Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Table of Contents
One-Pager 2
Introduction 3
Label and Track 3
Label 3
Track 4
“No Labels, No Limits!” Campaign 6
Central tenets 6
Organization 7
Platitudes 7
Ideology without substantiation 8
Summary 12
Ability Grouping 13
Research 13
Overall academic achievement effect of each type of grouping 16
Differential effect on high- and low-performers 19
Effect on self-esteem 21
Ethnographic studies—Jeannie Oakes 22
Detracking 31
MCPS on ability grouping 39
MCCPTA favors grouping 46
Maryland State Department of Education favors grouping 49
National Association for Gifted Children favors grouping 50
Label Required by Law 51
GT identification required by state law 51
MCPS position: Label the services, not the child 53
MCPS’ No Label pilots 54
MCPS’ SIPPI alternative 57
MCPS’ vanishing acknowledgement of the labeling obligation 61
Label the services: legally deficient 63
MCCPTA’s support for the label 64
Reference List 65
Appendix A: Board of Education Member Statements 74
Appendix B: No Label, No Limits! Campaign Contact Information 79
Appendix C: General Contact Information 81
MCEF/MCEA “NO LABELS, NO LIMITS!” CAMPAIGN:
ONE-PAGER
Controlled experimental research into ability grouping shows: (1) overall annual
achievement gains in homogeneous groups as compared with heterogeneous classrooms
of two to three months in the case of cross-age grouping and within-class grouping, one
year in the case of special accelerated classes and four months in the case of special
enriched classes; (2) ability grouping does not produce achievement benefits for high-
performers and detriments for low-performers; (3) the self-esteem of low-performers is
underminded by heterogeneous grouping, and the self-esteem of high- and low-
performers is bolstered by ability grouping.
2
State law explicitly requires identification, on a binary basis, of gifted and
talented students, with the plain rationale that students officially identified will be served.
MCPS over-identifies a huge 40 percent of students, encompassing such an expanse of
abilities as to preclude using the identification to match identified students with targeted
differentiated instruction. MCPS’ no-label pilot program proves that if a label has no
consequence and then the label is removed, no change of consequence will result.
MCPS’ SIPPI program is good in matching students to paltry instructional extensions and
in ensuring that minority students recommended for extensions actually receive them. If
SIPPI drops the binary identification, to “label the service, not the child,” then not only is
the letter of the law violated but the law’s expectation of service to identified students is
thwarted by the circular notion that students are entitled to expect no more than whatever
they may be offered.
INTRODUCTION
The Gazette reports that “pressure is mounting on the school system to remove
the Gifted and Talented label entirely,” and that, given the success of the SIPPI program
discussed below, “the school system may be ready to oblige.” Board of Education
member Laura Berthiaume is reported to believe that “momentum seemed to be more on
the side of the ‘No Labels’ campaign (Ujifusa 2011, A-14).”
This paper reviews the campaign rhetoric, a portion of the literature on ability
grouping, and the law regarding identification of gifted and talented students.
Label
It’s not about the label. But why do MCEF’s and MCEA’s public comments to
the Board address the label exclusively (while their less public literature condemns ability
grouping)? Why does the Board of Education imagine that its announced label
3
reconsideration is the key to MCPS’ policy on serving the gifted? Why does MCPS
tweak and re-tweak its identification mechanism, display Potemkin pilots of no-labeling,
and position its SIPPI matching tool as a new kind of label that circularly entitles students
to get whatever they in fact get--which at most is reading and math “extensions?”
The real issues involve service to and performance of gifted and talented students,
and African-American, Hispanic and poor (all concentrated geographically in the red
zone) students. The keys to improvement (if not utopia) are conceptual clarity, public
discussion, execution, data analysis, accountability; a fetish, with attendant yammering,
plays no productive role.
State law requires the identification of gifted and talented students. The rationale
behind the law is that real service to these students is necessary but will not be provided
unless they are officially identified. Mirroring the rationale, MCPS does not serve
(despite its Policy IOA promise to serve), and so now finds it convenient to dispense with
the label that is a continuing witness to the need for service. Service is the issue, and we
will not discard the witness to the need for service until service is, in fact as well as
promise, part of MCPS culture.
Track
Given this refusal, the service deficit and achievement gap are to be fixed by
elimination of (already-eliminated) ability grouping. This again is magical thinking.
The primary reason for opposing heterogeneous grouping as the key to improving
under-achiever performance is that experimental research shows that heterogeneous
grouping does not improve under-achiever performance. Classroom observational
research has shown that under-achievers have a poor experience in an ability-grouped
system, but has neglected to compare that experience to their experience in the
heterogeneous classroom. (Classroom observation is suggestive but, unlike experimental
research, cannot establish that grouping causes the conditions observed.) One system
4
touted by MCEF, Rockville Centre School District, has demonstrated superb results with
heterogeneous grouping. As contrasted with MCPS, that system has one high school,
spends $20,000 per pupil, and is comprised primarily of upper middle class families, with
a FARMS rate of 13 percent. Rockville Centre’s profile approximates that of MCPS’
Damascus High School. (Detrack Damascus.)
Experimental research has demonstrated fairly firmly that ability grouping does
not undermine under-achiever self-esteem; it bolsters it.
5
System-wide equity between schools is not a pre-requisite identified by
detrackers, perhaps because the detracking experiment has been confined to simplified
single-school, therefore within-school, equity. If instructional and curricular practices
could be kept high, by being anchored to a high external standard, then instruction and
curricula would be identical system-wide, such that between-school demographic, socio-
economic and achievement differences would not impede the equity sought by
detrackers. In reality, instruction is relative to in-class, in-school, student peer group
capacity. No detracking emphasis on composing single class, single school,
heterogeneous groups can accomplish cross-system, multi-school, between-school,
heterogeneity. Detracking in the large district necessarily entails, as MCPS has proven,
two systems, separate and unequal.
Community differences with regard to these real issues are enflamed by magical
thinking “rationalized” through ideological rhetoric, and press and Board member reports
that policy-makers succumb to it. The Board, MCPS, MCEF and MCEA should join
parents with a stake in these issues in pursuing conceptual and factual clarity, public
discussion, execution, data analysis and accountability.
Central tenets
The campaign has both a real and a symbolic focus on letters sent by MCPS to
parents of each Grade 2 student, following completion of testing and other evaluative
procedures, stating, among other things, that the student either has or has not been
identified as “gifted and talented.” MCEF’s campaign flyer states “A critical first step to
creating awareness and recommending new strategies is to direct the school system to
STOP sending out letters to parents indicating that some children are ‘gifted and talented’
and that others are NOT (Montgomery County Education Forum n.d.a).” The GT
identification made by the letter is pejoratively, but generally, referred to as “the label.”
The label is said to initiate a practice, lasting through each student’s school career,
of sorting students by ability. “This marks the beginning of separate ‘tracks’ – ‘special
education’ and ‘on grade level’ versus ‘honors, AP, IB’ – that further segregate our
children by middle and high school and deny our children the education they need.
(Montgomery County Education Forum n.d.b).” The campaign notes the disparity in
identification rates among racial, ethnic and socio-economic groups, and thus contends
that the tracking which is said to result from the label is a cause of the achievement gap.
6
Organization
MCEF stated that it is working with the following groups in the campaign:
Identity, GapBusters, MCPS Study Circles, Impact Silver Spring, MCEA, MCAASP,
SEIU 500, NAACP, NAACP Parents’ Council, Southern Christian Leadership Congress
and groups of MCPS students. MCEF’s work is funded through a grant from the Sanford
and Doris Slavin Foundation (Montgomery County Education Forum 2010a, 2), which is
funded and operated by Montgomery County philanthropists. Blair High School’s
Students for Global Responsibility, sponsored by George Vlasits (Blair Honors and AP
American History teacher, MCEF core team member and MCEA committee chair), is
“working with the countywide organization Montgomery County Education Forum
(MCEF) to remove the GT label in elementary schools across the county (Xu 2011, 1).”
The Blair Silver Chips report on this work links to MCEF’s website.
MCEA’s campaign is run by its Human and Civil Rights Committee (George
Vlasits, chair; Ed Hsu, Nafissatou Rouzand, Jenny Higgins). MCEA’s Representative
Assembly adopted a resolution in October, 2010 to endorse the campaign. MCEA asks its
teacher-member representatives in the schools to “encourage ongoing discussion in the
schools about the No Labels campaign (Montgomery County Education Association
n.d.a),” to work with the PTSAs by either arranging a meeting or posting a presentation,
and to distribute flyers at the school worksite. MCEA contracted with Ana Benfield to
work on the campaign for three months (Montgomery County Education Association
2010a).
Platitudes
Some of the campaign’s assertions have a “mom and apple pie” appeal, but only a
pseudo-relationship to labeling and detracking:
“High quality curriculum with appropriate rigor and support benefits all students
and leads to achieving meaningful goals and outcomes (Montgomery County Education
Forum n.d.a).”
7
“[T]here are significant social costs for failing to educate all students to their
potential (Montgomery County Education Forum 2002, 18).”
Identification leads to tracking. “Students who are not considered ‘gifted and
talented,’ are often tracked to remedial or on-grade level course work from second grade
all the way to high school (Montgomery County Education Forum n.d.a).”
MCEF/MCEA activist Vlasits said that global screening means that students “are sorted
into the GT track or the non-GT track (Xu 2011).”
8
instruction; worksheets versus hands-on labs; rote memorization versus inquiry-based
learning (Montgomery County Education Forum n.d.b).”
These assertions largely repeat those of the previous paragraphs. But in addition,
MCEA asserts that non-identified students are “often prevented” from accessing magnet
programs. First, magnet access is determined by special, voluntary testing at the Grade
3-4, 5-6 and 8-9 articulation points; Grade 2 identification is not a factor in magnet
admission. Perhaps, though, MCEA’s statement that non-identified students are “often
prevented” means that a low proportion of students who are not identified in fact access
magnet programs. Again, this is an assertion without evidence, and MCPS does not
make publicly available data which pertains to this conclusion. And again, it should not
be noteworthy that few students evaluated to be at the middle of their classes in Grade 2
would access magnet programs restricted to the top-performing three percent of their
classes at these subsequent articulation points. Thus, while there may be a correlation
between non-identification and non-access, it is necessarily little different from the
relationship between identification and non-access: few access the magnets. Finally,
there is no reason to believe that there is a causal connection between identification and
access. MCCPTA President Kristin Trible’s March 21, 2011 letter to the Board,
responding to the No Labels, No Limits! campaign, states “We disagree that students
who are not identified as gifted fail to access magnet programs because of the existence
of the gifted label; this confuses correlation with causation (Montgomery County
Council of Parent-Teacher Associations 2011).”
The position of student member of the MCPS Board of Education Alan Xie was
summarized: “As a result of tracking children, Xie felt that students become segregated.
‘[The GT kids] end up going to better schools because they were conditioned to,’ he said.
‘It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy (Xu 2011).’” This Board member apparently asserts that
identified students access more selective colleges because identification or subsequent
access to more rigorous programming “conditions” them. As discussed previously,
identification does not lead in any way to more rigorous programming. The notion that
the 40 percent of students identified as gifted, reaching to the midway point of the ability
spectrum, access more selective colleges is impossible to comprehend and is unsupported
by evidence.
The weight of mixed evidence regarding the causal correlation of ability grouping
and self-esteem, presented below, indicates that self-esteem is not undermined by ability
9
grouping. There is no evidence correlating the letter of identification and self-esteem. It
is not impossible that information that a student is at or below the median of the class
affects expectations of that student, his/her parents and teachers. However, even if a
causal connection to lower expectations is assumed to exist, it seems likely that other
factors (e.g., poor grades and test scores, and underperformance among peers in the
heterogeneous classroom) have a more immediate and stronger causal correlation to
diminished expectations.
It seems much more likely that other factors have a much more direct causal
effect on the achievement gap than does receipt of the identification letter. Literature
advocating the amelioration of African-American underperformance provides negative
evidence that neither identification nor ability grouping (nor even “tracking”)
significantly affects underperformance and the achievement gap. The 2007 Task Force
on the Education of Maryland’s African American Males Report, prepared for the
Maryland State Department of Education, makes no recommendation regarding or
mention of ability grouping, despite many in-school recommendations (place the most
effective teachers in the highest need classrooms, recruit African-American men into
teaching, cultural competency training, increase African-American PSAT participation in
Grade 10, etc.) (Maryland State Department of Education 2007a). The 2008 School-
based, Out-of School Time, and Collaborative Strategies to Close the Academic
Achievement Gap between African American and White Students: A Review of the
Literature, prepared for MCPS, makes no recommendation regarding and only one
mention of ability grouping among its many in-school recommendations (mission driven,
10
high expectations for all, effective school leadership, focused professional development,
high-quality teachers, culturally responsive pedagogy/curricula, academically demanding
curriculum, strong relationships, data-driven decision making, small learning
environments, individualized supports, extended learning time) (Shattuck, Golan and
Shattuck 2008). This report, in a “brief overview of some of the key MCPS programs
and initiatives that employ strategies identified in the literature as crucial to closing the
achievement gap (55)” presents favorably a brief description of MCPS’ Rock View
Elementary School’s “Closing the Gap Initiative.” The Rock View Initiative “is focused
on performance-based grouping in which all students are placed in temporary, flexible
groups based on reading and math ability for half of the instructional day….Groups are
adjusted regularly so that when they are ready, students move up to more challenging
groups; students are never placed in a lower level as a result of adjustment (Shattuck,
Golan and Shattuck 2008, 58).” The 2010 report A Call for Change: The Social and
Educational Factors Contributing to the Outcomes of Black Males in Urban Schools, of
The Council of Great City Schools, makes no recommendation regarding or mention of
ability grouping, despite its in-school recommendations (expand the number of Black
male counselors, ensure that Black male students are taking the requisite courses at the
appropriate level of rigor, encourage school district leaders to better target their
instructional programming, etc.) (The Council of Great City Schools 2010, 101).
MCPS, for several successive years, has adjusted its identification procedure to
ensure identification that is equitable among demographic groups.
Mr. Vlasits does not define “equity,” so his assertion has more emotional appeal
than meaning. Equity might mean serving each student at the level of his or her needs
and abilities; if so, and if identification contributed to this match, then this identification
would serve equity.
Equitable outcomes are measured against the two excellence criteria. As discussed
previously, neither MCEF nor MCEA provides any reason to believe that percentages of
African-American, Hispanic and/or FARMS students attaining MCPS’ mid-level Seven
Keys college-readiness benchmarks would be higher if students did not receive the
identification letter. If identification were effective (i.e., it lead to anything, as State law
11
intends), then it presumably would match current readiness levels to programming,
helping each student reached his or her highest level.
High ability students are not damaged by heterogeneous grouping. MCEF quotes
Anne Wheelock: “‘Of the hundreds of research studies conducted on heterogeneous
groups, the vast majority concludes that high achieving students do not lose ground in
diverse-ability classes. In almost every case, classroom environment is found to be far
more important than student enrollment (Montgomery County Education Forum 2002,
17).’” Research, discussed below, indicates that heterogeneous grouping would reduce
both high-ability student achievement and aggregate achievement.
MCEF’s statements are “deficient and devoid” of evidence. In any case, they
have only limited applicability today, because such ability grouping is largely restricted
to the magnet programs. This assumed segregation and elitism appear to be more directly
caused by residential segregation, Balkanized County development (a vicious cycle
causally related to unequal schools), and MCPS’ fairly rigid school assignment and
transfer policies.
Summary
12
that identification causes the achievement gap. Use of terms such as “equity” is intended
to provoke action with neither definition nor analysis of what equity means in the context
of a diverse and Balkanized school system. The campaign is ideological, not pragmatic.
Such disingenuous statements make discussion, compromise and resolution nearly
impossible and cloud policy-making.
ABILITY GROUPING
Research
Slavin observed in 1990 that “Arguments for and against ability grouping have
been essentially similar for 70 years (Slavin 1990, 472).” In favor of ability grouping, it
is typically argued that ability grouping “…allow[s] teachers to adapt instruction to the
needs of a diverse student body, with an opportunity to provide more difficult material to
high achievers and more support to low achievers. For high achievers, the challenge and
stimulation of other high achievers are believed to be beneficial [citation omitted] (Slavin
1993, 536-537).” The argument focuses on instructional effectiveness.
Research tangents follow larger cultural and educational outlooks of the times:
the mental testing movement of 1920s and 30s, progressive education of 1930s and 40s,
educational excellence of 1950s, educational equity of 1960s (Kulik 1992, 4). Nationally
and locally, equity currently is ascendant.
13
Mosteller, Light and Sachs state that “The main finding is that the appropriate,
large-scale, multi-site research studies on skill grouping have not yet been carried out,
even though the issues have been debated as major public concerns within education for
most of this century (Mosteller, Light and Sachs 1996, 814).”
Kulik notes Slavin’s rationale, but makes this observation in distinguishing the
different purpose of his investigation:
Many reviewers have concluded that grouping works only when a curriculum is
adapted to the ability level of those who are grouped. In enriched and accelerated
classes, the adjustment of curriculum to student aptitude is especially clear. From
studies of such classes, therefore, we can begin to estimate the effects that
grouping has when it is done for the purpose of providing instruction adapted to
student ability level (Kulik 1992, 19).
14
2. Joplin plan or cross-grade grouping: students are regrouped by ability
across grades, usually in reading, with homogeneous class instruction in each separate
class, and with instructional material differentiated among the classes.
4. Between-class grouping (addressed by Kulik but not Slavin, for the reason
given above): students are homogeneously grouped in separate classrooms, with
curricula either accelerated or enriched for higher ability students.
However, with some inconsistency, MCEF also states “‘Tracking is the ‘homogeneous’
grouping of students with other students who are ‘like’ them in academic performance;
‘detracking’ is the opposite—creating classrooms which are ‘heterogeneous’ or of
‘mixed-achievement’ levels (Montgomery County Education Forum 2002, 16).”
15
I view “tracking as “rigid and static assignment” on the basis of ability or
achievement “for a long period of time with no options.” Ability grouping which is not
rigid over a long period of time is not “tracking.” However, I acknowledge that an ability
group might persist over a long period not by rigid rule, but by a de facto divergence of
abilities between groups caused to a significant degree by the difference between the
groups in the content and quality of instruction.
In general, Slavin and Kulik agree that XYZ/ability-grouped class assignment (without
curricular differentiation) produces no achievement advantage relative to heterogeneous
grouping, and that both elementary school Joplin plan/cross-grade grouping and
elementary school within-class grouping produces advantages in elementary school.
They disagree regarding middle school Joplin plan and middle school within-class
grouping.
16
third of a month or a gain in percentile rank from the 50th to the 51st percentile (Kulik
1992, 23).” Kulik and Slavin agree.
Burris, Welner and Bezoza agree that the research is settle that XYZ grouping
does not affect achievement (Burris, Welner and Bezoza 2009, 5).
Kulik speculates as to why Joplin plan results differ from XYZ grouping. After
observing that Joplin plan placement is based on a specific skill, he says that “A more
important factor may be the large amount of curricular adaptation in cross-grade
programs….The close fit between curriculum and aptitude may be the key factor that
makes cross-grade grouping so successful (Kulik 1992, 31).”
Regrouping. Slavin (but not Kulik) considered elementary school regrouping and
found the data inconclusive. “There is some evidence that such plans [regrouping by
ability within grade levels but across classrooms for reading and/or mathematics] can be
instructionally effective if the level and pace of instruction is adapted to the achievement
level of the regrouped class and if students are not regrouped for more than one or two
different subjects (Slavin 1987, 328).”
Argys, Rees and Brewer compared ability grouping in mathematics Grades 8 and
10. In this arrangement, curriculum also varies somewhat among classes. They
determine:
Within-class ability grouping. Slavin finds a 0.32 standard deviation effect size
for elementary school students and states that “…research supports the use [in elementary
school] of within-class grouping…especially if the number of groups is kept small
(Slavin 1987, 317, 328).” Kulik agrees: “…within-class programs have a good record of
effectiveness in the evaluation literature…rais[ing] student achievement on criterion tests
by about 0.2 to 0.3 standard deviations (Kulik 1992, 33).” Within-class grouping
17
succeeds for the same reason as Joplin plan grouping: “adaptation of curriculum to
student level (Kulik 1992, 34).”
Special accelerated classes. Kulik, but not Slavin for the reason mentioned
above, considers special accelerated classes and special enriched classes. In accelerated
classes, the program is modified so that students can complete it earlier or in less time
than usual. Kulik states that “The average effect size in these studies was 0.87; the
median effect was 0.84 (37).”
It is unusual for groups that are equivalent in general intelligence and age to differ
by almost one grade level in performance on achievement tests. Nonetheless, that
is the size of the difference between scores of accelerates and nonaccelerates in
the average study. In a review of approximately 100 different meta-analysis [sic]
of findings of educational research, Chen-Lin Kulik and I were not able to find
any educational treatment that consistently yielded a higher effect size than this
one (Kulik 1992, 38).
Without having studied such programs, Slavin observed “However, it is likely that
characteristics of special accelerated programs for the gifted account for the effects of
gifted programs, not the fact of separate grouping per se (Slavin 1987, 307).” Oakes
agrees: “What seems to make a difference for high-achievers, then, is not the grouping
itself, but the special resources, opportunities, and support that usually exist in high-level
classes (Oakes 2005, 238).”
Special enriched classes. Kulik studied programs in which students spend about
half time on the prescribed curriculum and half time pursuing enriching activities (Kulik
1992, 39). He concluded, “These classes contribute to the intellectual progress of higher
aptitude students. Gifted and talented students gain more academically from such classes
than they do in regular mixed-ability classes (Kulik 1992, 41).” Furthermore,
“approximately 66% of the talented students in the special classes outperform the typical
talented student in a mixed-ability class (Kulik 1992, 41).” The average gain on a grade-
equivalent scale is 4 months (Kulik 1992, 43).
Johnson and Johnson report data indicating that, in a cooperative learning setting,
students learn more than in “competitive or individualistic interaction,” feel more
positive about school and each other, and are more “effective interpersonally.”
18
come from the need for discussion, explanation, justification, and shared
resolution on the material being learned. Quick consensus without discussion
does not enhance learning as effectively as having different perspectives
discussed, arguing different alternatives, explaining to member who need help and
thoroughly delving into the material (Johnson and Johnson 1988).
The Boutique model of peer effects suggests that a student will have higher
achievement whenever she is surrounded by peer [sic] with similar characteristics.
This is essentially a model in which students do best when the environment is
made to cater to their type. For instance, in schools, the Boutique model might
mean that teachers organize lessons and materials around the learning style of a
student if there is a critical mass of his type.
The Focus model of peer effects is closely related to the Boutique model but
suggests that peer homogeneity is good for a student’s learning, even if the
student himself is not part of the group of homogeneous students. In this model,
diversity is inherently disabling, perhaps because tasks cannot be well targeted to
all students’ needs (6-7).
These models indicate that ability grouping, which comprises a classroom of students
with similar characteristics, benefits performance of students in those classrooms.
[R]ace, ethnicity, and income do not matter much once we have accounted for the
effects of peers’ achievement….The vast majority of the apparent impact of a
concentration of racial minorities, ethnic minorities, or poor students is really the
effect of their achievement. Put another way, if we see two schools with the same
distribution of achievement (not merely the same mean), we should expect their
students’ achievement to evolve similarly in the future, even if the schools have
quite different racial, ethnic, and income compositions (29-30).
19
Table 2: Comparison of Research as to Group Differential Effect
With regard to secondary school, Slavin states that “research comparing ability-
grouped to heterogeneous placements provides little support for the proposition that high
achievers gain from grouping whereas low achievers lose (Slavin 1990, 486).” Jeannie
Oakes states that “Even though the research on academic outcomes and tracking is
inconsistent in regard to high-track students, it does not appear that they do consistently
better in homogeneous groups (Oakes 2005, 194).”
Likewise, Mosteller, Light and Sachs, noting that perceived differences are not very
reliable, find that research shows “a possibility that skill grouping is slightly favorable for
high-skilled students, and slightly unfavorable for medium- and low-skilled students
(Mosteller, Light and Sachs 1996, 805).”
20
Joplin Plan/cross-grade grouping. Slavin and Kulik agree. Slavin states: “In no
case did one [elementary school] subgroup gain at the expense of another…(Slavin 1987,
317).” Kulik finds: “The positive effects of cross-grade grouping are not restricted to a
single type of student. Cross-grade programs instead appear to work for all students, with
both good and poor students profiting from it (Kulik 1992, 30).” Also: “Cross-grade and
within-class programs, however, usually raise test scores of middle and lower aptitude
pupils by between 0.2 and 0.3 standard deviations. The clear adjustment of curriculum to
pupil ability in within-class and cross-grade programs may be the key to their
effectiveness (Kulik 1992, 43).”
Within-class ability grouping. Slavin and Kulik agree that within-class grouping
benefits students at all ability levels. Slavin states: “There is no evidence to suggest that
achievement gains due to [elementary school] within-class ability grouping in
mathematics are achieved at the expense of low achievers; if anything, the evidence
indicates the greatest gains for this subgroup (Slavin 1987, 320; see also 319).” Likewise,
he finds no differential among performance groups for middle grade students (Slavin
1990, 546). Kulik agrees that “…within-class programs seem to work for all sorts of
students. They help the lower aptitude learner, the learner of middle aptitude, and the
higher aptitude learner (Kulik 1992, 33).”
Enriched curricula. Burris, Welner and Bezoza summarize research showing that
high-, middle- and low-achieving students all benefit from accelerated and enriched
curricula in heterogeneous classes (Burris, Welner and Bezoza 2009, 5-6).
Effect on self-esteem
Kulik, but not Slavin, addresses the comparative effects of the ability grouping
schemes on self-esteem of students of different ability levels. Grouping’s effect on
student self-esteem is compared to self-esteem in heterogeneous classes. Kulik writes
that “When taught in mixed-ability classrooms, high-aptitude students get higher scores
on self-esteem measures than low-aptitude students do (Kulik 1992, 25).”
Kulik
Heterogeneous, mixed- Self-esteem greater for high-performers than for low-
ability classes performers
XYZ/ability-grouped class Leveling: reduction of high-performer self-esteem;
assignment increase in low-performer self-esteem
Joplin plan/cross-grade No finding
grouping
Within-class grouping
Special enriched classes Small improvement in high-performer self-esteem,
relative to XYZ grouping
21
XYZ/ability-grouped class assignment. Contrasting heterogeneous, mixed ability
classes, Kulik finds:
Gamoran and Berends conclude from their research survey that “longitudinal
analysis has not revealed a consistent causal relation between tracking and attitudes
(Gamoran and Berends 1987, 2).”
Mosteller, Light and Sachs “think that the non-cognitive data tilt in favor of skill
grouping.” Student self-reporting studies find that grouped students like school more and
perceive themselves as learning more. One favorably cited study “finds that the low-skill
children who are skill grouped speak up far more and for longer periods than similarly
skilled students assigned to whole-class instruction (Mosteller, Light and Sachs 1996,
810).”
Jeannie Oakes’ 1985 book Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality, is
the foundational text of the detracking movement. “The major sources of opposition to
ability grouping have been Robert Slavin and Jeannie Oakes. Their research is quoted by
22
both educators and researchers as the basis for abolishing or curtailing programs that may
smack of ability or homogeneous grouping (Tieso 2003).” Kulik states that Keeping
Track is the best-known of the ethnographic studies. Oakes is cited, then listed among
“suggested readings,” in MCEF’s Success for Every Student? Tracking and the
Achievement Gap (2002, 10, 15, 17, 24, 25).
Oakes’ observations were made in 25 schools which were the focus of “A Study
of Schooling,” from the 1970s,
Overall objectives. Oakes’ purpose is not primarily the presentation and analysis
of research observation. Rather, she states two objectives:
First, schools must relinquish their role as agents in reproducing inequities in the
larger society. Schools should cease to sort and select students for future roles in
society. Second, schools must concentrate on equalizing the day-to-day
educational experiences for all students. This implies altering the structures and
contents of schools that seem to accord greater benefits to some groups of
students than to others (205).
[E]ven more important than the differences expected in the type and quantity of
knowledge acquired by students in various educational settings are the differences
expected in students’ attitudes toward institutional structures, toward themselves,
and toward their anticipated roles in adult society. In other words, in preparing
students for their lives in the real world, schools must socialize students in very
particular ways (119).
The educational system turns lower class children into lower-class workers. Therefore,
relationships between teachers and students are more positive in high track classes and
more negative in low track classes (124). Low track classes produce the requisite degree
of student apathy. Students “learn to accept the unequal features of the larger society—
hierarchical authority structures and unequal pay, for example—as natural (144).”
23
The entanglement of ability grouping within hierarchical society and its
maintenance prevents the gradual upgrading and improvement of ability grouping (for
example, by providing open access to high-track courses or by improving curriculum and
instruction for low-track students). While Oakes thus finds tracking inherently stratifying,
Gamoran believes that low-track classes might be made more effective. He suggests that
“The assessments toward which students were striving would need to be tied to futures
that were more visibly meaningful to students than is currently the case.” He suggests
supplemental instruction for struggling students, matching skills to instructional strategies
and affording teachers “access to important resources that allowed them to supplement
instruction and tailor it to students’ needs (Gamoran 2009, 14).”
Oakes states: “Public schools remain our best hope for achieving a free and
democratic society in which all have decent lives and rich opportunities (299).”
“However, such reforms can prompt an honest, public dialogue about whether Americans
are ready to extricate schools from the structural inequalities that permeate our lives and
undermine our democracy. Detracking reform is surely not enough, but it is auspicious
place to begin (300).”
High SES parents are demonized for their “strong sense of entitlement (277),”
“tightly knit leadership (284),” “community values and politics around race and social
class that combined with beliefs and ideologies about intelligence (287),” and worry “that
democratizing the high-status curriculum would jeopardize their children’s chances for a
place at the top of the social structure (294).” Rockville Centre’s Carol Burris (see
“Detracking” below) is quoted as stating that “‘tracking persists because of three potent
‘Ps’—power, prestige, and prejudice (292).’” These punitive sentiments are applied also
to students. One school is praised for deciding “not to single out a higher-achieving
student who got by without hard work (271).” Another school’s structure is said to work
best for students “‘who have the work ethic, and are not just innately bright and lazy
(272; italics in original).” She might consider whether the school’s failure to challenge
the abilities of the “bright and lazy” student does not encourage his/her lack of “work
ethic.”
“Equalizing education.” Oakes states that four assumptions support the then
general belief that ability grouping helps achieve what we intend in schools:
1. “…that students learn better when they are grouped with other
students who are considered to be like them academically….”
24
Oakes reasons her way around the first three assumptions, without research data, and
pronounces them refuted. The prior section of this paper describes still unsettled research
regarding learning, and research reasonably settled contrary to Oakes regarding self-
esteem. She admits that teaching is easier in homogeneous groups.
Oakes found that “students in some classes had markedly different access to
knowledge and learning experiences from students in other classes (74).” High track
students are exposed to “high-status knowledge:” “knowledge that would point them
toward different levels in the social and economic hierarchy (75).” Also, students in
different tracks are “expected to learn different kinds of behaviors that were not actually
related to the subject they were studying”—personal deportment and behaviors such as
critical thinking, etc. (84-85). Low track students have less time-on-task (97) and a lower
quality of instruction (105 ff.). “Students in high-track classes had significantly more
positive attitudes about themselves and had higher educational aspirations than did
students in low-track classes (143).” Oakes finds a poorer climate in low-track
classrooms; Gamoran and Berends state that “The reported climate differences may also
result from differences between schools that vary in the proportion of students in an
academic program, rather than from differences between tracks in each school (Gamoran
and Berends 1987, 4).”
Oakes states that “poor and minority students are most likely to be placed at the
lowest levels of the schools’ sorting system (67).” Oakes states that “race in itself does
indeed influence track placements, Latinos and African Americans being more likely than
whites and Asian students to be placed in low-track classes (230).” Gamoran differs:
“Minority students whose test scores and socioeconomic backgrounds match those of
Whites are no less likely to be placed in high tracks (Gamoran 2009, 5).” Rees, Argys
and Brewer agree: “…if one does not control for ability, a strong correlation between
socioeconomic status and track placement exists (Rees, Argys and Brewer 1996, 87).”
With regard to race, they state:
It is clear from these table that blacks and Hispanics are less likely to be enrolled
in upper-tack classes, and more likely to be enrolled in non-academic classes than
whites….Overall, that data…support the often voiced criticism that ability
grouping tends to lead to race separation (see, for instance, Oakes, 1992, p.13)
(Rees, Argys and Brewer 1996, 87).
Rumberger and Palardy study the effect of school racial and socio-economic
composition on achievement. They determine that “between 40% and 80% of the
variability in achievement growth is related to differences among students, and between
20% and 60% is due to differences among schools they attend (Rumberger and Palardy
2005, 2011),” with the relative balance varying by academic subject. (Unlike Oakes, they
account for factors outside of school and/or peculiar to the individual student as affecting
learning within school.) They then ask whether, with regard to the between-school
difference, the influence of peers affects achievement directly, or indirectly “operating
25
through their association with resources and the organizational and structural features of
schools (2007).” They conclude:
Our results suggest that the reason school SES matters is that it is related to a
number of school processes that predict achievement growth. In other words,
school SES may indirectly affect achievement growth in high school by
influencing what is available in certain schools in terms of processes and
opportunities.
(The authors cite Oakes as supporting their research conclusions.) These factors are
conclusive regarding school SES effect: “That is, after controlling for the effects of
school policies and practices, the socioeconomic composition had no significant impact
on student learning (2021; italics in original).”
Rumberger and Palardy do not examine whether the first three process
variables—expectations, hours’ homework and advanced courses—are a realistic and
appropriate accommodation to low-SES student abilities or, as Oakes argues, the unequal
treatment and subordination of these students.
“Democracy” (in the sense discussed by Oakes) and interracial relationships are
important objectives of cooperative learning. Slavin and Cooper note that:
[C]hildren often re-create the status differences of the larger society in their
groups. Students possessing high-status characteristics tend to command more
attention and participate more actively than those possessing lower status
characteristics. Individual differences in participation, when they coincide with
26
social status differences, undercut the goal of creating equal status in cooperative
groups. To remedy this situation, Cohen and her colleagues train teachers on how
to raise the status of a child by making a pointed and public comment on the
child’s skill.
But notions of equality can go even further than this concept of equal treatment.
Educational equality can be interpreted to mean that students are provided with
the resources necessary to ensure that they are all likely to acquire a specified set
of learnings (135).
She rejects meritocracy, which she finds based on wealth: “We must abandon the
wishful thinking that advantaged Americans’ wealth and happiness rest on a moral
platform of merit, and that their children’s advantages make them more deserving of
schooling opportunities and life chances (300).” (Burris, Welner and Bezoza state with
regard to the no-track Preuss School described below that “the lines were drawn between
the proponents of meritocracy, couched as excellence, and those of equity (Burris,
Welner and Bezoza 2009, 15).”)
27
again assuming individual student merit in making use of those inputs. Oakes advocates
that students actually acquire the same “learnings,” which is to be “ensured” by the
school alone.
Shifting the focus to schools alone. Consistent with her position that schools
should “ensure” equal learnings, Oakes intends to shift the perspective from attributes
that “reside in the student” because, while “important in the school-learning
process…they are not factors over which schools have much control (73).” She admits
that “It is nearly impossible to sort out these complex factors to produce neat causal
explanations for how students end up in a low track in high school. It is probably safe to
assume that an interaction of student characteristics and school experience, or even
school treatment is responsible for low track student behavior characteristics (131).”
Oakes’ interest in social hierarchy requires focus on an institutional mechanism of its
existence and rectification. However, this exclusive focus vitiates the value of Oakes’
analysis: the interaction between student and school, individual and institution, is vital to
both social theory and school improvement. Gamoran and Berends call for future studies
“to examine these conditions prior to tracking as well as subsequently. Such evidence
would make it possible to disentangle track effects from the influence of preexisting
conditions (Gamoran and Berends 1987, 21).”
Despite her admission that she fails to determine causality, and without presenting
experimental research, Oakes states that schools cause inequality:
Further, it seems equally apparent that negative academic results come about for
these students because of tracking. Classroom differences that inhibit the learning
of those in low and average groups are a result of placing these similar students
together for instruction. These differences are institutionally created and
perpetuated by tracking (194; italics in original).
Schools can ensure equal learnings through “control” of the determinative “factors,” but
they do not; rather they employ institutional practices that cause inequality.
[E]thnographers are making a serious error in ignoring data from schools and
classes that are not tracked….Although the book deals at length with observations
made in upper and lower tracks, it does not described any of the results from
28
mixed-ability classes. In brushing aside observations of mixed-ability classes,
Oakes appears to have brushed aside the possibility of meaningful answers (Kulik
1992, 14).
He concludes:
Oakes’s conclusions, however, are based on her own selective and idiosyncratic
review of older summaries of the literature and on her uncontrolled classroom
observations. Objective analysis of findings from controlled studies provides no
support for her speculations. Whereas Oakes believes that grouping programs are
unnecessary, ineffective, and unfair, I conclude that the opposite is true.
American education would be harmed by the elimination of programs that provide
instruction adapted to the aptitude, achievement, and interests of groups with
special educational needs (Kulik 1992, 43).
Oakes’ social theory undermines her ethnography. Her book is less a study of
schools and more a vision of the Dickensian evils of society and tract for “democratic”
social revolution. By refusing to account for the role of the individual student and factors
outside school, Oakes displays a reformer’s radicalism. Her socio-political commitments
cloud her study.
Oakes assumes, with no attempt to justify, the universal appeal of her vision of
democracy. She envisions that everyone should possess the same goods. This differs
from our traditional political conception. While equal treatment corresponds with the
modern political conception, so does individual striving to capture the potential of that
treatment. While we value social and economic mobility, we also value and reward elitist
striving and excellence. “A strain of egalitarianism believes that all status rankings are
evil. But wholly compatible with equity is the notion that status distinctions are a good
thing as long as they are awarded fairly and for the right accomplishments (Loveless
1999).”
Zealous moralism inspires the naïve assumption that social hierarchy can be
overthrown. Rather, social hierarchy appears to be one constant facet of human
organization. The impulsion to reproduce position within the hierarchy is hardly peculiar
to high-SES white people.
29
and rich opportunities (299)” by possessing the same goods within an upended hierarchy.
In a “democratic” society, the stakeholders in the school should make that determination.
They almost certainly would readjust the balance toward instructional effectiveness and
excellence, and equal treatment if not meritocracy.
[N]early all the teachers said they believed that detracking harmed slower
students academically because teachers could not retard the pace of the class
enough to allow the slower students to keep up or give these kids the individual
attention they needed (3).
While the pace was geared to mid-level students, they received little individual attention.
Because teachers “could not expect all of their students to meet the same
standards,” minimum acceptable standards were lowered or the assessment rubric was
skewed. “Detracking increases the conflicts between challenge, achievement, and effort.
These teachers responded by grading faster students on achievement, and slower students
on effort. This deprived faster students of challenge and slower students of mastery (4).”
Teachers faced “doubts about classroom legitimacy (4).” One teacher said that
“sometimes she apologizes to the high-level kids: ‘It’s sort of like ‘I’m sorry kids, but
bear with me.’’ Teachers found that sort of teacher-student exchange embarrassing and
said it raised doubts about the class’s legitimacy among students at all levels—especially
since teachers agreed with students’ impatience and were reluctant to criticize their
challenges (4).”
30
Detracking
Equity and democracy. Slavin attempts to shift the burden of proof to the trackers
on this basis:
As argued above against Oakes, the antidemocratic and inequitable nature of ability
grouping is not “given.” Nor does it then seem meaningful to weigh the philosophical
indeterminacy of equity against the still inconclusive research on achievement.
Therefore, Slavin’s point has no force.
Efficiency and alignment. In 2011, the Center for American Progress published
Return on Educational Investment: a district-by district evaluation of U.S. educational
productivity (Boser 2011). The report presents and allows comparison of academic
achievement of each district, determined by NCLB tests of proficient and above, relative
to educational spending. The most important aim of the study is “to encourage states and
districts to embrace approaches that make it easier to create and sustain educational
efficiencies (1).” MCPS immediately announced its response to the report, quoting Board
31
President Christopher Barclay saying “This report is further confirmation that we are
using taxpayer dollars in a way that is effective and efficient…they are getting a strong
return on that investment (Montgomery County Public Schools 2011, 1).”
The [strategic planning process] addresses the requirements of and is aligned with
the [Bridge to Excellence Master Plan], which is responsive to and aligned with
the achievement goals of the federal NCLB (Montgomery County Public Schools
2010b, 7).
All initiatives are aligned with ongoing efforts, helping the school system
maintain substantial consistency over time. Such continuity has enabled teachers,
principals, support staff, parents, employee associations, and community members
to work on common goals. The strength of the plan is the continued alignment of
school system operations (Montgomery County Public Schools 2010c, 1).
The ultimate goal, toward which the system is aligned, is equity in accessing college
without the need for remediation, as embodied in the Seven Keys to College Readiness
trajectory of benchmarks. “The guiding principle that defines our strategic context and
enables us to identify strategic challenges and advantages associated with organizational
sustainability is educational equity (Montgomery County Public Schools 2010b, iv).”
“The current national movement stressing the importance of higher education in a global
economy is reflected in the Seven Keys to College Readiness (Montgomery County
Public Schools 2010c, 1).” (The Seven Keys to College Readiness sets a somewhat
higher trajectory than NCLB proficiency, though the Seven Keys is juxtaposed in a
jumbled and uncertain manner on top of the MCPS’ “Performance Targets,” which are
focused on proficiency.)
As the report notes, efficiency is judged in the standards era by outcomes, not
inputs. Efficiency is maximized when programming is aligned toward a single outcome.
Detracking, assuming that it promotes performance improvements by low-performers,
sets those performers on the Seven Keys trajectory while eliminating the inefficient,
unproductive, expense of extraneous inputs toward high-level benchmarks.
Performance effects. Kulik concludes that both high and low achieving students
would suffer from detracking, with the brightest students previously benefiting from
accelerated and enriched classes suffering most:
32
If the grouping programs that were eliminated were ones that actually adjusted
methods and materials to student aptitude, the damage to student achievement
would be greater, and the effects would be felt more broadly. Both higher and
lower aptitude students would suffer academically from such de-tracking. But the
damage would be truly profound if, in the name of de-tracking, schools eliminated
enriched and accelerated classes for their brightest learners. The achievement
level of such students would fall dramatically if they were required to move at the
common pace. No one can be certain that there would be a way to repair the harm
that would be done (Kulik 1992, 44).
Argys, Rees and Brewer state that “detracking schools would create winners and
losers (Argys, Rees and Brewer 1996, 637)” and a net loss:
Referring to Argys, Rees and Brewer, Loveless states “But if the Argys finding is
accurate, high and average-track students of all racial and economic backgrounds lose out
under heterogeneous grouping. Do we further the cause of equity by lowering the
achievement of minority students and students from disadvantaged backgrounds who are
assigned to and excelling in high and average tracks (Loveless 1999).”
Contrary to Argys and Loveless, Gamoran states the “the weight of the evidence
indicates that tracking tends to exacerbate inequality with little or no contribution to
overall productivity. This occurs because gains for high achievers are offset by losses for
low achievers (Gamoran 2009, 4).” He acknowledges that “most studies of ability
grouping and curriculum tracking have found that high-achieving students tend to
perform better when assigned to high-level groups than when taught in mixed-ability
settings (8);” and, with Loveless, that “high-achieving minority students may have the
most to lose when detracking is unsuccessful (11).”
33
The Detracking Example: Rockville Centre School District. Oakes uses
Rockville Centre School District as the preeminent example of success in detracking
(Oakes 2005, 261). She sees its success as embodying “the historical conviction that
American society has a deep store of egalitarian potential waiting to be mined (262).”
Likewise, Montgomery County Education Forum uses Rockville Centre as its sole
example, stating “a whole school system has ‘detracked’ and it has found that all
students’ achievement has risen because to teach ALL children well means high
expectations and better teaching for everyone (Montgomery County Education Forum
n.d.b).”
Basic facts. Rockville Centre School District, located on Long Island, New York,
was composed of elementary schools, one middle school and one high school, together
serving 3,500 students. (Demographic information is provided below.) Its per pupil
expenditure is $20,000. During its detracking reform, its South Side High School became
a U.S. Department of Education Blue Ribbon School of Excellence and one of
Newsweek’s 100 best high schools in the United States.
The New York State Board of Regents reformulated the state’s mathematics
curriculum, mandating a sequence of courses: Sequential Mathematics I, II and III. The
State Board required that all districts accelerate an unspecified number of students by
allowing them to take Sequential Mathematics I before Grade 9, which entailed the
compacting of the three-year middle school program into two years. Gradually,
Rockville Centre increased the percentage of students allowed to follow the compacted
sequence. When African American and Hispanic students did not choose to follow the
accelerated program in the same proportion as white students, the District determined to
eliminate grouping and mandate acceleration for everyone. The middle school provided
semi-compulsory mathematics workshops of 12 or fewer students for struggling students
four afternoons per week.
At the same time, the District began detracking middle school English and social
studies. Beginning with the high school entry class of 2001, students were
heterogeneously grouped in all subjects.
More students at each of low, middle and high ability levels completed advanced
math courses after detracking than before (Burris, Heubert and Levin 2006, 115-122).
34
accelerated in mathematics and had studied in untracked, middle school mathematics
classes (Burris, Heubert and Levin 2006, 126).”
The percentage of African American and Hispanic students passing the Sequential
Mathematics I exam in middle school increased from 23 percent to 75 percent (as
compared with the White and Asian American increase from 54 to 98 percent).
Percentages of African American, Hispanic and low-SES students completing the
mathematics courses substantially increased. (Burris, Heubert and Levin 2006, 115-122).
After one year of heterogeneous grouping, the African American and Hispanic
rate of passing the first Regents science exam increased from 48 to 77 percent (compared
with the increase from 85 to 94 percent for white and Asian American students) (Burris
and Welner 2005, 597). The impact of detracking on the likelihood of obtaining a
Regents diploma appears greatest for minority-FARMS (five times more likely than
without detraking) and minority non-FARMS students (26 times more likely than without
detracking) (Burris et al. 2008, 599, 592).
The mean IB score of the most able students increased as classes became more
heterogeneous (Burris et al. 2008).
-In general. Burris et al. state that “The findings from this study should help to
alleviate the concerns of those who fear that high achievers will learn less if they are
placed in classes with low-achieving students and that lower achievers will be frustrated
when given high-track curriculum (Burris et al. 2008, 601).” These results apply to high
achieving African American and Hispanic students, allowing the authors to conclude that
“the present findings challenge the assertion [by Loveless] that tracking may be
advantageous to high-achieving African American students (Burris, Heubert and Levin
2006, 128).” Burris, Heubert and Levin conclude that their “study confirms Slavin’s
findings that initial high achievers’ performance is not hurt if (a) curriculum is held
constant and (b) the heterogeneity of initial achievement levels in the class expands
(Burris, Heubert and Levin 2006, 129).”
35
They further conclude that “enriched, accelerated curriculum is more beneficial to
at-risk learners and low-achieving students than a traditional remedial curriculum that
slows down instruction (Burris, Heubert and Levin 2006, 130).”
“The Rockville Centre reform confirms common sense: closing the ‘curriculum
gap’ is an effective way to close the ‘achievement gap’ (Burris and Welner 2005, 598).”
Burris et al. state that “One might imagine that implementation of this reform in a
large district with several feeder middle schools would be more difficult and would
require additional strategies for success (Burris et al. 2008, 600).” Rockville Centre’s
initiative depended on a very few leaders; a scaled-up MCPS initiative depends on many
leaders and a complex organizational structure. Rockville Centre’s demographic and
ability diversity can be worked out within a single school; MCPS’ diversity varies
36
tremendously between schools, such that equity entails equalizing between-school, as
well as within-school, opportunities and performance.
The promising results of one school or system are not a satisfactory basis for
broad conclusions and radical change. “We need larger scale investigations because
studies carried out in single schools always have the limitation of doubtful generalization
(Mosteller, Light and Sachs 1996, 823).”
Another example: Preuss School. Burris, Welner and Bezoza describe the
never-tracked Preuss School. Preuss is an 800-student, all low SES, charter located on
the campus of and run by the University of California at San Diego. All students are
proficient in English and math; 74 percent of students score 3 or higher on at least one
AP test (equaling MCPS’ wealthiest and highest-performing high schools); 90 percent go
to college. Students are tutored by college students and have a longer school day and
school year (Burris, Welner and Bezoza 2009, 111-12).
Teacher preparation. Slavin favors detracking, but cautions that teachers must be
prepared to succeed prior to its inception. He states: “Yet there is also no evidence that
simply moving away from traditional ability-grouping practices will in itself enhance
student achievement, and there are legitimate concerns expressed by teachers and others
about the practical difficulties of teaching extremely heterogeneous classes at the
secondary level (Slavin 1990, 492; Slavin 1993, 546).” Burris, Welner and Bezoza state
that professional development has been “a key part” of each detracking success (Burris,
Welner and Bezoza 2009, 14).
Parent confidence. “Untracking will not succeed on a broad scale until teachers,
parents, and others are satisfied that teachers have available to them practical means of
meeting the needs of all students in heterogeneous classes (Slavin 1993, 547).”
Curriculum and instruction. Burris, Welner and Bezoza state: “In each case,
curriculum revision was key, with challenging curricula provided to all students and with
additional support provided as needed: detracking meant leveling up the curriculum, not
watering it down (Burris, Welner and Bezoza 2009, 14).” Slavin cautions “Yet schools
and districts moving toward heterogeneous grouping have little basis for expecting that
abolishing ability grouing will in itself significantly accelerate student achievement
unless they also undertake changes in curriculum or instruction likely to improve actual
teaching (Slavin 1990, 494).” “An IB physics teacher asked the principal early in the
reform whether it would be better to teach so that high achievers could get 6s and 7s on
the IB exam (7 is the maximum score) or so that all students could get 4s. Upon thinking
about it, the principal encouraged the teacher to keep standards high, and they began
thoughtfully discussing strategies to meet all students’ needs…(Burris et al. 2007)”
Burris, Welner and Bezoza recommend:
37
Take care to ensure rigor; provide all students with access to the best curriculum
and teaching. As low-track classes are phased out, it is imperative that curricula
in the remaining heterogeneous classes not be watered down. While instructional
strategies should be differentiated to accommodate a more heterogeneous group
of learners, learning goals should be high for all students….If teachers simplify
the curriculum, thereby eliminating rigor in order to “teach to the middle,”
students will not realize the achievement gains….While there is now ample
evidence that heterogeneous strategies can succeed, success depends upon
implementing differentiated instructional strategies to make the high-track
curriculum accessible to all students (Burris, Welner and Bezoza 2009, 19-20;
italics in original).
Public data. Burris, Welner and Bezoza state that Rockville Centre “used data to
reassure parents as the reforms proceeded (Burris, Welner and Bezoza 2009, 15).”
Sound evidence. “For educators to make wise choices, they must be confident
that such choices are based on sound evidence (Mosteller, Light and Sachs 1996, 822).”
Detracking reforms are grounded in the established ideas that higher achievement
follows from a more rigorous curriculum and that low-track classes with
unchallenging curricula result in lower student achievement. Yet,
notwithstanding the wide acceptance of these ideas, we lack concrete case studies
of mature detracking reforms and their effects (Burris and Welner 2005, 595).
Politics. Welner and Burris describe two general approaches to the politics of
detracking: “winning them over” and “taking them on.” The former approach is
38
appropriate to school communities “willing to engage with the reformers about legitimate
educational concerns, willing to trust educators to ensure a high-quality education even
during times of change, and willing to suspend opposition pending the results of pilot
reforms.” “Taking them on” is necessary in communities “more resistant to change and
where educational opportunities are generally viewed from a more competitive
perspective (Welner and Burris 2006, 98).”
The essential components of South Side High School’s “winning them over”
success are: stable and committed district leadership, elimination of the lowest track
first, teachers eased into heterogeneous classes, support for struggling learners, steady
and determined progress, collection and dissemination of achievement data, careful
selection and evaluation of staff, methodical creation of truly heterogeneous classes
(avoiding de facto tracking), earnest response to parental concerns about learning and
achievement, and support and engagement of school staff (93-94). Burris, Welner and
Bezoza state that Rockville Centre “listened carefully to legitimate concerns and built in
structures, such as extension activities and support classes, to address them (Burris,
Welner and Bezoza 2009, 15).”
Welner and Burris recommend that school boards set clear expectations and a
comprehensive plan for reform and “engage the community in participation and
discussion designed to ensure that all constituents have an effective political voice (97).”
The central administration should “ensure that each school has the support necessary for
detracking reforms to succeed,” move beyond technically minded professional
development, replace departing faculty with reform-minded teachers, “work
systematically with local media,” and “augment the public relations office with an office
of parent and community relations with responsibility for improving parent involvement
from the district’s low-income and minority neighborhoods.” Secondary schools should
provide support for struggling students and ample opportunity for academic enrichment
(97-98).
The decision to group students on the basis of learning readiness is made by the
school staff. Grouping can be justified only if it enhances a student’s ability to
39
learn, offers intellectual challenge, and facilitates lesson planning and instruction
for the teacher (Montgomery County Public Schools n.d.b, III.A).
Grouping within classes should give able students the opportunity to receive
expanded or enrichment experiences and less able students greater access to
remediation, in addition to achieving overall class objectives (III.E).
Grouping within a class for specific instructional objectives should be flexible and
continuously changing, based on the immediate instructional needs of the students
(III.C).
The Regulation does not specify conditions for the establishment of class groups.
Class group access is governed by matching “the instructional objectives of the subject”
with student criteria, including interests and aptitudes, past achievement, ability scores,
scores on diagnostic and criterion-referenced tests, and student request (III.F).
40
In Grades Pre-kindergarten-8, accelerated and enriched curricula will be provided
to all students who have the capability or motivation to accept the challenge of
such a program. This curriculum will be rigorous and challenging and matched to
the abilities, achievement levels, and interests of high ability students
(Montgomery County Public Schools n.d.a, C.2(a)).
MCPS has failed to implement its Policy obligation since its 1995 inception.
Action Step J. Provide middle school teachers with training and support for
instruction of heterogeneous cluster groups (25).
41
The Deputy Superintendent’s Advisory Committee for Gifted and Talented
Education 2006 Report is somehow silent regarding grouping (and curriculum) except for
its recommendation of teacher training in “flexible grouping practices and differentiation
strategies in the classroom….(Montgomery County Public Schools, 2006b, 11).” This
indicates a preference for heterogeneous classrooms. However, the DSAC report
implicitly distinguishes local school heterogeneity from homogeneity for the three
percent of students in highly gifted magnets. The Report finds magnet homogeneity
necessary because it “provid[es] opportunities to learn among intellectual
peers….(Montgomery County Public Schools, 2006b, 9; see also Appendix D, 36).”
(Hoxby and Weingarth’s Boutique model, mentioned above, demonstrates that learning
in a homogeneous group of intellectual peers benefits all students, not just the three
percent of highest performing students.)
Findings from Middle School Reform Models indicate that creating a culture to
support high achievement includes creating small learning communities,
eliminating rigid ability grouping, creating longer learning blocks of time, and
building family and community partnerships. Findings from Breaking Ranks in
Middle Schools indicate schools will present alternatives to tracking and ability
grouping (Montgomery County Public Schools 2006c, 6-7).
The 2007 Middle School Reform Report, though criticizing the variability of
grouping practices between schools (Montgomery County Public Schools 2007b, 9), does
not directly specify any type of grouping, though hints that heterogeneous classrooms
with individualized differentiation and flexible grouping is expected. Noting that due to
socio-economic status differences and other factors “students arrive at middle schools
with varying skills and knowledge,” the report states that “interventions that meet the
42
needs of students must be provided in inclusive classroom settings….(18).” There is to be
“open access to challenging courses” and “equitable access to higher level
courses….(20),” and professional development “especially in regard to differentiated
instruction (20).” Pathways outlining accelerated content are to be included in
instructional guides to ensure access to and receipt of “the highest levels of instruction”
by “individual students” and/or by “all students (17, 19).”
The Division of Accelerated and Enriched Instruction’s May 12, 2009 draft
revised Policy IOA—Accelerated and Enriched Instruction would provide that in all
schools and grades “Flexible and varied grouping arrangements, both homogeneous and
heterogeneous, that reflect grouping by achievement level, by interest, and by learning
profile to ensure that students are motivated and challenged to succeed at their highest
levels; and “Organization of schedules to include substantial time for students to interact
with academic peers.” It is a desired outcome that “All schools will use a variety of
flexible grouping arrangements including homogeneous, heterogeneous, and
homogeneous clusters in heterogeneous classrooms to enhance the delivery of an
accelerated and enriched instructional program (Montgomery County Public Schools
2009e, C.1.a(8), (9), D.3).”
The 2010 K-12 Mathematics Work Group Report recommends that MCPS
“Monitor implementation of the MCPS Regulation IHB-RA, School Academic Grouping
Practices, that establishes standards for ongoing, flexible grouping and regrouping of
students to provide instruction differentiated to meet the needs of all learners.”
(Regulation IHB-RA also permits whole class groups.) A highly-skilled teacher should
“flexibly group students to meet the needs of all learners (Montgomery County Public
Schools 2010e, 19-20).”
In its review of pertinent literature, the Mathematics Work Group Report noted
that the 2001 study, The Curriculum Management Audit of Mathematics Education,
43
“concluded that ‘tracking by ability’ (which, in essence, was tracking by ‘achievement’)
negatively impacted African American and Hispanic students (Montgomery County
Public Schools 2010e, 4).” Similarly, an expert consulted by the Work Group, Dr.
William H. Schmidt “recommended decreasing the number of variations (from remedial
to accelerated) because the sorting of children creates different opportunities. He
proposed that standards for every child (e.g., ‘In third grade you should be doing X.’)
should be true for all students. The basic argument to move toward standards for all is, to
Dr. Schmidt, a moral argument (Montgomery County Public Schools 2010e, 10).” The
report notes that equity is supported where “(on many occasions) students are encouraged
to work in noncompetitive ways with their peers (Montgomery County Public Schools
2010e, 14).” (This seems to refer to cooperative learning.) For these reasons of “equity,”
the Mathematics Work Group delivered its primary recommendation: “Eliminate the
practice of large numbers of students skipping grade levels in mathematics (Montgomery
County Public Schools 2010e, 31).”
Given this new model of mathematics delivery and differentiation, experts Drs.
Chazan, Clark, and Johnson advised that “one must work on building teacher capacity to
manage a wide range of prior knowledge—not teaching a homogenous group of children
(Montgomery County Public Schools 2010e, 11).”
1. Positive interdependence: the organization of students and the task so that the
group “sinks or swims together.” The success of the group is dependent on the success of
all members. If one person fails, then all the group members fail.
44
4. Use of interpersonal and group skills.
5. Group processing.
With respect to MCPS’ “advanced classes” for all middle school reform plan,
evaluators reported that “Altogether, about 4 in 10 of the 48 observed classes (19 classes)
included sufficient combinations of instructional strategies associated with rigorous
instruction or critical thinking to be considered rigorous (Montgomery County Public
Schools 2008b, 19).” Parents and students agreed that students were encouraged to take
honors courses and that students received “support needed to succeed in advanced classes
(17).” In open ended comments, several parents “called for more challenge in
courses…[and] suggested more homework (19).” Apparently the study did not inquire
explicitly whether “advanced” courses were sufficiently challenging.
Oakes admitted that teaching is easier in homogeneous groups. MCEF agrees: “It
is, no doubt, more difficult to teach each and every student when the range in literacy and
other skills is wider than it is to teach homogeneously grouped classes (Montgomery
County Education Forum 2002,16).” MCEF therefore recommends smaller class size (at
45
a time when budget impels larger class size) and professional development—a
“workforce of master teachers (Montgomery County Education Forum 2002, 16).”
Rosenbaum counsels that “Dreamers may hope for super teachers who could do better,
but policy cannot be built on the assumption of super teachers (Rosenbaum 1999, 5).”
MCCPTA has had a long and completely consistent record of asserting, against
MCPS, parent interests in ability grouping.
MCCPTA’s 2001 Ad Hoc Committee on the Math Audit Report to the MCCPTA
Executive Committee, responding to the 2001 study, The Curriculum Management Audit
of Mathematics Education, cited by the Mathematics Work Group Report, concluded:
The audit does not provide a balanced description of academic research on the
impact of grouping, nor does it take the opportunity to use available data from our
own and nearby counties to take an unbiased view of which programs and
strategies are most effective at bridging the ability gap. In contrast, we affirm the
use of ability grouping as an effective educational strategy in mathematics
(Montgomery County Council of Parent-Teacher Associations 2001a, 2).
As observed in a recent book on the racial test score gap, eliminating demanding
classes—an implication of the PDK audit’s findings—seems ridiculous. We
should be trying to get more minority and lower economic status children to take
these classes rather than eliminate them. Any proposal for reducing the
achievement gap that seems likely to lower high ability children’s achievement is
likely to break the political consensus for such goals (Montgomery County
Council of Parent-Teacher Associations 2001a, 3).
The audit details a clear achievement gap in the MCPS school system and
observes that ability grouping in mathematics is practiced by the school system.
However, no evidence linking ability grouping as the causal factor creating the
achievement gap is provided in the audit report.
Moreover, the idea that students will have access to the same instruction in a class
with students of widely varying abilities is unrealistic. Teachers will soon realize
which students are highly able to grasp material and will be forced to differentiate
46
instruction among students in the same classroom in order to challenge students
according to their ability. A teacher cannot effectively teach students in the same
classroom whose disparate ability causes them to proceed at such varying rates.
With only 45 minutes in a class period, a teacher who wishes to give equal time to
both groups would only have 22.5 minutes to review homework from each group
as well as teach new material. The reality is that heterogeneous ability grouping
is most likely to decrease the quality of instruction because teachers have less
time to spend instructing students in each group. The "gifted/talented," "skills"
and "regular" students will not have access to 45 minutes of challenging
instruction. Rather, all groups suffer because the teacher is burdened with
effectively teaching two or three different classes within the same class
(Montgomery County Council of Parent-Teacher Associations 2001a, 4).
During the work on the Middle School Reform Report (cited above), MCCPTA
adopted a 2006 Resolution on Gifted and Talented Education in Middle Schools, focusing
on the accelerated and enriched curriculum required by Policy IOA to complement ability
groups:
WHEREAS, Policy IOA, recognizing that gifted and talented students require
instructional and curricular adjustments that can create a better match between
their identified needs and the educational services they typically receive, provides
that MCPS will prepare a scope and sequence of objectives and activities as well
as materials that accelerate and enrich the regular curriculum in Pre-kindergarten-
8, in mathematics, reading/language arts, science, and social studies;…
WHEREAS, this Committee finds that the middle school MCPS Curriculum
Guides provide extensions and enhancements for optional and periodic use in
enriching gifted and talented education, but that such extensions and
enhancements neither sequentially and systematically ground the acceleration of
gifted and talented education, nor allow teachers and students to understand what
is expected and required of them;…
47
possible to the middle school Curriculum Guides sequenced and systematic higher
level gifted and talented curricula, in mathematics, reading/language arts, science
and social studies (Montgomery County Council of Parent-Teacher Associations
2006).
During MCPS’ attempt to wholly revise Policy IOA, the MCCPTA Delegates
adopted its 2009 Resolution on Accelerated and Enriched Instruction, reiterating the
grouping and curriculum requirements of Policy IOA:
MCPS must ensure that students are given the opportunity to work in groups of
students with similar academic abilities, motivation, and interests.
Following the Middle School Reform Report and implementation of its flexible
grouping and pathways approach, MCCPTA found in its disapproving 2010 Resolution
on Middle School Advanced Courses that “Not all students are ready to work at an
advanced level and would be better served by having on-level course options in middle
school…(Montgomery County Council of Parent Teacher Associations 2010).” The
Delegates therefore resolved that:
A. MCPS should provide Advanced Level English, Social Studies, and Science at
each of its thirty-eight middles schools so that students who would like the
challenge they provide have the opportunity to take them;
B. MCPS should also continue to provide on-level sections of its English, Social
Studies, and Science courses at each of its thirty-eight schools so that students and
their families have an option of courses to take (Montgomery County Council of
Parent-Teacher Associations 2010).
48
1. …that all children are fundamentally the same and can be equally successfully
challenged within a one-size-fits-all curriculum….
3. …that MCPS can eliminate ability grouping without limiting the achievement
of high-ability students (Montgomery County Council of Parent-Teacher
Associations 2011, 2).
Its 1994 Renewing our Commitment report recommends that “Schools should
maintain flexible grouping practices that include homogeneous grouping as an
appropriate and necessary option for some students at some time while ensuring that
inappropriate uses of tracking are eliminated.” The report finds that “Clearly,
homogeneous grouping by ability and/or achievement allows for more appropriate, rapid
and advanced instruction matched to the rapidly developing skills and capabilities of
highly able students (Maryland State Department of Education 1994, 39; 4.7).”
MSDE’s 2001 Final Report of the Commission of Funding and Services for Gifted
and Talented Education in Maryland criticizes the following ‘myths:”
The belief that children need to learn with their age peers rather than their
intellectual peers and that gifted and talented students should not be
accelerated….
The belief that gifted education is anti-democratic and that equity means the
same opportunities for all students (Maryland State Department of Education
2001, 5).
49
Program services for gifted and talented students include appropriate instructional
opportunities and a curriculum well articulated in scope and sequence for all
grade levels and subject areas.
Schools and school districts provide for flexibility in grouping to allow for
acceleration, in-depth study and other strategies appropriate for gifted and
talented students and to allow gifted and talented students to work with their
intellectual peers in their areas of strength as well as their chronological peers in
other disciplines (Maryland State Department of Education 2001, 7).
MSDE’s 2007 Criteria for Excellence: Gifted and Talented Education Program
Guidelines recommend that:
The National Association for Gifted Children’s 2009 Position Paper: Grouping
states that
Myths abound that grouping these children damages the self-esteem of struggling
learners, creates an “elite” group who may think too highly of themselves, and is
actually undemocratic and, at times, racist. None of these statements have any
founding in actual research, but the arguments continue decade after decade
(Fiedler, Lange, & Winebrenner, 2002) (National Association for Gifted Children
2009, 1).
The Position Paper describes several ability grouping options, full and part time,
and performance grouping options. It emphasizes differentiated curriculum and
instruction. The Position Paper describes variable academic progress depending on the
50
grouping option and degree of differentiation. It finds uniformly “small but positive”
social and self-esteem effects (National Association for Gifted Children 2009, 3).
(MCPS’ annual Our Call to Action, its strategic plan, formerly stated “MCPS
provides a continuum of services for its students that are aligned with the standards
published by the National Association for Gifted Children.” In the 2007 edition, this
statement was removed from the main discussion of Strategic Initiatives--Goal 2, and
inserted in the retrospective “Strategies Implemented Since 1999” section. The claim to
alignment with the authoritative NAGC standards was included in the retrospective
section in 2008, but was removed in 2009. MCPS no longer claims alignment with the
NAGC standards.)
The State Board of Education (which heads the Maryland State Department of
Education) is obligated to “encourage [local boards of education] to develop and
implement programs for gifted and talented students” and to provide certain assistance
for the education of gifted and talented students (MD. Educ. Code Ann. Section 8-203, 8-
204). Also, the State Superintendent (who heads MSDE) is obligated to review Bridge to
Excellence Master Plan Annual Updates, which must include “Goals, objectives, and
strategies regarding the performance of…Gifted and talented students, as defined in
Section 8-201….(MD. Educ. Code Ann. Section 5-401(d)(5)).”
In order to fulfill these duties, MSDE and local boards of education must be able
to target gifted and talented students, requiring that they be distinguished by some
characteristic and/or criteria.
Definitions from State law and regulation for “gifted and talented,” from which
the analysis of the legality of the label must begin, are set forth below.
Statute:
In this subtitle, "gifted and talented student" means an elementary or secondary student
who is identified by professionally qualified individuals as:
(1) Having outstanding talent and performing, or showing the potential for performing,
at remarkably high levels of accomplishment when compared with other students of a
similar age, experience, or environment;
51
(3) Possessing an unusual leadership capacity; or
Regulations:
The Criteria for Excellence: Gifted and Talented Education Program Guidelines
(2007), Maryland State Department of Education’s interpretation of the law and its
appropriate application, advises that:
Appropriate procedures and criteria for giftedness should be developed for each
of the various areas: general intellectual capability, creative, or artistic areas;
unusual leadership capacity, and specific academic fields. Information about a
student’s specific abilities and program needs obtained through the identification
process should serve as a basis for planning the student’s instructional program.
In this way, the identification process is an integral part of the overall
instructional program and should enhance the responsiveness of the school to the
needs of all students (Maryland State Department of Education 2007b, 3; 1.0).
The Criteria for Excellence further advises that the screening itself include each of (1) “a
broad-based screening,” (2) “an in-depth assessment of those students meeting the initial
screening criteria to gather additional information concerning their specific aptitudes and
educational needs,” and (3) “provision of appropriate programs and services (Maryland
State Department of Education 2007b, 3; 1.1).”
52
MCPS position: Label the services, not the child
MCPS Policy IOA states that the “screening will identify gifted and talented
students….(Montgomery County Public Schools n.d.a, C4(a)).” Students, not services,
are required to be identified by the existing Policy.
Its Policy notwithstanding, MCPS proposes to “label the services, not the child
(Montgomery County Public Schools 2006a, 1; 2007d, 2-3).” The Policy Committee
supports “the concept of not labeling students (Montgomery County Public Schools
2007d, 3).” The system has been revising its procedures toward this end. Thus, in its
2005 Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update, MCPS referred to “Revisions in global
screening procedures to move from labeling to serving students…(Montgomery County
Public Schools 2005b).”
MCPS’ 2008 (last) Grade 2 Global Screening in Spring 2008 Testing Brief
observes that:
The Division of Accelerated and Enriched Instruction’s 2009 draft Policy IOA,
under the heading of “Identification for Services,” requires that each school and every
grade will “follow an established process to ensure that every student is receiving the
highest instructional challenge, appropriate for his or her needs;” including a review at
key transition dates “to identify appropriate accelerated and enriched services for each
student (Montgomery County Public Schools 2009e, 3; C.2.a and b).”
MCPS’ 2009 Global Screening Project Team minutes reflect following Charge
Statement:”
53
MCPS’ No Label pilots
Aara Davis-Jones, Georgian Forest principal, said that “it’s not about the label,”
and that “100 percent of our students have gifts.” The school does not “section off”
students so “you get the good stuff and you get the mediocre stuff.” She asked “Why
should just the ones with the label be given opportunities.” Rather, she asserted that “GT
is not about what’s in a child’s head but about opportunities given to him.”
Nancy Erdrich, Burning Tree principal, stated that the label doesn’t matter:
students have access to advanced material when they are ready. The school has high
expectations for students “at all levels.” The school offers “a pyramid, as opposed to a
hierarchy, of offerings.”
At the BOE Policy Committee meeting, Ms. Williams stated that the pilots began
from a goal to provide accelerated and enriched instruction for all, and the question of
whether the “label” was in the way. She said that there is no “evaluation component” to
the “pilots.”
54
Georgian Forest offers acceleration in Math (Math 6 in Grade 5) and in Reading,
through William and Mary and Junior Great Books. All students receive undifferentiated
Science instruction in the heterogeneous classroom. Board member Patricia O’Neill
asked how reading acceleration is implemented, and Ms. Davis-Jones responded that it is
done in the heterogeneous classroom and through pull-outs.
Board member Shirley Brandman asked how the school supports those “ready to
fly.” Ms. Davis-Jones responded that scheduling facilitated a balance of heterogeneous
and homogeneous grouping.
She reported that MSA data shows that there is no achievement gap, measured on
the typical combined proficient or higher basis.
Ms. Davis-Jones asserted that the no-label is not an issue. “If we didn’t have the
programming, then we would hear complaints.”
Ms. Erdrich asserted that the absence of the label does not affect instruction.
What matters is that students get the services. Her staff has high expectations at all
ability levels.
Burning Tree focuses on multiple intelligences and the whole child. Students
have unique skills and multiple ways to connect with the world. It is the teachers’ job to
enrich through high order thinking and to enable achievement at a high level.
Accelerated and enriched instruction is provided to all Burning Tree students.
Burning Tree regroups for Math, but not for Reading. Math acceleration is
offered in Grades 2-4, and Math 6 and 7 are available.
Ms. O’Neill said that the key is a variety of grouping and meeting students’ needs,
whether the school has the label or not.
[B]oth schools are experiencing success in accelerated reading and math, as well
as science enrichment without a label dictating program or commitment of staff.
Furthermore, all children are experiencing accelerated instruction, not just those
selected as gifted….They also expressed their belief that there is no learning gap
if there is rigorous instruction plus equity and opportunity (Montgomery County
Public Schools 2009d, 1),
Confusion of issues. The two principals affirmed that their schools differ from
other MCPS schools only in their lack of “labeling;” their messages addressed nurturing,
55
grouping and differentiation. Nurturing, grouping and differentiation are not governed by
the “label,” and these two schools’ nurturing, grouping and differentiation did not seem
to differ from that of other schools. Yet somehow it is suggested that only label
elimination can entail equitable service to all.
The label has not been used to match students with services (contrary to the
rationale behind the State law). Therefore, the elimination of the label in these two
schools does not affect matching students with services, so MCPS can claim that there
has been no degradation in the matching function. All that has been eliminated is the
recognition of certain students as gifted and talented, and the claim to services implicit
(under State law) in that recognition.
Ms. Davis-Jones stated that “If we didn’t have the programming, then we would
hear complaints.” GT parents are complaining only because many schools do not have
real GT programming. GT parents’ preference for the “label” is a desperate claim to
entitlement to the education GT students need but are not receiving.
Confusion of terms. Ms. Davis-Jones asked “Which are without gifts? Look at
their faces.” There are many types of “gifts,” of which comeliness is one; Ms. Davis-
Jones is certainly correct that all children’s pleasant traits should be appreciated.
Proponents of GT education wish to discuss the gift of academic performance, need and
ability and would facilitate that discussion by so restricting the meaning of the term
“gifted and talented.”
Many people are offended that the term “gift” is commandeered to refer
exclusively to intellectual ability. Some term is needed to encapsulate the several criteria
of intellectual ability. The term “red bird” sufficed in elementary school, and could well
be used in statutes and academic literature. However, the term “gifted” has a long history
and well-established usage in international, national and state law and literature. In order
that a term refer to this standard usage, and in order to facilitate parent access to the
literature, it seems appropriate that the established terminology continue to be used.
Ms. Erdrich affirmed that accelerated and enriched instruction is provided to all
students (though some instruction is more accelerated than other instruction). Proponents
of GT education wish to focus the debate on whether groups of students, differentiated by
academic ability, should have distinct curricula to fit their abilities, with some curricula
characterized as more “accelerated” than other curricula. To facilitate the discussion,
they would restrict the term “accelerated” instruction to that instruction which proceeded
more quickly through objectives and addressed objectives not addressed by other
curricula (which they would term “on-level”). Ms. Erdrich is certainly correct that all
children should benefit from rich curricula and excellent instruction.
No-pilot Pilot. The no-label initiative was not established with any criteria by
which success could be tested, and Ms. Williams stated at the March 16 MCCPTA Gifted
Child Committee no-label presentation that it is not possible to attribute performance
56
results to the elimination of the GT identification. These presentations did not answer
whether student performance is better or worse in a school without “labels.”
Use of the “pilot” misnomer should not bamboozle policy-makers into belief that
different identification schemas have been tested against each other.
SIPPI for “equity.” SIPPI’s primary goal is to “help meet the system goal of
equitable preparation and access to a rigorous instructional program (Montgomery
County Public Schools, 2009f, 1; 2010d,1).” The 2010 Our Call to Action introduces its
outline of SIPPI steps with the statement “Elimination of the long-standing
disproportionate identification of African American and Hispanic students through the
global screening process is a strategic initiative (Montgomery County Public Schools
2010c, 17).” SIPPI is “designed to reveal and address issues of equity and ensure that all
students have access to challenging curriculum and instruction while providing parents
with timely communication about their child’s instructional program (Montgomery
County Public Schools 2010d, 1).”
57
The SIPPI process “takes us closer to our system goal of providing equitable preparation
and access to rigorous instructional programs for underrepresented and underserved
populations (Montgomery County Public Schools 2010d, 8).”
58
“advanced-level” Reading and Mathematics programs and, more generally, in optimizing
instructional placement for all students.
Gap not closing in recommendations. The Grade 2 global screening process has
attracted such MCPS attention because of the disparity in its binary GT/no-GT
identification of White and Asian American students, as compared with African
American, Hispanic and FARMS students. The following tables compare the gaps
(expressed as the ratio of the “Recommended %” from the respective Student Groups to
the “Recommended %”of the White Student Group) as determined by the 2009 GT
global screening process and the 2010 SIPPI process. The change in process does not
close the gap.
59
The two primary bases under State law for the gifted and talented identification
are general intellectual abilities and specific academic aptitude. MCPS has said that it is
increasing its recommendation rates because it now targets identification toward specific
aptitude in either reading or math, whereas previously it apparently had focused only on
general intellectual ability (and/or aptitude in both reading and math). This clearly was
based on a misunderstanding and misapplication of State law
Yet the data appear not to fit this model. In 2010, 38.5 percent of all students
were recommended for advanced reading, 40.2 percent of all students were recommended
for advanced math, and 35.3 percent of all students were identified as gifted and talented
(Montgomery County Public Schools 2010d, Attachment B, Table 1). Under State law,
the number of students identified should include those with specific aptitude in reading,
those with specific aptitude in math and those with general intellectual ability: the
cumulative percentage identified as gifted and talented should be larger than either the
percentage identified for aptitude in reading or the percentage identified for aptitude in
math. MCPS’ model is hidden, but it does not seem to comport with State law.
For so long as MCPS fails to offer real advanced-level instruction, the Board’s
“identify the services, not the child” mantra entails a mere circularity, leading nowhere.
Until MCPS demonstrates a willingness to offer real advanced-level instruction,
identification of the child must be maintained as a claim on necessary and promised
gifted and talented services (precisely as the State label mandate contemplates).
60
County Public Schools 2009f, 3-4). This spare offering is centered on the Seven Keys for
College Readiness objectives, which represent an on-level program intended for
substantially all students.
The chief issue for local school programs is the lack of consistency within and
across schools. Many local schools have not fully implemented the GT policy
and do not offer a wide range of GT experiences and opportunities to their
students. Committee discussions regarding the inconsistency of policy
implementation surfaced concerns that lack of access to GT services particularly
affects schools with a disproportionate high share of minority and low-income
children (Montgomery County Public Schools 2006b, 9; italics added).
Policy. Policy IOA states that the “screening will identify gifted and talented
students….(Montgomery County Public Schools n.d.a, C4(a)).” Students, not services,
are required to be identified by the existing Policy.
61
“Gifted and Talented Students” are defined by the existing Policy to be
“children…with outstanding talent who perform or show the potential for performing at
high levels of accomplishment when compare with other of their age, experience, or
environment…[or] who exhibit high performance capability in intellectual, creative,
and/or artistic areas, possess an unusual leadership capacity, or excel in specific academic
fields (Montgomery County Public Schools n.d.a, C1(a)).” This definition tracks, with
minor changes of form, the State statutory definition. (However, the MCPS Policy sets
the performance standard at “high levels,” a degradation of the statutory standard of
“remarkably high levels.” This degradation then is magnified in the incomprehensibly
large percentage of MCPS students labeled gifted and talented. MCPS refuses to explain
its rationale for the 40 percent identification rate.) Like State law, the Policy establishes
performance at (remarkably) high levels and excellence in specific academic fields as two
alternative criteria of giftedness. Identification on the basis of only excellence in a
specific field (Reading or Mathematics, in Elementary School) does not comply with the
requirement that students who perform at high levels generally also be labeled as gifted
and talented. Parallel to the State Criteria, MCPS also is required to provide an
“appropriate, clearly defined and articulated program for gifted and talented students
(Montgomery County Public Schools n.d.a, C3).” Programming is a separate
determination from binary identification. Therefore, MCPS Policy requires the binary
identification—labeling—of students as gifted and talented.
However, its 2008 Testing Brief and similar 2009 Superintendent’s Memorandum
deleted this sentence and substituted:
Comparing these two versions, in 2005, 2006 and 2007 MCPS acknowledged the
requirement that students be “identified;” in 2008 and 2009 MCPS states that students
are only “recognized” (no longer using the statutory term “identified”) to facilitate
service. In 2005, 2006 and 2007 MCPS cited the authoritative Regulations; in 2008 and
2009 MCPS selected from the interpretive and advisory Criteria.
62
Label the services: legally deficient
Law. By contrast, State law clearly states that it is the student that is to be
identified. The statute, quoted above, defines gifted and talented student as a “student
who is identified” as meeting one of four criteria. Likewise, the regulations, quoted
above, each provide that it is the student who is to be identified when and if the student
meets stated criteria. A student who meets any one of the criteria is identified as gifted
and talented. This identification is binary: the student either is identified as gifted and
talented or is not identified as gifted and talented. The student is “labeled” gifted and
talented.
Label before service. The MCPS proposal to “label the services, not the child”
means both that MCPS will use its SIPPI screening tool to make the sort of finding
“student x needs service y,” and that it will avoid the finding “student x is gifted and
talented.” The Maryland State Department of Education contemplates that the system
will make a subsidiary plan for the student’s instructional program: that “student x needs
service y.” Nevertheless, distinct from the “service y” finding, State law requires the
finding “student x is labeled as gifted and talented.” Hence, the MCPS proposal to avoid
finding “student x is gifted and talented” contravenes State law.
63
Program planning v. identification. Program planning (matching each student’s
abilities and needs to programs and services) is distinct from and subsequent to
identification. MCPS has described the global screening process as consisting of
“planning for instruction for each child, and a decision regarding identification
(Montgomery County Public Schools, Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Annual Updates,
2007a, 120; 2008a, 77; 2009h, 95; 2010f, 153).” MCPS proposal to label the services by
making a finding of the sort “student x needs service y” appears to meet one requirement
of the Criteria. However, meeting a program planning requirement does not address the
requirement that a student be identified as gifted and talented.
Likewise, MSDE cannot fulfill is obligations (and only thereby obey State law) if it
performs its very limited duties with regard, not to “gifted and talented students,” but to
“students needing services y and z.” A necessary condition for MSDE’s compliance with
State law is that MSDE requires MCPS to use the legal statutory definition of gifted and
talented students.
MCCPTA President Kristin Trible’s March 21, 2011 letter to the Board,
responding to the No Labels, No Limits! campaign, “oppose[s] the proposal to end
identification of GT students (Montgomery County Council of Parent-Teacher
Associations 2011, 1).”
64
REFERENCE LIST
Argys, L.M., D.I. Rees, D.J. Brewer. 1996. Detracking America’s schools: Equity at zero
cost? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, vol. 15, no. 4: 623-645.
Brewer, D.J., D.I. Rees, L.M Argys. 1995. Detracking America’s schools: The reform
without cost? Phi Delta Kappan (November).
http://www.cog.brown.edu/courses/63/Brewer_detracking.html
Burris, C.C. 2008. Review of “The Misplaced Math Student: Lost in Eight-Grade
Algebra.” Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education
Policy Research Unit (October 14). http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/TTR-Burris-
Brookings-ALGEBRA-FINAL.pdf
Burris, C.C. and K.G. Welner. 2005. Closing the achievement gap by detracking. Phi
Delta Kappan, 86(8): 594-598.
http://www.colorado.edu/education/faculty/kevinwelner/Docs/Burris%20&%20Welner_
Closing%20the%20Achievement%20Gap.pdf
Burris, C.C., K.G. Welner, and J.W. Bezoza. 2009. Universal access to a quality
education: Research and recommendations for the elimination of curricular stratification.
Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center (December 14).
http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/universal-access
Burris, C.C, K.G. Welner, E.W. Wiley, and J. Murphy. 2007. A world-class curriculum
for all. Educational Leadership. vol. 64, no. 7: 53-56 (April).
http://www.harrisoncsd.org/curric/pdf/World%20Class%20Curriculum%20-
%20ASCD%20April%202007.pdf
Burris, C.C., E. Wiley, K. Welner, and J. Murphy. 2008. Accountability, rigor, and
detracking: Achievement effects of embracing a challenging curriculum as a universal
good for all students. Teachers College Record. volume 110, number 3: 571-607
(March).
http://www.colorado.edu/education/faculty/kevinwelner/Docs/Burris,Wiley,Welner_Acc
ountability_Rigor_and_Detracking.pdf
65
Burris, C.C., Heubert, J.P. and H.M. Levin. 2004. Math acceleration for all. Educational
Leadership (February).
Burris, C.C., Heubert, J.P. and H.M. Levin. 2006. Accelerating mathematics
achievement using heterogeneous grouping. American Education Research Journal, vol.
43, no. 1: 103-134.
http://www.schoolwisepress.com/seminar/2008_12/MathGrouping.pdf
Burris, C.C. 2008. 8th grade algebra initiative, Board presentation (December 4).
http://www.roslynschools.org/curriculum/algebra.pdf
COMAR.
http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/MSDE/programs/giftedtalented/regulations.htm
The Council of Great City Schools 2010. A call for change: The social and educational
factors contributing to the outcomes of black males in urban schools (October).
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3273936/A%20Call%20For%20Change-%20Revised.pdf
Gamoran, A. 2009. Tracking and inequality: New directions for research and practice.
WCER Working Paper No. 2009-6 (August).
http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/publications/workingPapers/Working_Paper_No_2009_06.pdf
Hoxby, C.M. and G Weingarth. 2005. Taking race out of the equation: School
reassignment and the structure of peer effects.
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/inequality/Seminar/Papers/Hoxby06.pdf
Johnson, R.T. and D.W. Johnson. 1988. Cooperative learning: Two heads learn better
than one. In Context: A Quarterly of Humane Sustainable Culture (1988).
http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC18/Johnson.htm
66
Loveless, T. 1999. Will tracking reform promote social equity? Educational Leadership.
vol. 56, no. 7: 28-32 (April).
http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el199904_loveless.pdf
-----. 2001. Final report of the Commission of Funding and Services for Gifted and
Talented Education in Maryland (October 31).
http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/nr/rdonlyres/00001793/qlvosckzyuvckcbokbvrjut
kvnolgkep/governorscommissionreport.pdf
-----. 2007a. Task Force on the Education of Maryland’s African American Males.
Report (March 6). http://www.msde.maryland.gov/NR/rdonlyres/FCB60C1D-6CC2-
4270-BDAA-
153D67247324/16730/African_American_Male_Taskforce_Report_March_08.pdf
-----. 2007b. Criteria for excellence: Gifted and talented education program guidelines.
http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/NR/rdonlyres/04AFAD1F-8EC8-4EFE-B183-
16C2B0C4F84B/13371/MDGTProgramGuidelines.pdf
-----. 2006. Resolution on Gifted and Talented Curriculum in Middle Schools (April 25).
http://www.mccpta.com/resolutions/gt042506.pdf
-----. 2009b. Letter from Kay Romero, President, to Board of Education President Shirley
Brandman (April 3).
http://www.mccpta.com/testimonies_dir/AEI_Resolution_Letter_FINAL.pdf
67
-----. 2011. Letter from K. Trible, President, to Board of Education President Christopher
Barclay regarding the No Labels, No Limits! campaign (March 21).
http://www.mccpta.com/,
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=Z3RhbWMub3JnfHd3d3xneDo0O
WExODQ3OGVhODFkMzA0
Montgomery County Education Association. 2010a. Human and Civil Rights Committee
Agenda (November 22). http://www.mcea.nea.org/pdf/HCRMeetingNotes11-22-10.pdf
-----. 2010b. G. Vlasits, Chair, Human and Civil Rights Committee, testimony to Board
of Education (December 7). http://www.mcea.nea.org/pdf/HCRBoardTestimony12-7-
10.pdf
Montgomery County Education Forum 2002. Success for Every Student? Tracking and
the Achievement Gap. http://mcef.org/Position%20Paper%20PDF.pdf
-----. n.d.a. Flyer “No Labels, No Limits! A Campaign to Eliminate Student Tracking in
the Montgomery County Public Schools.” http://mcef.org/NoLabelsFacts.doc
-----. 1999. Honors/Advanced Placement policies, practices, & enrollment work group
report (July).
-----. 2005a. An examination of the grade 2 global screening for identification of gifted
and talented students,” J. Stevenson (September).
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/2005/G
ifted%20and%20Talented%20report.pdf
68
-----. 2005b. 2005 Annual Update to the Bridge to Excellence Master Plan (November
14). http://docushare.msde.state.md.us/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-
55775/MCPS_2005_Annual_Update_Final.pdf
-----. 2006b. Deputy Superintendent’s Advisory Committee for Gifted and Talented
Education 2006 report (May).
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/enriched/aeiadvisory/docs/DSAC_Re
portFinal1106.pdf
-----. 2006c. Middle School Reform Initiative Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment
Project Team Final Report (June).
-----. 2006d. Bridge to Excellence Master Plan 2006 Annual Update (October 16).
http://docushare.msde.state.md.us/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-
70058/MCPS%20MASTER%20PLAN%2011-16-06.pdf
-----. 2006d. Grade 2 global screening in spring 2006, C. Martinez Jr., Testing Brief
(September).
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/2006/G
rade%202%20Global%20Screening%202006%20Brief%20September%2026.pdf;
-----. 2007a. Bridge to Excellence Master Plan 2007 Annual Update (October 15).
http://docushare.msde.state.md.us/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-
80138/Montgomery%202007%20Annual%20Update.pdf
-----. 2007c. Grade 2 global screening in spring 2007, E. G. Chesney, Testing Brief,
MCPS Department of Shared Accountability (October).
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/2007/G
rade2GlobalScreening2007Brieffinal11607.pdf.
69
-----. 2008b. Evaluation of the implementation of middle school reform: Final report
2007-2008. E. Cooper-Martin and R.A. Hickson, Office of Shared Accountability
(September).
http://montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/2008/2007-
2008%20MS%20Reform%20End%20of%20year%20Report%20Nov.%2021.pdf
-----. 2008c. Grade 2 global screening in spring 2008, E. G. Chesney and K. Williams,
Testing Brief, MCPS Office of Shared Accountability and Division of Accelerated and
Enriched Instruction (November).
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/2008/G
2%20Global%20Screening%20in%20Spring%202008%20Brief%20and%20Tables%201
1-19-08.pdf.
-----. 2009b. Evaluation of the phase out of the secondary learning centers: Final report.
S. Merchlinsky, E Cooper-Martin and S. McNary, Office of Shared Accountability
(February).
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/development/teams/curriculum/docs
/LC_Transition_Final_Report_Feb_2009.pdf
-----. 2009d. Minutes of the Board of Education Policy Committee (May 5).
http://montgomeryschoolsmd.org/boe/meetings/POLdocs/2008-
09POL/050509minutes.pdf
-----. 2009e. Draft Policy IOA: Accelerated and enriched instruction. Department of
Accelerated and Enriched Instruction (May 12).
70
-----. 2010a. Great Seneca Creek Elementary School School improvement plan 2009-
2010 (January 21).
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/schoolimprovementplans/SIP02340
-----. 2010b. Application for the 2010 Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (May).
http://montgomeryschoolsmd.org/info/baldrige/docs/BaldrigeApplication.pdf
-----. 2010c. 2010-2015 Our call to action: Pursuit of excellence: The strategic plan for
the Montgomery County Public Schools (June).
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/about/strategicplan/strategicplan.pdf
-----. 2011. MCPS gets a strong return on educational investment: National report gives
MCPS high marks for productivity, Public Announcement (January 20).
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/press/index.aspx?pagetype=showrelease&id=289
3&type=&startYear=&pageNumber=2&mode=
-----. n.d.f. Strategies for working with diverse learners: A research review.
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/development/documents/diversity/di
versity_article.pdf
71
-----. n.d.g. ECP 12 – Uses cooperative learning structures. “Short Takes” video. Donna
Graves, Director, Equity Initiatives Unit.
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/development/resources/ecp/media/E
CP%2012%20-%20Uses%20cooperative%20learning%20structures/player.html
-----. n.d.h. MCPS by the numbers.
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/about/statistics.aspx.
Mosteller, F., Light, R. J., & Sachs, J. A. (1996). Sustained inquiry in education: Lessons
from skill grouping and class size. Harvard Educational Review, 66 (4): 797-842.
Oakes, Jeannie, Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. Second edition. Yale
New Haven Press, New Haven. 2005
Rees, D.I., L.M. Argys, and D.J. Brewer. 1996. Tracking in the United States:
Descriptive Statistics from NELS. Economics of Education Review 15(1): 83-89.
Rees, D.I., D.J. Brewer, L.M. Argys. 1998. How should we measure the effect of ability
grouping on student performance? Economics of Education Review 19 (2000): 17-20.
http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~dominicb/pub/How%20Should%20We%20Measure.pdf
Rumberger, R.W. and G.J. Palardy. 2005. Does segregation still matter? The impact of
student composition on academic achievement in high school. Teachers College Record
vol. 107, no. 9 (September). http://education.ucr.edu/pdf/faculty/palardy/Palardy5.pdf
72
Shattuck, T., E. Golan, E. Tunkel, R. Shattuck 2008. School-based, out-of school time,
and collaborative strategies to close the academic achievement gap between African
American and white students: A review of the literature (prepared for Montgomery
County Public Schools) (June 27).
Slavin, R.E. 1987. Ability Grouping and Student Achievement in elementary schools: A
best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, vol. 57, no. 3: 293-336.
http://faculty.rcoe.appstate.edu/koppenhaverd/f07/5040/read/slavin87.pdf
-----. 1991. Are cooperative learning and “untracking” harmful to the gifted? Response
to Allan. Educational Leadership. 68-71 (March).
http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_199103_slavin.pdf
-----. 1993. Ability grouping in the middle grades: Achievement effects and alternatives.
The Elementary School Journal. 535-552 (May).
Slavin, R.E. and R. Cooper. 1999. Improving intergroup relations: Lessons learned from
cooperative learning programs. Journal of Social Issues, vol. 55 i4 (Winter).
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~slm/AdjCI/Teaching/Cooperative.html
Tieso, C. 2003. Ability grouping is not just tracking anymore. Roeper Review. vol. 26,
no. 1. http://www.gt-cybersource.org/ArticlePrintable.aspx?rid=13012
The Washington Post 2008. Montgomery Extra,“With Focus on Weast, Hopefuls Face
Off for School Board Seats” (October 31).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2008/10/29/AR2008102902283.h
tml.
Ujifusa, A. 2011. Campaign against “Gifted and Talented’ identification this year revives
debate, Gazette, A-1, 14 (March 9)..
http://www.gazette.net/stories/03092011/montnew184800_32540.php
Welner, K. and C.C. Burris. 2006. Alternative approaches to the politics of detracking.
Theory into Practice, 45(1) 90-99.
http://www.colorado.edu/education/faculty/kevinwelner/Docs/Welner%20&%20Burris_
Alternative%20Approaches%20to%20the%20Policies%20of%20Detracking.pdf
Xu, M. 2011. “SMOB Alan Xie visits Blair: SGR invites Xie to have a roundtable
discussion on tracking.” Silver Chips, Blair High School (February 22).
http://silverchips.mbhs.edu/story/10725
73
APPENDIX A
Board of Education Member Statements
The campaign statements of Board of Education members set forth below pertain
to ability grouping and or gifted and talented identification.
As a school system, we know that there are students whose abilities may not be
recognized through traditional screening. It is our responsibility to eliminate barriers to
achievement and give all children the opportunity to demonstrate their potential. This is
particularly compelling where data suggest an under-representation of minority students
in the identified gifted and talented population. I am committed to ensuring equity and
excellence for all students, which requires setting high expectations for all and supporting
students so they may achieve their highest academic potential.
State law requires MCPS to identify students who are performing or have the
potential to perform at remarkably high levels of accomplishment. Currently, MCPS uses
the Grade 2 Global Screening process to satisfy this obligation. This screening offers data
to better understand an individual student’s academic strengths and to allow students to
demonstrate potential that may not have been evident through classroom performance.
During this school year, 25 MCPS elementary schools are piloting the Student
Instructional Program Planning and Implementation (SIPPI) process to ensure that Grade
2 Global Screening information is included in the student data used to inform the
articulation process and that specific information about an individual student’s
instructional needs are communicated to parents. This effort allows for a targeted
approach that identifies students’ strengths and abilities in individual disciplines. For
example, a student who may be appropriately on grade level in math may be capable of
acceleration in reading. The existing “gifted and talented” label does not recognize these
different strengths. I support MCPS’s efforts to use processes such as SIPPI to improve
how we understand and program for individual students’ instructional needs, not just at
grade 2 but also at other key articulation points. Our focus should be on gathering data
that best informs school staffs about the whole child rather than on simply labeling
children as “gifted and talented.” The label has not worked to ensure that all high-
achieving students have their needs met. In addition, the label leaves some students
feeling that they have no gifts or talents—a patently untrue assumption.
74
to pursue more rigorous classes will be necessary to guide our next steps.
http://mcea.nea.org/pdf/Questionnaire-%20Shirley%20Brandman%20-
%20Board%20of%20Education%20Candidate%20(2010).pdf
As a school system, we know that there are students whose abilities may not be
recognized through traditional screening. It is our responsibility to eliminate barriers to
achievement and give all students access to enriched and innovative instruction with a
rigorous curriculum. This is particularly compelling where data suggest an under-
representation of minority students in the identified gifted and talented population. I am
committed to ensuring equity and excellence for all students, which requires setting high
expectations for all and supporting students so they may achieve their highest academic
potential.
During this past school year, 25 MCPS elementary schools piloted the Student
Instructional Program Planning and Implementation (SIPPI) process. In addition to the
traditional Global screening tests administered in second grade, the SIPPI process looked
at each individual student’s learning profile in more depth and communicated this
information to parents. This effort allows for a targeted approach that identifies students’
strengths and abilities in individual disciplines. For example, a student who may be
appropriately on grade level in math may be capable of acceleration in reading.
The existing “gifted and talented” label does not recognize these different strengths. I
support MCPS’s efforts to use processes such as SIPPI to improve how we understand
and program for individual students’ instructional needs, not just at grade 2 but also at
other key articulation points. Our focus should be on gathering data that best informs
school staffs about the whole child rather than on simply labeling children as “gifted and
talented.” The label has not worked even to ensure that all highachieving students have
their needs met. In addition, the label leaves some students feeling that they have no gifts
or talents—a patently untrue assumption.
MCPS has also designed the Honors AP Identification Tool (HAPIT) to identify
secondary students who show potential for higher-level instruction but who may not be
enrolled in rigorous courses. Use of the HAPIT tool is part of an effort to take down
barriers. Our student’s Rights and Responsibilities handbook now provides that “all
students who have the capability, motivation, or potential to accept the challenge of
Honors, AP, and advanced-level courses will be accorded an opportunity to do so” (page
3 of the 2009-2010 Handbook). I strongly support the commitment to looking at a
student’s untapped potential and allowing motivated students access to rigorous
instruction. During my tenure, I have worked with student activists to correct instances
where schools were not following through on this promise. I recognize, however, that
simply increasing access to advanced, high level classes should not be the goal; rather it
must be to ensure that students who take the honors, AP and IB courses complete them
successfully. To this end we must ensure that we are providing adequate preparation and
foundation to support success.
http://progressiveneighborsmd.org/candidates/shirleybrandman.pdf
75
Judy Docca, District 1
I support enriched and innovative instruction for all students. Staff members have
developed rigorous coursework in every discipline. Appropriate instructional techniques
are disseminated through subject area meetings, through the demonstrations of staff
development teachers and on websites from the division of instruction. The early
childhood initiatives, which include all day kindergarten and smaller classes, have
produced similar high reading and mathematics scores for all groups-gender related,
African American, Hispanic, Asian, white and those affected by adverse socioeconomic
conditions. This success in the early grades will assist all students to be involved in
challenging classwork as they progress through the middle school, high school and post-
graduate programs. The goal is not to label or "de-label" students, nor is it to "track"
students, but to build on student strengths and lessen weaknesses with instruction so that
students may aspire to achieve at all levels. We should not neglect physical education, the
arts and humanities in our quest for excellence. These courses complete the academic
interests and needs of students.
http://progressiveneighborsmd.org/candidates/judydocca.pdf
76
http://mcea.nea.org/pdf/Questionnaire%20-
%20Michael%20Durso%20%20Board%20of%20Education%20Candidate%20(2010).pd
f
Certainly, all students across the spectrum should face a rigorous curriculum. For
starters, I think GT instruction can be broadened to be offered to more than receive it
now. The key is to make sure placements are accurate, and students, in conjunction with
parents – teachers are placed in appropriate settings. While we pursue GT issues, we must
not lose sight of those students struggling with language and reading deficiencies.
http://progressiveneighborsmd.org/candidates/mikedurso.pdf
Maryland code (COMAR) requires identification, it does not require labeling nor
does it dictate our global screening. MCPS is now piloting additional screening of
students at the transition points of grade 5 and 8. Meeting the needs of GT students
requires some means of identification. We must be careful that methods are not culturally
biased. http://mcea.nea.org/pdf/Questionnaire-%20Pat%20OP'Neill%20-
%20Board%20of%20Education%20Candidate%20(2010).pdf
All students should have access to enriched curriculum and instruction. We have a
no label pilot. Our old programs created segregated schools.
http://progressiveneighborsmd.org/candidates/patoneil.pdf
I believe that grouping by ability is the preferable teaching style. However, much
depends on the neighborhood school. In a school with few at-risk children, which I
identify as poor and non-English speakers, a heterogeneous classroom with
differentiation might be acceptable. In that classroom there might only be a few below-
grade students, whereas the rest of the class is at or above grade level. Those below
grade level students might benefit from peer modeling. However, in a school with mostly
at-risk students, I don’t believe that including just a few students that perform above
grade level will serve any benefit to a classroom of mostly at or below-grade level
students. Furthermore, it could limit the instruction provided to those above-grade level
students. While some teachers are capable of providing differentiation to many levels in
a heterogeneous classroom, many are not, and it is a burden on teachers to develop
multiple lesson plans for the same classroom.
Personally, I do not like the “gifted and talented” term for the label that is
required to identify certain students by Maryland law. I would prefer a more targeted
approach that better identifies individual children’s strengths and abilities in individual
disciplines. A student that is capable of acceleration in math may not be in reading.
However, the GT label does not differentiate between these abilities. Moreover, I believe
all students, whether labeled GT or not, should have access to an accelerated and
enriched curriculum that is appropriate for the needs and abilities of each child.
77
In spite of its shortcomings, the GT label is a tool that identifies certain students
for accelerated and enriched instruction that might otherwise be missed. Similarly, the
HAPIT tool, now used in MCPS secondary schools, identifies students that have potential
to be successful in honors and AP courses. The challenge is to ensure that these tools are
accurate predictors of future success.
It is important that all students have access to higher level courses and curriculum
and I support MCPS’ efforts ending the gate keeping that kept many capable students out
of those courses. However, I do not believe mere enrollment in these courses is enough.
It is of equal importance that students are successful and the necessary supports are
provided to ensure that success (The Washington Post 2008, 2, 12).
I don't claim to be an expert or to have all the answers, but I suspect that in a
population of almost 140,000 students and extreme socioeconomic diversity, there is a
basic truth: One size does not fit all. I am in favor the Board embarking on an in-
depth exploration of this question, reviewing the extensive science-based research on this
topic. The Board needs to take the time to adequately inform itself on these issues, by
hearing not only from staff, but also from independent experts and from parents who
have experienced what it is like to have a gifted child who needs the sort of advanced
curriculum and social supports that may not be available in a regular classroom, as well
as from parents whose children have experienced negative repercussions from
regrouping. I am a pragmatist, not an ideologue, and I am afraid this is one of those areas
where there is a lot of ideological heat but not very much light. I want a school system
that is committed to doing what works for each individual child (which probably actually
entails doing a variety of different things for different children) -- not what is the latest
fad in educational circles (we've had enough of that after the open classrooms fad and the
high stakes testing fad). That said, I do think, based on my own personal experience,
that there is an objective reality of "giftedness" in some children, in the same way that
there is an objective reality of special needs in some children and if we ignore reality, we
do so at a real cost to both those children and to society as a whole (The Washington Post
2008, 2, 12).
78
APPENDIX B
No Label, No Limits! Campaign Contact Information
Website: http://mcef.org/
Ana Sol Gutierrez, Chair: Ana.Gutierrez@house.state.md.us
Evie Frankl, Executive Director: evie@mcef.org
Identity.
Website: http://identity-youth.org/
Henry Montes, Chairman: info@identity-youth.org
Candace Kattar, Executive Director: info@identity-youth.org
GapBusters
Website: http://gapbuster.org/index.html
Yvette Butler, Executive Director: http://gapbuster.org/contact.html
yfbutler@gmail.com
Website: http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/studycircles/aboutus/
John Landesman, Program Coordinator: john_landesman@mcpsmd.org
Website: http://www.impactsilverspring.org/aboutUs.html
Laura Steinberg, Board President
Frankie Blackburn, Senior Strategic Advisor: Frankie@impactsilversping.org
Website: http://www.seiu500.org/
Merle Cuttitta, President: cuttittam@seiu500.org
David Rodich, Executive Director: rodichd@seiu500.org
NAACP
Website: http://www.naacp-mc.org/
79
Henry Hailstock, President: naacpmont7@aol.com
Paul Vance, First Vice President: paulvance01@comcast.net
Yvette Butler, Education Committee Chair: yfbutler@gmail.com
Jeffrey Slavin
5706 Warwick Place
Chevy Chase, MD 20815
Website: http://mcea.nea.org/
Doug Prouty, President: dprouty@mcea.nea.org
80
APPENDIX C
General Contact Information
81
Montgomery County Council of Parent-Teacher Associations
Additional contacts
82
Press
83