Sippi Boe Meeting 9.8.09

BOE DOES SIPPI Student Instructional Program Planning and Implementation Frederick Stichnoth ([email protected]) September 10, 2009 The Board of Education heard a presentation regarding SIPPI at its September 8, 2009 meeting. The presentation was introduced by Larry Bowers, Chief Operating Officer, and Erick Lang, Associate Superintendent, and made by Marty Creel, Director, Department of Enriched and Innovative Programs, Kay Williams, Director, Division of Accelerated and Enriched Instruction, and Cheryl Pulliam, principal, Oakland Terrace Elementary School. Mr. Bowers presented an overview of MCPS’ achievement in accelerated and enriched education, relying on increasing percentages in Math 6 in Grade 5, Algebra 1 by Grade 8, AP participation, AP 3 performance and IB enrollment. (In response to a question, Mr. Creel stated that the 7,695 IB participants also cited by Dr. Weast’s Memorandum included only those in the High School Diploma, Middle Years and Primary Years programs, not certificate students taking individual courses only. This contradicts a statement made by my September 8 comment letter to the Board.) Mr. Lang introduced the presenters, and stated that they would address two essential questions: 1) How can MCPS ensure that all students receive the most appropriate class placement? and 2) How can MCPS ensure that the students are challenged to their full potential? (The exact text of these questions is stated on a PowerPoint presentation presented to the BOE but not available on the MCPS website or in the BOE meeting room. It would be helpful if BOE President Shirley Brandman or Mr. Creel would circulate the PowerPoint to the community.) Mr. Creel presented SIPPI, following a PowerPoint which largely, but not completely, reflected that presented to the BOE’s Policy Committee on July 21. He began by describing MCPS’ progress toward goals (see Weast Memo, page 23, http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/boe/meetings/agenda/2009-10/20090908/6.0%20Sequence%20of%20AEI%20Instruction.pdf): center, magnet, whole-school magnet, GT-LD, dual high school/college enrollment, required William and Mary and Junior Great Books, Middle School reform and expansion courses, professional development. The issues with advanced instruction are those identified by the 2006 DSAC Report (http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/enriched/DSAC_ReportFinal1106.pd f): accountability, programs, data and equal access. These are the focus of the AEI Strategic Plan (appended to the Weast Memo).

Mr. Creel reiterated the two essential questions: 1) How can MCPS ensure that students are engaged in the most appropriate courses? and 2) Once properly placed, how can they be challenged to their highest level? The label is not determinative. Implementation and progress depend on monitoring and measuring (such as improvement in the number of students taking Math 6 in Grade 5). MCPS needs a systematic process for access and professional development. Mr. Creel contrasted two processes: global screening and course placement and articulation. The course placement/articulation process varies among schools (which Mr. Creel contrasted with the standardized high school HAPIT AP articulation tool). SIPPI will combine global screening with articulation between Grades 2 and 3, 5 and 6, and 8 and 9. A school committee would make placement decisions on the basis of data organized in a table (available in the PowerPoint). At Grade 2, this table presents TerraNova 2 Math and Reading scores, Math unit assessment scores for on-level and above-level questions, Reading book level, Raven and InView scores. The table then contains a school committee recommendation for Grade 3 Math and Reading and an MCPS recommendation for Grade 3 Math and Reading. The MCPS recommendation is generated by an algorithm being developed by Office of the Chief Technology Officer and the Office of Shared Accountability. A parent letter would communicate assessments, past academic performance in Math and Reading, GT identification status and program recommendations. SIPPI allows parents to see recommendations and institutes a consistent process (which will ensure the same high level for all schools). Mr. Creel stated that this is not tracking or gate-keeping, but would open doors. BOE member Laura Berthiaume stated that she likes the program as a start. She reflected that the recommendations should not be tied to grade level but to identifiable programs and that parent feedback should be solicited regarding the adequacy of implementation. She asked whether MCPS can determine how many students are working on grade and above grade, and about enrichment instead of acceleration. Mr. Creel responded that participation numbers would vary by data point (such as: abovegrade—Math 6 in Grade 5, and far-above-grade—Math 7 in Grade 5). He also stated that acceleration and enrichment are intertwined, not mutually exclusive. BOE member Chris Barclay inquired about the process if the school’s placement recommendation differed from that of either MCPS or the parent. He also asked whether the school is capable of delivering the services: he was aware of assertions of variability among schools—that “what they call GT at one school is not what they call GT at another

2

school.” Mr. Creel stated that the articulation decisions were not made merely on the basis of single data points, but involved multiple criteria, and parent input via a parent survey. Ms. Pulliam stated that if the parent wants access to more accelerated programming, “the school goes along; denial is not in the best interest of the student.” A student might be permitted to try a higher level course for a period of time. Mr. Creel responded that AEI is working with OSP and the Community Superintendents, targeting resources to schools that need them, and that SIPPI will help. Dr. Frieda Lacey, Deputy Superintendent, compared the SIPPI process with MCPS’ efforts to increase PSAT participation at the high school level. BOE member and Policy Committee chair Pat O’Neill wants MCPS to make sure it meets the “needs of the kids.” She wants to be sure that SIPPI does not reinstitute gatekeeping. Mr. Creel responded that the gate-keeping concern was misinformation that was being communicated in public; SIPPI’s goal is to find kids. Ms. O’Neill asked whether anything in SIPPI is contrary to Policy IOA, and Mr. Creel assured her that there is not. BOE member Phil Kauffman asked whether MCPS has any accelerated programming in Science and Social Studies. He noted that only 8 percent of MCPS students scored advanced on the new MSA science test. Mr. Creel said that Science and Social Studies is being “integrated” in Reading and Math. MCPS has data points in Reading and Math. MCPS will be “open to additional data points as they are developed.” Mr. Kauffman asked if SIPPI is a “new initiative” (which is restricted by budgetary constriction). Mr. Creel said that it is not new: it combines and streamlines something schools already do. Kay Williams addressed the second question: once students are in the right classroom, how does MCPS make sure that they are well-served? To serve students well, instruction must be matched to student needs. Teachers must know the curriculum—what comes before and after the current lessons, know the students, and know the data. If teachers know, then they will differentiate. Ms. Williams than played videos of teachers differentiating. Ms. Pulliam described “how we make it work” at Oakland Terrace. Teachers identify the different learning styles of their students. Teachers believe that every child has a gift and try to find that gift. They focus on strengths, not weaknesses. Ms. Pulliam interviews parents to discern what they see at the Highly Gifted Center that they do not find available at Oakland Terrace. Some parents see a difference in Science and Social Studies; Ms. Pulliam reiterated that theses are being “integrated” in the Reading and Math blocks. She mentioned regrouping and flexible grouping. Board member Barclay stated that the crux is teacher training. Dr. Weast agreed. He said we need to increase skills in conjunction with the increase in challenges. Teachers must be trained in the curriculum, content, and teaching and learning.

3

Regarding curriculum: reading, writing and math are the pathway to college; Science and Social Studies are secondary. Teachers must master their content areas. Teachers must learn to find the right strategies to match with individual students. Dr. Weast said that the system has training projects underway, but needs funding, time and the ability to scale with quality. Board member O’Neill noted the challenge of mobility. Also, she praised expansion of identification to Grades 5 and 8: students develop at different rates and previously some have been locked in lower tracks by slower initial development. Board member Kauffman inquired about the roll-out schedule. Mr. Creel responded that SIPPI is being piloted this year, implemented in all elementary schools next year, and successively piloted in middle school and high school thereafter. Mr. Kauffman asked whether MCPS was doing away with GT education in middle school. He noted that GT classes are being discontinued. Mr. Creel responded that MCPS was not eliminating middle school GT. Rather, these classes were “retitled ‘“Advanced’”—an apt description of the course. The courses contain both acceleration and enrichment. The fact that MCPS is “not calling everything accelerated and enriched” does not mean GT classes are being abolished. Board member Berthiaume noted a need to “come back to the spiral curriculum” (which she would find to be boring). She believes that screening at each of Grades 2, 5 and 8 is important, and that the social, emotional and psychological aspects of giftedness are important. She referred to certain brain research. Ms. Pulliam addressed social and emotional problems with a discussion of inclusion of Special Education students in to local school classroom. Mr. Creel cited a book by Carol Dweck, which states that the fixity of intelligence at an early age or by ethnicity is a myth; intelligence is linked to effort. Mr. Lang thanked the participants generally, and singled out Mr. Creel for his leadership and broad knowledge. This praise was reiterated by Dr. Weast. Note. The Board approved Peter Ostrander as the magnet coordinator of the Montgomery Blair High School magnet program. Mr. Ostrander has been the Secondary Program Supervisor in the Division of Accelerated and Enriched Instruction, and a member of the AEI Advisory Committee. /opt/pdfcoke/conversion/tmp/scratch2/22104497.doc

4