SUMMARY OF 11.12.

09 ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING

Frederick Stichnoth (fred.stichnoth@yahoo.com)

January 11, 2010

The AEI Advisory Committee met Thursday, November 12 (its twenty-eighth

meeting). This is a summary of what was discussed and my thoughts about what it might
mean. AEI is expected to post its “notes” for this meeting on the Advisory Committee
website:
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/enriched/aeiadvisory/aeiadvisoryi.sht
m.

At the next AEI Advisory Committee meeting, on Thursday, January 14, 7:15
p.m., the Committee will discuss Middle School expansion courses, including Middle
School grouping. See “Questions regarding Middle School Expansion Courses” at the
end of this Summary.

My Main Issues

1. Missed opportunity to discuss GT equity. Because “equity” prompted

MCPS to pursue a radical revision of Policy IOA, and is at the heart of the GT debate,
equity was scheduled for discussion at this meeting. However, neither MCPS nor MCEF
referred to the GT Policy or GT education; MCPS did not mention equity; MCEF did
not mention racial or ethnic differences.

Thus the Committee missed the opportunity to engage in the GT discussion

around MCPS’ and MCEF’s and my fundamental issue: equity. Because all reasonable
people agree that equity is central to social and political relationships, MCPS missed the
opportunity to present an argument that compels attention and seriousness. MCPS
missed the opportunity to gain GTA’s acknowledgment of at least a portion of its
argument. MCPS avoided “a real back and forth” – “a two-way communication
paradigm, where MCPS is fully engaged in conversation and partnership with students,
parents/guardians and community members,” as just recommended by the Deputy’s
Minority Achievement Advisory Council. Its failure to engage in the equity discussion
wasted the opportunity to foster mutual respect within the stakeholder community and
between that community and MCPS.

2. Critical race theory in MCPS. Both presentations by members from MCPS’

Office of Organizational Development displayed the growing importance to MCPS of
critical race theory. Ms. Graves stated that the different racial and ethnic “groups have
different ways of knowing, and that we must recognize their respective strengths.” The
significance of this statement must be understood within the context of critical race
theory, which views “knowledge” as a racial construct and “rigor” as an ersatz product of
“whiteness.” This racialized knowledge outlook undermines the objective basis (test
scores) of MCPS’ equity yardstick, further balkanizes the red and green zones and drains
the possibility of rigor from red zone schools.

The MCEF/NAACP and OCA members disagreed with the Graves/MCPS/CRT

theory of racial ways of knowing. The racial knowing theory leads directly to
consequences adverse to the interests of many African-Americans. I do not know
whether the MCEF/NAACP member’s statement represents the position of MCEF or
NAACP Parents Council. It would be helpful for these organizations, and others, to more
publicly question the racial knowing position. Critical race theory in MCPS has left the
station and is building up steam.

3. Institutionalized inequity of our two school systems. I argued that MCPS’

determination to measure equity by the Seven Keys to College Readiness benchmarks
exacerbates the system’s primary inequity--that between red zone African-Americans and
green zone whites—and institutionalizes the two systems, black and white, separate and
unequal, that increasingly characterize Montgomery County. I suggested that equity
should be measured by testing equality of group outcomes not only against the mid-level
Seven Keys benchmarks, but also against a parallel higher level benchmark trajectory
culminating in SAT 2100. The higher trajectory would draw MCPS’ work to African-
American and Hispanic students in the red zone who score above the Seven Keys
benchmarks but are being grievously underserved. The Committee had no response.

Summary of 11.12 Meeting

The two-hour meeting was occupied with presentations regarding “equity,”

including “equity and excellence in professional development.”

Equity. Kay Williams, Director, Division of Accelerated and Enriched

Instruction, introduced “equity” as a “passion” of the system, referring to the
“Framework for Equity and Excellence,” a central statement first inserted in MCPS
current strategic plan She read its definition of “equity:” “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.” Our Call to Action: Pursuit of Excellence:
The Strategic Plan for the Montgomery County Public Schools, 2009-2014, page iii.
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/about/strategicplan/strategicplan.pdf. She said
that to achieve equity, MCPS fostered a “culture of high expectations.” She affirmed that
“all means all.” Equity and the culture of high expectations are supported by professional
development.

This portion of the meeting was then occupied by five successive presentations,
followed by very brief discussion.

Donna Graves’s presentation. Donna Graves, Director, Equity Training and

Development Team, Office of Organizational Development, disseminated and asked the

2
Committee members to fill in a sheet headed “Who Am I?,” which directed that members
“Complete the sentence, ‘I am __’ using as many descriptors as you can think of in sixty
seconds.” Ms. Graves then asked whether members had described themselves by gender,
religion, region, age, race, ethnicity, language, class/SES and/or disability—the core
factors of diversity that impact students (according to the Maryland State Department of
Education). Code of Maryland Regulations 13A.04.05.01B—Education That is
Multicultural. http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/. Ms. Graves said that these factors
form not only our individual identities, but also our social identities.

She said that there is a gap when teacher and student are characterized by
different identity factors, which often leads to the teacher’s misreading and
misunderstanding of the student’s objectives and behaviors. She referred to the book ‘I
Won’t Learn from You’: and Other Thoughts on Creative Maladjustment by Herbert R.
Kohl. http://www.amazon.com/Wont-Learn-You-Thoughts-
Maladjustment/dp/1565840968/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262694479&sr=1-
2

Ms. Graves said that the research is clear that the most important factors for
equity are the answers to the following three essential questions (see
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/development/teams/diversity/diversi
ty.shtm):

1. How do awareness, knowledge, and understanding of one’s racial and

cultural identity promote effective learning and teaching?

Ms. Graves said that teachers tend to understand, albeit unconsciously, behaviors
based on student identity factors which differ from the teachers’ own identities as
“deficits” instead of differences.

2. How do awareness, knowledge, and understanding the racial and cultural

identity of students promote effective teaching and learning?

Ms Graves disseminated “A Racial Questionnaire and Discussion,” the directions

for which are “Name the racial group to which you do not belong that has a significant
achievement gap at your school. [Ms. Graves instructed members to choose African-
American or Hispanic.] Write the name of that group in every blank before answering
the questions.” There were eleven questions, ranging from “Within the last 3 years,
approximately how many movies have you seen depicting _____?” to “What do you
believe are some things that enhance a(n) ________ child’s performance in the
classroom? Please elaborate.” Ms. Graves stated that providing an answer to this second
essential question is hard, because “we don’t know what we don’t know.” Knowledge
can be gained through immersion and/or study.

3. How can educators establish learning environments that are conscious of race
and culture to ensure implementation of culturally responsive instruction?

3
 Ms. Graves said that this (apparently referring to a lack of cultural awareness) is
at the root of the lack of high expectations.

She concluded that “there is zero disagreement in the literature: these things
[apparently referring to cultural training and awareness] are necessary.”

The Asian-American Parent Advocacy Council member asked how Ms. Graves
could emphasize one race over another. Ms. Graves responded that the different groups
have different ways of knowing, and that we must recognize their respective strengths.

Ms. Graves referred the members to the Maryland State Department of Education
Regulation “Education That is Multicultural.” Code of Maryland Regulations
13A.04.05.01.B. http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/.

Fred Stichnoth’s Presentation. My presentation was delivered from the appended

outline which was disseminated to the Committee; it is summarized below.

I said that MCPS officially subscribes to the Framework’s equity definition read
by Ms. Williams: “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.” This
formulation selects multiple identity characteristics (race, ethnicity, gender, etc.) that
define protected groups; it tests equality among protected groups with respect to
performance “outcomes.” The plural is ambiguous: it may refer either to a roster of test
scores (Terra Nova 2 and SAT, etc.) or to the full continuum of performance levels found
among MCPS students county-wide (e.g., SAT 1650 and SAT 2100).

However, in contrast to its official position, MCPS’ actual equity goal constricts
the focus to only two identity characteristics (and the groups comprised around these
characteristics): “Student outcomes shall not be predictable by race or ethnicity.” Our
Call to Action, Core Values, page ii. Furthermore, rather than test equality with respect
to plural “outcomes,” MCPS selects a single outcome criterion with respect to which
equality is measured: college readiness (i.e., matriculation without the need of remedial
coursework). (“Excellence is achieved through high standards that ensure that all
students are college or career ready as high school graduates.” Our Call to Action,
Framework, page iii.) In MCPS, “equity” means that equal proportions of the four
predominant racial and ethnic groups are at least ready for college without remediation
(i.e., at or above the Seven Keys to College Readiness benchmarks).

MCPS work is driven by its actual equity goal: to increase the proportions of
African-American and Hispanic students scoring at or above the Seven Keys
benchmarks. This work is focused around programming (meeting the “needs in the
building,” according to Community Superintendent Adrian Talley) and differentiated
benchmarks (benchmarks differ between the “W schools” and red zone schools,
according to Department of Enriched and Innovative Programming Director Marty
Creel). This conception of the work tends to create two groups of students: “cusp

4
students” and “extraneous students.” Cusp students are exclusively African-American
and Hispanic, but only those African-Americans and Hispanics that perform below the
Seven Keys benchmarks. Extraneous students include all white students, all Asian-
American students, and all African-American and Hispanic students performing at or
above the Seven Keys benchmarks.

I then pointed out that the red zone is the market for MCPS’ equity work. The red
zone contains 65 percent of all MCPS “minority” students, 80 percent of all MCPS’
FARMS students, and 75 percent of all MCPS’ ESOL students; and red zone students
produce outcomes that are lower than those produced by green zone students. MCPS’
red zone work is focused around “meeting the needs in the building” (lower-pitched
instruction and supports), guided by the Seven Keys benchmarks (lower than the W
school benchmarks). Thus, the red zone’s concentration of cusp students commandeers
and channels red zone programming.

MCPS’ actual equity goal, and its resulting work, do not bring equity because
they exacerbate the red zone versus green zone performance disparities--most particularly
the African-American red zone versus white green zone disparities.

I recommend a simple change: give content to the plural, district-wide

continuum, interpretation of “outcomes” by creating a parallel but higher trajectory of
benchmarks, culminating in SAT 2100 (though still maintaining the Seven Keys
benchmarks, culminating in SAT 1650). (I would not contest the use of race and
ethnicity as the sole identity characteristics, and thus the goal of equalizing the proposed
dual “outcomes” among the four predominant racial and ethnic groups.) The effect
would be to enlarge the group of cusp students to African-American and Hispanic
students that score at or above the Seven Keys benchmarks but below the high trajectory
benchmarks—below SAT 2100. This would draw MCPS to work on the second cusp,
and would change its programming accordingly.

The primary benefit of the proposed change would be “equity:” a narrowing of

the inequitable red zone African-American v. green zone white disparity (exacerbated by
MCPS’ actual equity goal).

As secondary benefits, the proposed change also would improve education for
white and Asian-American students living in the red zone and impel MCPS’ development
of real GT programming (as mandated by Policy IOA) to the marginal benefit of green
zone students (and all students).

MCEF, NAACP member’s presentation. A representative of both Montgomery

County Education Forum and NAACP Parents Council defined “equity” as “justice
according to natural law; freedom from bias and favoritism.”

The MCEF/NAACP member advocated the engagement of the potential of every

child to enable the development of active citizens and life-long learners, able to access
what the world has to offer.

5
 He stated that treating some students as capable and other students as not capable
is a problem.

The elements of equity are academic challenge, high expectations, good curricula,
a welcoming environment, student and parent empowerment, enrichment, and
engagement.

Comment. An unaffiliated community member recommended a technique for

determining what is equitable derived from the work of contemporary political
philosopher John Rawls. The unaffiliated member stated that Rawls proposed that goods
be allocated from the vantage of a “veil of ignorance,” in which those determining the
allocation would not know if they were rich or poor, black or white; this ignorance of
status would offset inequalities. The member believes that evaluation of gifted and
talented programming from this vantage point would result in the adequate allocation of
services to students with special gifts.

The member also supported Ms. Graves, stating that it is helpful to appreciate
diversity. Contrary to Ms. Graves’s repeated assertion, the member said that there is no
“unambiguous research.” He advocated a “multitude of strategies” to accommodate
diversity.

Asian American Parent Advocacy Council member’s presentation. This member

stated that as a Chinese-American, he is a member of a minority. Nevertheless, he
advocated that MCPS “forget race” and thereby make it easier to solve problems. Equity
means equal opportunity for everybody. The criterion of “similar output” is
unreasonable: there will be different outputs. MCPS must focus on those with learning
disabilities, but without sacrificing the outcomes of extraordinary students. In order that
the United States be competitive, the society must push extraordinary students to achieve
their potentials.

Organization of Chinese Americans member’s presentation. This member

questioned the existence of different learning styles among Chinese, African-American
and Hispanic students. She stated that emphasis must be placed on academic
accomplishment. She has a serious disagreement if MCPS focuses only on African-
American and Hispanic students.

The OCA member believes that the current approach is fragmented: she wants a
“holistic” approach. The entire society should focus on child development, including
academic development, beginning even before pregnancy.

Comments. An MCEF member inquired as to the “end goal” of the discussion.

Ms. Williams stated that the goal is to come to an understanding of the definition of
“equity.” She added that Superintendent Dr. Weast would agree with the OCA member’s
“holistic” approach, as evidenced by his support for pre-school education.

6
 A Gifted and Talented Association member responded to the MCEF member’s
“end goal” question by stating that MCPS has a “crude definition” of equity that ignores
each student’s multiple identities, is based on an inflated view of schools’ ability to
overcome exogenous forces, and is “driving the bus of the system’s hostility to gifted and
talented education;” and that MCPS’ “fantasy of excellence” (i.e., remediation-free
college readiness, defined by the Seven Keys benchmarks) intentionally ignores the needs
of GT students.

An unaffiliated community member briefly commented on several presentations.

He agreed with Ms. Graves that education must make a connection with the student, but
felt it confining to identify students purely in terms of race and ethnicity. He shared my
concern with compartmentalizing groups, but disagreed with my characterization of those
not achieving the Seven Keys benchmarks as “cusp” kids (customarily used to refer to
students near the NCLB proficiency break, on whom the school focuses in order to meet
NCLB targets). He agreed with the MCEF/NAACP member’s characterization of equity
as freedom from bias. He finally stated that good curriculum cuts across all groups, and
helps all groups.

An NAACP Parents Council member said that we should not give up on good
instruction. Another NAACP Parents Council member said that if everybody got good
instruction then problems would solve themselves.

On the day following the Committee meeting, the OCA member reiterated by e-
mail her discomfort regarding Ms. Graves’s correlation of “learning style differences”
with racial and ethnic groups. The MCEF/NAACP member responded with concern at
generalizing learning styles by race or ethnic group, and at teaching teachers to relate
differently to students of the various ethnic groups; he would recognize individual
learning style characteristics without linking them to a racial or ethnic culture.

Professional development. Douglas Nelson, Curriculum and Training

Development, Office of Organizational Development, stated that MCPS meets the needs
of all students by building capacity. The mission of the Office of Organizational
Development is to improve effectiveness to bring about student achievement. This is a
part of the MCPS strategic plan’s Goal 4: “Create a positive work organization in a self-
renewing organization.”

Mr. Nelson stated that the goals of OOD’s strategic plan include elimination of
the predictability of distinctive outcome results by race, achievement of excellence as
defined by the Seven Keys to College Readiness, and effectiveness.

A GTA member asked what, if any, of the professional development being

discussed was targeted at teaching gifted and talented or high-achieving students, or
related to accelerated and enriched instruction. After a response that provided scant
assurance of such professional development, Ms. Williams said to the GTA member “Be
respectful: I don’t need the smirk.”

7
 Mr. Nelson said that OOD builds capacity by asking what teachers, administrators
and support professionals need to support student learning. Capacity is built among staff
to support equity and excellence. OOD also builds its own capacity, “around critical race
theory, for instance.” Mr. Nelson reported that he had seen Glenn Singleton and Curtis
Linton (co-authors of Courageous Conversations about Race;
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_1_10?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-
keywords=courageous+conversations+about+race&sprefix=Courageous).

Cheryl Pulliam, principal, Oakland Terrace Elementary School, noted the

importance to building capacity of “who we hire,” and referred to a Harvard study of how
to hire good teachers.

Dr. Monique Felder, Elementary Program Supervisor, Division of Accelerated

and Enriched Instruction, stated that AEI supports equity and excellence through
professional development, so that all students reach their highest potential.

Dr. Felder referred to AEI’s district-wide training in the William and Mary, Junior
Great Books, Jacob’s Ladder and Twice Exceptional programs; school support through
regular meetings; data review to identify areas of support; and partnerships with the
Office of School Performance, the Office of Organizational Development and the Office
of Curriculum and Instructional Programs.

Ms. Williams concluded that the Committee had “only scratched the surface,” but
that “what’s important is that we are conversing.”

Agenda. Ms. Williams stated that the Committee is scheduled to consider Middle
School Expansion courses and grouping. The OCA member asked that the Committee
schedule further discussion of equity and excellence.

My Reflections

Are we “conversing?” I do not share Ms. Williams’ assessment that “we are
conversing.” This opportunity was missed.

Points made at the meeting. Ms. Graves made the following general points:

1. When teacher and student differ as to “identity factors” (race, ethnicity,

gender, SES, etc.) the teacher mistakenly interprets the student’s behaviors as deficits;

2. Learning environments must accommodate racial and ethnic differences,

including different ways of knowing.

Thus Ms. Graves emphasized school versus student cultural disjunctions based on race
and ethnicity, but did not refer in any way either to MCPS’ GT Policy or program, or to
“equity.”

8
 The MCEF/NAACP member made the point that treating some students as
capable and some students as not capable conflicted with the principle of engaging the
potential of every child. He did not refer in any way to race or ethnicity, referred to
MCPS’ GT Policy and program only through the tacit, oblique equation of “capable”
with GT, and referred to “equity” only by tacitly and obliquely equating the engagement
of every child’s potential with “equity” (a definition that clashes with MCPS’ definition).

The NAACP members’ comments advocated good instruction, without referring

in any way either to race and ethnicity or to MCPS GT Policy and program, and by only
tacitly and obliquely equating good instruction for all with equity.

Contrast MCPS’ typical points. MCPS essential behaviors and statements

contrast with the nebulous presentations and comments made at this meeting. The May
2006 report of the Deputy Superintendent’s Advisory Committee on Gifted and Talented
Education emphasizes a “lack of access” to GT services and “disparities…in access,
service, and outcomes” for African-American and Hispanic students.
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/enriched/aeiadvisory/docs/DSAC_Re
portFinal1106.pdf. Racial equity was the fundamental impetus for the revision of Policy
IOA:

Sharon W. Cox, a former school board member, said she introduced the motion to
revise the gifted-and-talented policy after the black community questioned the
way services were being provided and whether the labeling was a hindrance. ‘We
needed to ensure all children were getting the services and supports to fully
develop their potential,’ said Cox….” Marcus Moore, “Principals: “No label’
pilot program working.” Gazette, April 29, 2009.
http://www.gazette.net/stories/04292009/montnew181203_32530.shtml.

AEI’s apparently deferred draft revised Policy IOA refers to equitable participation and
opportunity, “traditionally underserved” student groups, equal access among students
from all racial, ethnic and cultural groups, and a general program of “accelerated and
enriched” programming for all students. (The AEI draft is not available to the public.)
Racial equity likewise has become the fundamental focus of MCPS’ strategic plan:

Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) is committed to equity and

excellence for all students. 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, socioeconomic status, language proficiency,
or disability. Excellence is achieved through high standards that ensure that all
students are college or career ready as high school graduates. Our Call to Action:
Pursuit of Excellence: The Strategic Plan for the Montgomery County Public
Schools, 2009-2014, page iii.
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/about/strategicplan/strategicplan.pdf.

Contrast Ms. Graves’s previous statements. Furthermore, not only were the
meeting’s nebulous statements out of character for MCPS, they contrast with Ms.

9
Graves’s direct and consistent advocacy of equity at prior meetings. The following
quotations from my Summaries of the Committee meetings reflect substantially all of Ms.
Graves’s statements in the Committee. Ms. Graves:

“[N]oted MCPS concern with regard to the equity of relying on teacher surveys
and staff advocacy.” 9.20.07 page 3

“[R]ecommended examining the cultural relevance of these [test-in GT] programs

to African-American and Hispanic students.” 9.20.07 page 3

“[S]tated that the distinction made by the work group between ‘equitable’ and
‘equal’ referred to each student, school or group receiving a fair share in accordance with
particular need, as contrasted with the same share regardless of need.” 10.11.07 page 3

“[A]dvocated modification of the Purpose sentence ‘Students comprising the

diversity of our community must be nurtured to develop their talents to participate
equitably at the highest levels of this continuum’ and the Desired Outcomes sentence
‘The classroom, school organization, and instructional strategies will be designed to
promote the understanding that all students can achieve at high levels, including those
from diverse backgrounds and with unique abilities and interests.’ She pointed out that
‘diverse’ groups would include white students, and that the purpose of these sentences
does not pertain to white students. She would substitute either the specific listing of
‘African-American, Hispanic and FARMS students’ or the generic reference to
‘traditionally underrepresented’ groups, either of which would exclude white and Asian-
American students.” 2.14.08 page 7-8

“[S]aid that the five groups that are ‘victims of the achievement gap’ (African
American, Hispanic, special education, English language learner and poor students)
generally should be expressly named [in draft revised Policy IOA].” 3.13.08 page 4

“[A]ttempted to explain to me what this technical notion [primary talent

development] means. It seems to pertain to the preparation, particularly of traditionally-
underrepresented children, for functioning in the culture of the school.” 4.10.08 page 5

“[R]eminded the Committee that excellence must be accompanied by equity.”

9.11.08 page 3

“[C]oncluded that ‘it’s about all the kids.’” 9.11.08 page 5

“[D]iscussed the degree to which the identification disproportionality is

attributable to school-centered institutional racism or to socio-economic factors such as
wealth and intra-family communication skills.” 11.13.08 page 2

“[A]sked that the service of ‘underachieving and traditionally underrepresented

students’ be an explicit purpose of the Policy’s professional development section.”
11.13.08 page 5

10
 “[P]referred ‘the highest level’ [as compared with ‘their—i.e., all students’—
highest levels’] because staff could not and should not predict differentiated capacities
and future outcomes.” 1.15.09 page 6

“[A]rgued that the special solicitude for the traditionally underrepresented is a

‘system priority,’ that must be ‘called out.’” 2.12.09 page 4

“[P]referred [that uncovering and developing talents and thinking skills should be
targeted] especially [at traditionally underserved groups].” 3.12.09 page 4

“[S]aid that, 50 years after Brown v. Board of Education, GT education was

characterized by racial segregation, failure to recognize giftedness in persons of color,
stereotypes and bias, and unwillingness to nurture. It was necessary to reaffirm equity—
to put race and culture at the forefront.” 4.16.09 page 4

“[S]aid that [professional development for ‘cultural awareness’] does take place,
and that MCPS is moving to make it more systematic; she said that each school’s staff
development teacher is key in this process….[T]he newly added provision, with its
mention of teacher ‘expectations,’ refers to such training.” 5.14.09 page 3

“[A]sked how the new [SIPPI] process ‘interrupted’ disproportionate access to

education…[and] would differ from the current process.” 10.8.09 page 6

See also the description of Ms. Graves’s presentation on equity at a Summit for
Courageous Conversations that took place only a month before this Committee meeting
(under the heading “Critical race theory,” below).

Ms. Graves addressed only accommodation to African-American and Hispanic

cultures at this November meeting. Certainly, her prior Committee comments consider
culture: concern with staff advocacy, test-in program cultural relevance, primary talent
development to facilitate functioning in the school culture, professional development for
cultural awareness. But she clearly has broader equity concerns: serving African-
American and Hispanic students first, viewing GT programs as characterized by racial
segregation and seeing GT identification determined by institutional racism. She also
defines “equity” as allocation of a “fair share in accordance with particular need,” which
contrasts MCPS’ definition based on racial and ethnic group Seven Keys’ outcomes (the
contrast is resolved if Ms. Graves’s “need” is reduced to remediation-free college
readiness).

Omissions. Ms. Graves did not address whether cultural differences make GT
programming inherently inequitable (or absolutely necessary). Her observations on
culture apply to all instructional programming, not GT programming in particular.

No other MCPS member of the Committee spoke at all during the “equity”
portion of the meeting (except Ms. Williams’ non-substantive introduction, conclusion,

11
brief reference to Dr. Weast’s pre-school advocacy and criticism of the smirk). Mr.
Creel’s utter silence was unique and striking.

This forum (a meeting of the AEI Advisory Committee on Accelerated and

Enriched Instruction with “equity” as the primary agenda item) plainly demanded a
discussion of three elements: students grouped by race and ethnicity, “equitable”
allocation of education programs, and MCPS’ GT program. A conversation regarding
these elements did not occur.

Missed opportunities. Thus the Committee missed the opportunity to engage in

the GT discussion around MCPS’ and MCEF’s and my fundamental issue: equity.
Because all reasonable people agree that equity is central to social and political
relationships, MCPS missed the opportunity to present an argument that compels
attention and seriousness. MCPS missed the opportunity to gain GTA’s acknowledgment
of at least a portion of its argument. MCPS avoided “a real back and forth” – “a two-way
communication paradigm, where MCPS is fully engaged in conversation and partnership
with students, parents/guardians and community members,” as just recommended by the
Deputy’s Minority Achievement Advisory Council. Closing the Gap:
Recommendations for Improving Minority Student Achievement in Montgomery County
Public Schools, Deputy’s Minority Achievement Advisory Council, January 12, 2010,
pages 3, 1. http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/boe/meetings/agenda/2009-10/2010-
0112/3.0%20DMAAC%20Report.pdf. Its failure to engage in the equity discussion
wasted the opportunity to foster mutual respect within the stakeholder community and
between that community and MCPS.

Does “all mean all?” No. All means some; or, at best, some now and all
indefinitely later, after others go unserved now and forever.

By “all means all,” MCPS commits itself to serve what it conceives to be the
neediest: all will be served, but service to some has priority over service to others.
While considering the Framework, the Board stated these principles: “Equity recognizes
that the playing field is unequal and attempts to address the inequity;” “Serve the
neediest first;” and “Whatever it takes!” Minutes of the meeting of the Board of
Education (draft). Retreat, January 26 and 27, 2009.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16332772/January26and272009Retreat. These are
immoderate commitments to part of the student population which patently demote the
remainder of the student population: in this sense, they are radical.

“Need” is never defined, but apparently should be understood to identify those

falling short of MCPS “excellence:” the Seven Keys benchmarks for remediation-free
“college-readiness.” As discussed above, MCPS’ “equity” definition prefers African-
American and Hispanic students. Thus, as I indicated in my presentation, MCPS is
committed to serving first African-American and Hispanic students who do not achieve
the Seven Keys benchmarks. For how long does “first” last?—until the “inequity”
(unequal outcomes) is addressed and eliminated. How severe is the demotion of
“extraneous students?” -- “Whatever it takes!”

12
 Justice for John Rawls. An unaffiliated community member of the Committee
recommended a criterion of equity derived from the work of John Rawls. I agree. Rawls
is the preeminent political philosopher of the last century. His major work, A Theory of
Justice, was published in 1971 and elicited extensive comment. Aspects of his argument
were revised in response to the comment, and condensed, in his Justice as Fairness: A
Restatement (2001), on which the following discussion is based.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_0_10?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-
keywords=justice+as+fairness&sprefix=Justice+as.

Rawls addresses a political conception of justice—the “constitutional essentials”

and “basic structure of society.” This he distinguishes from “local justice (principles
applying directly to institutions and associations)” (Section 4.2, page 11), including
“allocative justice” – the “very different problem of how a given bundle of commodities
is to be distributed, or allocated, among various individuals whose particular needs,
desires, and preferences are know to us….” Section 14.1, page 50. Thus, Rawls’ work
does not apply directly to the allocation of the educational goods which are the subject of
the GT equity issue. However, his principles apply by analogy to such allocations (as he
discusses with regard to allocation of medical care).

As mentioned by the community member, Rawls bases his derivation of “the fair
terms of social cooperation” upon a hypothetical agreement entered into by those subject
to it. The agreement must be entered under conditions that “situate free and equal
persons fairly and [do] not permit some to have unfair bargaining advantages over
others.” This situation, or point of view, is under a “veil of ignorance,” in which “the
parties are not allowed to know the social positions…of the persons they represent.”
Section 6.2, page 15.

Thus, assume that MCEF and GTA parents are deciding together whether real GT
education (differentiated programming and homogeneous grouping) is to be offered in
the local schools. They are aware that socio-economic status, race and ethnicity affect
the actual availability of educational opportunities, but they do not know whether their
families are high- or low-SES, black, white, Asian-American or Hispanic. They wish to
formulate a system that is fair, and that maximizes their actual educational opportunities
in whatever real position they will find themselves when the veil of ignorance is
removed. Do they opt for a system in which all students are “capable” and get “good
instruction”--“the good stuff?” or do they opt for differentiated programming targeted to
distinctive needs?

Rawls further asks “what principles of justice are most appropriate to…regulate
social and economic inequalities in citizens’ prospects over a complete life? These
inequalities are our primary concern.” Section 12.4, page 41. He acknowledges that life
prospects are affected by contingencies, including “social class of origin….” Section
16.1, page 55. He responds in part that “Social and economic inequalities…are to be to
the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society (the difference
principle).” Section 13.1, page 41-42. He further explains that “one scheme is more

13
effective than another if [it] always gives a greater return to the less advantaged for any
given return to the more advantaged.” Section 18.2, page 63.

Applying the difference principle to GT opportunities, the most advantaged (high

SES) students should be permitted to benefit from a program change only if the less
advantaged (low SES) students benefit from that program change more than the most
advantaged students.

My presentation urged establishment of real local school GT education based on

my perception that low-SES, African-American and Hispanic, red zone students would
benefit most. My program would establish a parallel higher trajectory of academic
benchmarks, culminating in SAT 2100. This would draw MCPS work to the red zone (in
which MCPS’ low-SES, African-American and Hispanic students predominately live),
where education is now centered on the Seven Keys benchmarks—remediation-free
“college readiness” and SAT 1650. MCPS would focus on African-American and
Hispanic students scoring below the SAT 2100 trajectory (in addition to those working to
attain the Seven Keys benchmarks). It would narrow the inequitable red zone African-
American versus green zone white disparity. It would have less effect on green zone,
high-SES white and Asian-American students, because green zone outcomes already
appreciably exceed the Seven Keys trajectory and green zone programming is not
restricted by a Seven Keys ceiling (unlike red zone programming).

Rawls would not assert that the most advantaged students may benefit from
program change only after educational opportunities (outcomes) have been equalized
—“serve the neediest first.” That serial priority principle would have, and does have, a
politically destabilizing effect in that “extraneous students” (red zone students scoring at
or above the Seven Keys benchmarks, including African-Americans and Hispanics)
would be parked, and thereby sacrificed through the course of their lives, until outcomes
were equalized at the Seven Keys level.

Right analysis—wrong school system. Ms. Graves advocates culturally-

competent teachers in culturally-accommodating classrooms. I agree with this principle
in the abstract. However, I question the significance of these factors in explaining poor
performance in the red zone (the locus of the great majority of MCPS’ African-American,
Hispanic and FARMS students). Ms. Graves notes that competence can be gained
through immersion and/or study. Red zone teachers and administrators, through
substantial immersion in red zone classrooms and offices, probably have gained good
competence; “total competence” is neither possible nor necessary.

MCPS consistently makes the mistake of viewing its achievement gap and GT
equity questions in the abstract—as if underperforming African-American and Hispanic
students were evenly dispersed through a substantially white, adequately-performing
district (perhaps this describes the green zone). In that case, teacher cultural competence
would be suspect and heterogeneous class instructional differentiation would be
appropriate. However, as Dr. Weast once understood, MCPS is two systems: one quite
wealthy, the other not, with schools often relatively homogeneous in their racial, ethnic

14
and SES composition. Efficient gap closing requires fundamental recognition of, and a
strategy founded on, zonal differences, with broad differentiation of program packages.
It is necessary to formulate the program to fit the conditions (different “needs in the
building” and different “benchmarks”) but also, in any case, to teach each student.
MCPS’ prescription for the red zone—cultural competence and imposing the Seven Keys
—is precisely wrong because this describes the red zone already, and it ignores students
capable of attaining higher benchmarks if they only were instructed.

Now the Board’s Policy Committee has requested the AEI provide for Policy
Committee consideration a review of the literature on GT programs. Board attention to
GT is overdue and welcome; parent stakeholders look forward to joining this discussion.
But literature pertaining to other school systems must be translated to MCPS’ peculiar
two-systems situation. Neighborhood/zone concentrations matter most.

Binary fallacy. The MCEF/NAACP member contrasted equity with treating

some students as capable and other students as not capable; two other NAACP members
advocated “good instruction” for all. Certainly, in a binary world, treating students as
“capable” and providing them with “good instruction” are preferable to their opposites.
There is a fallacious tendency to equate the “GT label” with “capable,” and derive that
those not “GT” are thereby labeled “not capable.” There is a parallel fallacious tendency
to intuit that GT instruction is good instruction (an intuition belied by local school GT
parent experience), and derive that any instruction that is not GT instruction is not good
instruction.

Is it not obvious that there are many types of academic capabilities, with a
continuum of student performances for each type? Given the range of capabilities, what
is the significance of treating “capability” as if it were binary?

Likewise, is it not obvious that there are different curricula and different
instructional practices, and that in various permutations these may provide “good
instruction” when matched with the capabilities of the student? Given the range of
instruction, what is the significance of treating “good instruction” as if it were binary—
describing only what MCPS might call “GT instruction?”

Critical race theory. Mr. Nelson reported that the Office of Organizational
Development, the trainer of trainers, builds its own capacity “around critical race theory,”
adding that he had seen Glenn Singleton and Curtis Linton (co-authors of Courageous
Conversations about Race).

Critical race theorists understand society as a system of power relationships built

on social structure and ideology and characterized by white dominance and black
subordination. Critical race theorists reject the liberal prescription of equal rights,
gradual improvement, celebration of diversity and black assimilation into white culture.
Instead, critical race theorists radically oppose the social system in order to preserve a
distinctive black culture and community and to attain substantive, material equality.
They look to a future society based on a very loose pluralism, or black separatism.

15
 As Mr. Nelson indicates, Montgomery County Public Schools embraces critical
race theory, particularly as popularized by consultant Glenn Singleton. Singleton
deviates from the classical theory in three respects: first, he ignores the material inequity
of the social structure and exclusively addresses schools’ “institutional barriers;”
second, he redirects the analytic focus away from sociology toward psychology, and in
particular personalizes the classic theory’s functional concept of “Whiteness” by blaming
white people; third, he looks to a peaceful, integrated school and a seemingly assimilated
nation of high achievers regardless of background. See my “Critical Race Theory in
Montgomery County Public Schools: ‘Putting Race on the Table,’” November 9, 2009.

Ms. Graves’s emphasis on cultural difference is shared by a range of education

critics broader than (though including) critical race theorists. Her observation that “we
don’t know what we don’t know” apparently is derived from Singleton’s discussion of
the development of race consciousness. Singleton, G. E., and C. Linton. 2006.
Courageous Conversations About Race, page 56.
Her assertions that the different racial and ethnic groups have “different ways of
knowing,” and that we must recognize their respective strengths, is characteristic of
critical race theorists. Critical race theorists challenge “the fundamental philosophical
ideologies that ‘knowledge’ itself represents some acultural achievement and that schools
could be evaluated according to some aracial standard based on how well they impart the
neutral educational commodity of knowledge and reason.” Peller, G. 1990. Race-
consciousness; in Crenshaw, K., N. Gotanda, G. Peller, and K. Thomas, eds. 1995.
Critical Race Theory—The Key Writings that Formed the Movement. page 141.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_1_20?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-
keywords=critical+race+theory+the+key+writings+that+formed+the+movement&sprefix
=critical+race+theory.

In the absence of more forthright discussion, we cannot foresee where the

trajectory from Ms. Graves’s “different ways of knowing” to Peller’s racialized
conception of “knowledge and reason” is leading MCPS’ programming generally, but
particularly gifted and talented programming. Ms. Graves hints only that “we must
recognize their [different racial and ethnic groups’] respective strengths.” Critical race
theorists’ goal of distant pluralism or black separatism suggests that Ms. Graves’s
“recognition” leads to separate racially-identified schools or classes in which racially
tagged “knowledge” is inculcated.

Singleton’s goal of a peaceful, integrated school and an assimilated nation of high

achievers regardless of background seems reassuring. However, Singleton’s organization
recently sponsored its second annual Summit for Courageous Conversation, at which
these racialized “ways of knowing” were examined:

D06 Rigor or Rigor Mortis: Reframing the White Construct of “Rigor” to Give
All Students Access to Challenging Material that Embraces Multiple
Perspectives and Experiences
Take the challenge to reach all students by addressing institutional racism

16
 disguised as “rigor” in the classroom. Discuss perspectives through the
use of film, experiential activities, and Courageous Conversation about
race to deconstruct the whiteness of “rigor,” which has re-segregated
schools. Develop systemic steps to dismantle this white “construct” in
your schools or school districts.
Presenter: Patricia Coggins, social studies specialist, Loudoun County Public
Schools, Ashburn.VA. Agenda, page 17.
http://www.summitforcourageousconversation.com/docs/2009Program.pdf.

Ms. Graves’s “different ways of knowing” theory is part of a school of thought (openly
embraced by MCPS) that leads to the dismantling of “rigor” and the overthrow of
“knowledge” as traditionally understood.

Ms. Graves, with OOD Associate Superintendent Jamie Virga, also made a
presentation at this October 2009 Summit—a presentation that seems to have given a
fuller account of “equity:”

B03 Changing Schools, Not Children

Montgomery County Public Schools (MD) is coming to terms with the
persistence and predictability of racial achievement disparities, despite a
history of success in improving overall student achievement. Learn how
the district is moving from wanting equitable student outcomes to doing
the anti-racist work required to achieve those outcomes. Understand the
importance of establishing and communicating clear, system-wide
expectations for equity. Explore the challenges and triumphs of
uncovering the underlying personal and institutional beliefs that perpetuate
inequities, and navigating the choppy waters of resistance and conflict.
Leave with professional development strategies that assist staff to
question the status quo and begin to transform educational practice.
Presenters: Donna Graves, equity training and development director and James
Virga, associate superintendent, Montgomery County Public Schools,
Germantown, MD. Agenda, page 6.

Equity defined in terms of critical race theory. I said above that MCPS did not
discuss equity at a meeting where MCPS was schedule to discuss equity. This is an
apparent anomaly. How could it be explained?

By equity, MCPS (or its Office of Organizational Development) might mean

recognizing the strengths of the ways of knowing peculiarly characteristic of the
respective racial and ethnic groups (as Ms. Graves enjoined). She had previously stated
that equity entails each “group receiving a fair share in accordance with particular
need….” My Summary of 10.11.07 AEI Advisory Committee Meeting, page 3. “Need”
might be defined with respect to each group’s “way of knowing.” Thus, equity would
mean teaching each group in accordance with its respective way of knowing. This
definition would make sense of Ms. Graves’s statement that “the most important factors

17
for equity” [emphasis added] are the answers to the three questions regarding racial and
cultural identity (presented at this meeting and found on the ETDT website).

This definition must be reconciled with the Board of Education’s recent definition
of equity in its Framework for Equity and Excellence, which is based on standardized
tests administered to all racial and ethnic groups—suggesting a single, common way of
knowing. Possibly MCPS has a two-prong test: first, students of all racial and ethnic
groups should have that basic, common fund of knowledge and skills represented by the
Seven Keys and assuring remediation-free college readiness; and second, beyond the
basic common knowledge, each student should be enriched in the way of knowing
peculiar to that student’s racial or ethnic group.

The two-prong (Seven Keys plus racialized knowing) equity test reveals the
logistical challenge of cultural competence. For example, red zone classes mix black,
white and Hispanic students. They will be presented the common Seven Keys
curriculum, differentiated by ability; and racialized instruction, differentiated by race and
ethnic group. As the challenge of differentiation is multiplied, it is little wonder that
differentiation by ability (or is it enrichment of the white way of knowing?) drops out, so
that the common knowledge is presented at a one-size-fits-all level.

This conception of equity magnifies the appearance of disparities. Red zone

white students have less concentration on white knowledge than do green zone students,
but benefit from a catholic exposure to black and Hispanic ways of knowing. Exposure
to white ways of knowing is maximized for green zone students; however, they suffer
from minimal exposure to black and Hispanic ways of knowing. This system then
shortchanges red zone whites in white knowledge, and green zone whites in black and
Hispanic breadth. The red zone white problem reveals why critical race theorists look to
racial separation. The green zone white problem might be resolved by more culturally-
competent teachers introducing black and Hispanic ways of knowing into the green zone
classroom. (Is this even an MCPS goal? Should it be?)

Mr. Creel suggested a way of reconciling the seeming disparity: acceptance. The
W schools and red zone schools simply have different benchmarks: there is no common
yardstick for combining basic knowledge and racialized knowledge that pertains to the
district as a whole. Without the constraint of a common yardstick, the Office of School
Performance is correct in pursuing the “gestalt—the needs in the building” (as those
needs are defined by racial and ethnic mix).

The naïve alternative to these complications would see a single way of knowing—
e.g., solving math problems, doing science experiments, conjugating verbs, interpreting
literature, investigating historic causation, writing cogent arguments. Students would be
assisted in developing this way of knowing as their needs and capabilities indicate.
Teachers would be competent to help when, and if, cultural factors impeded (or
facilitated) mastery of this way of knowing. Culture differences would be enjoyed (in its
profoundest sense) both as an object of study through the common way of knowing and
as the stuff of community living.

18
 Coming to an understanding of the definition of “equity.” The meeting
produced the following seven definitions of “equity:”

1. Seven Keys outcomes are not predictable by race or ethnicity; (Board of

Education)

2. Racial and ethnic groups’ different ways of know are respected; (Ms.
Graves)
3. Neither Seven Keys outcomes nor higher trajectory outcomes are
predictable by race or ethnicity: the red zone African-American versus the green zone
white outcome disparity is eliminated; (Fred Stichnoth)

4. MCPS no longer treats some students as capable and some students as not
capable; (MCEF/NAACP member)

5. Equal opportunity for everybody; (AAPAC member)

6. Everybody gets good instruction; (two NAACP members)

7. Each student, school or group receives a fair share in accordance with

particular need. (Ms. Graves October 11, 2007)

Ms. Williams stated that the end goal of the discussion is “to come to an
understanding of the definition of equity.” The Committee might come closer to
achieving this vital goal if these seven statements of definition were discussed and a
single Committee definition determined.

A “new paradigm:” real Committee “back and forth.” Ms. Graves and
MCPS have much more to say about “equity.” The Committee “barely scratched the
surface” and did not reach Ms. Williams’ goal of coming “to an understanding of the
definition of ‘equity.’” Parents cannot be expected to understand, let alone accept,
MCPS’ conceptions of equity as they currently are expounded. Given “the importance of
establishing and communicating clear, system-wide expectations for equity,” I support
the OCA member’s request that the Committee reschedule “a real back and forth” on
equity.

Questions regarding Middle School Expansion Courses

1. Are the MS Expansion Courses replacing all prior courses on the same subject
matters, both advanced and on-level prior courses?

2. Are the curricula one-size-fits-all? or is there an on-level curriculum with

supplementary advanced objectives? Are the advanced objectives cumulative or blips?
Please disseminate a few examples of the curriculum documents.

19
 3. How does the SIPPI process funnel students to the correct MS instruction and
on-level or advanced curricula?

4. Similarly, are teachers actually required to teach the advanced objectives to

particularly-identified students?

5. Do advanced students in a heterogeneous classroom receive instruction,

complete homework assignments and take tests regarding on-level objectives in addition
to advanced objectives?

6. Are students who are being taught advanced objectives tested on those
objectives?

7. How do students and parents know whether students are being taught advanced
objectives?

8. How would the SIPPI process monitor whether identified students actually
receive advanced work?

9. Do permanent student records indicate that the student was taught the
advanced objectives?

Next Meeting

The next meeting of the AEI Advisory Committee will be held on Thursday,
January 14, from 7:15 to 9:15 pm in Carver (850 Hungerford Drive, Rockville) Room
127. The discussion will focus on Middle School Expansion courses and Middle School
grouping. People who are not members of the Committee are permitted to attend and
listen.

EQUITY

Comments to the AEI Advisory Committee

November 12, 2009

Frederick Stichnoth

I. “Equity” is:

A. A conceptual tool

Gives us a direction in the world

Simplifies and clarifies
Orients our work

B. An allocation rule

20
 Evens things out
Fairness

C. Involves three components

1. Good being allocated: education

2. Group decision: racial and ethnic groups, as an example

Other possibilities

Each student as an individual

Poor kids v. rich kids
Red zone kids v. green zone kids

3. Rule of fairness: serve the neediest group first, for example (what is
“need”?)

Other possibilities

Serve each group equally (same resource input)

Serve each group at its level of potential (“zone of proximal
development”—MCEF)

Note: selection of group and rule are driven by external social and political
considerations

D. The equity test: how is equity evaluated?

1. Does it even things out?

2. Does it produce unevenness when other grouping or rule criteria

are considered? (an externality)

3. Does it increase our sense that the world is fair?

II. MCPS’ selections of group and rule

A. Official: “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.” OCA Framework for Equity and Excellence, iii.

Groups: multiple

21
 Rule: proportionate dispersion across multiple outcomes (note plural)

Management optimization: complex—optimize multiple values

B. Actual

Groups: “Student outcomes shall not be predictable by race or ethnicity.” OCA

Core Value, ii

Rule: “Serve the neediest first.” BOE January Retreat minutes

“Excellence is achieved through high standards that ensure that all
students are college or career ready as high school
graduates.” OCA Framework for Equity and Excellence, iii.

Need = college readiness = Seven Keys

Management optimization: simple—optimize one value

Summary: Group: Even things out between racial and ethnic groups
Rule: Serve the neediest first

Need: those not college-ready—not attaining Seven Keys

C. Comparison of official and actual

Official Actual
Group Race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic Race or ethnicity
status, language proficiency, or disability
Rule Outcomes (plural) are not predictable Serve the neediest (non-
college ready/Seven Keys)
first
Optimizatio Complex: multiple values Simple: one value
n

III. The work driven by MCPS’ actual conception of equity

A. Goal of work: Increase the proportions of African-American and

Latino students scoring at or above the Seven Keys

B. Work includes:

Focused programming (Talley—OSP focus on needs in the building)

Benchmarks (Creel: differ between W schools and red zone)
Management (principal and Carver) attention
Money (Weast’s differentiation)?

22
 Staffing?

C. Cusp kids v. extraneous kids

Cusp: Only African-Americans and Latinos

Only those at or below the Seven Keys benchmarks

Extraneous: white and Asian-American kids

All kids who score above Seven Keys

In particular, African-American and Latino above

Seven Keys

IV. Red zone: the equity market

A. Rich target population for MCPS equity program

Group Ratio: Red zone/MCPS

“Minority” 65%
FARMS 80%
ESOL 75%

B. Therefore, intensive work focused on red zone cusp kids

Programming: supports
Benchmarks: Seven Keys
Management
Money?

C. Intensive focus in the equity market excludes work on the extraneous

kids

Programming: less GT opportunities (DSAC Report, 9)

Benchmarks: Seven Keys—“lower than the W schools”

D. Summary: red zone’s concentration of cusp kids commandeers and

warps programming

V. Failing the equity test

A. Red zone v. green zone disparities (at “outcomes”—plural—other

than Seven Keys)

No green zone intensive focus on cusp kids

23
 Intense sense of unfairness among red zone GT parents

B. African-American red zone v. white green zone disparities

Is this what MCEF and NAACP want?

Is MCPS stereotyping African-American “potential?”
This makes the world less fair

VI. My alternative

A. Establish a second benchmark trajectory, parallel to the Seven Keys

but higher/more rigorous—ending at SAT 2100

Official Actual Fred

Group Race, ethnicity, gender, Race or ethnicity Race or ethnicity
socioeconomic status,
language proficiency, or
disability
Rule Outcomes (plural) are not Serve the neediest Multiple outcomes not
predictable (non-college predictable: Seven Keys
ready/Seven Keys) and higher parallel
first ending SAT 2100
Optimize Complex—multiple Simple-one value Moderate—two values
values values

B. Effects of Fred’s alternative

1. Change the cusp kids: African-American and Latino at SAT 2100

Two sets of cusp kids

2. Draw MCPS work to the second cusp: red zone, African-

American and Latino, SAT 2100

Programming: supports and real GT

Benchmarks: Seven Keys and W school
Management: moderately complex optimization
Money: real red zone differentiation

C. Added benefits

1. Improve red zone education for whites and Asian-Americans

2. Equalize quality between red zone and green zone

Improve African-American red zone v. white green zone

equity

24
 3. Establish real GT, for import to green zone as needed

CONTACTS
January 1, 2010

Board of Education boe@mcpsmd.org

Policy Committee Members

Shirley Brandman, Chair Shirley_Brandman@mcpsmd.org

Patricia O’Neill, Patricia_O’Neill@mcpsmd.org
Christopher S. Barclay Christopher_Barclay@mcpsmd.org
Timothy Hwang Timothy_T_Hwang@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

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, Chief Academic Officer Jody_Leleck@mcpsmd.org
Dr. Frank H. Stetson, Acting Chief School Frank_H_Stetson@mcpsmd.org
Performance Officer
Erick Lang, Associate Superintendent Erick_J_Lang@mcpsmd.org
Jamie Virga, Associate Superintendent James_J_Virga@mcpsmd.org
Larry A. Bowers, Chief Operating Officer Larry_Bowers@mcpsmd.org
Susan Marks, Associate Superintendent Susan_Marks@mcpsmd.org
Dr. Stacy L. Scott, Associate Superintendent Stacy_L_Scott@mcpsmd.org
* AEI Advisory Committee Members

AEI Advisory Committee Members

Elizabeth Alcoba Elizabeth_C_Alcoba@mcpsmd.org

Marty Creel, DEIP Director* Marty_Creel@mcpsmd.org

Dr. Monique T. Felder, AEI Supervisor Monique_T_Felder@mcpsmd.org

25
 Linda Ferrell Linda_Ferrell@mcpsmd.org
Donna Graves Donna_Graves@mcpsmd.org
Stephanie Holloman Stephanie_Holloman@mcspmd.org
Ebony Y. Langford Ebony_Y_Langford@mcpsmd.org
Margie Lopie, AEI Supervisor Marjorie_D_Lope@mcpsmd.org
Jennifer Lowndes Jennifer_H_Lowndes@mcpsmd.org
Douglas E. Nelson Douglas_E_Nelson@mcspmd.org
Cheryl D. Pulliam Cheryl_D_Pulliam@mcpsmd.org
Kay K. Williams, AEI Director* Kay_K_Williams@mcpsmd.org
*Committee co-chairs

Montgomery County Council of Parent-Teacher Associations

Kay Romero, President GKR2854@yahoo.com

Kristin Trible, VP, Educational Issues vpedissues@mccpta.com
Ted Willard twillard@aaas.org
Gifted Child Subcommittee [Vacant]

Your school’s PTA President and parent GT liaison

Additional contacts

Montgomery County Council Education Committee

Valerie Ervin, Chair councilmember.ervin@montgomerycountymd.gov

Mike Knapp councilmember.knapp@montgomerycountymd.gov
Phil Andrews councilmember.andrews@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
Duchy Trachtenberg councilmember.trachtenberg@montgomerycountymd.gov
Nancy Navarro councilmember.navarro@montgomerycountymd.gov

Maryland State Department of Education

Jeanne Paynter jpaynter@msde.md.state.us

Press

Michael Birnbaum, Washington Post birnbaumm@washpost.com

Leah Fabel, DC Examiner lfabel@dcexaminer.com
Marcus Moore, Gazette mmoore@gazette.net

26
 Robert Dongu, Gazette rdongu@gazette.net
Liz Bowie, Baltimore Sun liz.bowie@baltsun.com

27452456.doc

27