Please forward and cross-post

MCEF/MCEA “NO LABELS, NO LIMITS!” CAMPAIGN:

Gifted and Talented Identification and Ability Grouping
in Montgomery County Public Schools (Maryland)

Frederick Stichnoth (fred.stichnoth@yahoo.com)

March 24, 2011

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:

Gifted and Talented Identification and Ability Grouping

in Montgomery County Public Schools (Maryland)

Frederick Stichnoth (fred.stichnoth@yahoo.com)

March 23, 2011

“--a philosophy of ‘no child left behind, but

don’t let the gifted students get too far ahead.’” Tieso

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.

Classroom observations by Jeannie Oakes have shown that students in low-track

classes, as compared with students in high-track classes, have lesser access to knowledge
associated with high social status, lower quality instruction, less time-on-task, and lower
self-esteem; however, she is criticized for not comparing these experiences of students in
low-track classes to low-performing students in heterogeneous classrooms. Oakes
believes that the function, in fact, of schools in society is to reproduce inequitable,
hierarchical social arrangements; her goal is to overturn this hierarchy using school
reform as a tool.

Detracking would result in “winners and losers:” low-performing students would

gain and high- and middle-performing students would lose, with a decline in net
achievement.

Rockville Centre School District detracked with great achievement success

among low- and high-achievers. It is the leading example of a detracked system, used as
such by MCEF. Rockville Centre only has one middle school, and one high school--with
the demographic profile of MCPS’ Damascus High School. It is doubtful that Rockville
Centre’s results could be replicated at the MCPS scale.

MCPS’ Policy and Regulation support homogeneous grouping, but MCPS’

subsequent reports reject it. These reports conflict with positions of parents (voiced by
Montgomery County Council of Parent-Teacher Associations), Maryland State
Department of Education and National Association for Gifted Children.

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.

The MCEF/MCEA No Labels campaign is conducted through rhetoric without

evidence, including very dubious causal connections (e.g., that the label causes the
achievement gap). Erasing the label gap will have no effect on the achievement gap; to
imagine otherwise is a retreat to magical thinking.

INTRODUCTION

The Montgomery County Education Forum and the Montgomery County

Education Association are conducting a “No Labels, No Limits!” political campaign, the
goals of which are to end the “labeling” of students as “gifted and talented,” and to end
“tracking.”

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 AND TRACK

Label

MCEA, MCEF and their fellow-travelers have inspired another paroxysm of

label-mania. The “label,” a subsidiary though still too necessary facet of a constellation
of real issues, has been fantasized by MCEA, MCEF and MCPS into a fetish: the
powerful talisman to an equity utopia.

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

MCEF’s fact-unencumbered, ideological tracts focus on “tracking.” Our

experience indicates that ability grouping has been rooted out of local schools system-
wide (though MCPS professes to have no information on this aspect of its operations).
So it is perplexing that MCEF and MCEA raise a public ruckus opposing a disappeared
instructional technique. We are nevertheless grateful for the invitation to demand its
restoration.

We whole-heartedly agree that service to and performance of African-American,

Hispanic and poor students (concentrated geographically in the red zone) are insufficient.
We have asked MCPS and MCEF to discuss an equity budget channeling desperately
needed resources to the red zone; the importance of gifted and talented education to
traditionally-underserved, typically red zone, students; and real equity across the whole
distribution of performance outcomes and life opportunities; but they have been
unresponsive.

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.

Detracking has been shown by experimental research to harm higher performing

students’ achievement and self-esteem, particularly higher performing minority students’
achievement and self-esteem.

But even if detracking were confirmed by experimental research and by a track

record of successes in comparable districts, the crucial pre-requisites to detracking,
identified as such by detrackers, are far from met by MCPS.

1. High level curriculum. Detrackers insist that a high-standard curriculum is

essential; MCPS has fixed its curriculum on a mid-level, college-without-remediation,
standard, inimical to the whole idea of detracking.

2. Ability to differentiate. Detrackers insist that administrators, parents and

teachers be absolutely confident that teachers can differentiate; in MCPS it is universally
acknowledged, and proven by MCPS evaluation, that teachers cannot adequately
differentiate.

3. Support for struggling students. Detrackers insist that the detracked

system offer pervasive support for struggling students; no systematic support, or course
of support in fact, is apparent in MCPS.

4. Parent confidence in the system. Detrackers insist on the importance of

parent confidence, borne in part by system responsiveness to parent concerns and
openness to all voices in the debate. MCPS has forsaken gifted and talented parent
confidence by its utterly disingenuous discussion of gifted and talented programming, by
its evasion of or retaliation against parents’ in-school concerns regarding particular
services to particular students, by shutting gifted and talented parents out of committee
participation and by publicly and officially ridiculing their desire to participate. MCPS
has ignored the long and consistent support for ability grouping by Montgomery County
Council of Parent-Teacher Associations, as well as by the Maryland State Board of
Education and the National Association for Gifted Children.

5. Data on the full spectrum of performance. Detrackers insist on publicly

available data, and MCPS refuses to institute a system of data collection, analysis and
reporting that reveals the full distribution of performance (disaggregated demographically
and by the wealthy green zone and the poor red zone). Without this data, MCPS cannot
evaluate its service to highly-able students.

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.

We desire to make real, practical improvement in the education of all students:

high- and low-performers, including African-American, Hispanic, and poor students
positioned all along the ability distribution. Real improvement entails high level
curricula, systemic and systematic support for struggling students, parent confidence
borne of system responsiveness and inclusion, disaggregated data on the full spectrum of
performance, the same continuum of opportunities to learn in all schools comprising the
system, and students’ opportunity to learn among their intellectual peers.

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.

“NO LABELS, NO LIMITS!” CAMPAIGN

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).

See Appendix B: No Labels, No Limits Campaign Contact Information.

Platitudes

Some of the campaign’s assertions have a “mom and apple pie” appeal, but only a
pseudo-relationship to labeling and detracking:

“[A]ll children have unique gifts and talents….(Montgomery County Education

Association n.d.b).” “Do we really think that 80% of African American and Latino
children are without gifts or talents? (Montgomery County Education Forum, n.d.b).”

Students should have “equitable education (Montgomery County Education

Association n.d.b).”

“All students deserve [sic] high quality of instruction,” a “rigorous curriculum

(Montgomery County Education Association n.d.b)” and “a high quality curriculum
(Montgomery County Education Forum n.d.a).” (MCPS would assert that its curricula are
high quality and rigorous.)

“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).”

Ideology without substantiation

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).”

MCPS identifies approximately 40 percent of Grade 2 students as gifted and

talented (Montgomery County Public Schools 2009g, 1). The top performing students
who are not identified are at the class median along the ability spectrum. The needs of
this median group should define “on-grade level course work.” The matching of these
students to this work is a goal of educational programming. The work in MCPS leads to
college-readiness.

Identification is not the fateful first step in “tracking.” First, it is impossible to

identify any programmatic access gained as a result of identification, and neither MCEA
nor MCEF attempts to do so. In fact, except for its magnet programs, MCPS offers no
programming that is not “on-grade.” Second, there is no publicly available longitudinal
analysis that correlates Grade 2 identification to subsequent program access (e.g., Math 6
in Grade 5) or benchmark attainment (e.g., SAT 1650 or AP 3 or higher), and neither
MCEA nor MCEF attempts to provide one. To the contrary, MCPS states that “the label
or lack of a label is not the determining factor for whether a child receives advanced-level
instruction. Math 6 enrollment verifies that students who were identified, as well as
students who were not identified GT, are completing advanced-level mathematics
(Montgomery County Public Schools 2009f, 4).” Third, while “tracking” is variously
defined, MCPS offers open access to whatever programming may be available (except
magnets) and promotes all students toward “rigorous” programming. MCCPTA President
Kristin Trible’s March 21, 2011 letter to the Board, responding to the No Labels, No
Limits! campaign, states “We disagree that the bestowing of the GT label affords any
genuine enrichment opportunities to GT identified students that cannot be ‘accessed’ by
other students (Montgomery County Council of Parent-Teacher Associations 2011, 3).”

Identification limits educational opportunities. “Students who have not been

identified gifted have limited choices and are often prevented from participating in
magnet classes and taking advance [sic] courses needed to get into colleges (Montgomery
County Education Association, n.d.b).” “‘The [non-GT] kids get very little
opportunities,’ Vlasits said. ‘They would like to try more challenging material but those
things won’t fly (Xu 2011).’” “This means that labeling students considered NOT ‘gifted
and talented’ limits their access to the additional instruction and advanced curriculum
needed to succeed (Montgomery County Education Forum n.d.a).” “The worst
instructional effects of this practice [tracking] include: remedial versus enriched

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.

Identification lowers expectations. MCEA committee chair Vlasits testified

before the Board of Education that labels lower expectations that are critical to learning
(Montgomery County Education Association 2010b). “[L]abeling of students frequently
results in lower expectations for those labeled ‘not’ GT….(Montgomery County
Education Association n.d.a).” “Many teachers have high expectations for children
identified as ‘gifted and talented.’ So do their parents. As do the children,
themselves….Children MCPS identifies, in effect, as ‘not gifted and talented’ get the
message that school is not a place where they can shine (Montgomery County Equity
Forum, n.d.b).”

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.

Identification is a cause of the achievement gap. MCEA committee chair Vlasits

testified that labels contribute to the achievement gap (Montgomery County Education
Association 2010b). MCEF asserts: “Tracking in MCPS begins with ‘gifted and talented’
(GT) program policies and practices in elementary schools that create the foundation for
an achievement gap for students of color and lower socio-economic status.” “…MCPS
ability grouping policies and practices are largely responsible for educational disparities
because they institutionalize low expectations for children of color.” “[T]here is a direct
connection between the practice of tracking beginning in early grades and the resulting
achievement gap (Montgomery County Education Forum 2002, 10, 3, 6).” Labeling “can
contribute to the achievement gap….(Montgomery County Education Association
n.d.a).” “So the ‘achievement gap’ may increase because of MCPS policies
(Montgomery County Education Forum n.d.b).”

Racial disparity exists not only in identification, but also in performance

outcomes along all of MCPS’ data points. Neither MCEA nor MCEF presents data
correlating the identified 40 percent of students and the non-identified 60 percent of
students to post-identification performance against benchmarks. No such experimental
data exists in MCPS. (The No Labels campaigners apparently expect that elimination of
the label in the two “no-label pilot schools” will have a causal connection to the
subsequent reduction of the achievement gap. However, the former Director of MCPS
Division of Accelerated and Enriched Instruction stated that it is not possible to attribute
performance results to the elimination of the GT identification.)

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).

Identification is not equitable. MCEA committee chair Vlasits pronounces the

label inconsistent with the commitment to equity (Montgomery County Education
Association 2010b).

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.

MCPS defines “equity” in conjunction with “excellence:”

Equity in our schools is defined as high expectations and access to meaningful

and relevant learning for all students so that outcomes are not predictable by race,
ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, language proficiency, or disability.
Excellence is achieved through high standards that ensure that all students grow to
reach their highest levels year after year and are college or career ready as high
school graduates (Montgomery County Public Schools 2010c, iii).

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.

Ability grouping is anti-egalitarian and undemocratic. Montgomery County

Education Forum pronounces “We live in democracy….” Therefore, people should
mingle. Higher-track students’ “classroom and learning experience is deficient and
devoid of the rich contributions that every child has to offer.” The high-track classroom
“perpetuates race and class stereotypes,” and the false conceptions that high-performing
students “are better than whole groups of their peers” and that “segregation and race and
class biases are not wrong (Montgomery County Education Forum 2002, 18).”

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.

MCEF believes that heterogeneous grouping is necessary if parents and students

are to interact “as a community as opposed to a contest of individuals.” MCEF calls for
abandonment of “the paradigm that quality education is a scarce commodity and we must
fight so that our children and not others children receive it (Montgomery County
Education Forum 2002, 19).” I perceive neither the contest nor exclusion. I wanted my
children to receive an excellent academic education, but see no need for contest or
exclusion. To the contrary, I believe that my children are supported by peers who also
want and receive an excellent academic education.

Certainly some parents promote distinguished performance in the competition for

access to the most selective colleges. I do not believe it is the role of the school system to
correct this social, class-carried, impulsion.

Summary

The MCEF/MCEA campaign is conducted with snippets aimed at organizing a

bandwagon while thwarting analysis. Some assertions are patently false, such as the idea
that a lack of identification prevents magnet access. Nearly every statement is
unsupported by evidence. Many statements mistake correlation for causation, such as
reasoning from the correlation of identification and the achievement gap to the assertion

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

Introduction. Research into ability grouping addresses three primary questions:

How does ability grouping affect aggregate performance? How does ability grouping
differentially affect students of low ability, middle ability and high ability? How does
ability grouping affect students’ self-esteem?

There are two primary research approaches: experimental and ethnographic.

Experimental research compares performance outcomes between homogeneous ability
groups and heterogeneous groups, and among ability groups; students are assigned to one
or the other type of group either by random assignment or by assignment of pairs
matched by similar IQ or prior achievement measures or some measure of ability. A
meta-analysis is a statistical combination of many prior existing experimental studies.
Ethnographic research is based on classroom observation and educated judgment of the
meaning and effect of classroom interactions: “the subjective meanings of the events and
patterns of life in schools (Gamoran and Berends 1987, 6).”

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.

Arguments opposed to ability grouping indicate its perceived damage to low

achievers, though slower pace, lower quality instruction, less experienced or able
teachers, teachers who do not want to teach low track students, low expectations, and few
positive behavioral models. Low-track students are seen to be prone to delinquency,
absenteeism, dropout, and social problems; they are less likely to attend college. Ability
grouping is seen to perpetuate social class and racial inequities, through development of
elite and underclass groups. It is contrary to egalitarian, democratic ideals. The
argument focuses on equity and democratic values (Slavin 1990, 474).

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).”

Preliminary: curricular differentiation. Meta-analyses from the 1990s of

Robert Slavin and James Kulik continue to dominate the experimental research. The
difference in their research interests is pertinent to the controversy regarding MCPS’
gifted and talented “program.” Slavin excludes studies that did not standardize curricula;
he focuses only on the effect of learning in homogeneous groups, without differentiated
curricula and instruction. His elementary years study “excludes studies of special classes
for the gifted and for low achievers.” These classes involve “many other changes in
curriculum, class size, resources, and goals that make them fundamentally different from
comprehensive ability grouping plans.” His research and article focus on “the
achievement effects of grouping practices per se…(Slavin 1987, 297).” Slavin’s middle
grades study “excludes special programs for the gifted or other high achievers as well as
studies of special education, remedial programs, or other special programs for low
achievers (Slavin 1993, 538).”

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).

Slavin isolates a discrete instructional technique – grouping – for study; Kulik

combines grouping with curricular matching (and thus with acceleration and enrichment).
The efficacy of grouping in itself is at issue between tracking and detracking proponents.
However, ability grouping is complemented by curricular matching. Even the nominally
heterogeneous classroom employs differentiation among students of instructional
techniques and other processes and products (which are difficult to distinguish from
curriculum). The ultimate practical issue seems to be whether students are best served by
ability grouping with curricular adjustments or no grouping with lesser instructional
adjustments. To resolve this issue, grouping combined with adjustments must be
researched.

Types of grouping. Experimental research distinguishes the following types of

grouping:

1. XYZ grouping (Kulik) or ability-grouped class assignment (Slavin): at a

given grade level, students are grouped by some measure of ability in separate classrooms
and the same curricula is offered to all groups.

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.

3. Within-class grouping: within a single classroom, students are grouped by

ability for certain subjects and instruction to each group is differentiated by ability level.

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.

“Cooperative learning” is a family of similar instructional techniques (several

with individual experts as their creators and main proponents, including Slavin, Spencer
Kagan, and Roger and David Johnson) based on in-class heterogeneous grouping that
currently is advocated nationally (and as further discussed below recommended by
MCPS at least for “diverse” classrooms, and by MCEF, Oakes, and Burris and Welner).
Groups are comprised of between four and eight students of different ability levels,
mixed as to gender, ethnic and socio-economic background. Cooperative learning is a
technique that structures student-student interaction patterns, through “positive goal
interdependence with individual accountability.” Interdependence entails that students
“sink or swim together:” they have a “common goal on which the group will be rewarded
for their efforts.” At the same time, each individual member is responsible to make a
significant contribution to the group (Johnson and Johnson 1988).

“Tracking” is a charged term with various definitions. MCEA states “Grouping

students by labels or in certain classes with selective instruction is tracking (Montgomery
County Education Association n.d.b).” Similarly, for Loveless, tracking is implemented
on a subject-by-subject basis, and refers to grouping students into separate classes based
on achievement (Loveless 2009, 9). By contrast, MCEF states:

Tracking is defined as ‘the rigid and static assignment of students to classes,

programs, or schools on the basis of ability, achievement, or teacher/counselor
judgment for a long period of time with no options, and with whole group
instruction as the predominant mode of instruction.’ In layman’s terms, it’s the
sorting and labeling of students into groups into which they are locked throughout
their schools careers [citing to MCPS report]….Not all grouping practices are
‘tracking.’ Ability grouping that is short-term, flexible, and frequently evaluated
and where children can be regrouped according to evaluations can be used
effectively to meet specific student learning goals (Montgomery County
Education Forum 2002, 1, 4).

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.

Overall academic achievement effect of each type of grouping

A summary of results comparing achievement between the various types of

homogeneous grouping and heterogeneous grouping is presented in the table below.
(Note that Slavin’s conclusions differ depending on his focus on elementary or middle
school.)

Table 1: Comparison of Research as to Overall Effect

Slavin— Slavin— Kulik

elementary secondary/middle
school school
XYZ/ability- 0 0 0.03 standard deviations-
grouped class negligible.
assignment
Joplin plan/cross- 0.45 standard Mixed results 0.3 standard deviations-
grade grouping deviations small/moderate. 2 to 3
months advantage
Within-class 0.32 standard 0 0.25 standard deviations; 2
grouping deviations to 3 months advantage
Special Not addressed Not addressed 0.85 standard deviations:
accelerated classes large increase. 1 year
advantage
Special enriched Not addressed Not addressed 0.40 standard deviations. 4
classes months advantage

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.

XYZ/ability-grouped class assignment. Slavin determined that “assigning

[elementary school] students to self-contained classes according to general achievement
or ability does not enhance student achievement in the elementary school…(Slavin 1987
328);” and “…the effects of ability grouping on [middle grade] student achievement are
essentially zero (Slavin 1993, 539).” Kulik summarized: “the average effect of XYZ
grouping is negligible. It is equivalent to a gain on a grade-equivalent scale of about one-

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).

Joplin Plan/cross-grade grouping. Slavin stated: “There is good evidence that

regrouping students for reading across [elementary school] grade lines [in the Joplin
Plan] increases reading achievement (Slavin 1987, 328).” Kulik found: “Unlike XYZ
grouping, cross-grade grouping clearly works. Cross-grade grouping produces small to
moderate positive effects on student achievement scores in most studies, and its average
effect is to raise achievement test-scores by approximately 0.30 standard deviations.”
This constitutes a grade-equivalent gain of three months or a rise in percentile scores
from 50 to 62 (Kulik 1992, 30). For Mosteller, Light and Sachs, the Joplin results “are
encouraging, yet our evidence is severely limited (Mosteller, Light and Sachs 1996,
808).”

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:

Placement in a below average math class is associated with a decrease in

achievement of approximately 5 percentage points. Placement in an above
average math class is associated with an achievement increase of roughly the
same magnitude, and placement in an average class is associated with an increase
of somewhat more than 2 percentage points (Argys, Rees Brewer 1996, 637).

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).

Cooperative learning. Slavin is a proponent of cooperative learning. He states:

“Research on cooperative learning in the middle grades consistently shows positive
effects of these methods if they incorporate two major elements: group goals and
individual accountability…. (Slavin 1993, 546).”

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.”

Johnson and Johnson state that:

For a variety of reasons, heterogeneous groups tend to be more powerful than

extreme homogeneity. A lot of the power for learning in cooperative groups

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).

Peer effect. A separate body of research investigates the influence on the

performance of the individual student exerted by the characteristics of other students in
the classroom. Hoxby and Weingarth find classroom achievement influenced by peer
effect. Their data is explained by the “Boutique and Focus model along with a general
monotonicity property that says that all else equal, a higher achieving peer is better than a
lower achieving one (Hoxby and Weingarth 2005, 27; italics in original).”

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.

Hoxby and Weingarth find:

[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).

Differential effect on high- and low-performers

A comparative summary of results is presented in the table below.

19
 Table 2: Comparison of Research as to Group Differential Effect

Slavin— Slavin-middle Kulik

elementary grade/secondary school
school
XYZ/ability- No difference No difference between Benefits high
grouped class between high and high and low peformers performers 0.10; no
assignment low performers effect on mid 0.02 and
low 0.01 performers
Joplin plan/cross- No benefit of one Negligible: 0.09 high, - Benefits high
grade grouping group at the 0.07 average, -0.05 low performers 0.12, mid-
expense of other achievers performers -0.01, low
performers 0.29
Within-class High 0.41, 0 Works for all students
grouping average 0.27, low
0.65

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).”

XYZ/ability-grouped class assignment. Slavin found no difference in the

performance of high- and low-ability elementary school students (Slavin 1987, 307).
Regarding middle grades students, he concludes: “The effects of ability grouping [in
middle grades] were found to be essentially zero for high, average, and low
achievers….(Slavin 1993, 549; see also 545);” and “…studies comparing ability-grouped
to heterogeneous placements in the middle grades provide little support for the
proposition that high achievers gain from grouping while low achievers lose (Slavin
1993, 545).” By contrast, Kulik found that XYZ grouping benefits high ability students:

XYZ grouping, therefore, affects different students differently. It gives higher

aptitude children a boost and helps them move slightly ahead of their peers in
mixed-ability classrooms. XYZ programs have virtually no effect, however, on
the achievement of middle and lower aptitude children. It seems possible that
teachers introduce more challenging materials and methods into higher aptitude
classes than they would use in mixed-ability situations. Teachers in middle and
lower tracks, on the other hand, may teach in much the same way that they do in
mixed-ability settings (Kulik 1992, 23).

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).”

Table 3: Kulik on Differential Effect on Group Self-Esteem

Heterogeneous, mixed-
ability classes
XYZ/ability-grouped class
assignment
Joplin plan/cross-grade
grouping
Within-class grouping
Special enriched classes
Kulik
Self-esteem greater for high-performers than for low-
performers
Leveling: reduction of high-performer self-esteem;
increase in low-performer self-esteem
No finding
Small improvement in high-performer self-esteem,
relative to XYZ grouping

21
 XYZ/ability-grouped class assignment. Contrasting heterogeneous, mixed ability
classes, Kulik finds:

The effect of XYZ programs on student self-esteem thus appears to be a leveling

effect. In mixed-ability classes, higher and lower aptitude children are clearly
different in self-esteem. In XYZ programs, they become more similar in self-
esteem levels. Brighter children lose some of their self-assurance when they are
put into classes with equally talented children. Slower children gain in
confidence when they are taught in classes with other slow learners. They may
feel less overwhelmed and less overshadowed in such classes (Kulik 1992, 27).

Special enriched classes. Kulik contrasts special enriched classes with

XYZ/ability grouped class assignment (in which higher-ability students’ self-esteem had
declined relative to heterogeneous classes). “[S]elf-concepts were more favorable when
the talented students were taught in separate classes….The size of the effect was small or
trivial, however, in all the studies. The average effect size in all 6 studies was 0.10….
Teachers in enrichment programs may be better prepared to help students deal with
emotional and social pressures of giftedness (Kulik 1992, 41).” (It is interesting to note
that Kulik finds restoration of high-ability student self-esteem to be a good thing. By
contrast, one has the impression that in MCPS the diminution of high-ability student
confidence is favored.)

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).”

Cooperative learning. With regard to his preferred technique of heterogeneous

grouping, Slavin states “Cooperative learning methods have also had consistently
positive effects on such outcomes as self-esteem, race relations, acceptance of
mainstreamed academically handicapped students, and ability to work cooperatively
(Slavin 1993, 546).” Johnson and Johnson report data indicating that, in a cooperative
learning setting, students feel more positive about school and each other, and are more
“effective interpersonally (Johnson and Johnson 1988).”

Ethnographic studies—Jeannie Oakes

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).

These goals drive her observation and argument.

“Reproducing inequities.” In a central and recurring argument, Oakes asserts

that the actual function of school in society is “the preservation of the social, economic,
and political inequality that exists in our society (118).” Citing Schooling in Capitalist
America, Bowles and Gintis (1976), Oakes states that:

[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).”

The relationship of tracking, vocational education, and equality is certainly a

complex one, not so much born out of an overt elite conspiracy as emerging as
part of a culture saturated with a hierarchical structure of political, economic, and
social opportunity. It is likely that these programs do not serve the democratic
ends most Americans want their schools to serve (171).

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….”

2. “…that students, especially the slower ones, feel more positively

about themselves and school when they are in homogeneous groups….”

3. “…that track placements are appropriate, accurate, and fair….”

4. “…that teaching is easier (with respect to both meeting individual

needs and managing classroom instruction in general) when students are in homogeneous
groups…(6-14).”

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.

In the case of the composite measure of achievement, four school process

variables were significant:

1. Teachers’ expectations about students’ ability to learn

2. The average hours of homework that students completed per week

3. The average number of advanced (college prep) courses taken by students in

the school

4. The percentage of students who reported feeling unsafe at school (2015-2016;

italics in original).

(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.

Oakes recommends that homogeneous grouping be replaced by “cooperative

learning”—“working with others in small heterogeneous groups, in which the substantial
instructional potential of student-to-student interaction is exploited (208).” Students have
incentives to interact; learner differences are accommodated in the learning process; and
the effect of initial differences in students’ skills are minimized in assigning rewards for
learning (210).

“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.

Research has demonstrated that cooperative learning techniques increase cross-

racial friendships.

“Cooperative learning promotes some of the most important goals in American

education: increasing the academic achievement of all students while simultaneously
improving intergroup relations among students of different racial and ethnic backgrounds
(Slavin and Cooper, 1999).”

Merit and equality. Oakes considers meritocracy and equality:

Meritocracy is based not on equality itself but on the ideal of equality of

opportunity, on fairness. In schools this is translated to mean that every student is
given an equal chance to do well. If a student does not, it is due to the lack of
ability, initiative, or sustained effort on the student’s part not [sic] to any school
practices that might have gotten in the way. Educational equality itself can mean
something quite different. It can mean that all students are provided with the
same kinds of experience in schools—a common set of learnings, equally
effective instruction, and equally encouraging educational settings. Our data
show that in the twenty-five schools we studied students were not treated equally
in their attempt to learn English and math.

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).”)

Oakes contrasts “meritocracy--equality of opportunity,” “equal treatment,” and

identity of “learnings.” Meritocracy is defined as “an equal chance to do well,” as if
“doing well” were identical for each student and across all demographic and socio-
economic groups. Specific objectives are projected as good, and gaining them depends
upon individual student merit, without taking school input into account. For Oakes,
“merit” is a false projection of being “morally deserving” in the hierarchical, wealth-
based, society. Equal treatment apparently entails an identity of inputs by the school,

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.

Criticisms of Oakes. Slavin criticizes Oakes for extrapolation from observation

to evaluation. Hers is one of “many studies examining classroom practices in high- and
low-ability classes and ability groups. Although such studies provide important
descriptive information, they cannot answer the question of whether or not the effects of
ability grouping per se are positive (Slavin 1987, 329).” Similarly, Tieso cites Bode that
“‘research supporting the equity argument is largely qualitative and anecdotal in nature’
(Tieso 2003).”

Kulik criticizes Oakes for failing to compare her observations of “tracked”

programs to conditions in the heterogeneous classrooms:

[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 reveals, without herself recognizing, the entanglement of two different

manifestations of elitism: that of social position and that of learning. One can agree with
her that schooling institutionalizes the replication of social position. However, learning
not only facilitates social positioning, but also is valuable and valued in itself; such that
the elitist striving for mastery and excellence in learning need not merely be the debased
tool of suppression, but may be may a praise-worthy orientation to the world. Elitism
may manifest itself not as the subordination of others but as the overcoming of self.

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.

School administrators should not commandeer the public schools as the

instrument “for achieving a free and democratic society in which all have decent lives

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.

Other ethnography: teachers. Rosenbaum interviewed teachers in detracked

social studies classes of a Midwestern suburban high school. He found that teachers
faced “irresolvable conflicts,” pulled in conflicting directions. When teachers attended to
one group, others became disengaged. They tried “teaching to the middle of the class; but
as they did, they were acutely aware of losing students at both extremes (Rosenbaum
1999, 2).” Teachers tried to give high ability students extra assignments, but were
burdened with extra preparation time and resistance in doing assignments that less able
students were not required to do. High ability students posed questions that two-thirds of
students in the classroom did not understand; so teachers gave abbreviated responses and
returned to the central classroom trend. Teachers “faced a conflict about language
virtually every minute. Because they had to be intelligible to all students, teachers used
language that was generally far below the vocabulary of faster students (2-3).” More able
students’ comments required rephrasing by teachers: “The faster students did not fit into
the class, except by translation (3).” Homework was geared to the capacity of middle and
lower students, with the result that higher-ability students “finished most of it at school
and did little homework at night (4).”

Likewise, lower-ability students were harmed:

[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.

“Bright minority students” were shortchanged (4).

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

Why detrack? Detracking might be undertaken for one or more interrelated

reasons:

1. Equity and democracy (generally as understood by Jeannie Oakes);

2. Raising low-performers to proficiency, to avoid NCLB sanction;

3. Efficiency of aligned programming;

4. Increase student performance outcomes.

Equity and democracy. Slavin attempts to shift the burden of proof to the trackers
on this basis:

Given the antidemocratic, antiegalitarian nature of ability grouping, the burden of

proof should be on those who would group rather than those who favor
heterogeneous grouping, and in the absence of evidence that grouping is
beneficial, it is hard to justify continuation of the practice (Slavin 1990, 494).

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.

NCLB. Welner and Burris state:

In today’s environment of accountability systems with disaggregated test scores,

the recognition that low-track classes produce lower achievement ties this
[detracking] reform to practical, as well as social justice concerns [citation
omitted]. Lesser opportunities to learn logically translate into lower test scores
and, therefore, lesser likelihood that the school and district will meet the adequate
yearly progress targets required by the No Child Left Behind Act (Welner and
Burris 2006, 91).

NCLB drives schools to adopt heterogeneous programming, and then to collapse

differentiation into focus on students on the cusp of proficiency.

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 report attributes past inefficiencies to systems’ “long-standing focus on inputs

instead of outcomes, and states for many years were reluctant to even outline what
students should learn before graduating from high school (9).” The advent of academic
standards has “important implications for advocates of educational productivity.
Standards make it far easier to evaluate productivity because all school systems within a
state now work toward a common educational goal (10; italics added).” That outcome
goal is proficiency.

MCPS’ inputs are “aligned:”

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:

Although students in lower tracks would realize achievement gains [from

detracking], these gains would come at the expense of students in higher level
tracks. Specifically, our estimates indicate that moving from a class composed of
below average students to a heterogeneous class leads to an 8.6 percent increase
in mathematics scores, and moving from a class composed of above average
students to a heterogeneous class leads to an 8.4 percent decrease in scores. On
net, if all students in our sample were placed in heterogeneous classes, average
scores in mathematics could be expected to decline by approximately 2 percent
(Argys, Rees and Brewer 1996, 640; see also Brewer, Rees and Argys 1995, 4).

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).”

Tieso cautions against “educational correctness and…a philosophy of ‘no child

left behind, but don’t let the gifted students get too far ahead.’ If students are to realize
true gains in achievement, not subject to the educational winds of politics, then school
personnel must be aggressive in their use of appropriate and flexible ability grouping
combined with curricular adjustment (Tieso 2003).”

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.

Outcomes-Math. Following middle school detracking, more than 90 percent of

students entered high school having passed the Regents examination for Sequential
Mathematics I. By the end of Grade 12, 92 percent of all students passed the Sequential
Mathematics III exam, and the percentage of students taking math courses below their
grade levels was halved. (Burris, Heubert and Levin 2006, 115-122).

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).

Universal acceleration increased the percentages of course completion among

initially high-achieving students (Burris, Heubert and Levin 2006, 115-122). Burris,
Heubert and Levin “found no evidence that initial high achievers, defined as students
whose stanine scores were in the top 20% nationwide, learned less when all students were

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).

-Miscellaneous. The percentage of all students earning a Regents diploma

increased from 52 percent before detracking to 83 percent after detracking.

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).

-International Baccalaureate. IB Diploma participation increased from 35 percent

of high school students before reform to 45 percent of high school students after reform;
and from 13 percent of African-American and Hispanic students before reform to 38
percent of African-American and Hispanic students after reform (Burris, Welner and
Bezoza 2009, 10). The high school increased IB examination more than tenfold, with the
percentages of students earning both 4, and 6 and 7, increasing (Burris et al. 2008, 579-
583; Burris, Heubert and Levin 2006, 108-110). More than 84 percent of the post-reform
class of 2006 took at least one IB course, and over 75 percent of all IB exams scored 4 or
higher (Burris, Welner and Bezoza 2009, 10).

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).”

Scalability to MCPS. Rockville Centre School District is comprised of one

middle school and one high school; MCPS is comprised of 38 middle schools and 25
high schools. Rockville Centre describes itself as “a diverse suburban school district
(Burris and Welner 2005, 595),” but also says that most students “are from families of
upper-middle-class incomes (Burris, Welner and Bezoza 2009, 8). The following table
compares Rockville Centre and its South Side High School with MCPS and its high
school with the most comparable demographic profile.

Table 4. Rockville Centre School District/South Side High School profiles,

compared with MCPS and its Damascus High School profiles

Rockville Centre MCPS South Side Damascus HS--

SD HS MCPS
Students 3,500 144,064 1,100 1,412
African 8% 23.4 8 8.9
American
Asian American 2% 15.7 2 5.0
Hispanic 12% 23.4 12 11.3
White 75% 37.2 78 74.6
FARMS 13% 30.7 13 10.4
(Ever Farms) (40.9)
ESOL 13.0 0
SPED 11.9 10 13.3
(Montgomery County Public Schools n.d.h, n.d.i; Burris, Heubert and Levin 2006, 108;
Burris, et al. 2008, 579; Burris and Welner 2005, 596; Burris, Welner and Bezoza 2009,
8)

Gamoran finds Rockville Centre promising, but notes that it “involved an

economically advantaged school district with relatively few high-needs students
compared with other New York school districts.” Furthermore, its supplemental math
classes provided “about 50% more mathematics instruction to low-achieving students
(Gamoran 2009, 13).”

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).

Pre-requisites and politics. Researchers and practitioners identify pre-requisites

for successful detracking.

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).

However, Burris, Welner and Bezoza, in their “Proposed Legislation for

Universal Access to a Quality Education,” indicate that “challenging” classes prepare
students “for college and the work force.” Schools would be required to provide
supplementary academic support services outside the regular heterogeneous class only if
a student were performing below “proficiency (Burris, Welner and Bezoza 2009, 30).”
Such low standards cannot reassure parents of high-ability students or avoid “teaching to
the middle.”

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).”

Support. Rockville Centre offered semi-compulsory workshops comprised of 12

or fewer students; Preuss offered tutoring by college students. Such support is vital to
low-performing students. But in addition, without support for low-performing students
the instructional level of the heterogeneous class would be reduced, harming middle- and
high-performing students. Burris, Welner and Bezoza recommend: “Provide students
with the supports needed to be successful in challenging classes (Burris, Welner and
Bezoza 2009, 20; italics in original).” They recommend that struggling students should
receive instructional support (apparently homogeneous) outside regularly-scheduled
heterogeneous classes (21).

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).

They offer Rockville Centre School District as the case study.

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).

MCPS on ability grouping

Regulation and Policy. MCPS’ highest authority regarding ability grouping is

Regulation IHB-RA. Its general requirements, when applied to gifted and talented
students, should be subject to Policy IOA.

Regulation IHB-RA-School Academic Grouping Practices. Under Regulation

IHB-RA, ability grouping is a staff decision which is justified only if it enhances ability
to learn, offers intellectual challenge and facilitates teacher lesson planning and
instruction. The Regulation contemplates both “grouping within classes” and “class
groups.” Within-class grouping should accelerate or enrich able students, facilitate
remediation of less able students, and be flexible and continuously changing.

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).

Grouping may not be used to “create or support a system of discrimination on the

basis of economic status, intellectual ability, color, national origin, religion, gender, age,
or disability (III.A),” and each principal is responsible for “assuring that grouping
practices do not result in racially segregated classes or disproportionate distribution of
students by gender and race (IV.1).” Furthermore, grouping “must not lock a student into
an inflexible system of class assignment (III.D).”

Policy IOA—Gifted and Talented Education. While general Regulation IHB-RA

allows ability grouping that enhances a student’s ability to learn at the discretion of staff,
Policy IOA requires that, for gifted and talented students, “Schools will utilize flexible
and varied grouping practices that enhance the opportunity to receive expanded,
intensive, enriched, and accelerated curricula at all instructional levels, as warranted by
students’ needs and their mastery of subject matter (Montgomery County Public Schools
n.d.a, C.2(d)(1)).” Again, while the Regulation allows teacher discretion, the Policy
mandates that, for gifted and talented students, “A balance needs to be achieved so that
highly able students have the opportunity to work in homogeneous groups, heterogeneous
groups, and individually depending on the content area and task involved (C.2(d)(2)).”

Reiterated applicability to schools. The most recently approved Policies of the

Board reiterate the applicability of Regulation IHB-RA and Policy IOA within the
elementary schools (Montgomery County Public Schools n.d.c, Policy IEA C.2(b), 2007),
middle schools (Montgomery County Public Schools n.d.d, Policy IEB C.2.a, 2007) and
high schools (Montgomery County Public Schools n.d.e, Policy IED C.2(b)(1), 2010).

Policy-mandated differentiated curriculum. Researchers generally agree that the

greatest gains by students at all levels are made when the curriculum is differentiated and
matched to their respective abilities, and that curriculum differentiation particularly
benefits high ability students of the type addressed by Policy IOA. Policy IOA
recognizes the beneficial interaction of grouping and curricular differentiation by
requiring that MCPS develop and use accelerated and enriched curricula:

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)).

Montgomery County Public Schools 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 which will allow gifted and talented students to progress with
appropriate enrichment and at a pace matched to a child’s achievement and
readiness (C.2(b)(3)).

MCPS has failed to implement its Policy obligation since its 1995 inception.

MCPS reports addressing ability grouping. The 1994 Report of the

Superintendent’s Advisory Committee on the Education of the Gifted & Talented flatly
recommended ability grouping:

As administrators of middle schools seek to find the proper balance between

nurture and rigor, some perceive a conflict between the nurturing role of the
middle school and the establishment of honors classes. Sometimes the perception
is that adequate differentiation of instruction should be done within a
heterogeneous classroom, rather than in separate classes. We believe that, at least
in English and mathematics, as well as in foreign language, that version is
unrealistic. While that approach may, at times, work in the elementary school –
where the teacher is with the same group of students all day and is able to flexibly
arrange the time spent on each subject – it is asking too much for middle school
teachers to be able to differentiate instruction effectively within the confines of a
rigid 40 to 45 minute period….Finally, any suggestion that children must be
assigned to heterogeneous classes for a majority of the day should be rejected.

Recommendation 14. All middle schools should offer academically advanced

classes in English, mathematics, and foreign language, and should seriously
consider offering such classes in science in the upper grades (Montgomery
County Public Schools 1994, 7).

However, by the 1999 Honors/Advanced Placemen Policies, Practices, &

Enrollment Work Group Report, the advice reverses:

Action Step O. Encourage middle schools to design heterogeneous classes with a

critical mass of 8 to 12 identified gifted and talented students in each class (20).

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.)

The 2006 Middle School Reform Initiative Curriculum, Instruction, and

Assessment Project Team Final Report recommended flexible grouping:

Recommendation 5 and Rationale. Establish structures in middle schools that

allow flexible grouping and scheduling to prevent tracking, promote student-
student and student-adult relationships, build connections between home and
school, and allow extended instructional periods that invite student engagement in
meaningful and challenging concepts and processes.

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 Team had “major discussion” regarding:

-Establishing processes or structures that support intervention and acceleration

without unintentionally placing students on separate trajectories—maintaining
flexible groupings and flexibility options year by year, as well as within the
school year

-Balancing parent interest in homogeneous groupings and courses, when the

research indicates a heterogeneous grouping in middle school, with high
expectations and clear goals/feedback on performance to students, is the more
effective approach (Montgomery County Public Schools 2006c, 12).

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).”

In perhaps the clearest indication of the MCPS expectation, a school may be

selected for Phase 1 of middle school reform implementation only if it implements
“flexible grouping practices (36).”

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).”

MCPS’ Student Instructional Program Planning and Implementation tool’s 2009-

2010 pilot year “confirmed early beliefs that in order for SIPPI to be successful it must be
part of systemic reform efforts to raise expectations for every child and provide a high
level of instruction in every classroom (Montgomery County Public Schools 2010d, 1).”
This seems to indicate that SIPPI (an identification tool discussed further below) is
intended to be complemented by heterogeneous grouping.

(SIPPI facilitates the population of classrooms by students. MCPS and national

experts state that a minimum of eight high-ability students should be placed in a
heterogeneous class to facilitate learning among peers in the context of flexible ability
grouping. The SIPPI tool could have been, but was not, configured to recommend this
composition. MCPS demands heterogeneous classrooms, but fails to carry out the
minimum accommodation necessary to support higher-ability students.)

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).”

Cooperative learning. MCPS recommends cooperative learning as a best practice

for “working with diverse learners.” Cooperative learning is a strategy to implement
culturally relevant instruction. Cooperative learning “provides learners with essential
opportunities to use language in meaningful, purposeful, and interesting ways, build self-
esteem and self-confidence, and develop academic, communication and social skills.”
Grouping is to be organized by “mixed academic achievement, interest, language,
project, language, [sic] and friendship.” “Groups are expected to help and encourage
their members to master academic content (Montgomery County Public Schools n.d.f,
2).”

Likewise, collaborative learning is recommend by MCEF (Montgomery County

Education Forum 2002, 19), and written into a model state detracking law by Burris,
Welner and Bezoza (31).

MCPS identifies five elements of cooperative learning:

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.

2. Individual and group accountability. Students in a cooperative group are

responsible for their own learning and for the learning of the group. Each group member
contributes to the success of all group members while strengthening their own learning.

3. Promotive Interaction. By working together, “students in the group are

academic and personal support for each other.”

44
 4. Use of interpersonal and group skills.

5. Group processing.

Cooperative learning promotes increased academic learning, positive connectedness with

school, cross-group friendships, improved learning and interpersonal skill and expanded
critical thinking. It promotes equity by “increasing positive interracial attitudes and
behaviors, narrowing the achievement gap and increasing acceptance and academic
success of students with special needs (Montgomery County Public Schools n.d.g).”

Some schools’ School Improvement Plans refer to cooperative learning. For

example, Great Seneca Creek Elementary School’s 2009-2010 SIP included as a key
process of “Process Management:” “Focus on race and equity through culturally
responsive instruction, equitable classroom practices and The Seven Keys to College
Readiness understanding: 1. Cooperative Learning Structures….(Montgomery County
Public Schools 2010a).”

Negative evaluations. As MCPS was professing its commitment to heterogeneous

classrooms, differentiation of instruction, and rigor and acceleration for all, its self-
evaluations were casting doubt on its ability to differentiate and provide rigor.

In an evaluation of the inclusion of Special Education students, MCPS found a

lack of differentiation: “While more than half of the classroom professionals indicated
increased differentiation as a modification to their teaching strategies, very little
differentiation was observed in the classrooms. Cooperative group work among students
was similarly absent (Montgomery County Public Schools 2009b, 32; see detail on page
14).” Superintendent Weast rejoined that “Although few differentiated activities were
observed, that conclusion was based on a narrow definition of differentiation. A more
complete picture of a differentiated classroom, consistent with the comprehensive
definition below, was identified in more than 90 percent of observed classroom
(Montgomery County Public Schools 2009c, 7).”

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).”

Montgomery County Council of Parent-Teacher Associations favors grouping

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).

The Committee explained its conclusion:

 There is a preponderance of evidence that ability grouping combined with an

accelerated curriculum provides strong benefits for highly able students.
 While there is a diversity of views in the educational field, there are many high
quality research papers that say ability grouping is effective for all ability groups.
 The results from the only citation on grouping in the audit report, Slavin 1990, are
misinterpreted.

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).

The MCCPTA 2001 Resolution on Mathematics, based on the work of the Ad

Hoc Committee, affirmed the need for ability grouping:

Be it further resolved, that MCPS will communicate to its teachers and

administrators the need to form math groups by skill level, so that all students are
challenged and receive the type and level of support they need, and that grouping
will be based on assessments of students' current instructional needs in
mathematics; it must allow them to move fluidly between groups; and it must
provide intervention for low-achievers as well as acceleration for high-
achievers…(Montgomery County Council of Parent-Teacher Associations
2001b).

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;…

BE IT RESOLVED, that this Committee recommends to the Steering Committee

that there be included in the Plan the recommendation that MCPS add as soon as

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.

MCPS must provide curriculum resources and professional development to

teachers and administrators to ensure that students are provided with accelerated
and enriched instruction in accordance with research-based best practices
(Montgomery County Council of Parent-Teacher Associations 2009a).

Following adoption of this resolution, then MCCPTA President Kay Romero

wrote to the Board of Education that “Our members have taken the position that it is
necessary to continue the global screening process which currently occurs in Grade 2 to
identify students who need additional academic challenge….To make the most of these
opportunities [programs, learning objectives, sequenced and systematic curriculum],
students must also be guaranteed the opportunity to work in groups of students with
similar academic abilities, motivation and interests (Montgomery County Council of
Parent-Teacher Associations 2009b, 1).”

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).

MCCPTA President Kristin Trible responded to the No Labels, No Limits!

campaign by letter to the Board of Education dated March 21, 2011. The letter addresses
both the identification of gifted and talented students and ability grouping. That letter
disagrees with several key tenets of the campaign:

48
 1. …that all children are fundamentally the same and can be equally successfully
challenged within a one-size-fits-all curriculum….

2. …that students of widely different ability levels can be successfully taught in a

mixed ability classroom using differentiated instruction…[and] that providing on-
or below-grade level students “access” to higher-level work by placing them in a
classroom with students prepared to work several years ahead of them will afford
those students a meaningful chance to actually learn the advanced material….

3. …that MCPS can eliminate ability grouping without limiting the achievement
of high-ability students (Montgomery County Council of Parent-Teacher
Associations 2011, 2).

Maryland State Department of Education favors grouping

The Maryland State Department of Education consistently has urged the

maintenance of homogeneous ability grouping.

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).

The Report lists as an “administrative obstacle to appropriate programming:” “Bright

children are separated intentionally so that classes are ‘balanced’ in terms of student
ability (Maryland State Department of Education 2001, 5).”

The Report makes these recommendations:

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:

A variety of instructional groupings based upon individual program components

and their objectives, number and needs of gifted and talented students, and
available resources are used to facilitate differentiated instruction. Appropriate
groupings may include:

-Homogeneous grouping of identified gifted and talented students for a

specific content area;
-Flexible homogeneous grouping based on pre-assessment;
-Homogeneous cluster grouping within heterogeneous classes;
-Cross-grade level grouping; and
-Independent study (Maryland State Department of Education 2007b, 6)

National Association for Gifted Children favors grouping

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).

Approving Kulik’s preference for a combination of grouping and curricular

differentiation, the Position Paper states that “What educators must keep in mind,
however, is that what these children will do once they are grouped is probably more
important than which form of grouping has been selected (Kulik, 1992) (National
Association for Gifted Children 2009, 3).”

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).

The NAGC’s authoritative 2010 Pre-K-Grade 12 Gifted Programming Standards

prescribes that “Educators regularly use multiple forms of grouping, including clusters,
resource rooms, special classes, or special schools (National Association of Gifted
Children 2010, 7; 5.13).”

(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.)

LABEL REQUIRED BY LAW

GT identification required by state law

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;

(2) Exhibiting high performance capability in intellectual, creative, or artistic areas;

51
(3) Possessing an unusual leadership capacity; or

(4) Excelling in specific academic fields.

(MD. Educ. Code Ann. Section 8-201)

Regulations:

"Gifted and talented" means opportunities for students identified by

professionally qualified individuals as having outstanding abilities in the area of
general intellectual capabilities, specific academic aptitude, or the creative, visual,
or performing arts under guidelines developed by the Department (COMAR
13A.01.04.02B(8)).

"Gifted and talented" means an elementary or secondary school student

who is identified by professionally qualified individuals as having outstanding
abilities in one or more of the following areas:

(a) General intellectual capabilities;

(b) Specific academic aptitudes; or

(c) Creative, visual, or performing arts (COMAR

13B.07.01.02B(18)).

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:

[A]mong students identified as gifted and talented, African American and

Hispanic students continue to be underrepresented while White and Asian
American students continue to be overrepresented. This pattern suggests that
additional steps must be taken to reach equitable identification results. However,
the data collected for the report are limited in their ability to inform specific
reasons for the discrepancies and remedies to eliminate the gaps (Montgomery
County Public Schools 2008c, 2).

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:”

A strategic initiative of the ODSS is to eliminate the long standing

disproportionate provision of advanced instruction to African American and
Hispanic students as documented in the global screening data. In 2007-2008, the
Global Screening Project Team identified challenges and barriers related to equity
in identification. In 2008-2009, the Project Team will make recommendations to
address equity in access to rigor, low expectations, successful completion of
rigorous instructional programs, parent communication and barriers to
instructional opportunities that should occur for all students prior to the Global
Screening process (Montgomery County Public Schools 2009a, 2).

53
MCPS’ No Label pilots

Description. In contravention of State law and Policy IOA, MCPS is conducting

a “No Label Pilot” program at Burning Tree and Georgian Forest Elementary Schools.
While I am unaware of any MCPS document specifying the parameters of the pilot
program, I believe that these schools use the SIPPI process described below, but do not
inform parents as to whether a student either is or is not determined to be “gifted and
talented.” I do not know whether teachers are informed of whether GT criteria are met,
or whether the finding is included in the student’s record.

Presentations. Presentations by the principals of the schools and a representative

of the central office were made regarding the pilot program at a March 16, 2009 meeting
sponsored by the Montgomery County Council of Parent-Teacher Associations and at a
May 5, 2009 meeting of the Board’s Policy Committee.

At the MCCPTA meeting, then Director of the MCPS Department of Accelerated

and Enriched Instruction Kay Williams stated that “all” students could succeed at higher
levels, and emphasized that “all means all.” As proof of MCPS commitment to higher
level instruction, she recited statistics regarding the opening of magnet schools, students
following the International Baccalaureate program and students scoring 3 or higher on the
Advanced Placement test.

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.”

Title 1 accelerated reading/gifted and talented teacher Rachel Haggar described

working with high level reading cluster groups within the heterogeneous classroom, and
using partial implementation of William and Mary for the whole class.

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.”

Both principals described heterogeneous grouping.

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.”

Ms. Davis-Jones, in a PowerPoint presentation, showed a picture of school

students and said “Which are without gifts? Look at those faces.”

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 emphasizes collaboration, not competition. There are no barriers;

there is no stigmatizing.

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.

The Policy Committee minutes state:

[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.

MCPS’ SIPPI alternative

Description. Student Instructional Program Planning and Implementation

(SIPPI) is a new MCPS five-step process piloted in 31 elementary schools during the
2009-2010 school year and rolled out to all elementary schools during 2010-2011, at the
Grade 2 level. The five steps are: gathering data including cognitive assessments and
parent and staff input, reviewing data by school staff, making articulation decisions,
communicating those decisions to parents and monitoring implementation. SIPPI
“ensures that all students’ strengths are identified, that they have access to challenging
curriculum and instruction, and that parents receive timely communication about their
child’s instructional program (Montgomery County Public Schools 2009f, 1).” MCPS
describes SIPPI’s five steps in its 2010 Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update;
“identification” is not mentioned. Rather, SIPPI will “Recognize those students whose
performance, motivation, or potential ability indicates the need for accelerated and
enriched instruction (Montgomery County Public Schools 2010f, 155, 159.) (This same
terminological migration, from “identification” to “recognition,” is made in MCPS’
annual reports on global screening, described below.)

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).”

[A] persistent disproportionality, or opportunity gap, remains between African

American and Hispanic students and their Asian American and White peers. In
particular, African American and Hispanic students are less likely to be
recommended for, and gain access to, accelerated and enriched
instruction….Simply stated, African American and Hispanic students, as well as
students receiving Free and Reduced-price Meals System (FARMS), English for
Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL), and special education services, have been
consistently underserved with regard to advanced instructional programs and
consistently underrepresented with regard to gifted and talented identification
(Montgomery County Public Schools 2010d, 2).

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).”

SIPPI is intended to rectify this demographic disproportionality. SIPPI succeeds

partially, by increasing the percentage of African-American and Hispanic students who
actually are enrolled in an advanced class after being identified for that class. SIPPI fails
partially, by leaving unchanged the gap between the percentages of African-American,
Hispanic and FARMS students that are identified for advanced classes and the percentage
of white students that are identified for advanced classes.

SIPPI increases recommendations. SIPPI doubles the percentages of students

of every demographic and service group recommended for above-level reading, and
increases by 25-30 percent the percentage of students of every demographic and service
group recommended for above-level Math, in each case as compared with 2009 GT
global identification (which I did not believe identified students with programming). The
following table shows the magnitude of the change in recommendation percentage
resulting from modification of procedure from 2009 GT identification to 2010 SIPPI.
The procedural modification had the greatest effect with respect to African-American and
Hispanic recommendations, but the smallest effect on FARMS recommendations.

Table 5: Change in Recommendation, 2009 vs. 2010

(Ratio of 2010 Recommended % to 2009 Recommended %)

Student Group Above-Level Reading Above-Level Math

All Students 2.19 1.24
African American 2.59 1.32
Asian American 1.99 1.15
Hispanic 2.01 1.31
White 2.18 1.23
FARMS 1.98 -0.11
ESOL 2.78 1.01
Spec. Education 2.52 1.23
(Derived from Montgomery County Public Schools 2010d,
Attachment B, Table 1)

Gap closing in actual placements following recommendations. SIPPI’s payoff

is that MCPS can prove that the ratio of actual placements to school placement
recommendations is lower for African-American and Hispanic students than for Asian-
American and white students: African-American and Hispanic students are less likely to
access the class recommended. (This reflects the detracking point that “Students of color
with the exact same test scores as White student [sic] are nonetheless more likely to be
enrolled in lower-track classes (Burris, Welner and Bezoza 2009, 4).”) SIPPI promises to
address this disparity through real-time monitoring and professional development. Thus
SIPPI is beneficial in improving access by traditionally-underrepresented students to

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.

Table 6: Gap to White: Above-Level Reading

Student Group 2009 2010

African American .52 .61
Asian American 1.37 1.24
Hispanic .47 .43
FARMS .51 .46

Gap to White: Above-Level Math

Student Group 2009 2010

African American .42 .45
Asian American 1.31 1.22
Hispanic .32 .34
FARMS .50 .36

Gap to White: GT Identification

Student Group 2009 2010

African American .50 .51
Asian American 1.22 1.18
Hispanic .38 .41
FARMS .55 .39
(Derived from Montgomery County Public
Schools 2010d, Attachment B, Table 1)

GT identification v. SIPPI program placement. SIPPI places students in

Reading programs (William & Mary or no William & Mary) and Mathematics programs
(Math 3 with extensions, Math 4 or on-level). GT screening identifies students who are
gifted and talented (Montgomery County Public Schools n.d.a, C4(a))--who have
“outstanding abilities in the area of general intellectual abilities, [or] specific academic
aptitude….(COMAR n.d., 13A.01.04.02B(8)).”

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.

The function of identifying such a large portion of students—40 percent—as

gifted remains unclear; the lack of clarity certainly undermines community appreciation
of any possible gifted and talented program. Excluding the highest-performing three
percent of students who access the wholly-distinct and homogeneous magnet program,
does MCPS find that students from the 97th percentile to the 60th percentile comprise a
peer group that would benefit from differentiated curricular extensions, albeit in the
heterogeneous classroom? Why is it more efficient and effective to identify 40 percent,
as opposed to a much smaller percentage?

Replacement of GT identification with SIPPI will mean that students “should”

have access to only those “advanced-level” programs to which MCPS grants access—a
meaningless circularity antithetical to the rationale for the State’s identification law.
Furthermore, when real advanced-level courses are lacking, SIPPI becomes a road to
nowhere.

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).

“Advanced-level courses” lacking. Gifted and talented identification, under

Maryland State law and under Policy IOA, is intended to match gifted and talented
students with gifted and talented programming. Similarly, SIPPI is intended to match
students with “advanced-level” instruction (Montgomery County Public Schools 2009f,
4; 2010d, 1). This objective necessarily entails both an identification mechanism and
advanced-level courses. The courses are lacking. Superintendent Dr. Weast identifies
the “advanced-level courses” as including Math 6 in Grade 5, dual enrollment in college,
and Advanced Placement participation and AP scores of 3 or higher (Montgomery

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.

Consistency: procedure, programming, results. Dr. Weast states that SIPPI

“will support consistency of implementation and results among all
schools….(Montgomery County Public Schools 2009f, 6).” A consistently implemented
identification and placement procedure does not ensure consistency of programming (let
alone results). Achieving greater equity of placement does nothing to assure equity of
programming.

Programming -- curriculum and instruction -- is necessary (if not sufficient) for

consistent results among schools. The DSAC Report stated:

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).

SIPPI is an equity tool. But the “chief issue” of GT equity is programming—its

inconsistency among schools and lack of availability in red zone schools. MCPS
addresses a superficial aspect of equity, but avoids the “chief issue.”

The “advanced-level” fetish. SIPPI’s purposes are to discover students

(particularly African-American and Hispanic students) who can be placed in “advanced-
level” classes and to ensure their placement in those classes. Thus Dr. Weast states
“Increased enrollment and improved performance of all students in advanced-level
courses is an important component of ongoing efforts to provide an effective instructional
program….(Montgomery County Public Schools 2009f, 1; italics added).” What is the
mystique of “advanced-level,” that it should be imperative for “all?” Why is it not of
equal importance to place students in “on-level” classes, or to identify students for
particular supports and interventions? Students should be matched to that level
curriculum and instruction appropriate to their respective needs and abilities. MCPS
deprecates on-level instruction; parents then complain about placement in on-level
classes. The goal should be to place each student in appropriate classes, such that
education for that student is optimized. This clearly is not the goal at MCPS. Instead,
“all children are above average.”

MCPS’ vanishing acknowledgement of the labeling obligation

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.

Backing away. MCPS acknowledged, until recently, the labeling requirement of

State law. Its annual global screening reports for each of 2005, 2006 and 2007 state
“[The] Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) requires students with ‘outstanding
abilities’ to be ‘identified by professional qualified individuals’ as ‘gifted and talented’
(Montgomery County Public Schools 2005a, 1; 2006d, 1; 2007c, 1).” The 2005 Report
states that the MCPS global screening process “fulfills the state mandate for gifted
identification…. (Montgomery County Public Schools 2005a, 2).”

However, its 2008 Testing Brief and similar 2009 Superintendent’s Memorandum
deleted this sentence and substituted:

Additionally, Criteria for Excellence: Gifted and Talented Program Guidelines,

published by the Maryland State Department of Education, indicates that “An
identification process should ensure that all gifted and talented students are
recognized so they can be appropriately served. [MCPS conducts the global
screening] in order to meet these expectations (Montgomery County Public
Schools 2008c, 1; 2009g, 1).

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.

The MSDE’s Criteria analyzes two sequential aspects of identification: a broad-

based screening, and “an in-depth assessment of those students meeting the initial
screening criteria to gather additional information concerning their specific aptitudes and
educational needs (Maryland State Department of Education 2007b, 3).” The second
aspect constitutes a deeper assessment of students who, in the broad-based screening, met
the initial screening criteria. The more deeply assessed students are only those students
who met initial criteria (not students who did not meet the criteria). Thus, the initial,
broad-based, screening, must result in binary selection: the label.

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.

Retaining the “general intellectual ability” criterion. “General intellectual

ability” and “specific academic aptitudes” are distinct criteria, under the statute and
regulation quoted above, for the identification of the student as gifted and talented. The
MCPS proposal to make a finding of the type “student x needs service y” appears to be
based on a prior finding “student x has a ‘specific academic aptitude’ for y.” This prior
finding regarding “specific academic aptitude” recognizes one of the criteria mandated by
State law. However, “specific academic aptitude” is not the exclusive criterion for the
gifted and talented identification. If a student is identified as having outstanding abilities
“in the area of general intellectual capabilities,” then that student must be identified as
gifted and talented. The Criteria for Excellence advises that MCPS is to develop
“criteria” which would give substantial meaning to, by setting parameters for, “general
intellectual ability.” MCPS must screen for “general intellectual capabilities” and must
label a student as gifted and talented who is identified as possessing “general intellectual
capabilities.” If MCPS restricts its screening to “specific academic aptitude,” neglecting
“general intellectual capabilities,” then it 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.

Summary. In summary, MCPS contravenes State law if it:

1. Does not identify in a binary fashion students as “gifted and

talented”—i.e., “label students;” or

2. Does not recognize outstanding abilities in the area of “general

intellectual capabilities” as a mandatory alternative criterion for identifying students as
gifted and talented; or

3. Limits its mandatory “identification” to program planning.

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.

Montgomery County Council of Parent-Teacher Associations’ support for the label

In response to MCPS’ attempt to wholly revise Policy IOA, MCCPTA’s 2009

Resolution on Accelerated and Enriched Instruction calls for identification and Grade 2
global screening, together with additional screenings (Montgomery County Council of
Parent-Teacher Associations 2009a).

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.

Boser, U. 2011. Return on educational investment: A district-by-district evaluation of

U.S. educational productivity. Center for American Progress (January).
http://districts.americanprogress.org/agencyinfor.php?leaid-2400480.

Brandman, S. 2010a. http://mcea.nea.org/pdf/Questionnaire-

%20Shirley%20Brandman%20-
%20Board%20of%20Education%20Candidate%20(2010).pdf

-----. 2010b. http://progressiveneighborsmd.org/candidates/shirleybrandman.pdf

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

Docca, J. 2010a. http://mcea.nea.org/pdf/Questionnaire%20-%20Judy%20Docca%20-

%20Board%20of%20Education%20Candidate%20(2010).pdf

-----. 2010b. http://progressiveneighborsmd.org/candidates/judydocca.pdf

Durso, M. 2010a. http://mcea.nea.org/pdf/Questionnaire%20-

%20Michael%20Durso%20%20Board%20of%20Education%20Candidate%20(2010).pd
f

-----. 2010b. http://progressiveneighborsmd.org/candidates/mikedurso.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

Gamoran, A. and M. Berends. 1987. The effects of stratification in secondary schools:

Synthesis of survey and ethnographic research. Review of Educational Research
(Winter).

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

MD. Educ. Code Ann.

http://www.michie.com/maryland/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&2.0.

Maryland State Department of Education. 1994. Renewing our commitment to the

education of gifted and talented students: An essential component of educational reform.
Maryland Task Force on Gifted and Talented Education (November).
http://cty.jhu.edu/research/taskforce.html

-----. 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

Montgomery County Council of Parent-Teacher Associations. 2001a. MCCPTA Ad Hoc

Committee on the Math Audit Report to the MCCPTA Executive Committee (March 29).
http://www.mccpta.com/mathAudit/auditcommreport.html

-----. 2001b. Resolution on Mathematics (April 24).

http://www.mccpta.com/resolutions/MCCPTA_Resolution_on_Mathmatics-2001.pdf

-----. 2006. Resolution on Gifted and Talented Curriculum in Middle Schools (April 25).
http://www.mccpta.com/resolutions/gt042506.pdf

-----. 2009a. Resolution on Accelerated and Enriched Instruction (March 24).

http://www.mccpta.com/resolutions/AEI_Resolution.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

-----. 2010. Resolution on Middle School Advanced Courses (April 27).

http://www.mccpta.com/resolutions/MS_Advanced_Courses_Resolution_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

-----. n.d.a. Recruitment form and resolution.

http://www.mcea.nea.org/pdf/HCRForm.pdf

-----. n.d.b. Human and Civil Rights Committee campaign.

http://www.mcea.nea.org/teaching/hcr.php

Montgomery County Education Forum 2002. Success for Every Student? Tracking and
the Achievement Gap. http://mcef.org/Position%20Paper%20PDF.pdf

-----. 2010a. MCEF newsletter. 3.1 (Spring).

http://www.mynewsletterbuilder.com/email/newsletter/1410198873

-----. 2010b. D. Pelles, Secretary, testimony to Board of Education (December 7).

http://mcef.org/html/PelesBoEstatement12-7-10.rtf)

-----. 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

-----. n.d.b. PowerPoint. http://mcef.org/NoLabelsPresentation.ppt

Montgomery County Public Schools 1994. Report of the Superintendent’s Advisory

Committee on the Education of the Gifted & Talented (November).

-----. 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

-----. 2006a. Minutes of Board of Education Policy Committee (May 10).

http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/boe/meetings/POLdocs/2005-
06POL/051006min.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

-----. 2007b. Middle School Reform Report (January 9).

http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/middleschool/pdf/MSReformBOE1.9.
07.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.

-----. 2007d. Minutes of Board of Education Policy Committee (November 14).

http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/boe/meetings/POLdocs/2007-
08POL/111407min.pdf

-----. 2008a. Master Plan Annual Update (October 15).

http://docushare.msde.state.md.us/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-
102702/Montgomery%20County%202008%20Final%20Update.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.

-----. 2009a. Global Screening Project Team Notes (January 16).

-----. 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

-----. 2009c. Update on Secondary Learning Center Transition. Memorandum, J. D.

Weast (April 28). http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/boe/meetings/agenda/2008-
09/2009-
0428/Item%205.0%20Update%20on%20Secondary%20Learning%20Center%20Transiti
on.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).

-----. 2009f. Goal 2: Provide and effective instructional program—sequence of

accelerated and enriched instruction, Memorandum, J. D. Weast (September 8).
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/boe/meetings/agenda/2009-10/2009-
0908/6.0%20Sequence%20of%20AEI%20Instruction.pdf

-----. 2009g. Results of 2008-2009 grade 2 global screening,” Memorandum, J. D. Weast

(November 23).

-----. 2009h. Master Plan Annual Update (November 23).

http://docushare.msde.state.md.us/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-
122661/master%20plan.pdf

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

-----. 2010d. Update on Student Instructional Program Planning and Implementation,

Memorandum, J. D. Weast (October 25).
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/boe/meetings/agenda/2010-11/2010-
1025/4%200%20SIPPI%20.pdf

-----. 2010e. K-12 mathematics work group report (November 9).

http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/boe/meetings/agenda/2010-11/2010-
1109/3%200%20Memo%20-%20Update%20on%20the%20K-
12%20Mathematics%20Work%20Group%20_final_.pdf

-----. 2010f. Comprehensive Master Plan 2010-2011 (November 22).

http://docushare.msde.state.md.us/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-
139471/MCPS%20BTE%20Part%201%202010.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.a. Policy IOA

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

-----. n.d.b. Regulation IHB-RA.

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

------. n.d.c. Policy IEA.

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

-----. n.d.d. Policy IEB.

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

-----. n.d.e. Policy IED.

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

-----. 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.

-----. n.d.i. Schools at a glance 2010-2011.

http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/regulatoryaccountability/glance/

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.

National Association for Gifted Children 2009. Position paper: Grouping.

http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=4450

-----. 2010. 2010 Pre-K-Grade 12 Gifted Programming Standards.

http://www.nagc.org/uploadedFiles/Information_and_Resources/Gifted_Program_Standa
rds/K-12%20programming%20standards.pdf

National Association of School Psychologists. n.d. Position statement on ability grouping

and tracking. http://www.nasponline.org/about_nasp/pospaper_ag.aspx

Oakes, Jeannie, Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. Second edition. Yale
New Haven Press, New Haven. 2005

O’Neill, P. 2010a. http://mcea.nea.org/pdf/Questionnaire-%20Pat%20O'Neill%20-

%20Board%20of%20Education%20Candidate%20(2010).pdf

-----. 2010b. http://progressiveneighborsmd.org/candidates/patoneil.pdf

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

Rosenbaum, J.E. 1999. If tracking is bad, is detracking better. American Educator.

American Federation of Teachers.
http://www.aft.org/pdfs/americaneducator/winter9900/TrackingWint99_00.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

-----. 1990. Achievement effects of ability grouping in secondary schools: A best-

evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 60(3): 471-499.

-----. 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.

Shirley Brandman, at Large

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.

MCPS 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
such rigorous courses. I strongly support the commitment to looking at a student’s
untapped potential and allowing motivated students access to rigorous instruction.
However, simply increasing enrollment in 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. More careful analysis of the data to look
at whether students are successfully completing these courses and whether they continue

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

Global screening is not bad in + of itself unless it emphasizes too much

paper/pencil demonstration of capacity of students. Too many of the hispanic and african
american students do well enough on the global screening but are not placed in advanced
classes. Global screening should not restrict students, access to advance/challenging
classroom activities for all students based on needs/interests challenging/advanced
instruction must be, made available to students at each students own level. Because a
student does well in language arts, she/he would not be programmed to advance grouping
in all subject areas unless he/she has the promise for the individual subject area. In other
words, differentiation is key and all students should be exposed to advanced levels of
classes/groups, as in the objectives of the whole school magnets as they were designed.
More flexibility in grouping at the earliest levels (that is why elementary initiatives have
been very positive for young students academic successes). "No labels" is appealing
because it allows fluidity in grouping and exposes students to excellence. In staffing
teachers need a variety of experience, hence no one teacher should always get the
"honors" groups. The "best" teachers are needed for students who need the most
development. In honors classes at all levels elementary, middle, high school, students
need encouragement, support and acknowledgement of their successes.
http://mcea.nea.org/pdf/Questionnaire%20-%20Judy%20Docca%20-
%20Board%20of%20Education%20Candidate%20(2010).pdf

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

Mike Durso, District 5

Clearly the Grade 2 Global Screening process needs to be evaluated for

continuation, if indeed the percentages listed are accurate and current. That being said,
this is not an easy task for MCPS, but with significant local input ( teachers —
administrators ), perhaps a more equitable process can be devised, At the HS level,
students can be moved in and out of Honors — AP — IB classes with minimal difficulty,
this could be looked at in both elementary and middle schools.

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

Patricia O’Neill, District 3

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

Phil Kauffman, at Large

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).

Laura Berthiaume, District 2

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

Montgomery County Education Forum

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

MCPS Study Circles

Website: http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/studycircles/aboutus/
John Landesman, Program Coordinator: john_landesman@mcpsmd.org

Impact Silver Spring

Website: http://www.impactsilverspring.org/aboutUs.html
Laura Steinberg, Board President
Frankie Blackburn, Senior Strategic Advisor: Frankie@impactsilversping.org

Montgomery County Association of Administrators and Principals

Rebecca Newman, President

Edye Miller: emiller@mcaapmd.org

SEIU Local 500.

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

NAACP Parents’ Council

Patricia Williams, Chair: Patricia.williams2@xerox.com

Southern Christian Leadership Congress

Sanford and Doris Slavin Foundation

Jeffrey Slavin
5706 Warwick Place
Chevy Chase, MD 20815

Montgomery County Education Association

Website: http://mcea.nea.org/
Doug Prouty, President: dprouty@mcea.nea.org

Human and Civil Rights Committee

George Vlasits George_M_Vlasits@mcpsmd.org
Ed Hsu EHsiasyuan_Hsu@mcpsmd.org
Nafissatou Rouzand
Jenny Higgins
Elaine Crawford ecrawford@mcea.nea.org

80
 APPENDIX C
General Contact Information

Board of Education boe@mcpsmd.org

Policy Committee Members

Patricia O’Neill, Chair Patricia_O’Neill@mcpsmd.org

Shirley Brandman Shirley_Brandman@mcpsmd.org
Christopher S. Barclay Christopher_Barclay@mcpsmd.org
Alan Xie Alan_Xie@mcpsmd.org

Committee on Special Populations

Shirley Brandman, Chair Shirley_Brandman@mcpsmd.org

Laura Berthiaume Laura_Berthiaume@mcpsmd.org
Phil Kauffman Phil_Kauffman@mcpsmd.org

Strategic Planning Committee

Judy Docca, Chair Judy_Docca@mcpsmd.org

Michael Durso Michael_A_Durso@mcpsmd.org
Patricia O’Neill Patricia_O’Neill@mcpsmd.org

Montgomery County Public Schools

Executive Leadership Team

Dr. Jerry D. Weast, Superintendent Jerry_D_Weast@mcpsmd.org

Suzanne_Peang-Meth@mcpsmd.org
Dr. Frieda Lacey, Deputy Superintendent Frieda_Lacey@mcpsmd.org
Jody Leleck, Special Advisor Jody_Leleck@mcpsmd.org
Dr. Frank H. Stetson, Chief School Frank_H_Stetson@mcpsmd.org
Performance Officer
Erick Lang, Associate Superintendent Erick_J_Lang@mcpsmd.org
Larry A. Bowers, Chief Operating Officer Larry_Bowers@mcpsmd.org
Dr. Renee A. Foose, Associate Superintendent Renee_A_Foose@mcpsmd.org
Sherwin Collette, Chief Technology Officer Sherwin_Collette@mcpsmd.org

Accelerated and Enriched Instruction

Marty Creel, DEIP Director Marty_Creel@mcpsmd.org

Dr. Monique T. Felder, AEI Director Monique_T_Felder@mcpsmd.org
Margie Lopie, AEI Supervisor Marjorie_D_Lope@mcpsmd.org
Jennifer Lowndes, DEIP Jennifer_H_Lowndes@mcpsmd.org

81
Montgomery County Council of Parent-Teacher Associations

Kristin Trible, President president@mccpta.com

Laurie Halverson, VP, Educational Issues vpedissues@mccpta.com
Ted Willard, Co-Chair, Curriculum Committee twillard@aaas.org
Michelle Gluck, Chair, Gifted Child Subcommitte gluck.michelle@yahoo.com
Your school’s PTA President and parent GT liaison

Additional contacts

Montgomery County Council Education Committee

Valerie Ervin, Chair councilmember.ervin@montgomerycountymd.gov

Phil Andrews councilmember.andrews@montgomerycountymd.gov
Craig Rice councilmember.rice@montgomerycountymd.gov

Other County Council members

Marc Elrich councilmember.elrich@montgomerycountymd.gov

George Leventhal councilmember.leventhal@montgomerycountymd.gov
Roger Berliner councilmember.berliner@montgomerycountymd.gov
Nancy Floreen councilmember.floreen@montgomerycountymd.gov
Hans Riemer councilmember.riemer@montgomerycountymd.gov
Nancy Navarro councilmember.navarro@montgomerycountymd.gov

Maryland State Department of Education

State Board stateboard@msde.md.state.us

Dr. Jeanne Paynter jpaynter@msde.md.state.us

Maryland State Legislature

Senator Richard Madaleno Richard.Madaleno@senate.state.md.us

Chair, Education, Business and Administration Subcommittee
Budget and Taxation Committee

Senator Paul Pinsky Paul.Pinsky@senate.state.md.us

Chair Education Subcommittee,
Education, Health, and Environmental Affairs Committee

Montgomery County Education Association

Doug Prouty, President dprouty@mcea.nea.org

82
Press

Michael Birnbaum, The Washington Post birnbaumm@washpost.com

Lisa Gartner, Examiner lgartner@dcexaminer.com
Andrew Ujifusa, Gazette aujifusa@gazette.net
Liz Bowie, Baltimore Sun liz.bowie@baltsun.com
Sean Sedam, Rockville Patch sean.sedam@patch.com

83