The Tug 'o War Over Gifted Education

Gifted and Talented, education in the Washington suburb of Montgomery County has always been a community flash point. Montgomery County Public Schools, MCPS, identify an average of approximately 40% of its second graders as GT. This figure belies the fact that identification numbers run the gamut from a low of about 17% to a high of over 87%. The generally accepted norm for Maryland is on par with the national average of about 5%.

The governing State statute defines a "'gifted and talented student' as an elementary or secondary student who is identified by professionally qualified individuals as 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; exhibiting high performance capability in intellectual, creative, or artistic areas; possessing an unusual leadership capacity; or, excelling in specific academic fields."

With nearly half its second grade population labeled as GT, the expectation would be that the school system supports a robust GT program. Not so, asserted Eric Marx, Co-President of Gifted & Talented Association of Montgomery County, in his February 23, 2009 testimony to the MCPS Board of Education. Stating that "Outside of math, in most schools, there is virtually no GT education left to gut." GT, it would seem, has been reduced to an honorific label without attaching tangible educational benefits.

Adherents of the current system argue that the GT identification rates are justifiable, by claiming that the county boasts a highly educated populace.
The label, they argue, is needed for advocacy, and by law. Opponents are equally vehement that minorities, in particular, African Americans and Hispanics, are underrepresented. Furthermore, they insist, the label stigmatizes those who are excluded.

MCPS stubbornly resists all attempts to elicit public disclosure of its GT selection criteria and, has gone as far as to keep secret, documents related to a proposed revised policy being discussed by an "Advisory Committee." This contrasts to most school systems, such as Ohio, that make a very concrete and, public declaration of their GT selection criteria.

Evidence indicates that MCPS students who outscore 75 percent of their peers on the Raven's Progressive Matrices, or receive a minimum score on the three InView subsets of Quantitative Reasoning, Reading, Math; and satisfy one other criterion, qualify as GT. The smorgasbord of choices for the remaining criteria include: reading above grade level, performing math above grade level, having a parent nomination that satisfies certain criteria, being nominated by school staff, etc.

Even if the student cannot meet the benchmarks on the InView or the Raven tests, but meets three of the remaining qualifications, they still qualify for the GT label. In contrast, an Ohio student must demonstrate superior cognitive ability by scoring "two standard deviations above the mean minus the standard error of measurement on an intelligence test," or specific academic ability in a field by performing "at or above the 95th percentile at the national level on a standardized achievement test of specific academic ability in that field," etc. Renzulli, Director of the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, recommends "students who score at or above the 92nd percentile, using local norms in the Talent Pool," when using the standardized tests.

In the Spring 2008 Global Screening, barely 30% met the lower MCPS threshold on InView and Raven. When it came to Parent surveys, about 24% met the bench mark, as did about 19% of Teacher Advocacy. School-by-school GT identification data released by MCPS, does not seem to correlate with academic performance in subsequent years. Schools with higher GT rates don't seem to post a better academic performance from their counterparts with barely half the GT identification--even when the schools had a common catchment boundary and similar population demographics.

If the accepted standards and norms are followed, it is highly likely that identified population will fall close to the generally accepted parameter of around 5%. This in turn will negate the argument that children, who are not identified, constituting the vast majority, will be stigmatized.

Furthermore, I have proposed a Parent Letter that would substitute the ubiquitous label, and become a blueprint for every child's success. The letter would spell out in detail the test administered; the scores received, the benchmarks attained, and contain a well articulated scope and sequence of recommended services. It would shine a bright light on the GT identification process, empower parents to advocate for their child, and eliminate the label.

I would argue that the Parent Letter must be particularly informative to children who don't qualify as GT, delineating a specific, recommended program of instruction that would address their particular needs. In other words, GT identification becomes a means of addressing the needs of all students. Annual academic progress will determine the need for screenings in future grades.

The GT debate can be solved, if someone shows the leadership and courage to make an unpopular but legally and professionally defensible decision. We, as parents must insist on a transparent, accountable, educational system that discharges its obligation in a legal, moral, ethical manner, and gives every child an opportunity to succeed—gifted children included.