1. Gifted and Talented Education Policy and Resolutions Currently Under Discussion
   • Here is the current policy IOA
   • Here is a link to one of the possible MCCPTA Resolutions
   • Here is the MODIFIED MCCPTA Resolution
   • Here is the link to a comparison of the two resolutions
2. Other Resources
   • To see many many listserve postings on these issues, see yahoogroup GTALetters
   • To read the Piney Branch Elementary PTA discussion of these issues:
     http://sites.google.com/site/pbespta/Home/debate-over-g-t-label
     
   • To see many resources in general on GT issues:  http://www.mccpta.com/gt.html
   • To see many other resources on GT issues: http://www.gtamc.org/
   • Background documents
3. Discussion Highlights
   • General opposition to the revision of policy IOA
   • An argument that the original MCCPTA resolution is supportive enough of parent concerns with the proposed revisions of policy IOA
   • An argument that the modified resolution is better because it calls for some implementation requirements

Gifted and Talented Education Policy and Resolutions Currently Under Discussion | TOP

Montgomery County School Board is considering a change in Policy IOA, which focuses on Gifted and Talented Education.  The Board of Education may consider a vote in April (or possibly next year) on proposed changes to this policy.  The proposed changes have not been made public.

The MCCPTA is very involved in discussions of the policy revision.  The MCCPTA is developing resolutions on the revisions to encourage the Board of Education to make the language of the policy stronger.  The Gifted Child Committee of the MCCPTA is putting forth a proposal to encourage the Board of Education to make the language in the policy clear in supporting the needs of all students who require accelerated and enriched education.  In advance of the Board of Education vote, the MCCPTA will vote on a related resolution.  Depending on what amendments are accepted, Montgomery County PTA Delegates will vote on March 24 on either the MCCPTA Resolution below and/or the more recent Modified MCCPTA Resolution below, or some other version created through the amendments process.

A basic rationale behind both MCCPTA proposed resolutions is that, while the County is pushing to make policy more generic in nature, so that regulation can be more flexibly implemented, parents are concerned that in the absence of clear policy guidance, implementation may end up far short of the intent of the policy.  

Here is the current policy IOA: | TOP
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/policy/pdf/ioa.pdf

The proposed changes are not yet public knowledge.

Here is a link to one of the possible MCCPTA Resolutions | TOPhttp://www.mccpta.com/resolutions/AEI_Resolution_Draft_20080108.pdf 

This is the one that will be first presented on March 24 for vote. There will be some calls at the meeting for an amendment to produce the newer modified resolution below.

Here is the MODIFIED MCCPTA Resolution | TOP
MODIFIED RESOLUTION

proposed amendments to Proposed Resolution on Accelerated and Enriched
Instruction from the MCCPTA Gifted Child Committee

Whereas:

MCPS Strategic Plan states that "A high-quality education is the
fundamental right of every child."

MCCPTA believes that, to ensure that right, every child should be
appropriately challenged in accordance with his or her academic
ability, motivation and interests.

MCCPTA passed a Resolution on Mathematics on April 24, 2001, a
Resolution on Wider Use of the Methodologies Used in Magnet Programs
on January 24, 2006, and a Resolution on Gifted and Talented
Curriculum in Middle Schools on April 25, 2006.

The MCPS Division of Accelerated and Enriched Instruction is working
on recommended changes to Policy IOA: Gifted and Talented Education
for the MCPS Board of Education's consideration in 2009.

Therefore be it Resolved:

MCPS must identify students who need additional academic challenge
beyond that which is provided to similar aged peers.

MCPS must continue to provide global screening for all students in
grade 2 to identify students who need additional academic challenge.

MCPS must provide additional screenings throughout elementary school,
middle school and high school to identify students who need
additional academic challenge.

MCPS must inform parents when their children are identified as needing
additional academic challenge and must inform parents of the
curricular and instructional programs through which those needs will
be met.

MCPS must provide students who need additional academic challenge
with instruction that is accelerated and enriched.

MCPS must ensure that accelerated and enriched instruction is
delivered consistently and with fidelity in every school across the
county.

MCPS must ensure that students who need additional academic challenge
(including all students who want such a challenge) are given a
balanced opportunity to work in homogeneous groups (open to all
students who want the challenge), heterogeneous groups (that allow
time with intellectual peers) and individually depending on the
content area and task involved.

MCPS must provide curriculum resources and professional development
to teachers and administrators to ensure that students who need
additional academic challenge (with all students who want the
challenge of such a program) are provided with accelerated and
enriched instruction in accordance with research-based best practices,
including sequenced and systematic higher level curricula in every
grade and core subject area.

MCPS must monitor the implementation and effectiveness of accelerated
and enriched instruction by identifying, collecting, analyzing,
monitoring and publishing key data measuring student participation and
performance significantly above grade level in grades K-12 in all core
subject areas.

In order to ensure consistent implementation and effectiveness of
accelerated and enriched instruction, Policy IOA, if and as changed as
recited above, should set forth implementation strategies and
establish specific responsibilities of MCPS offices and the Board of
Education; should continue to address primarily the education of
students who need additional academic challenge (and all students who
want the challenge of such a program); and should expressly mandate
homogeneous groups, higher level curricula and above grade level data
points as provided by this resolution.

Here is the link to a comparison of the original and the modified version of the resolution: | TOP
http://www.gtamc.org/Home/mccpta-resolution-gta-markup

OTHER RESOURCES | TOP

To see many many listserve postings on these issues, see yahoogroup GTALetters. | TOP

To read the Piney Branch Elementary PTA discussion of these issues | TOP
http://sites.google.com/site/pbespta/Home/debate-over-g-t-label

To see many resources in general on GT issues: | TOP
http://www.mccpta.com/gt.html

http://www.gtamc.org/

Background Documents: | TOP

MCCPTA Resolution on Mathematics
Approved by the MCCPTA Executive Board on March 29, 2001 and
Delegates Assembly on April 24, 2001
http://mccpta.com/bulletins/MathResolution.html

MCCPTA Resolution on Wider Use of the Methodologies Used in Magnet
Program
Approved by the MCCPTA Delegates on January 24, 2006
http://www.mccpta.com/resolutions/magnetprograms012406.pdf

MCCPTA Resolution on Gifted and Talented Curriculum in Middle Schools
Approved by the MCCPTA Delegates on April 25, 2006
http://www.mccpta.com/resolutions/gt042506.pdf

MCPS Policy IOA - Gifted and Talented Education (Currently Under
Review)
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/policy/pdf/ioa.pdf

MCPS Regulation- Gifted and Talented Education
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/policy/pdf/ioara.pdf

DISCUSSION HIGHLIGHTS | TOP
Below are two summaries of various views on the proposed policy change.  A key distinction in perspectives is concerned with how strong the PTA resolution should be, and to what extent it should include concerns about implementation of the county policy.

Opposition to the Revision of Policy IOA | TOP
The write-up below is from the Gifted and Talented Association (GTA) of Montgomery County, a parent-based non-profit that promotes and advocates for gifted education in the county.  GTA also hosts the infamous GTALetters listserve where everything you want to know about GT topics is discussed in an open forum.  You can join the listserve (and I do recommend you subscribe to the daily digest) at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GTAletters/join

While the position below is from the point of view of GTA, there is wide-spread agreement with this perspective.  Also, it provides a good snapshot of the major issues, how the current GT policy (called IOA) addresses the issues, how the current version of the policy revision addresses them, and why there is opposition to the current policy revision.  Having said that, as I mentioned at the TPES PTA meeting on Tuesday, there are opposing forces on each side of the issues.  Just as GTA has provided this summary, another group could provide one and point out a completely opposite view.  Hope this is helpful.

Opposition to Revision of Policy IOA

The Six Central Issues

1. Should the Policy pertain to gifted and talented education or to "all" students' education? 

            Existing Policy IOA: pertains to education of GT students (including both students identified by the second grade screening and those who are not identified but have the capability or motivation to accept the challenge of GT education). 

            MCPS Revision: pertains to education of all students.

            Reason for opposition: GT students (defined inclusively, as in the Current Policy) have distinctive needs; addressing GT students' education must continue to be the focus of Policy IOA.  Principles for the education of all students are stated by other Board Policies.

2. Should GT students be served by a separate GT curriculum or by optional curriculum extensions?

            Existing Policy IOA: requires a separate GT "scope and sequence of objectives" backing a curriculum that is matched to and challenges the abilities of high ability students.

            MCPS Revision: requires "clearly defined and articulated accelerated and enriched pathways of instruction with clear learning objectives" (for "all" students). 

            Reason for opposition:  a curriculum that is sequenced and systematic and that  challenges high ability students is necessary;  the MCPS “pathways” continue the current  optional curriculum extensions which are not sequenced, systematic or taught.

3. Should the Policy preserve homogeneous grouping as a required instructional practice or disfavor it?

            Existing Policy IOA: requires "flexible and varied grouping practices…based on student need and mastery of the subject matter," with "a balanced opportunity to work in homogeneous and heterogeneous groups and individually." Existing Policy IOA expressly mandates center and magnet, gifted learning disabled (GT/LD) and underachieving/traditionally-underrepresented student programs. 

            MCPS Revision: requires "flexible and varied grouping arrangements, both homogeneous and heterogeneous, that reflect grouping by achievement level, by interest, and by learning profile.” The Draft Policy mandates "programs for students whose needs cannot easily be met in local schools." 

            Reason for opposition: homogeneous grouping has been demonstrated by research to best support efficient learning by groups at all ability levels; a requirement that homogeneous grouping be used in “a balance” is necessary to ensure that it is used for a significant period of the students’ education. Center and magnet programs, GT/LD, and the Program of Assessment, Diagnosis, and Instruction (PADI) and other programs for underachieving and traditionally-underrepresented students, should be preserved, expanded and integrated into the continuum of GT education.

4. Should the Policy continue GT identification or end it?

            Existing Policy IOA: requires that a second grade screening determine whether or not each student is "gifted and talented;" regardless of outcome, any student who has "the capability or motivation to accept the challenge" may take GT classes and coursework.

            MCPS Revision: requires annual assessments and recommendations of programs and services for each student; the President of the Board of Education publicly interpreted this provision as ending the Existing Policy IOA GT identification. 

            Reason for opposition: while no student’s lack of identification should exclude him or her from GT coursework, and while annual individual program and service recommendations are necessary, identification is required by State law, locates overlooked students and has proven helpful in securing appropriate programming.

5. Should the Policy mechanism for ensuring MCPS accountability mandate specific actions by the Superintendent and other officials or be focused on data collection?

            Existing Policy IOA: mandates that the Superintendent carry out specified "implementation strategies." 

            MCPS Revision: requires that data be monitored and published, assuming that this will drive implementation, improvement and accountability. 

            Reason for opposition: while data is necessary, data alone has proven to be insufficient to ensure that MCPS carries out the program required by the Existing Policy IOA. Therefore the Policy must require that the Superintendent carry out and the BOE oversee the Policy provisions.

6. Should the Policy set out specific program requirements or a general vision only?

            Existing Policy IOA: contains specific provisions defining "gifted and talented students" and requiring a GT curriculum, homogeneous grouping and Superintendent implementation. 

            MCPS Revision: sets out only a general, largely undefined, vision of a "continuum" of services for "all" students. 

            Reason for opposition: in light of MCPS' long history of failing to implement gifted and talented instruction in the local schools, specific program requirements are necessary to clarify, preserve and finally realize the intent of the community as expressed through the Board of Education.

An argument that the original MCCPTA resolution is supportive enough of parent concerns with the proposed revisions of policy IOA | TOP

The MCCPTA resolution is supportive enough; the PTA shouldn’t ask for a policy that the county might not have the resources to meet in all schools.

All,

I have seen a lot of back and forth on the issue regarding the MCCPTA resolution on accelerated and enriched instruction. Much of it has come from the Gifted and Talented Association of MoCo. I thought I'd give you all my run down.

1. The MCCPTA Gifted Child Committee put together a resolution

http://www.mccpta.com/resolutions/AEI_Resolution_Draft_20080108.pdf

that states the MCCPTA position supporting identification of GT students in 2nd grade and providing a separate curriculum for GT instruction. The language is broad to assure that there are opportunities to identify kids throughout all school years, and that MCPS must inform parents about how to meet kids needs. Nowhere does it state that it will support an unknown MCPS change in policy.

2. MCPS is reviewing changes to the 'Policy IOA on gifted and talented education'

http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/policy/pdf/ioa.pdf

They provided FAQs to the MCCPTA GT committee on some policies they are thinking of revising:

http://www.mccpta.net/GT_committee/MCPSNotEliminatingGiftedQA.pdf

They say they will continue screening, and do it in 2nd, 5th, and 8th grade, but rather than label students, they want to provide a 'continuum of services', from those working below, at, above, and far above grade level. That is, classes would be labeled, not kids.

2. GTA has proposed revisions to the MCCPTA resolution at:
http://www.gtamc.org/Home/mccpta-resolution-gta-markup

plus a letter for the PTA to sign to say how they support GTA and not MCCPTA.

As far as I can tell, the suggested revisions to the MCCPTA resolution are a few edits for precision, plus:
point 7.
MCCPTA:MCPS must ensure that students are given the opportunity to work in groups of students with similar academic abilities, motivation and interests.
GTA:MCPS must ensure that students who need additional academic challenge including all students who want such a challenge, are given a balanced opportunity to work in homogeneous groups open to all students who want the challenge, heterogeneous groups that allow time with intellectual peers and individually depending on the content area and task involved.
MY TAKE: GTA pulls language from existing policy IOA. MCPS has said that the change in policy would include homogenous and heterogeneous groups, but not individual time. GTA can ask for the extra attention - but there's surely no budget to give it.

point 8
MCCPTA says that all students should benefit from accelearted instruction based on best practices.
GTA says that only GT identified students should benefit from accelerated instruction.
MY TAKE: GTA sounds elitist - do the best for my kids, but don't worry about those other kids. Best practices for bringing all students along should be implemented across the board. Stick with MCCPTA language.

point 9
MCCPTA says that accelerated and enriched instruction should be monitored.
GTA says the same, but adds that the target of analysis is participation and performance significantly above grade level.
MY TAKE: GTA request would make statistically biased results. MCPS principals can already tell you that GT programming predominantly benefits white and asian students - does GTA want more proof of that? Stick with MCCPTA resolution.

point 10
GTA has an extra point about implementation. It asks for more specific oversight and directs any new policy to expressly mandate homogenous groups and higher level curricula.
MY TAKE: I see GTAs concern about losing the possibility of homogenous groupings, but I think of the practical side of things. Take, for example, a small school, with a small cohort of students who can take accelerated instruction. And that number changes every year Does that teacher have resources to teach the kids separately? Not the way the teaching load is distributed these days. IF GTA folks want this in the recommendation, so be it. not sure what the last phrase about "higher level data points" is about, tho.

As someone who has had to fight tooth and nail advocating for families who can't speak English to put their children into honors classes, I understand that there is much lacking from GT labeling and its ability to support all kids who need or want GT programming. I also had one parent tell me that honors classes don't have conduct problems, because there aren't many black kids in the classes - ouch! - I guess my mixed family isn't that black, so she was comfortable telling me this. I can't stand racism and prejudice, and I'm not an elitist. I do think we can demand excellence, but we should also expect a public institution to work in a fair and equal manner.

Neither the MCCPTA resolution, nor the GTA revisions to the resolution say 'don't revise the MCPS policy'. That's sort of the way the politics goes - how can you say no to something you haven't even seen? So, no one is saying vote against all resolutions.

The GTA does have some FAQs on their website about why they don't like the suggested revisions to the Policy. Go to the GTA link above to find that.

PTAs in good standing (all but ESSES in our cluster) can have their PTA presidents and delegates vote in person at the March 24 meeting. County PTA leaders also have the right to vote at the delegates assembly, because we are on the board of directors. Remember to bring your card.

Feel free to share my post or to comment on it.

Thanks,

Susan Fleck
Blair Cluster Co Coordinator

susan_fleck@yahoo.com
h (301)270-1960

An argument that the modified resolution is better because it calls for some implementation requirements. | TOP

Message from Anita Balachandra, Bradley Hills ES, MCCPTA Delegate

This message pertains to the Proposed Resolution on Accelerated and
Enriched Instruction from the MCCPTA Gifted Child Committee on which
we will be voting at the next Delegates Assembly.

In anticipation of the discussions that will be taking place at PTA
meetings in the next few weeks, I am posting a Modified Resolution
below for everyone's consideration. The Modified Resolution would
amend the Proposed Resolution that was introduced February 24. These
amendments will be offered when the Delegates vote on March 24.

Please present the Modified Resolution, along with the original MCCPTA
Resolution, to your PTA at its next meeting in order to learn the
sense of your PTA as to which you should support on March 24.

I would like to make it clear that I agree with the MCCPTA Resolution
as far as it goes, but I feel that it does not go far enough.

My concern is not with the principles MCPS espouses, but rather with
the implementation -- its uniformity, or lack thereof. Any revision
to Policy IOA needs to say what is to be implemented, and any MCCPTA
resolution needs to specify particularly what type of programming the
Delegates and parents expect.

So the Modified Resolution takes the principles of the MCCPTA
Resolution and goes the further step to set some implementation
requirements. The most important of them are:

1. In the 7th Resolved clause: to provide that students who need or
want additional academic challenge are given a balanced opportunity to
work in homogeneous groups and heterogeneous groups (this is what is
in current Policy IOA);

2. In the 8th Resolved clause: to provide that students who need or
want additional academic challenge are provided with sequenced and
systematic higher level curricula (this is what the Delegates decided
through their April 25, 2006 Resolution recited above);

3. In the 9th Resolved clause: to provide that key data points set
benchmarks to measure performance (and drive programming) that is
significantly above grade level.

In addition, the Modified Resolution would indicate that MCCPTA
expects any revised Policy IOA to continue to focus on students who
need or want additional academic challenge, and to include,
explicitly, the grouping, curricula and data points implementation
requirements described above.

I think we need to keep in mind that for better or worse,
organizations prioritize, track and report on what they can measure.
By specifying these implementation requirements, MCCPTA will advise
MCPS and the BOE, of our expectations of this policy.