Mcps 2007 Grade 2 Gt Screening Report Spring

Testing Brief October 2007

Department of Shared Accountability

Grade 2 Global Screening in Spring 2007 E. Grace Chesney not identified. At the end of the process, parents received a report and explanation of their child’s test scores (MCPS, 2007).

Background The Montgomery County Board of Education Policy IOA, Gifted and Talented Education, sets as one of its purposes, “To extend each child’s intellectual boundaries and help all students achieve their highest potential.” The policy does not require students to be designated as “gifted and talented” (GT) to receive accelerated and enriched instruction. However, the Code of Maryland Administrative Regulations (COMAR) requires that students with “outstanding abilities” be “identified by professionally qualified individuals” as “gifted and talented.” In the spring of each year, the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) conducts a screening of all Grade 2 students in order to meet this state mandate. MCPS refers to this process as “global screening” (Martinez, 2006).

In collaboration with staff in the Office of School Performance (OSP) and the Department of Shared Accountability (DSA), staff in the Division of Accelerated and Enriched Instruction monitors the global screening process, analyzing student identification and performance within the county, clusters, and schools. Student demographic data, as well as identification status and recommendations for rescreening were reviewed, analyzed, and reported. Results

Methodology

Students Screened and Identified

All Grade 2 students participated in the global screening process during the spring of 2007. As part of the process, a variety of student data was collected including parent, teacher, and staff surveys; students’ reading and mathematics instructional levels; and results of cognitive assessments including the Raven Test of Standard Progressive Matrices and the Analogies and Quantitative Reasoning subtests of the CTB/McGraw-Hill In View. Parent surveys were mailed home to all families of Grade 2 students and collected by schools. Translations of surveys were available in the five most commonly spoken languages in MCPS.

A total of 3,688 students (39.4%) were identified as gifted and talented in 2006–2007, compared with 3,866 (39.5%) in 2005–2006 and 3,333 (33.8%) students in 2004–2005. Analysis of the data disaggregated by students’ race/ethnicity shows that in 2006–2007, African American and Hispanic students continue to be identified at a disproportionately lower rate than their Asian American and White peers. (Appendix Tables 1–3). Appendix Table 1 shows the results of spring 2007 Grade 2 global screening in relationship to the percentage of students identified (39.4%), recommended for rescreening (15.6%), and not identified (45.0%). These data are disaggregated by students’ race/ethnicity and services provided. The percentage of each student subgroup is represented in relationship to the number of students within the subgroup.

Following the collection of data, each school’s Accelerated and Enriched Instruction (AEI) Committee (formally GT Committee), chaired by an administrator, analyzed the data to make recommendations for instructional services for each student. After making recommendations for instruction, the AEI Committee used multiple criteria to identify students as gifted and talented. According to guidelines established by the AEI Committee, no single criterion can be used to exclude a student from identification and decisions not to identify cannot bar any child from receiving accelerated and enriched instruction. All students were either identified as gifted and talented, recommended for rescreening, or

Appendix Table 2 shows the percentage of each student subgroup screened and identified in relationship to the total number of students in the county screened or identified. While African American students represent 22.5% of all the students screened in 2006–2007, they account for 12.7% of the total number of students identified, a decrease from the 13.1% in 2005–2006. Similarly, Hispanic

Office of the Chief Academic Officer

Grade 2 Global Screening in Spring 2007 1

African American and Hispanic students continue to be underrepresented while White and Asian American students continue to be overrepresented. This finding is consistent with data collected in 2005–2006 (Martinez, 2006). This pattern suggests that new steps must be taken to reach equitable identification results. The data do not inform the system as to the extent to which accelerated and enriched instructional programming is available among schools. To analyze equity in delivery of advanced instructional programming, MCPS would need a stronger data collection focus on services instead of analyzing only identification. Steps have been made in this direction with the collection of data for Math 6 in Grade 5 and Algebra 1 in Grade 8, but additional data points are necessary to form a more comprehensive analysis.

students represent 21.1% of all students screened and they account for 11.9% of the students identified, a slight increase from the 11.4% in 2005–2006. Grade 2 students who received Free and Reduced-price Meals System (FARMS), special education, and Limited English Proficiency (LEP) services also are underrepresented. Identified students who received LEP services increased from 5.6% in 2005–2006 to 6.9% in 2006–2007. Appendix Table 3 shows the percentage of each student subgroup in relationship to the number of students screened and identified within the subgroup. For example, while 39.4% of all students in all subgroups screened are identified, African American and Hispanic students are underrepresented with 22.3% of the African American students screened identified and 22.2% of the Hispanic students screened identified. Of the Asian American students screened, 59.4% are identified and 50.4% of the White students screened are identified. Of the students receiving FARMS, 19.5% are identified and of the students receiving special education and LEP services, 17.4% and 16.9%, respectively, are identified.

Recommendations

Appendix Table 3 also shows that over the three-year period, the percentage of students identified overall has increased from 33.8% to 39.4%. There are similar percentage increases for all the subgroups. For example, the percentage of African American students identified has increased from 18.7% to 22.3% and for the Hispanic students the percentage increased from 17.0% to 22.2%.

1.

Staff in OSP, DSA, and the AEI Committee should continue to closely monitor the process and examine the issues of access to rigorous and challenging instruction prior to and after Grade 2.

2.

Further study of the implementation of the global screening process at the local school level is necessary. Steps should include analyzing the composition of the AEI Committee and its role in recommending appropriate services as well as any implications for professional development.

3.

MCPS should address the variance among schools in expectations, instruction, and services provided to students. To reach this goal, MCPS should build on the current collection of data in mathematics to develop a system that documents and communicates enrollment and performance in accelerated and enriched instruction.

4.

The primary talent development model included in the kindergarten curriculum revision should be implemented and evaluated. Primary talent development is designed to reveal, nurture, develop, and document student strengths prior to global screening. By nurturing creative and critical thinking skills, it is expected that the strengths and talents of more students will be revealed both in the classroom and during the global screening process. Data should be collected and analyzed to determine consistent implementation of the model as well as the effectiveness in reducing the pattern of disproportionate identification.

Appendix Table 4 shows the number and percentage of Grade 2 students identified as gifted and talented by individual school. Students Recommended for Rescreening Of the 9,364 students screened, 15.6% (or 1,458 students) were recommended to be rescreened in spring 2008 (Appendix Table 1). Students recommended for rescreening were proportionate to overall system demographics. Discussion The essential outcome of the global screening process is to ensure that the gifts of all students are revealed, documented, and developed throughout their years in MCPS. However, the data collected for this process only meet the narrow scope of identification and the application of a label to students. The data indicate that among students identified as gifted and talented, Office of the Chief Academic Officer

Grade 2 Global Screening in Spring 2007 2

References Martinez, C. (2006). Grade 2 Global Screening in Spring 2006. Rockville, MD: Montgomery County Public Schools. Rockville, MD. Montgomery County Public Schools. (1995). Policy IOA, Gifted and Talented Education. Rockville, MD: Author Montgomery County Public Schools. (2007). Procedures for Recognition of Elementary Students for Gifted and Talented Service. Rockville, MD: Author

Office of the Chief Academic Officer

Grade 2 Global Screening in Spring 2007 3

Grade 2 Global Screening in Spring 2007 Appendix

Office of the Chief Academic Officer

Grade 2 Global Screening in Spring 2007 4

Table 1 Number and Percentage of Grade 2 Students Screened and Identified, Recommended to be Rescreened, or Not Identified in 2006–2007 by Race/Ethnicity and Services Provided (Percentage relative to number of students in subgroup)

All Students Females Males Race/Ethnicity African American Females Males Asian American Females Males Hispanic Females Males American Indian Females Males White Females Males Services Provided FARMS Females Males Special Education Females Males LEP Females Males

Identified

Recommended to be Rescreened N % 1,458 15.6 703 15.3 755 15.8

Screened N 9,364 4,585 4,779

N 3688 1790 1898

% 39.4 39.0 39.7

2,111 1,039 1,072 1,442 719 723 1,978 971 1,007 37 23 14 3,796 1,833 1,963

470 237 233 857 427 430 439 210 229 10 5 5 1,912 911 1,001

22.3 22.8 21.7 59.4 59.4 59.5 22.2 21.6 22.7 27.0 21.7 35.7 50.4 49.7 51.0

353 163 190 183 90 93 341 170 171 3 2 1 578 278 300

16.7 15.7 17.7 12.7 12.5 12.9 17.2 17.5 17.0 8.1 8.7 7.1 15.2 15.2 15.3

1,288 639 649 402 202 200 1,198 591 607 24 16 8 1,306 644 662

61.0 61.5 60.5 27.9 28.1 27.7 60.6 60.9 60.3 64.9 69.6 57.1 34.4 35.1 33.7

2,685 1,328 1,357 803 216 587 1,497 693 804

524 259 265 140 31 109 253 108 145

19.5 19.5 19.5 17.4 14.4 18.6 16.9 15.6 18.0

457 217 240 80 16 64 269 124 145

17.0 16.3 17.7 10.0 7.4 10.9 18.0 17.9 18.0

1,704 852 852 583 169 414 975 461 514

63.5 64.2 62.8 72.6 78.2 70.5 65.1 66.5 63.9

Office of the Chief Academic Officer

Not Identified N % 4,218 45.0 2,092 45.6 2,126 44.5

Grade 2 Global Screening in Spring 2007 5

Table 2 Number and Percentage of Grade 2 Students Screened and Identified in 2004–2005 through 2006–2007 by Race/Ethnicity and Services Provided (Percentage relative to screened or identified for entire county)

All Students Race/Ethnicity African American American Indian Asian American Hispanic White Services Provided FARMS Special Education LEP

2004–2005 Screened Identified N % n % 9,875 3,333

2005–2006 Screened Identified N % n % 9,782 3,866

2006–2007 Screened Identified N % n % 9,364 3,688

2,196 n/a 1,568 2,079 3,995

22.2 n/a 15.9 21.1 40.5

411 n/a 710 354 1,840

12.3 n/a 21.3 10.6 55.2

2,213 n/a 1,454 2,011 4,072

22.6 n/a 14.9 20.6 41.6

506 n/a 830 439 2,090

13.1 n/a 21.5 11.4 54.1

2,111 37 1,442 1,978 3,796

22.5 0.4 15.4 21.1 40.5

470 10 857 439 1,912

12.7 0.3 23.2 11.9 51.8

2,950 1,017 1,149

29.9 10.3 11.6

432 138 176

13.0 4.2 5.3

2,432 876 1,015

24.9 9.0 10.4

557 159 217

14.4 4.1 5.6

2,685 803 1,497

28.7 8.6 16.0

524 140 253

14.2 3.8 6.9

Note: Due to small numbers, data for American Indian students were not reported prior to 2006–2007, so column totals and percentages may not sum.

Table 3 Number and Percentage of Grade 2 Students Screened and Identified in 2004–2005 through 2006–2007 by Race/Ethnicity and Services Provided (Percentage relative to number of students in subgroup)

All Students Race/Ethnicity African American American Indian Asian American Hispanic White Services Provided FARMS Special Education LEP

2004–2005 Screened Identified N n % 9,875 3,333 33.8

2005–2006 Screened Identified N n % 9,782 3,866 39.5

2006–2007 Screened Identified N n % 9,364 3,688 39.4

2,196 n/a 1,568 2,079 3,995

411 n/a 710 354 1,840

18.7 n/a 45.3 17.0 46.1

2,213 n/a 1,454 2,011 4,072

506 n/a 830 439 2,090

22.9 n/a 57.1 21.8 51.3

2,111 37 1,442 1,978 3,796

470 10 857 439 1,912

22.3 27.0 59.4 22.2 50.4

2,950 1,017 1,149

432 138 176

14.6 13.6 15.3

2,432 876 1,015

557 159 217

22.9 18.2 21.4

2,685 803 1,497

524 140 253

19.5 17.4 16.9

Note: Due to small numbers, data for American Indian students were not reported prior to 2006–2007.

Office of the Chief Academic Officer

Grade 2 Global Screening in Spring 2007 6

Table 4 Number and Percentage of Grade 2 Students Identified as Gifted and Talented by School in 2004–2005 through 2006–2007 2004–2005

Elementary School Ashburton Bannockburn Lucy V. Barnsley Beall Bel Pre Bells Mill Belmont Bethesda Beverly Farms Bradley Hills Broad Acres Brooke Grove Brookhaven Brown Station Burning Tree * Burnt Mills Burtonsville Candlewood Cannon Road Carderock Springs Rachel Carson Cashell Cedar Grove Clarksburg Clearspring Clopper Mill Cloverly Cold Spring College Gardens Cresthaven Captain James E. Daly Damascus Darnestown Diamond Dr. Charles R. Drew DuFief East Silver Spring Fairland Fallsmead Farmland Fields Road

Screened N 92 61 72 99 132 67 65 72 100 58 83 75 65 55 86 89 113 63 57 42 115 65 94 87 86 86 81 76 56 92 90 60 62 74 55 66 77 81 84 97 78

2005–2006

Identified Screened n % N 42 45.7 87 34 55.7 49 25 34.7 61 27 27.3 103 23 17.4 132 31 46.3 78 27 41.5 66 42 58.3 67 50 50.0 99 36 62.1 66 23 27.7 64 21 28.0 55 15 23.1 51 11 20.0 50 n/a n/a 94 27 30.3 76 28 24.8 98 21 33.3 50 26 45.6 61 24 57.1 64 44 38.3 121 29 44.6 44 25 26.6 92 22 25.3 117 27 31.4 69 21 24.4 50 21 25.9 85 33 43.4 71 24 42.9 74 21 22.8 98 19 21.1 74 14 23.3 47 26 41.9 64 30 40.5 67 7 12.7 66 30 45.5 85 24 31.2 56 23 28.4 91 33 39.3 94 45 46.4 97 16 20.5 78 Continued

Office of the Chief Academic Officer

Identified n % 32 36.8 34 69.4 24 39.3 46 44.7 54 40.9 33 42.3 24 36.4 41 61.2 47 47.5 41 62.1 14 21.9 17 30.9 19 37.3 15 30.0 n/a n/a 18 23.7 25 25.5 16 32.0 18 29.5 37 57.8 46 38.0 22 50.0 35 38.0 49 41.9 24 34.8 23 46.0 26 30.6 39 54.9 38 51.4 29 29.6 19 25.7 20 42.6 30 46.9 33 49.3 20 30.3 51 60.0 31 55.4 26 28.6 57 60.6 60 61.9 30 38.5

2006-2007 Screened N 86 60 72 89 137 72 79 66 101 62 64 65 56 52 89 53 88 54 63 52 111 45 102 55 68 59 74 50 100 n/a 78 42 74 73 63 75 60 78 72 97 73

Identified n % 36 41.9 38 63.3 27 37.5 41 46.1 38 27.7 40 55.6 21 26.6 35 53.0 53 52.5 52 83.9 20 31.3 23 35.4 15 26.8 10 19.2 n/a n/a 15 28.3 23 26.1 25 46.3 23 36.5 30 57.7 64 57.7 21 46.7 33 32.4 18 32.7 15 22.1 19 32.2 27 36.5 27 54.0 45 45.0 n/a n/a 13 16.7 9 21.4 34 45.9 34 46.6 15 23.8 32 42.7 32 53.3 13 16.7 46 63.9 59 60.8 30 41.1

Grade 2 Global Screening in Spring 2007 7

2004–2005 Elementary School Flower Hill Flower Valley Forest Knolls Fox Chapel Gaithersburg Galway Garrett Park Georgian Forest * Germantown Glen Haven Glenallen Goshen Great Seneca Creek Greencastle Greenwood Harmony Hills Highland Highland View Jackson Road Jones Lane Kemp Mill Kensington Parkwood Lake Seneca Lakewood Laytonsville Little Bennett Luxmanor Thurgood Marshall Maryvale Spark M. Matsunaga S. Christa McAuliffe Ronald McNair Meadow Hall Mill Creek Towne Monocacy Montgomery Knolls New Hampshire Estates Roscoe Nix Oakland Terrace Olney William Tyler Page Poolesville Potomac Judith A. Resnik Dr. Sally K. Ride Ritchie Park

Screened N 83 76 81 75 107 112 80 82 77 88 73 115 n/a 99 105 76 101 45 63 89 98 86 54 92 85 n/a 53 73 91 169 109 117 63 57 30 107 90 n/a 126 94 66 67 80 104 101 64

2005–2006

Identified Screened n % N 17 20.5 88 24 31.6 78 38 46.9 85 24 32.0 81 16 15.0 60 38 33.9 103 36 45.0 75 n/a n/a 70 22 28.6 87 20 22.7 77 20 27.4 64 21 18.3 122 n/a n/a n/a 16 16.2 90 37 35.2 99 18 23.7 81 19 18.8 95 19 42.2 48 14 22.2 91 47 52.8 80 29 29.6 82 42 48.8 72 7 13.0 61 34 37.0 88 29 34.1 74 n/a n/a n/a 28 52.8 58 30 41.1 69 25 27.5 97 71 42.0 204 34 31.2 91 24 20.5 126 14 22.2 59 17 29.8 77 11 36.7 39 35 32.7 79 20 22.2 74 n/a n/a n/a 42 33.3 118 31 33.0 106 16 24.2 64 22 32.8 73 44 55.0 89 21 20.2 92 26 25.7 86 31 48.4 68 Continued

Office of the Chief Academic Officer

Identified n % 26 29.5 36 46.2 37 43.5 20 24.7 18 30.0 30 29.1 41 54.7 n/a n/a 20 23.0 22 28.6 24 37.5 32 26.2 n/a n./a 32 35.6 59 59.6 28 34.6 24 25.3 19 39.6 48 52.7 39 48.7 25 30.5 38 52.8 22 36.1 50 56.8 28 37.8 n/a n/a 36 62.1 27 39.1 39 40.2 99 48.5 16 17.6 49 38.9 18 30.5 27 35.1 12 30.8 31 39.2 33 44.6 n/a n/a 57 48.3 41 38.7 16 25.0 14 19.2 50 56.2 18 19.6 27 31.4 33 48.5

2006-2007 Screened N 66 57 88 71 72 112 76 69 46 72 54 90 92 93 96 81 90 50 75 87 85 74 40 105 77 111 57 85 91 147 108 108 57 73 37 83 91 98 101 100 63 69 97 84 81 81

Identified n % 23 34.8 24 42.1 38 43.2 17 23.9 15 20.8 23 20.5 46 60.5 n/a n/a 13 28.3 21 29.2 17 31.5 30 33.3 39 42.4 23 24.7 40 41.7 14 17.3 20 22.2 30 60.0 31 41.3 38 43.7 22 25.9 31 41.9 16 40.0 57 54.3 37 48.1 33 29.7 33 57.9 27 31.8 50 54.9 85 57.8 26 24.1 29 26.9 22 38.6 22 30.1 14 37.8 44 53.0 24 26.4 26 26.5 34 33.7 37 37.0 27 42.9 22 31.9 50 51.5 15 17.9 27 33.3 41 50.6

Grade 2 Global Screening in Spring 2007 8

2004–2005 Elementary School Rock Creek Forest Rock Creek Valley Rock View Lois P. Rockwell Rolling Terrace Rosemary Hills Rosemont Sequoyah Seven Locks Sherwood Sargent Shriver Sligo Creek Somerset South Lake Stedwick Stone Mill Stonegate Strawberry Knoll Summit Hall Takoma Park Travilah Twinbrook Viers Mill Washington Grove Waters Landing Watkins Mill Wayside Weller Road Westbrook Westover Wheaton Woods Whetstone Wood Acres Woodfield Woodlin Wyngate

Screened N 83 58 78 80 125 164 62 81 44 80 n/a 103 69 81 103 100 67 75 89 128 94 77 118 63 108 104 99 93 48 41 106 86 100 64 93 76

Identified n % 35 42.2 23 39.7 23 29.5 26 32.5 49 39.2 104 63.4 13 21 19 23.5 30 68.2 22 27.5 n/a n/a 50 48.5 37 53.6 18 22.2 28 27.2 60 60 34 50.7 19 25.3 17 19.1 76 59.4 33 35.1 24 31.2 35 29.7 20 31.7 22 20.4 20 19.2 46 46.5 17 18.3 40 83.3 17 41.5 30 28.3 30 34.9 47 47 23 35.9 36 38.7 37 48.7

2005–2006 Screened N 84 59 86 73 91 163 88 82 46 89 n/a 111 58 81 75 104 64 72 66 135 76 82 95 67 118 108 112 85 51 40 109 92 97 71 93 86

Identified n % 40 47.6 20 33.9 37 43.0 22 30.1 42 46.2 97 59.5 20 22.7 28 34.1 31 67.4 33 37.1 n/a n/a 53 47.7 44 75.9 19 23.5 25 33.3 65 62.5 24 37.5 19 26.4 12 18.2 70 51.9 43 56.6 40 48.8 23 24.2 21 31.3 31 26.3 23 21.3 64 57.1 12 14.1 41 80.4 27 67.5 53 48.6 31 33.7 38 39.2 30 42.3 54 39.8 40 46.5

2006–2007 Screened N 84 54 73 53 88 189 89 70 48 85 79 105 63 79 87 99 81 73 69 139 77 68 53 45 104 73 92 63 52 57 51 78 115 74 66 98

Identified n % 37 44.0 17 31.5 22 30.1 18 34.0 44 50.0 110 58.2 33 37.1 18 25.7 25 52.1 27 31.8 30 38.0 32 30.5 43 68.3 19 24.1 27 31.0 46 46.5 35 43.2 15 20.5 12 17.4 77 55.4 44 57.1 22 32.4 16 30.2 14 31.1 27 26.0 13 17.8 58 63.0 27 42.9 45 86.5 28 49.1 21 41.2 23 29.5 55 47.8 22 29.7 25 37.9 57 58.2

* Burning Tree and Georgian Forest elementary schools are participating in a pilot program. In these schools, the multiple pieces of data collected during the global screening process are used solely to recommend appropriate accelerated and enriched instruction, and not to assign a label. All other schools use the multiple pieces of data collected during the global screening process both to recommend appropriate accelerated and enriched instruction and to assign a label.

Office of the Chief Academic Officer

Grade 2 Global Screening in Spring 2007 9