Prepared by the Gifted and Talented Association of Montgomery County
Contacts:  Eric Marx, Co-President (ecmarx@verizon.net)
Frederick Stichnoth (fstichnoth@mrrlaw.net)
December 23, 2008
[Downloadable Word doc version here.]


MCPS’ process of revising the gifted and talented policy has reached a crucial point at which parent action is required.  This Alert describes the issues, the process and the actions.  Parents must send this Message:


    We urge the rejection of any revision to Policy IOA, pertaining to gifted and talented education, which does not

1. focus exclusively on gifted and talented education; 
   
2. require a separate gifted and talented curriculum; 
   
3. expressly mandate homogeneous grouping; 
   
4. preserve the identification of gifted and talented students;  and
   
5. specify program and accountability requirements.

1.      Should the Policy pertain to gifted and talented education or to “all” students’ education? 

• Current Policy:  pertains to education of GT students (including both students identified by the second grade screening and those who are not identified but have the capability or motivation to accept the challenge of GT education). 
• Draft Policy:  pertains to education of all students. 
• GTA:  GT students (defined inclusively, as in the Current Policy) have distinctive needs;  addressing GT students’ education must continue to be the focus of Policy IOA.

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

• Current Policy:  Requires a separate GT “scope and sequence of objectives” backing a curriculum that is matched to and challenges the abilities of high ability students.   
• Draft Policy:  Requires “clearly defined and articulated accelerated and enriched pathways of instruction with clear learning objectives” (for “all” students). 
  
• GTA:  Supports “a sequenced and systematic higher level GT curriculum” (as recommended by the Montgomery County Council of Parent-Teacher Associations).

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

• Current Policy:  Requires “flexible and varied grouping practices…based on student need and mastery of the subject matter,” with “a balanced opportunity to work in homogeneous and heterogeneous groups and individually.”  The Current Policy expressly mandates center and magnet, gifted learning disabled (GT/LD) and underachieving/traditionally-underrepresented student programs.   
• Draft Policy:  Requires “flexible and varied grouping arrangements that include grouping by achievement level, by interest, and by learning profile,” with “substantial time for students to interact with academic peers.”  The Draft Policy mandates “programs for students whose needs cannot easily be met in local schools.” 
• GTA:  Homogeneous grouping has been demonstrated by research to best support efficient learning by groups at all ability levels;  an express mandate for  “homogeneous groups” is necessary to ensure that this option is preserved.  GTA supports center and magnet programs expanded and integrated into the continuum of GT education, GT/LD, and the Program of Assessment, Diagnosis, and Instruction (PADI) and other programs for underachieving and traditionally-underrepresented students. 

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

• Current Policy: Requires that a second grade screening determine whether or not each student is “gifted and talented;”  regardless of outcome, any student who has “the capability or motivation to accept the challenge” may take GT classes and coursework. 
• Draft Policy:  Requires annual assessments and recommendations of programs and services for each student;  the President of the Board of Education publicly interpreted this provision as ending the current GT identification. 
• GTA:  While the lack of identification should not exclude capable or motivated students from GT coursework, and while annual individual program and service recommendations are necessary, identification is required by State law and necessary to secure appropriate programming.

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

• Current Policy:  Mandates that the Superintendent carry out specified “implementation strategies.”   
• Draft Policy:  Requires that data be monitored and published, assuming that this will drive implementation, improvement and accountability. 
• GTA:  While data is necessary, data alone has proven to be insufficient to ensure that MCPS carries out the program required by the Policy.   Therefore the Policy must require that the Superintendent carry out and the BOE oversee the Policy provisions.

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

• Current Policy:  Contains specific provisions defining “gifted and talented students” and requiring a GT curriculum, homogeneous grouping and Superintendent implementation.   
• Draft Policy:  Sets out only a general, largely undefined, vision of a “continuum” of services for “all” students. 
• GTA:  in light of MCPS’ long history of failing to implement gifted and talented instruction in the local schools, specific program requirements are necessary to clarify, preserve and finally realize the intent of the community as expressed through the Board of Education.

MCPS has been preparing a revision of Policy IOA, “Gifted and Talented Education,” for the past 18 months.  MCPS has been vague about its intent, and the Board of Education has not yet set its agenda.  Therefore, GTA must anticipate a potential accelerated schedule:

• January 15:  An MCPS-parent AEI Advisory Committee finalizes its summary of the Draft Policy, called the “Policy IOA Revision Overview.” 
• January 23:  The Overview and the Draft Policy are presented by the Division of Accelerated and Enriched Instruction (the leading proponent of the Policy) to Dr. Weast and his Executive Leadership Team. 
• February 6:  The Executive Leadership Team presents the Overview and the Draft Policy to the Board of Education’s Policy Committee. 
• March 2:  The Policy Committee recommends the Draft Policy to the Board of Education as a whole.
• April 6:  The Board of Education tentatively approves the Draft Policy and submits it for public comment. 

The earliest decisions, by the AEI Advisory Committee and the Executive Leadership Team, are crucial.  Once recommended by the Policy Committee, the Draft Policy probably cannot be changed or stopped.  The public comment period is too late. 


Crucial decisions that will determine the course of GT instruction over the next decade will be made during the next eight weeks, beginning January 15;  if you delay, your opinion may not be heard.  To assure being heard, deliver the Message at the top of this alert:

1. To your local PTA.  Contact your PTA President and GT Liaison.  Present the Message.  First, ask that, at the next PTA meeting, a resolution that contains the Message be adopted.  This resolution should be presented immediately after adoption to MCCPTA, the BOE Policy Committee and Committee on Special Populations, and the Executive Leadership Team.  Second, you, your PTA President and the GT Liaison, by Wednesday, January 7, should present the Message to your MCCPTA Cluster Representatives and ask that they immediately convey the Message to MCCPTA President Kay Romero and to MCCPTA Gifted Child Committee Chair Susan Joyce Thomas.
2. To the MCCPTA Reps on the AEI Advisory Committee.  Contact MCCPTA Gifted Child Committee Chair Susan Joyce Thomas and Ted Willard (both members of the AEI Advisory Committee) no later than Monday, January 12.  Present the Message.  Ask that they, on behalf of MCCPTA, dissent from the MCPS/AEI “consensus” position in the Overview by associating their names with the Message in the “Differing Perspectives” column of the Overview that AEI will present to the Executive Leadership Team.  The Executive Leadership Team must see MCCPTA in the Differing Perspectives column on this Overview sheet.
3. To the BOE and MCPS.  Present the Message to the BOE and MCPS, copying your local PTA President and GT Liaison, your Cluster Representatives, and MCCPTA and its reps, early and often.  The first contact must be made no later than Monday, January 12.  The next contact should be made probably by Monday, January 26 (the timeline will be updated as more definite information becomes available).  If you know, personally, any member of the BOE, try to meet with him or her to discuss our need to preserve GT.
4. To other GT parents.  Preserving GT depends totally on the number of people who deliver the Message.  Contact several other parents at your school and around the County who are interested in GT by Thursday, January 1, give them this Issues and Actions Alert, and ask them to spread the Message.

CONTACT THE DECISION MAKERS - click here for e-mail links