year is certainly shaping up to start with a bang, isn’t it?  Comes a story that could have significant impact not only on the discussion of gifted education in the county, but homeschooling too.

This week the Gazette ran a story headlined: Parent advocate says his daughter should be allowed to skip grades – School system would enroll her in advanced elementary classes.  I’m actually acquainted with the parent in question through my involvement with last year’s AEI Advisory Committee meetings and have a lot of empathy for him.  (You can relive the drama (referenced in the article) by trolling through my archives from the spring–or reading his own posts on the Parents’ Coalition blog).  Here’s the situation:

Caitlyn, who has been home-schooled with the Calvert School curriculum since leaving Seven Locks Elementary School in first grade, has the certificates to show that she can handle middle school coursework. Yet, the school system will not allow her to enroll in middle school, mainly because of her age.

Caitlyn, who lives in Bethesda, would go to Cabin John Middle School in Potomac, if allowed, despite the fact that she’s of fourth-grade age.

Her Calvert School certificates, obtained by The Gazette, show that she has passed the fifth grade and completed math at a seventh-grade level. According to her father, a staff member at Cabin John told him personally that Caitlyn should be enrolled at the school.

“I have proof that my daughter is beyond third grade,” Kumar Singam said. “We took her out of the system, and we’re asking the school system to place her according to her grade accomplishment.”

Martin M. Creel, the school system’s director of Enriched and Innovative Programs, said that officials have offered Kumar’s daughter the opportunity to take advanced courses in elementary school.

Although Creel could not speak specifically about her case, he said that the system buses students to nearby middle schools for advanced courses. And, because Caitlyn is certified to handle middle school math, “that is something that we would certainly offer in this case,” Creel said.

There’s additional information about the case in this Examiner op-ed, and in a blog post by the father.

Where to start?  So many questions.  But I’ll start with the one of most interest to GT advocates in the county:  What exactly, pray tell, are the “advanced courses in elementary school” that Mr. Creel has offered?

It seems that they are willing to bus Caitlyn to a nearby middle school for math (she’s working 3 grades above her age grade level).   Of course. They’re always willing to do it for math.

But what about everything else?  What about science, social studies, language arts?  Does MCPS propose 4th grade William and Mary and Jr. Great Books for a child who has completed 5th grade?  Have they offered her a seat in a Center for the Highly Gifted program?  A few days ago I asked Mr. Singam, and he stated, “I did press them for a clear articulation of “advanced” work they were proposing.  No reply.”

There is precedent for grade “skipping” in MCPS.  However the reporter gets it all wrong on two fronts.

While grade skipping can be useful for some children, it is not for others, said one parent on the GTALetters listserv, a forum that county parents use to discuss gifted and talented education. That parent asked not to be identified because his child finally was skipped after a lengthy battle with the school system.

First, by not citing any research on grade acceleration the reporter does a real disservice to readers, allowing the general bias against grade acceleration to hang out there.  The parent in question (a mom I know) referred him to the Davidson Institute for an expert comment, but he failed to follow up.  Second, the parent the reporter references did NOT have a “lengthy battle with the school system.”  Her journey to grade skipping for her child was actually incredibly smooth:  she asked for the grade skips, and got them, thanks to individuals in system who were willing to go do things other than the norm when they recognized that this was best for her child.  Imagine that.  (Her child is doing just fine, by the way.)

Regarding homeschooling and school placement, the Maryland COMAR says:

.04 Placement in Public School.

Upon application of a child for admission to a public school from a home instruction program, the local superintendent shall determine by an evaluation the placement of the child and any credits to be awarded toward high school graduation. The evaluation may include administration of standardized tests and examinations and interviews with the child.

However the Caitlyn was enrolled and warmly welcomed to middle school based on her school record and the judgment of the principal.  And it needs to be pointed out that her “home instruction” wasn’t some potentially questionable, loosey-goosey, mom-grade homeschooling thing.  Her parents were using the Calvert School homeschooling curriculum, a Maryland state accredited homeschooling program that has been around for 90 years.

MCPS is terrified of the precedent this case could set, which is why gifted advocates in the county are watching closely.

Caitlyn has completed 5th grade.  She was warmly welcomed to 6th grade before MCPS higher ups got involved.  She should be allowed to enroll in Cabin John Middle School.  Meet her academic needs–that’s what schools are supposed to do–and let her parents and school work together on any social emotional concerns that might arise, as they arise.

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 »

Math Across the River…and a History Lesson

Posted in Gifted, School, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 19, 2009 | 17 Comments »

There’s a must read post on EducationNews.org about the use of the Everyday Mathematics curriculum in neighboring Fairfax County.  (Although I’m not happy that there’s no information in the “About” section for the site. What’s up with that? Seems a bit sketchy…) One Step Ahead of the Train Wreck describes the efforts of Barry Garelick to “afterschool” his elementary school daughter when she started having difficulty with key math concepts and basic computation.  The school was using Everyday Math (EM), a math curriculum deeply despised in many quarters, and the focus of many pitched math wars around the country.  A recent example from the front is in Prince William County, VA.  (They lost.)  Sobered by the experience, he’s gotten his math teaching credentials and plans a second career as a math teacher.

Garelick writes,

I helped her on an ad hoc basis.  If she needed help, I would step in.  The problem is that when she needed help, it was generally too late, and I would end up having to do damage control.  One problem I was having was that EM does not use a textbook.  Students do worksheets every day from their “math journal” a paperbound book that they bring home.  Without a textbook, however, it is not always apparent what was taught—particularly when the student doesn’t remember.

Another frustration he encountered was the spiraling nature of EM. Parents of very gifted kids know that the concept of the “spiraling curriculum” deserves its own special fiery spiraling circle of hell:

“The Everyday Mathematics curriculum incorporates the belief that people rarely learn new concepts or skills the first time they experience them, but fully understand them only after repeated exposures. Students in the program study important concepts over consecutive years; each grade level builds on and extends conceptual understanding.”

Garelick eventually turned to Singapore Math, a favorite of many homeschoolers and people serious about math instruction:

In EM…students are exposed to topics repeatedly, but mastery does not necessarily occur. Topics jump around from day to day. Singapore Math’s very strong and effective sequencing of topics is missing in Everyday Math. While Singapore develops decimals by building on previous knowledge of fractions, in Everyday Math, students are presented with fractions and decimals at the same time.

Ah!  Singapore Math.  Here in MoCo we have largely been spared the Everyday Math battle, but we have in the past had an analagous situation. Draw up a chair, all you newbie MoCo parents, and learn a little GT history:

In my early research into what happened in Montgomery County, I met John Hoven, then co-president of the Gifted and Talented Association of Montgomery County and now a national advisor to NYC HOLD (New York City Honest Open Logical Decisions on Mathematics Education Reform), a nonpartisan advocacy organization that provides information to parents, teachers, and others on math education issues. Hoven, an economist in the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice by day, had discovered Singapore Math while waging a successful battle to get MCPS to forgo a National Science Foundation (NSF) grant worth $6 million. The grant would have trained teachers to use a middle-school program called Connected Math, one of several, Hoven learned, that was funded by the Education and Human Resources Division of the NSF and based on standards developed by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). Though the NCTM is a private organization, it exerts enormous influence over the math standards and texts used by most states and districts in the United States—standards and texts that, in Hoven’s view, were failing.

Where is this quoted from?  A fascinating and little know case study titled “Miracle Math:  A successful program from Singapore tests the limits of school reform in the suburbs” by….Wait! Wait!  Barry Garelick!  It tells the story of a fledgling MCPS Singapore math pilot program (a real, objectively structured, evaluate-able pilot…unlike the “no labels” “pilots”)–and how it was killed by the bureaucracy.

During the clamor over the TIMSS results (released in December 2004), I heard Robyn Silbey, a math “content coach” from a Rockville, Maryland, public school, being interviewed by Ira Flatow for his Science Friday program on National Public Radio. Silbey worked at College Gardens Elementary. She explained that her school was one of four in the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) district experimenting with Singapore’s math program. And, according to Silbey, it was working….

I later learned that an evaluation of the pilot program conducted by MCPS found that in the schools where Singapore Math (SM) was being used as a pilot program, students typically outperformed their peers in other district schools. Yet despite these positive results, three of the four pilot schools dropped out of the program after fewer than four years. Why, I wondered. If the county’s own evaluation found benefits from Singapore Math, why not continue using it? In view of America’s disappointing rankings in math and Singapore’s record of success, why wasn’t the Singapore Math program given a serious and extended try?

While the story of Singapore Math in Montgomery County does not answer all the questions about the persistently poor math literacy of American students, the failure of the program to take hold there does provide disturbing clues about some of the institutional and governmental practices that impede improvement in education—and not just in Montgomery County.

Chew on that.  Meanwhile, the Department of Education recently concluded that “No studies of Singapore Math that fall within the scope of the Middle School Math review protocol meet What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) evidence standards. The lack of studies meeting WWC evidence standards means that, at this time, the WWC is unable to draw any conclusions based on research about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of Singapore Math.”

Read Full Post »

Don’t Miss the Comment!

Posted in Gifted, School, tagged , , , , , , , on May 3, 2009 | 4 Comments »

Had an interesting visitor stop by the blog today and offer a comment:  none other than Jay Mathews of the Washington Post!

He was responding to my post last month about his visit to a local middle school.  Not only did he have some kind words for my reportage (thanks!) and give a little personal background about his own family’s schooling decisions, he had some very interesting words on gifted education and dare I say homeschooling.  You can read his full comment here.

Read Full Post »

More on Accelerated Math from Mathews

Posted in In the News, School, tagged , , , , , , , , on April 15, 2009 | Leave a Comment »

"Just because you're unique, doesn't mean you're useful."

Jay Mathews’ Monday article on math acceleration (“Accelerated Math Challenge, For a Student and Her Mom“) was sparked by his recent talk at an MCPS middle school (which I attended) where he was blindsided by parent concerns regarding math acceleration.  This is something I’ve blogged about numerous times and clearly it’s a simmering issue in the county…to the point that MCPS has formed a boondoggle math committee to “look into it..”

Mathews writes:

Anne McCracken Ehlers’s third-grade daughter was not doing well in accelerated fourth-grade math at Whetstone Elementary School in Gaithersburg. Becca was spending far too long on her assignments. She was confused. She was unhappy. Ehlers is a teacher herself, in the English department at Rockville High School. So she was polite when she asked for a change, but nothing happened….

Don’t you just love that “…is a teacher herself…So she was polite when she asked for a change…”  As opposed to all those typically rude, pushy parents.  Obviously as an MCPS employee, she knew that deference must be paid.  And of course the kicker is that still nothing happened.

According to Mathews, the school,

[D]eclared their allegiance to each child’s “unique needs” and their support for “parent feedback.” But to my surprise, they mostly stood their ground on acceleration for all. “We believe that every child will be able to achieve at high levels, not just in math but in all academic areas,Whetstone Principal Victoria Casey said. Erick Lang, Montgomery’s associate superintendent for curriculum and instructional programs, emphasized the importance of completing first-year algebra before ninth grade: “Getting students to accomplish that goal requires keeping them on the right path of courses.”

Too much acceleration is as bad as not enough. And clearly MCPS has decided that what is best for ALL students is what is best for all students.  You can see it in the coming-in-a-MCPS-dog-and-pony-show-near-you roll out of the Seven Keys to College Readiness.

The story generated 37 comments last time I checked and Anne McCracken Ehler, the parent (and MCPS teacher!) in the story also posted the following in the comments section:

Here’s a little background. I had been fighting since September to get my third grader out of the accelerated 4th grade math–(yes, skipping 3rd grade math) and back into 3rd grade math. She was finally moved in February after a series of emails and phone conversations—in which I argued that I wanted my daughter taught at an instructional level—not frustration (which is where she was—spending far too long on her assignments, lots of confusion about what she was being asked to do on the paper, coming home with Ds and Es, being asked to give up her recess regularly) and not independent (easy, coasting along, and bored).

Here is last email exchange—the one that finally worked:

“I am concerned about a statement you made on the phone indicating that asking to have Becca moved to a more appropriate math class would be giving up on her, telling her that she is a failure, that she doesn’t measure up. Becca’s worth–and indeed no person’s worth–is determined by their performance. My son didn’t really read at all until 4th grade–God bless the right IEP and Mrs. Jauquet and Mrs. Aoun who made my boy a reader–despite his learning differences. It’s been a long hard road, and I certainly have not given up on him. I have to pay careful attention to what he needs at the time–and now also what Becca needs at the time.

I’ve already expressed my reasoning for moving her. Seeing her math report card yesterday and hearing that she would not come to Math club today only confirm my resolve. This is not laziness nor coddling–this is certainly not a failure on anybody’s part–this is doing what’s best for the kid in front of you at the time.

Please move Becca to a math class that is more appropriate for her–do you have an class that is doing 3rd grade math with 4th grade indicators? Let me know what math group she will be attending and when the change will take place as soon as possible.”

Why are parents having to spend so much time fighting MCPS?  It’s insane.

Read Full Post »

First Look: Draft Policy IOA

Posted in Gifted, School, tagged , , , , , , , , , on April 10, 2009 | 2 Comments »

Kudos to Kumar Singman of the Parents Coalition for submitting a Freedom of  Information Act request and obtaining a copy of the draft revised Policy IOA for Accelerated and Enriched Instruction, which I’ve embedded below.  This is the same draft policy revision that the Accelerated and Enriched Advisory Committee has been laboring over and wrangling over for months.  Representatives were told that the draft and all meeting materials were confidential.  Now they no longer are.

Glancing over the draft, I still can’t get much beyond the title.

As previously and repeatedly pointed out on this blog and by the GTA representatives to the AEI Advisory Committee, the current Policy IOA is Policy IOA Gifted and Talented Education.  Throughout the current policy you’ll find sprinkled the terms “gifted and talented” and “gifted and talented students.” The reason is that these students are considered a “special population” and Policy IOA is under the “IO” section of MPCS Policy, namely “Special Instructional Programs and Accommodations.”  “Gifted and Talented” is a term–distasteful though it may be to some–that is internationally recognized as having a distinct meaning. Oh, and it’s in our state education law.

Not so the proposed draft Policy.  Over and over (and over) the document speaks of “all students.”  One can see MCPS practically twisting itself into knots not to acknowledge in any way there might be a group of students with distinct needs.  The only nod to this possible reality is mention of “students whose needs cannot easily be met in local schools.”

I read this draft policy and just imagine–if approved–the enormous institutional pressures and biases it will create against identifying and fostering giftedness.  It’s a codification of “all our children are gifted.”   (For more on that, see Michael Clay Thompson’s essay in my sidebar.)

I’m on vacation out West at the moment, so I’m not inclined to do a line by line analysis of AEI’s draft policy  And frankly a lot of the points I would make have already been made in past blog posts and by the GTA representatives.   However I find some of the language in Section 1 b) particularly interesting:  “Because children entering the school system in their early years arrive with varied strengths, reflecting previous experience…”    Huh? So any expression of “strengths” is solely due to, say, breastfeeding, trips to the library and Baby Einstein.  In other words: “privilege.”  I’m sorry, but I will go to my grave believing that some kids just come into this world wired differently, that they are objectively, qualitatively “gifted,” “cognitively advanced,” call it what you will.

So what’s next?  I urge MCPS parents to show up Thursday, 4/16, 7:15 pm at Carver Auditorium, 850 Hungerford Drive, Rockville, MD for the next meeting of the the AEI Advisory Committee.  Members of the Board of Education Policy Committee and Committee on Special Populations will be in attendance.  If you are so inclined, send the BOE an e-mail in advance (boe@mcpsmd.org), addressing any of the four main topics of the evening:

  • Is this policy just for gifted students or for all students?;
  • Identification/Gifted label for students;
  • Curriculum/Programs;
  • Consistency of Implementation/Accountability.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.