Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘identification’

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 »

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 »

Two weeks ago, when I learned about the unfolding drama surrounding Kumar Singam’s efforts to enroll his 9 year old daughter in an MCPS middle school (posts here and here), I wrote him an email:

… I wanted to let you know that I really, really empathize with you. Just last night my 15 year old who will be a sophomore at [deleted] was sobbing about how she didn’t want to go back to school because she feels like she is “spinning her wheels”….  MCPS refusal to accelerate students who need it–especially those who are verbally gifted–is a travesty….

The Singam case, and the resistance by MCPS officials to grade skipping, gave me a feeling of deja vu.  My daughter was never whole grade or radically subject accelerated.  Instead over the years we bought hook, line and sinker into every MCPS-touted GT program there was, with promises that “next year” it would “get better.” Nonetheless, by the time C. was in middle school, she was asking school officials for acceleration–or some kind of  intervention–ironically first in “GT” science class, but really in other classes as well. She self-advocated, as GT kids are often urged to do. And was brushed off–which is when things took a serious turn for the worse, to the point where we felt we had to withdraw, and were left no option but to homeschool. We were told by the magnet coordinator, “If she’s not happy in the magnet, she’s welcome to return to her home middle school.” Snort…As if. I had naively believed that the magnets were part of that “continuum of services” MCPS likes to talk about, where people would appreciate and “get” kids like mine and where we would work together to find a way to meet their needs. But clearly I was wrong. The magnet, I was told by the then-coordinator, was a “privilege.”

Fine. We withdrew C. The next month she took the SAT as part of the CTY Talent Search and got a freaking amazing score for a 12 year old.  (No, as it turns out, they probably didn’t “have many students who fit her profile.”)  What to do?  More to the point, what would MCPS do for this kid/with this kid if we wanted to re-enroll her for 8th grade?  Because she–we–could not return to the one program supposedly tailor-made for kids like her.  That relationship was shattered.  After countless phone calls and conversations with indifferent or clueless school system officials, I finally connected with someone in the Office of Accelerated and Enriched Instruction (since retired) who got it.  I mean, by that time I had met with so much resistance and hostility that I actually cried while on the phone with her.

Much like Mr. Singam, we met with someone from the Community Superintendent’s office.  We too believed that based on testing, our daughter needed to be placed beyond the norm for her age, namely high school.  MCPS didn’t want to go there; it was not even open for discussion.  Our fall back was that at minimum she needed access to high school English and social studies courses:  just as they arrange for very advanced math or foreign language middle school students to take classes at high school (and for which there is ample precedent) they should do the same for our child. Again, we could get no commitment from MCPS.  The best we could get was an offer of possible placement into the middle school housing the math/science/computer science magnet. (Not the magnet itself mind you, but just to be in building with other really bright age peers.  And they made that sound like a huge concession.).  Once there, we were told, this MCPS individual, the principal and someone from AEI would meet with us and personally build our child’s schedule.  However there was no assurance that she would receive high school level instruction, and by this point we were just too gun shy to take a risk–yet again–on an MCPS promise.  So we homeschooled another year, returning C. to an MCPS high school program that is the unspoken “service” at that level.

All should be great, no?  Well, actually no.  I mean, it’s a really great program and she’s getting vastly more than is available to most kids her age.  But she still has felt underchallenged in her strength areas.  For example she essentially had to repeat government last year (after sucessfully completing an equivalent college course).  To the credit of the coordinator there however, this year C. has been able to get permission to take an AP history class typically reserved for seniors. It’s her favorite class, the one where she feels she “belongs” intellectually and socially.  Clearly, this is a student who could have been radically subjected accelerated years earlier in her area of strength, the humanities, if allowed.  And no, I’m not pushing her.  She’s the one who is yearning for more challenge, for true intellectual engagement and risk taking, for the chance to get to college sooner in the hopes it will be there.

Recently we met a young man from elsewhere in the country who has grade skipped, someone C.’s age who will graduate this academic year–and she is angry that she never had that opportunity. To her, it feels as if MCPS has held her back every step of the way, and she has asked me “Why with MCPS is everything always a fight?”  I wish I had the answer.  All I know is that children like mine–and potentially Mr. Singam’s until he fought back–are being harmed–yes, that’s right, harmed–by MCPS’s refusal to deal with the realities of giftedness at the individual student level, to fully and truly meet their academic needs.  What kind of a toll does it take to be given the message year after year that it’s not okay to be who you are, that you must stifle and dampen your curiosity and passion to learn?

It’s because of these experiences that I have been following, and will continue to follow, the Singam case so closely.  By very vocally and fearlessly pushing MPCS to do the right thing by his daughter, Mr. Singam has forced truths about the system into the light that go against the happy feel good message they put out.  (It should be noted that many GT advocates have more than one child in the system and that the fear of retaliation is often what mutes their advocacy efforts.)   The Singam case reveals the lengths to which MCPS will go to put the institutional status quo above the needs of a student.  It reveals MCPS attitudes towards the legitimacy of homeschooling.  And it shows that the Centers, and middle school magnets are essentially mechanisms to hold the the brightest kids in MCPS from advancing too quickly.  Meanwhile in “regular” school there is no GT there “there.”

Read Full Post »

While the statement “Child Enrolls in MCPS Middle School” shouldn’t be news, here in Montgomery County it is when the child in question is a qualified and gifted nine-year old.  As blogged about a few days ago, Kumar Singam’s daughter was enrolled and welcomed as an incoming 6th grader at Cabin John Middle School on July 22, only to have that enrollment rescinded on August 17, when higher up MCPS school officials insisted that the girl (who completed 5th grade as a homeschooler and has math ability several grades above that) be placed in elementary school with vague assurances that she would receive “advanced classes.”

On Monday, the first day of school, the Singams brought their daughter to Cabin John and were greeted by a phalanx of MCPS officials, who escorted them to a meeting which lasted 4 hours.  To his credit, Mr. Singam came well prepared with full documentation of his daughter’s ability.

Yesterday, Wednesday, I received the following good news from him:

After a week during which MCPS informed us that our daughter would fit into a Highly Gifted Center, and acknowledged that she was more than qualified for sixth-grade, last night at 10:31 p.m., Dr. Smith took matters into her own hands, and invited my child to her school.  In doing so, I believe, she went against Carver, and showed immense courage and fortitude.

My child was met by a principal who cried, and the chief of the guidance group who cried as well.  I can say with absolute conviction, now supported by events, that my child being kept out of school for two days was never about her academics.  Her academic achievement was measured by MCPS with its own yardstick….

My child was accepted after a social worker from MCPS stood up and said she could, and the principal, Dr. Smith, insisted she could.  Her academic instruction was never a bona fide issue.

If there were heroes in this story, I confess they were all women.  Women who showed the courage to stand up for what is right. I know Dr. Smith will suffer retribution and I hope that everyone passionate about GT will give this wonderful lady her due.  Write to her, write to MCPS (copy to her), and tell Carver we want more Dr. Smiths.  It is only by supporting women like her (and men, too) that GT education can find its feet within MCPS. I also hope that parents in GT will be front and center in ensuring that MCPS will never again keep a child out of school.

If this is a victory, then my daughter’s words describe its purpose well, “I hope Dad that everyone won’t be afraid to ask MCPS to do the right thing for their child.”  Personally, if my daughter’s wish comes through, I would feel it was all worthwhile.  Today belongs to the courageous women of this world, especially those who are an integral part of our community. As for men, well, we’ve hogged that stage too darn long!!

I thank everyone for their support and prayers.

Kumar

Excellent, excellent news.

While whole grade acceleration aka “grade skipping” isn’t for every child, it should be–as the good Dr. Weast likes to say–”on the table” as an accepted and acknowledged option for some children in this county.  I say this as a mom who is convinced that her daughter has suffered harm by not being allowed to accelerate beyond the MCPS norm in her areas of academic strength.

That Mr. Singam had to go to the lengths that he did to make his case (to the point of producing MCPS testing results which it claimed it didn’t have) is really unfortunate.

What Dr. Paulette Smith ultimately did took courage and makes an important statement for gifted education options not only here in Montgomery County but beyond.  You can show your support for her decision by writing to her  with copies to Superintendent Weast.  Commend her for making her decision based on what was best for the individual child, not the bureaucracy, and most of all, let her and Dr. Weast know the impact such a decision can have on our children.

The email addresses are:

  • Paulette_Smith@mcpsmd.org
  • Jerry_D_Weast@mcpsmd.org (and just in case, his assistant’s address is Suzanne_Peang-Meth@mcpsmd.org)

UPDATE 9/3: Mr. Singman has posted an account of these events. You can read

Why was my child barred from a Highly Gifted Center?

and

After two days, my child is allowed to attend public school

…Plus a comment from Mr. Singam below.

Read Full Post »

The setting:  An elementary school classroom anywhere in Montgomery County, Maryland.

The actors:  The parent of a second grade student, a teacher.

Parent:  Thank you for taking the time to see my today, Ms. Smith.

Teacher:  Thank you for coming in, Ms. Jones.  What can I do for you today?

Parent:  Well, I recently received the letter about the second grade GT screening and I have some questions about what it means. For example, the letter doesn’t include what the benchmarks are for the InView.  In fact, it doesn’t say if Emily met the benchmarks.  The letter did give the benchmarks for the Raven—but it doesn’t say what it means to score well above the benchmark.  And while it does give a percentile for the Raven, what does the percentile mean?  Is that a national standard?  A county standard?  Something else?

Teacher:   Hmmm.  Er.  Umm.  Well, you should know that Emily is doing very well.  She’s reading above grade level!  You have nothing to worry about.

Parent:  Umm.  Okay.  But I have some other questions as well.  Can you tell me—anonymously of course!—how these scores compare to the rest of the second graders with whom she’ll be receiving GT services?  Not just how many others “met the criteria”—no, no, I don’t want to know to show off! (pre-emptively conciliatory)—but to get a sense of how the kids are clustered.  In other words, does she have true peers, or not?  And can you share with me what the other teachers and staff said about her?  Even though she’s met the identification criteria, I see that some of her teachers have rated her below the criteria in some other areas, such as leadership.  As a parent, I’d like to know that.  That will tell me something about the services she’s receiving and any areas we need to work on with her.

Teacher: Um, uh, well, um.  We really can’t talk about other students or share those teacher evaluations.  But I can tell you that she is working above grade level and there are lots of other students who are also above grade level, so you have nothing to worry about.  As for services, (teacher brightens) we do Jacob’s Ladder and Junior Great Books, and in the second half of the year some students will get William and Mary…

Parent:  But it’s my understanding that Jacob’s Ladder is not a program for gifted students.  It’s “scaffolding” to help bring students up.

Teacher: Hmm.  I see you’ve done your homework (frowns slightly).

Parent:  And I’ve also heard that Junior Great Books and William and Mary are being offered to all students at all schools now.

Teacher:  Really? (Purses lips.) Well, our understanding is that it’s encouraged but not mandated.  Emily will get Jacobs Ladder and Junior Great Books starting next year in third grade…  Oh, and of course we’ll accelerate in math….

Parent: But if Junior Great Books is appropriate for all students then it isn’t really a GT “service,” is it?  Can you tell me what GT services will she be getting? She’s not a particularly mathy kid.  However she loves history and science…and she’s very creative….

Teacher:  Emily will receive William and Mary and we’ll accelerate in math.  You know we have this new initiative, The Seven Keys….

Parent:  But William and Mary doesn’t start until until after January, right?

Teacher:  Yes, we do William and Mary units in the spring.

Parent:  And the kids identified as GT do this?

Teacher:  Well, all students can benefit from William and Mary and will rotate through, starting in spring of third grade.

Parent:  (Sensing annoyance, goes in new direction) That’s another thing I’ve always wondered.  Is there a reason our school doesn’t offer Junior Great Books in K through 2?  I know from a friend that at some other schools they do.  In some cases parents do it as volunteers.  I know there are some parents here who might be willing–I know I would….

Teacher: (Coolly) You’ll have to take that up with the principal.  I am sure there are reasons why we haven’t done it.  Though with so many students it wouldn’t be fair for only some to receive it.  We start William and Mary and Junior Great Books in third grade and there will be lots of opportunities for Emily to receive rigorous instruction.  My, look at the clock!  I do need to go now.  But thank you so much for stopping by Ms. Jones and if you ever have any questions please do feel free to ask.

Read Full Post »

Hope everyone, like me, has taken a few days away from the keyboard to enjoy a relaxed long  weekend and some prelude-to-summer weather.  On Saturday our community pool opened and and without fail, we were there.  It’s always kind of bizarre, because it feels like we never left.  Same people on the same chairs, often in the same bathing suits.  Groundhog Day.  Only the kids change.  (More bizarre:  running into pool people during the winter, fully clothed, completely out of context.) Sunday was another picnic and yesterday I redeemed a Mother’s Day massage certificate.  Aaaah.

However the clouds have rolled in, thunder is rumbling in the distance and so it’s inside and back to the computer for me.

One thing I want to highlight is a document that came my way a week or so ago.  It’s the handout that accompanied the Powerpoint presentation given by the Office of Accelerated and Enriched Curriculum at the May 14 AEI Advisory Committee Meeting. (Sorry for the poor quality.)

The presentation covered:

  • What is MCPS doing this year?
  • What are other districts doing?
  • What is MCPS planning for the future?

The overview of what other counties in Maryland is doing is very interesting.  Right now things appear to be at a balancing point in terms of the GT label in Maryland.  According to a state GT official I spoke with last month, as Montgomery County goes, so goes the state.  And this person is  worried.  The “services not labels” model that was embraced a few years back, in his/her opinion, has proven to be a mistake.

To its credit, AEI recognizes that “it is difficult to address a problem if it is not easily seen.” (Slides on page 9).  Absolutely, hence the push for the explicit inclusion of a GT goal in the SIPs by GT advocates.  And also to its credit AEI wants to move to better monitoring and reporting, which currently is abysmal.  However let’s be honest, AEI itself hasn’t exactly made it things transparent.  They flat out refuse to discuss and examine why we have a 40% identification rate, a rate which is significantly higher than any jurisdiction that I know of.   (Give me a plausible explanation and I’ll stop writing about it.)  And they dance around what this 40% MCPS GT identification rate means specifically in terms of delivery of services to the *full spectrum* of students that finds itself in neighborhood schools–not every highly gifted-plus student enters a Center program or magnet.  I guess they see these kids as rounding errors in the grand scheme of things.

Further, the changes they are proposing are going to take another decade and a considerable investment of resources–in a time when the entire system’s budget is being cut.  People with students in the system right now will see few changes as their kids move through MCPS.  Reportedly, AEI is hurt that parents haven’t come out strongly to support the AEI budget. I would argue that lack of visible support at budget meetings is a) a vote of no confidence–at this point, I’m not convinced that AEI staff actually believes that giftedness exists and is willing to go to bat for gifted students within MCPS.  Not “all” students, but gifted students.  And b) simply a case of GT advocates stretched way too thin and spending their time where it’s most effective (like, with their families, at the pool).

Read Full Post »

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 »

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.