Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘MAP-R’

MCPS Parent Manifesto

Posted in Gifted, School, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 5, 2009 | 7 Comments »

I know that the letters of acceptance–and rejection–for the MCPS elementary school Centers for the Highly Gifted went out this week. How?  No, it’s not just the e-mails from friends, letting me know the results for their own child.  No, it’s not the anguished/peeved posts to listservs by parents wondering how their above average, straight A students could have been rejected.

Rather, I can see it in the search terms that are showing up on my blog. Down are the predictable “cleavage,” “pencils,” “bomb” (thanks to a highly popular term used in my RennFest post; a very attractive photo of pencils I once used; an unusual photo of a bomb, I guess).  Up are various combinations of “mcps” “Montgomery County, MD” “highly gifted center” and “appeal.”

To those parents who have found themselves turning to Google about this gifted and talented stuff and landing here for the first time, I say, “welcome!”

And as I put myself in your shoes, I can’t help but get angry that so little progress has been made since I was in your shoes.  Yes, MCPS now gives parents actual numbers and the mean scores of selected students in verbal, quantitative and nonverbal areas-a good thing.  (Years ago, you just got a yes/no.)  But I find it outrageous that parents are still not told what tests are used!  This is like the doctor sending you a letter with some lab report numbers and a hearty, “Don’t worry, you’re fine.”  What’s “fine?”  In what way?  Compared to whom?  This stuff matters!

I find it that outrageous that after all these years the selection process is still not explained.  I find it outrageous that parents still have to piece together what the appeals process is.  And so I have to ask, why do parents continue to put up with this?  Frankly, it’s insulting.  It’s paternalistic.  Why do parents allow MCPS to deny them full information in this and so many other realms of their child’s education?

As it happens, I am still trying to get a complete set of records for M.  At this point I am about 7 or 8 phone calls deep with MCPS trying to find who might have her complete MAP-R records and the full results of her testing for the Center and Magnet programs.  Why?  Because I believe it’s my right.  And because I want to demonstrate, if only for myself, what a disaster the current assessment/articulation/”delivery of services” for gifted students in MCPS is and has been.  (Wouldn’t it be important for, say a neighborhood middle school, to know which kids tested for the magnets and at how high a level they are performing?  For the parents to know what tests were used and the results, so they could effectively advocate for “services?”)

This is not rocket science, people.   This is about writing words on a letter, writing words on a website, moving pieces of paper from Point A to Point B and someone actually looking at them.

So here’s a little “manifesto” I’ve put together.  Let me know what you think.

  • I have a right to know what testing instruments are being used in the 2nd grade global GT screening and when my child tests for Centers for the Highly Gifted and/or middle school magnet programs.
  • I have a right to know how those tests are normed.  I have a right to know my child’s scores as both raw scores and percentiles.  I have a right to complete testing information and sufficient information to interpret the results in a meaningful way.  I have right to know the decision process for entrance into these special programs–and the appeal process after the decision is made.
  • I want the fact that my child took tests for the admittance to the Centers for the Highly Gifted and/or middle school magnet noted in my child’s file. (Note: No record in M.’s files)
  • I want the results of tests for the admittance to the Centers for the Highly Gifted and/or middle school magnet programs included in my child’s file in order to inform instructional decisions, and to follow him/her throughout his/her school career. (Note: No records in her files.)
  • I have a right to the full MAP-R parent report (not just a number pointed to quickly if I happen to attend the parent-teacher conference. The full individual student reports, as seen here on pages 7-9 of this .pdf) sent/given to me every time the MAP-R test is administered to my child. (Note: I was only able to talk the reading specialist out of it one year…MAP-R has never been shared with me as a matter of course. Meanwhile, here’s a helpful sample provided by the test publisher.)
  • I want the cumulative MAP-R tests to appear in my child’s file and to follow him/her throughout his/her school career just as math assessment data does. (Note: There was NO MAP-R data in M’s file “permanent record.”)

I did share this with some friends.  Here’s how one responded regarding the MAP-R:

They only care about targeting the kids at the cusp of making proficient.  That is the sole reason for the MAP-R.  That is why they paid for it in the first place, because MAP-R fall performance correlates strongly with Spring MSA performance, and it gives them data to anticipate what they are likely to expect.  It is more crucial in schools where groups are at risk of not making AYP/missing targets.  but again — the real purpose of the MAP-R is to catch those kids at the cusp, and target massive test prep to them.  The ones who score high are assured of scoring advanced, so the school doesn’t need to do anything with those kids except hide their data, because otherwise parents will demand something other than incessant test prep.

And the last thing they would want to do is keep a record of it in the kid’s permanent record, so that you could see over time how little gains your advanced child is making (or, how much they are making – -entirely on their own!).

Read Full Post »

Permanent Record

Posted in Gifted, School, tagged , , , , , , , , , , on March 21, 2009 | 2 Comments »

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

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

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

And that’s it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read Full Post »

Once More to the Barricades

Posted in Gifted, School, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on February 17, 2009 | 9 Comments »

I’d been putting it off.  I’d been hoping that I wouldn’t have to go there.  But after continued pleas from M. and no signs of any changes as a result of my fall advocacy efforts on her behalf, last Monday I sent an e-mail to the principal and the literacy coach, asking for an update on academic goals for M. as we move into the second half of the year.  The timing was probably right.  Three days later, on Thursday, M. flat-out refused to go to school.  She swore she wasn’t behind in her schoolwork. She just didn’t want to go, for all the reasons I’ve been hearing all school year.

By that point I was just about exploding.  I am SO fed up dealing with this. I was mad at her for not getting with the program and liking school–like hundreds! and thousands! of other kids–even after all these months.  I loved school as a kid!  I was mad at the school for not being able to make her like school.  I was feeling sorry for myself that for some reason I was the only mother I knew of who was having these issues.  And in the heat of the moment I said to myself…and then to Husband Dear…. Screw it.  I’m going to homeschool.  I don’t care how impossible it seems, I can do it, I’ll talk to my boss.  We can do it.  We will make it work.  View it as a four month sabbatical, and then reassess for 7th grade.  There’s no way it can be worse.

So on Friday, Husband Dear (whose day off it was)  and I went to the previously scheduled meeting (because you always need to go armed with testosterone and another set of ears).  I also know that one should always go in knowing what you want the outcome to be.  I was going in without any expectation of any positive or concrete outcome–and with serious thoughts of homeschooling brewing.  Were they all of a sudden going to announce a subject skip for her?  Independent study or a small grouping with other kids at M.’s level?  No.  And what could they realistically do anyway when it’s really, as some students of mine used to say, “a general malaise.” So the meeting was about satisfying my curiosity.  Knowing they would and could do nothing, what would they say?

We waited for 15 minutes and then were shown into the principal’s office.  The reading coach and the English content specialist were already there.  After introductions I recapped the issues:  M. is feeling underchallenged and she doesn’t want to come to school.  The principal listened carefully and asked some questions, trying to ascertain if this was an academic issue or a social issue, just in English or other subjects as well.  We cast it as academic, focusing on English because that’s an area of strength.  It’s social to the extent that M. doesn’t feel she has an academic peer group.  But “social” in terms of does she have friends, kids she eats lunch with, jokes around with..is she “okay?” That’s not the issue at all.  (How does one diplomatically say that the entire school experience has become a soul suck?)

The principal asked the literacy coach, have you spoken with M.?  You know, I chimed in, to get a sense of her vocabulary, what books she likes, a sense of her intellect and engagement.  Um, no.  She was working with the teacher through observations and feedback to increase the rigor and critical thinking.  Three times in the course of the meeting she used the word “pedagogy.”  I just about died.

I mentioned that M. had told me that they were going to do a unit on Langston Hughes for the poetry unit.  M. said she did the exact same unit last year.  The principal and specialists smiled, “Well, the truth is that most students probably would be doing a Langston Hughes poetry unit every year.  It’s how the curriculum spirals.”  The principal likened it to doing Shakespeare over multiple years.  I have nothing against Langston Hughes…but these are the exact same worksheets.  And I know for a fact that the kids in the Humanities magnet are not doing Langston Hughes.  In fact, they just finished reading the The Good Earth and The Red Scarf Girl.  M. is reading California Blue.  When I voiced my frustration over the spiraling curriculum… over the inability to accelerate in language arts… over how maddening it is for kids who get it the first time, they were eager to tell me about the new 7th grade English curriculum that will be rolled out next year as part of middle school reform, modeled on the magnet curriculum.  Nice.  But that’s next year.

I asked if they had M.’s MAP-R scores handy.  They eagerly pulled them out.  Evidently M.’s scores had gone up a healthy amount between the fall and winter testing (unlike her sister, whose scores *dropped* three years running in elementary and middle school. Hello!)  What’s more they showed us the class results.  I was so surprised (all the names were with the data) that it took me some time to focus on M.’s scores, and then figure out where she stood in the class.  I wish I had photographic memory, or had thought to scribble down the class low as well, so that I could have gotten a sense of the range encompassed by this GT class (I think there were kids in the high 40s).  But it all went so fast I didn’t really have a chance to focus on anything other than M. had the second highest scores in the class.

They also pulled out M.’s grades from last semester, noting the teacher’s comment that M. needed to work on her writing, and pointing out an assignment where she had an “x,” meaning not turned in.  Well, they’ve done almost no writing in that class–at least that I’ve seen.  Second, all the writing she has received back from the teacher has been graded as “excellent.”  And third, the assignment they singled out was done, just handed in too late.  She still ended the quarter with an A and a numerical grade in the mid 90s.  So much for that.

So what to do?  The principal said he/she wasn’t aware that other bright kids in M.’s class were unhappy, but would have the specialists check in with the teacher.  Implication, “You seem to be the only family which is having a problem and your kid isn’t even the smartest kid in the class.”  The principal invited us to come to the school any time and observe (which is to be commended, it’s not like that everywhere) hoping that to know them would be to love them, thinking perhaps that our perceptions about the school were just off.  Maybe.  The principal noted that M. could be given additional work, but there’s no extra credit in MCPS. And he/she rightly stated that the issue wasn’t really more work…it was different work.   And to that they just came up empty.

Read Full Post »

“MCPS Is Not Eliminating Gifted Programs” – A Closer Look

Posted in Gifted, School, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on December 26, 2008 | 1 Comment »

So, let’s take a closer look at the document released hastily by the Office of Accelerated and Enriched Instruction on December 24th, shall we?

The document entitled  “Montgomery County Public Schools is Not Eliminating Gifted Programs: Questions and Answers” seeks to provide answers and reassurance on the following questions:

  • What is the current process for gifted and talented identification?
  • What plans are under development to change the global screening process?
  • How would this new screening, articulation process work?
  • Will MCPS continue to have gifted and talented programs?
  • What is the timeline for any changes and how will public input be gathered?

Let’s start with the title.  Pay close attention to the use of the term “Gifted Programs.”  The only “gifted programs” in MCPS are the Centers for the Highly Gifted, the elementary magnet at Takoma which is basically non-existent at this point, the application/test-in middle school magnets, and the application/test-in high school magnets.”  Outside of these programs there is no “gifted program” in MCPS schools! There is no “gifted curriculum.” GT middle school classes follow the same, standard MCPS grade level curriculum.  What’s more, there is in fact a move afoot toward heterogeneous classrooms, with one-size-fits-all curricula, particularly at middle school. The use of “gifted program” is to assure parents with kids in those special programs–most other people read it and think/assume this means GT programming in local schools…which is non-existent outside some acceleration in math.  For all the students remaining in “regular” schools, the operative word is “services” which is as ad hoc and opaque as it sounds.

To the first point, the current situation.  The paper states that “after making recommendations for instruction, the AEI committee uses the multiple criteria to identify students as gifted and talented.  Decisions not to identify cannot bar any student from receiving accelerated and enriched instruction.”  Well, actually they do.  That second grade screening identifies which students should be tested still further for admittance to the Centers for the Highly Gifted.  And you can be sure that a student not identified as GT cannot receive that accelerated and enriched instruction.  In fact, many kids who ARE GT can’t get into the Centers.  Same with the magnets.  Now as  for any other class…well the policy is that any parent can ask that their child be placed in an more challenging class and has the final say.  But as many parents know, easier said than than done.

The next point.  The paper states that “Contrary to reports in a recent Washington Post article, there are no plans to discontinue labeling of students for this school year.”  Note the wording:  for this school year.  Clearly this has already been decided.  It’s coming. It’s just a matter of when, according to AEI. So much for “robust discussion with parents and community stakeholders.”  Kabuki.

The new screening process that eliminates labeling in favor of services  is described as a huge advance for parents (I can just hear Kay Williams’ soothing tones).  Parents would be “provided the recommendations from the screening so that they are fully informed of their children’s readiness to excel at a higher level.  Students are then provided advanced work based on the results of the screening process, consultation with parents, and the ongoing assessment of the students’ needs.”  Sounds lovely, no? But anyone who has been in a parent-teacher meeting, anyone who has gone through an EMT or tried to get an IEP enforced knows how much “consultation” happens.  And if the use of MAP-R data is any guide, why should anyone believe promises of “providing recommendations from screening?  (MCPS has collected–and closely scrutinized–MAP-R data for something like five or six years and to my knowledge no school currently routinely shares that information with parents.  Why?  Because all holy hell would break out if parents knew that their kids are reading several grades above level and would start demanding “services.”)  So how does this new proposed regime, which gives parents even less information make things better?

As one mom wrote in the comments section of the Dec. 16 Post article:

[A]t our no-label school, we get test scores with virtually no information about what they mean. Without the label, it is hard to hold the school accountable for meeting the needs of our kids. It gives us parents less information to work with and makes being our kids advocate that much more challenging. “Gifted” labelling may not be politically correct, but explain that to the smart kid who is bored all day because schools are being held less accountable to differentiate lessons for him.

How would the articulation process work?  “Rather than a one time screening that results in a label, a systematized, ongoing process of screening would be implemented.  Beginning in Grade 2, students would be recommended for advanced level work in reading language arts and mathematics based on a  similar set of data used in the global screening process.”

What is “a similar set of data?”  They already use teacher and parent input, resulting in crazy high GT identification rates.  What more could they use that they aren’t using already.  Or is it everything but the Raven and InView?  And what is “advanced level work?” Does that mean out of grade level acceleration for all subjects?  What of social studies and science? Oh, those aren’t important for NCLB.

AEI protests that “Reducing programs that serve students ready for challenging coursework would be counterproductive to the MCPS strategic plan’s goals to increase the number of students successfully performing at high levels.”  Secret is, the strategic plan’s goals are not high-level goals.  In other venues AEI has asserted that its “Star Trajectory benchmarks” are both GT objectives and objectives intended to be achieved by 80 percent of students.  So how does that address gifted students?  To quote one of my favorite movies, “when every one is super, no one will be.”

My take-away?  MCPS is redefining the gifted population to the 3-4% of students in the special gifted programs.  MPCS will be in compliance with state law in terms of screening for those students and providing them “services.” It will “label” what many typically think is the “right amount” for identified giftedness versus the ridiculous 40% we have now.

Meanwhile, “Gifted” will cease to exist in “regular” schools…not only in name (witness the whole “no labels” issue), but in practice (hello hetergeneous classes!) as they talk up “rigor” and “high standards for all.”

Read Full Post »

“Rigor” Committee Meeting

Posted in Gifted, School, tagged , , , , , , , on December 4, 2008 | 3 Comments »

As I blogged last month, I’ve been sucked back in to GT school advocacy, most notably to sit on the school’s “SIP” or School Improvement Plan meetings. And because of my rather direct feedback, I was asked to come back for a follow-up meeting on the “rigor” portion of the SIP.

It was a rather awkward meeting. Scheduled for 8:30 a.m. (so I had to take time off from work), I arrived a few minutes late due to traffic, and thus was thrown in quite abruptly, without the pre-meeting niceties. What’s more the Literacy Coach went straight to my first critical comment from the SIP meeting, namely that the goal of increasing the number of students in GT classes is essentially meaningless. That they can put as many kids as they want into a GT class, but it tells me nothing about the rigor of the class itself.

I wasn’t at my most articulate and I could tell the resource teacher (who functions as a master teacher/resource person) and the school-wide magnet coordinator were rather offended. The coordinator stressed that there is a careful process in deciding on GT placement, a “decision tree” is used. But I raised the point because in reality anyone can ask to be placed into a GT class–and there are strong external, institutional pressures to increase the numbers. (A friend of mine who supervises teachers and was a long term middle school sub last year told me as much.) My concern is that if everything/everyone is GT, then nothing/no one is. The resource teacher said there had to be an element of trust that the class instruction was GT. I didn’t have the presence of mind to say it then, but in my follow-up e-mail I wrote:

Regarding the “GT-ness” of GT classes, [Resource Teacher] asked for trust. I will quote President Reagan, who once said, “trust…but verify.

I also raised the idea of using MAP-R as an indicator for high performing students, and requested that the MAP-R results be shared with parents. In my e-mail I wrote:

As a parent observing this process, I believe in the maxim “that which is measured, gets done,” which is why I think it is important to explicitly address the academic growth of students who are already working at an advanced level. The MSA is an on-grade measure. Many students are already scoring at the “advanced” level. Is there a way, somewhere in the SIP, to express a commitment to their growth as well? I am a big proponent of the MAP-R because it allows for out-of-level assessment. It strikes me that the MAP-R can play an important role in monitoring and communicating a commitment to growth for all students.

They seemed interested. MCPS puts puts enormous stock in the MAP-R for tracking the progress of low-performing students. Why not high performing ones? I’ve heard via an MCPS parent that an MCPS official told him, “MAP-R doesn’t measure effective teaching, but measures a kid’s status (brought from home).” Huh? Then why does MCPS use it to gauge progress of low performing students, if not to measure progress made through the efforts of the school’s intervention? A MAP-R document linked from the MCPS website states,

“As we improve education, we expect that students in our districts will achieve at higher levels and grow more rapidly. The RIT scores and mean growth values in these tables should be considered as typical or indicative of student performance at each grade level. They should not be considered as long-term goals, stopping points or expectations.”

MCPS goes through that data with a fine toothed comb, with MAP-R data by school, grade, class and individual student. Parents don’t have a clue and don’t know to ask for it (which they shouldn’t have to). Perhaps if they saw that Susie or Johnny aren’t showing growth, they’d start raising a little hell. C. had negative growth during the school year three years running. I think that should have raised some questions. Unfortunately I didn’t know until it was too late.

In any case, the people at my meeting freely admitted that the SIP goals are mandated from above. And if you look at the few middle school SIPS that are available online, you’ll see that they’re all pretty much the same: Raise the % of kids in GT/advanced courses, raise the % of kids scoring advanced on the MSA and raise the numbers of kids on the honor roll (Side note: Are my standards impossibly high, or is it not right that you can have a C and still be on honor roll? You can in MCPS.). Given the pro forma nature of the SIP, it makes me wonder what a SIP looks like at one of the high flying, high performing middle schools in the green zone part of the county. What could their goals possibly be? I have a contact who I hope is going to help me get my hands on one of those SIPS.

After the formal meeting ended I spent some time talking to the Literacy Coach. She’s new, comes from a special ed background, doesn’t live in MoCo and thus isn’t familiar with all the politics of the red zone or GT for that matter. She wasn’t familiar with the area magnets. Wasn’t familiar with Hoagiesgifted.org, which I consider the motherlode for anyone the slightest bit interested in GT issues. Also told her about the Educators Guild at the Davidson Institute. She seemed very interested to learn more, said several times that “we are on the same page” and was eager for me to work with her/help her on AEI (Accelerated and Enriched Instruction) issues.

Later that day I got some feedback from the principal:

In response to some of the questions raised about our SIP – thank you for the feedback. This is why it helps to have a different set of eyes. We will revisit the language that is used in our action plans to reflect our focus on rigor. Because the SIP goals must have a measurable outcome, we included the information regarding increasing # of students enrolled in GT classes, and increasing the # of students scoring advanced on the MSA. The action plans should then have more specific objectives to address how we provide rigorous instruction for ALL students. Again, we will revisit this and any additional feedback is certainly appreciated.

I still don’t think they get that these *goals* leave out students who are *already* advanced. Where is the measurable outcome for them?

Read Full Post »

Help Me Brainstorm

Posted in Gifted, School, tagged , , , , , , , , on November 22, 2008 | 4 Comments »

Just when I think I can’t be surprised, I’m surprised.

Yesterday I got an e-mail from the Literacy Coach. She wrote that she is planning a meeting to discuss and possibly make revisions to the Rigor portion of the SIP (school improvement plan) and to also further brainstorm ways to enhance the Accelerated and Enriched Instruction program at the school. Would Tuesday work?

I would love for you to participate in this process. I believe you have some important insights worth sharing in a collaborative work session

Other participants will be the AEI/Math Content Specialist, another specialist in the building, and the Professional Development Teacher who leads the coordination of our SIP. (BTW, I now have a copy of the 2008-2009 SIP.)

I e-mailed the PTA president. Did she know about this meeting? She didn’t but was happy to hear about it. Was this meeting at the initiative of the Literacy coach or someone else? Don’t know. After the SIP meeting I had sent the PTA president some information about what another area school was including in its SIP, namely specific writing requirements. She fired it off to the principal (yikes! I was very blunt in my email and frank about what I saw as shortcomings in our school’s plan), so maybe it had the principal’s blessing.

So now I have to come up with some ideas. One is to use MAP-R data. To begin with, they can look at the data of 7th and 8th grade students who scored advanced on the MSA and see if they made a year’s progress on the MAP-R. If not, well then we clearly know there is a problem in serving GT kids at the school. They need to share that MAP-R data. The other issue is the curriculum itself. Supposedly there is a GT curriculum which has “pathways, extensions and scaffolding.” I want to see it. There has to be something between the standard MCPS curriculum…and the humanities magnet curriculum.

More thinking to do over the weekend, but if readers have any brilliant suggestions of how as school can be held accountable for meeting the needs of “highly able learners” in a No Child Left Behind challenged school, please share!

Read Full Post »

Frustrated Scream

Posted in Gifted, School, tagged , , , , , , , , , on November 11, 2008 | 3 Comments »

I just got off the phone with the “Literacy Coach.” The same one who I spoke with last week in the afterglow of Election Night (cue the glitter, unicorns and bunnies). The one who said she was going to make a recommendation that M. be placed in 7th grade GT English.

Well, she had her meeting with the principal–and the decision was to retain M. in her current English class and have the Literacy Coach work with the teacher to help her modify instruction for M. The subject acceleration was denied out of “concerns for the long term effects.” I could have completed her next sentence after the first few words, “Though she would be in 7th grade English for 6th grade….and 8th grade English for 7th grade…. what would happen in 8th grade?“

AAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHH!!!!! (Sound of head exploding.)

They were also “concerned about the social aspect.” They wanted to “ensure she was socializing with her peers and adjusting.”

AAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!

Deep breaths, deep breaths. Don’t rip anyone’s head off.

She continued that while M.’s Fall MAP-R scores were “pretty high” (95th percentile, I finally got them) there were some weaknesses in writing. (There’s always another shoe.) When I sweetly asked what the assessment of her writing was based on, she said it was based on talking to the teacher, samples from the class…. Um, a stammer…”artifacts,” meaning information from her file last year. Nothing really concrete. It was mostly mostly spelling issues, she assured me. It’s not an obstacle, and they wouldn’t hold her back based on that. I asked if M. was an outlier or if there were others in her class functioning at her level. She couldn’t say; she hadn’t looked at the other kids. But she said that there were lots of others scoring well in that class.

Deep breaths, deep breaths. I didn’t react one way or the other…just was non-committal, taking this all in. Sign off with open-ended niceties. Hang up.

Now. Out loud. AAARRRRGGGGHHH!!!!!

So the reading specialist confers with the teacher and recommends a subject acceleration, only to have the the principal reject it on the tritest, most bogus grounds: “What will we do in 8th grade?? Answer: You can figure it the hell out in 8th grade! Right now your job is to worry about RIGHT NOW. And if the “Literacy Coach” and the teacher–professionals both–recommend 7th grade English, well then by golly, you should probably take their professional recommendation. Who’s to even say we would still be at this freaking school in two years time?

As for the social issue, PUH-LEASE! We are talking one grade, for one class with a kid who is incredibly well-adjusted socially. We’re not asking to put an 8 year old into a class with 15 year olds. And of course we wouldn’t even be having this conversation if the subject were math.

I call Rockville once more, and speak once more to the sympathetic RLA instructional specialist. With her, I feel can be a bit more honest about my feelings/frustrations. I tell her the story and I can tell she is very surprised about the verdict of the reading coach. And the response of the principal. I tell her that my kid is miserable at this school and wants to go to the magnet. She’s duly pessimistic, especially since we already did an appeal and were denied. She tells me who to talk to but does offer a caution. To her immense credit she had pulled up M.’s scores. And according to her there are 50 kids at or above that level at M.’s current school. Half the kids in M.’s GT English class are in that same range (really?). So they do have other kids and based on this data M. is not an outlier, which would otherwise bolster the case. Also, in the magnet M.’s MAP-R, although at 95%, would put her in the lower range of students there. That said, there are students with both higher and lower scores in the program.

The AEI woman stressed to me, “she deserves to be instructed at her level. It’s their responsibility. They have to have a plan.” She used my favorite construct when talking to school officials: “Well, if it were my child….” She told me to say the following,” Could you please provide me with your plan for identifying M.’s specific needs and how you plan to address them through classroom instruction.” They should know what the next steps are. They should know the areas where she needs to develop. So what are the next steps and how are they going to get her there?

Naturally she advised that we give them some time to let them respond and make some changes. Which drives me nuts. I’ve played this game before. The longer you wait, the harder it is to make changes. Meanwhile, your kid is living unhappy dog years. Every unhappy day that passes is a week for a kid.

Read Full Post »

“In the Tank” on Gifted Issues

Posted in Gifted, School, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 26, 2008 | 3 Comments »

Jumping back into the school-level GT advocacy fray, I decided to attend last week’s GT Liaison Fall Training Meeting organized by the Montgomery County Council of Parent-Teacher Association (MCCPTA). The meeting was held at an up-county high school, terra incognito land for me, so I was happy to get a ride. (You know who you are. Thanks!)

Unlike years past, when the meeting was held in a high school auditorium, this year it was in a cafeteria, with participants seated at (uncomfortable) cafeteria tables. I signed in, grabbed some water, and took a seat. I was told attendance was sparse (maybe 30 people?) because it coincided with one of the numerous magnet dog and pony shows that take place at this time of year.

The MCCPTA committee chair opened the meeting, taking great pains at several junctures in the evening to point out how privileged we were to be graced with the presence of such high ranking MCPS policy makers: Stephen Bedford, Chief School Performance Officer, Office of School Performance; Erick Lang, Associate Superintendent, Curriculum and Instructional Programs; Marty Creel, Director of Department of Enriched and Innovative Programs and Kay Williams, Director, Accelerated and Enriched Instruction (AEI). Um, isn’t it their job to meet with parents? Don’t they work for us?

Then, explicitly referencing Mr. Rogers, she donned a jacket embroidered with a huge globe and multi-culti children and–in the tone of a preschool teacher–reminded us that we represent everyone and that the “gifted” label should no longer be the purpose of the global gifted screening program. “It’s about services,” she intoned. Talk about condescending. Talk about being “in the tank” (to use a popular election season term). Okay, so these are supposed to be the parent leaders vigorously advocating for gifted issues on behalf of parents in the county? Because we know that there are other forces actively working against gifted identification and gifted education (see this), who have the ear of MCPS.

Presentations, which I’ll skip as the info is all on the MCPS website, were followed by Q&A via questions passed up to the front on notecards. I had three. (Hat tip to parent advocate Fred Stichnoth, whose notes on the questions are quoted here.)

  • Elimination of 2nd grade global screening? Mr. Creel said that MCPS was not eliminating the second-grade screening, but was “discussing” moving beyond the binary labeling of students as gifted or not gifted to recommending services for the students. (Note: Hmmm. Per state law they can’t ditch it, but they can diminish it.)
  • Use of Map-R data? Ms. Williams said that the MAP-R reading score was just one data point to assist teachers in making instructional decisions and therefore was not automatically sent out to all parents. Parents could request the score from the school. AEI is in the process of establishing literacy benchmarks that will use the MAP-R score. (Note: Ask for it? Why? Why, why, why? Because parents might ask questions? Because they’re not smart enough to interpret the data? How many parents know they can ask?)
  • Elimination of homogeneous grouping in middle school? Ms. Williams said that the grouping decision is made by the principal based on the needs of the school’s students; it is not made by the central office. If a school opts for heterogeneous grouping, then “GT instruction” becomes the basis for instruction of the entire class, and “scaffolding” is provided to assist lower ability students. AEI, and data points, assure that the level of expectations does not drop, and that teachers do not pitch instruction down toward the middle-ability level at which the bulk of the class performs.

This last question is crucial. If your child attends a “Red Zone school,” there is enormous political pressure on principals to group heterogeneously. Differentiation, parents are told, will ensure that everyone’s needs are met. And yet it is precisely in these Red Zone schools where the the extremes of student ability are greatest, that differentiation is least likely to be possible or effective, and that high ability students are most likely not to have their needs met. If everything is “GT,” nothing is GT.

As Fred comments,

MCPS ignore[s] the grievous inequity of educational opportunities between schools–those in the red zone versus those in the green zone. Green zone students, on average, are of higher ability than red zone students, on average; and the green zone classroom is more homogeneous in student ability level than the red zone classroom. Nevertheless, there are many red zone students, of all racial, ethnic and wealth groups, with high ability. However, in these high ability red zone students’ very heterogeneous classrooms, with average teachers, the instructional pitch is reduced to target the large, middle ability, cohort. The educational program is not optimized for high ability red zone students: they are left behind as compared with green zone students of similar ability. The crucial instructional pitch problem can be avoided only by placing a homogeneous group before the teacher.

There were lots of other good questions.

  • Center v. local students. Parents asked how Center and Magnet students differed from local school students, and what programs were available in Centers and Magnets that are not available in local schools. Mr. Creel stated that Center/Magnet students are those whose needs “cannot be easily met” in the local school. These students are quite advanced relative to their peers—in the top 1-2% of students—for whom Math two years above grade level is not sufficient. (Note: Now can they PLEASE clearly communicate this to the larger community? However no mention of the needs of verbally gifted kids.)
  • Local school GT. Several parents asked about the availability in the local schools of accelerated and enriched services to students who do not attend Centers and Magnets. Mr. Bedford stated that students should need neither the “GT label” nor a special Center or Magnet program to receive services. He referred to MCPS’ benchmarks: reading in Grades K-2, scoring advanced on the MSA’s, Grade 5 advanced Math, Algebra and AP/IB. He said that there are programs that can satisfy students and parents in the local school. (Note: snort.)
  • Parent recourse/principal recalcitrance. Several parents asked what should be done if the principal resists providing high-level services. Mr. Bedford advised that the parent meet first with the principal and then, if unsatisfied, with the Director of School Performance or the Community Superintendent. (Note: It’s discouraging that year after year, this question is asked. It is important for newbie MCPS parents to know: AEI merely serves an advisory/resources function. It has no “enforcement” power. Instructional decisions rest largely at the school level, with principals meant to respond to carrots and sticks from above.)

I could go into greater depth, but thanks to Fred’s amazingly detailed and thorough notes I don’t have to. If you are at all interested in GT issues in Montgomery County I urge you to sign onto the GTA listserv, check out the files section and educate yourself.

Heck, even if you don’t live in MoCo, I urge you to sign up. MCPS is one of the largest suburban school systems in the country and is frequently held up as a national exemplar. Our Superindentent’s name has at times been floated as a possible Secretary of Education…so what’s happening here may be coming your way some day soon.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.