MCPS DSAC Report Final

Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Schools
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Rockville, Maryland
November 20, 2006
MEMORANDUM
To: Dr. Jerry D. Weast, Superintendent of Schools
From: Frieda K. Lacey, Deputy Superintendent of Schools
Subject: Deputy Superintendent’s Advisory Committee on Gifted and Talented

Education Report
Attached is the final report developed by the Deputy Superintendent’s Advisory Committee on
Gifted and Talented Education that provides feedback on the implementation of Board of
Education Policy IOA, Gifted and Talented Education. The report includes four major
recommendations to improve programming and services designed to benefit all students who
show potential, capability, or motivation for rigorous and challenging instruction.
Beginning in 2004 the committee reviewed, researched, and discussed practices and issues
regarding the education of gifted students. Members visited Centers for the Highly Gifted and
magnet schools, and spoke with teachers, administrators, specialists, and other school personnel.
During the 2005–2006 school year the committee shared findings with an outside consultant,
revised, and finalized the report.
Staff in the Office of Curriculum and Instructional Programs (OCIP) and the Office of School
Performance have been acting on the initial recommendations of the report through the following
programs, services, and initiatives:
• Program expansions include Grade 5 at the Chevy Chase Elementary Center for the
Highly Gifted, Grade 6 and Grade 7 in the Middle School Magnet Consortium schools,
the Poolesville High School Whole School Magnet, and continuing International
Baccalaureate expansions.
• Two additional administrators have been budgeted to the Division of Accelerated and
Enriched Instruction (AEI) to provide additional support to schools and improve
monitoring of Policy IOA, Gifted and Talented Education.
• A 0.5 bilingual instructional specialist position has been added to the Division of
Consortia Choice and Application Program Services to increase outreach for students
traditional underserved by magnet programs.
• The middle school 0.2 GT Coordinator position and 0.2 SES position have been
combined into a 0.4 Accelerated and Enriched Instruction Support Teacher position. This
position provides greater emphasis on identifying and supporting underserved students in
accelerated courses.
• During the 2005–2006 school year, the Options guide to countywide programs was
developed and mailed directly to homes of students in Grades K–8 to provide more
consistent information about the application programs. In October 2006, the Options
guide was mailed to the homes of all students in kindergarten and Grades 3, 5, and 8.
Students in these grades are eligible to apply for center and magnet programs.
• The Grade 2 global screening and selection processes for elementary and secondary
magnets have been reviewed and changes have been made to monitor implementation.
These reviews will be ongoing as results of these processes are not consistent with system
goals.
• OCIP staff is developing a proposal for a kindergarten curriculum revision that will
include a primary talent development initiative similar to the Program for Assessment
and Diagnostic Instruction that has shown success in identifying and nurturing student
potential prior to Grade 2.
• AEI professional development has been focused to include training on economic, racial,
and cultural masks of giftedness.
• OCIP staff is developing documents for parents and teachers to clarify rigorous pathways
in mathematics and reading/language arts.
• Staff in AEI is working with community superintendents to implement a monitoring

system that includes an annual review of specific data points at every school.
• The Division of Shared Accountability is continuing the evaluation of the 0.5 Title I
Gifted and Talented teacher initiative.
• Staff is developing a partnership with the College Board to improve rigor in curriculum,
assessments, and professional development.
I recommend that you share this report with members of the Board of Education. I know you
join me in thanking the committee for the countless hours they committed to preparing this
report.
FKL:llh
Attachment
Copy to:
Ms. Leleck
Mr. Creel
Mr. Lang
Gifted and Talented Education Report 2

Deputy Superintendent’s Advisory Committee
On Gifted and Talented Education
May 2006
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Introduction
Background
Policy Implementation: Successes
Policy Implementation: Challenges
The Committee
The Committee Process
Summary of Recommendations
Recommendation One: Strengthen Accountability Measures
Recommendation Two: Improve and Expand Programs
Recommendation Three: Implement Systematic Collection and Analysis of Data
Recommendation Four: Provide Equal Access for All Students to Gifted and Talented (GT)
Programs and Services
Appendix A: Deputy Superintendent’s Advisory Committee for Gifted Education
Appendix B: Data Regarding Access to GT Programs, Services and Outcomes
Appendix C: Professional Development: Culture Competency and Gifted Education
Appendix D: Teaching the Highly Able Student
Appendix E: Specific Recommendations Regarding Data Availability
Appendix F: Parent Outreach and Institutional Advocacy

for Gifted and Talented Education
2006 Report
Executive Summary
Background
In January 2004 the deputy superintendent of Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS),
formed an advisory committee charged with developing recommendations to ensure full
implementation of Policy IOA: Gifted and Talented Education. Ms. Virginia A. Tucker,
director, Division of Enriched and Innovative Instruction (AEI), submitted names of
representatives from a variety of stakeholder groups and constituencies within MCPS. The
Deputy Superintendent’s Advisory Committee for Gifted and Talented Education began its work
in March 2004. Appendix A contains the names and affiliations of the members of the
committee.
Over the ensuing 18 months, the committee reviewed research and best practices in the field of
gifted education, received presentations on topics of interest, and discussed emerging trends and
implementation issues within MCPS. Members chose to focus their work on two areas of
concerns that, if addressed, would have the greatest impact to change the level of access and
challenge for students in MCPS:
• Recognizing and Ensuring Access for Underserved Students in MCPS Programs and
Services
• Developing Challenging Local School Programs and Services
In May 2005 the committee made the decision to submit a report focused on the consensus of
both subcommittees. The compelling theme of this report is access to high-quality, challenging
services for all students within MCPS, as envisioned in Policy IOA adopted by the Board of
Education in 1995 and implemented through Regulation IOA-RA.
Last year, during the 50th anniversary of the landmark United States Supreme Court case of
Brown v. Board of Education (Brown I, 1954), MCPS took the opportunity to review the
resulting successes and ongoing challenges of equal-quality education for all students. In its
unanimous decision, the Court held that “separate but equal” public education denied many
children a good-quality public education. Brown I stands for the proposition that good-quality
public education for all children—in addition to being a moral imperative and an essential
component of the American dream—is a legal requirement.
MCPS has done some things well in its implementation of the policy. A more rigorous
mathematics curriculum for Grades K–5 has been developed and implemented in local schools.
This curriculum builds in acceleration pathways so that all children can receive above-grade-
level instruction through pre-assessment.
Gifted and Talented Education Report i

In addition, MCPS has increased the availability of Math A, the first middle school math course,
in elementary schools and increased enrollment and performance in gifted, Honors, Advanced
Placement, and other advanced-level courses in local schools. There has been expansion of
International Baccalaureate (IB) programs at all grade levels. IB programs are now available to
students through open enrollment or consortium settings, not just in the countywide selective
admission program at the high school level. Each year, hundreds more MCPS students can
receive this level of rigorous instruction.
The MCPS tiered approach to an accelerated and enriched reading/language arts program
includes the William and Mary Language Arts and Junior Great Books units. Increased
availability of these programs enables more students to have access to instruction in critical
reasoning skills using high-quality texts with challenging themes and issues to discuss.
Starting in Title I schools, MCPS has expanded the number of schools participating in the
Program of Assessment, Diagnosis, and Instruction (PADI). PADI nurtures and enhances the
identification of potentially gifted students at an early age in diverse populations, especially
those whose giftedness may not have been revealed in standardized tests and assessments. In
2002 a six-school analysis was completed that compared similar schools with high Free and
Reduced-price Meals System (FARMS) enrollments and high enrollments of African American
and Hispanic students. The PADI schools recognized more than twice the percentage of their
students as gifted than did schools not using PADI.
The Title I initiative which provides a 0.5 teacher position for gifted and talented services, has
demonstrated that consistent professional development, coupled with services in place as
students need them, can build student capacity for more challenging instruction. Results from
the first three years of implementation indicate that in the majority of these schools, more
students are being recognized as needing services and more staff are prepared to provide those
services across grade levels.
MCPS has increased the number of “seats” in the center and middle school magnet programs as
it has made some progress in reducing disparities in identification and invitation rates for highly
gifted programs. Many of these initiatives will permit all students, whether identified as Gifted
and Talented (GT) or not, to have more access to rigorous instruction. This is truly “success for
every student” and the committee commends these efforts.
However, many challenges remain. During the 50th anniversary this past year of the landmark
United States Supreme Court case decision of Brown v. Board of Education, MCPS took the
opportunity to review the resulting successes and ongoing challenges of equal-quality education
for all students. The decision in Brown v. Board of Education stands for the proposition that
high-quality public education for all children is—in addition to being a moral imperative and an
essential component of the American dream—a legal requirement. A similar vision of high-
quality education for all is reflected in Policy IOA. The slow and uneven implementation of the
Brown decision illustrates the difficulties in improving public education for all students. As the
committee reviewed the implementation of Policy IOA, it found that there is considerable work
to be done to provide the quality of education and the level of challenge envisioned in the policy.
Gifted and Talented Education Report ii

Local schools are not uniform in the quality of their GT programs. This inconsistency of service
is a serious issue that limits access and opportunity for students. Staff development is needed, as
is better data gathering and analysis. Accountability and evaluation should be strengthened.
MCPS must do more to remedy the disparities in service delivery, outcomes, and access for all
students, but especially for those students who are currently underserved, including African
American and Hispanic students as well as students who receive special services. MCPS needs
to nurture motivation among parents and students to accept the challenge of more rigorous
instruction.
The state Bridge to Excellence in Public Schools act includes requirements for gifted education,
and the Maryland State Department of Education recently proposed reporting guidelines that will
stress the effective delivery of challenging services to the same student groups as are reported
under the federal No Child Left Behind law. The committee believes that the updated MCPS
Strategic Plan, Our Call To Action, provides an additional template to ensure that the policy is
fully implemented.
The committee recommends that MCPS double its efforts to meet the policy’s goal of ensuring
that all students achieve their highest potential by further strengthening GT services at local
schools and by taking additional steps to ensure access for all students. Specific
recommendations fall in four broad areas.
The Committee believes that action in four key areas will improve the MCPS implementation of
Policy IOA: Gifted and Talented Education.
I Strengthen Accountability Measures
The Committee believes that MCPS should improve the way it–
• monitors the outcomes of its gifted services;
• collects and analyzes data on programs, services, and outcomes and uses these data to
drive service delivery;
• provides parents and stakeholders with information on programs, services, and outcomes;
• provides professional development for key school-based staff responsible for

identification and service delivery, and holds these staff accountable for outcomes; and
• identifies students as needing gifted services (that is, accelerated and enriched
instruction) at every grade level and selects students for countywide programs for the
highly gifted.
Gifted and Talented Education Report iii

II Improve and Expand Programs
The Committee believes that MCPS should–
• improve the quality of service delivery at local schools by embedding the characteristics
of an ideal MCPS school described herein with a fully implemented program in every
school;
• expand the number of “seats” available in the Center Programs for the Highly Gifted, the
countywide middle school and high school magnet programs, and programs for the gifted
who also are learning disabled (GT/LD), based on analyses of the numbers of MCPS
students whose needs cannot be met in the regular classroom (the policy’s criterion for
such programs);
• disseminate the models for successful service delivery developed at the centers and
countywide magnets to local schools; and
• enhance professional development activities for key local school staff involved in
identification and service delivery.
III. Implement Systematic Collection and Analysis of Data
One of the Board of Education’s priorities is that MCPS collect and use student, staff, and
system performance data to monitor and improve student achievement. The committee believes
that this activity is embedded in many of its recommendations and, in particular, it recommends–
• strengthening the ability of MCPS-wide data systems such as the Instructional

Management System (IMS) and the Data Warehouse to serve as repositories for data on
gifted and talented programs and services;
• ensuring that the approach found in the primary-grade handheld initiative is used for data
collected as part of the global screening process so that relevant testing and assessment
results as well as a record of key services received follow the student through his or her
MCPS career; and
• making summary data regarding outcomes of gifted services easily available to parents
and stakeholders and making student-specific data regarding services available to parents
and instructional staff for advocacy and decision support.
IV Provide Equal Access for all Students to Gifted and Talented (GT)
Programs and Services
The committee believes that more can be done to ensure consistency among local schools in the
provision of high-quality programs and services and provide greater access for all students.
Gifted and Talented Education Report iv

• Put additional staff in local schools to provide more effective services by, for example,
expanding the 0.5 GT positions currently in Title I schools to other schools.
• Improve “just in time” delivery of services as part of the answer to the MCPS critical
question “what do we do when they already know it?”
• Improve the criteria used and training for staff involved in, identification, deciding who
gets services in local schools, and selection for countywide tests in programs.
• Strengthen parent involvement in GT issues through more effective outreach, and

strengthen the capacity for parent advocacy, internal MCPS advocacy, and external
institutional advocacy on behalf of individual students who are potential candidates for
accessing GT programs and services.
Conclusion
The committee believes that the need for improvement is urgent. MCPS has made some
important gains in the nine years since the Board adopted Policy IOA. However, this progress
should not give us a sense of complacency. Because we have done much does not mean that we
cannot do much more. By allowing states to use “all deliberate speed” in implementing the
Brown decision, the Supreme Court slowed the access to high-quality education. The nation’s
current achievement gap demonstrates that the job is not done. Although MCPS has many
competing priorities, it must not allow the policy to proceed with “all deliberate speed.”
The intent of this committee has been to ensure that the original vision developed through Policy
IOA, and implemented through Regulation IOA-RA, is carried out in reality. The policy
addresses the need to serve not only those students recognized as gifted and talented but the
equally pressing need to have challenging services in place for all students as their strengths
emerge.
The greatest impact that the policy may have in subsequent years is to continue to demand that
MCPS use current research and best practices to develop an understanding of the level of
challenge that many more students can sustain as they access and succeed in more challenging
programs and services. The goal of Our Call to Action is to have all of our students meet or
exceed grade-level standards. The policy and this committee’s recommendations provide a
powerful leverage for MCPS to achieve that goal. The committee urges the Board and MCPS to
give its recommendations, as well as the input of other stakeholders, the immediate attention that
they deserve.
Gifted and Talented Education Report v

on Gifted and Talented Education
Introduction
Background
In 1978 the Montgomery County Board of Education approved a policy on gifted and talented
education (Regulation IOA-RA) that sought to expand differentiated educational opportunities to
students requiring more rigorous and challenging instruction. However, in 1992 the Board of
Education asked then superintendent Paul Vance to convene a group of parents, MCPS staff, and
community members to review this policy. This group, known as the Superintendent’s Advisory
Committee (SAC), submitted its report in February 1994 raising concerns that the existing policy
was inconsistently implemented from school to school and there was a need for more effective
parent communication, professional development, ongoing assessment, and equal access to
rigorous instruction for all children. The result of this work group was an amended policy,
approved in 1995, reaffirming MCPS’ commitment to gifted and talented education and rigorous
instruction to “all children who have the potential, capability, or motivation to accept the
challenge.”
Policy Implementation: Successes
Since the adoption of Policy IOA: Gifted and Talented Education, MCPS has taken significant
steps to increase the level of rigor and challenge available to students. A more rigorous
mathematics curriculum for Grades K–8 has been developed and implemented in local schools.
This curriculum provides acceleration pathways so that all children can receive above-grade-
level instruction through pre-assessment.
In addition, MCPS has increased the availability to elementary students of Math A, a middle
school math course. As a result of the Honors/Advanced Placement (AP) report of 1999, MCPS
also has seen increased enrollment and performance in gifted, Honors, Advanced Placement, and
other advanced-level courses in local schools as well as expanded International Baccalaureate
(IB) programs at all grade levels. These programs are now available to more students through
open enrollment or in consortium settings, not just through the countywide selection process at
the high school level. As a result, hundreds more MCPS students are receiving rigorous, high-
level instruction.
Advanced reading/language arts opportunities also have been expanded. MCPS has adopted a
tiered approach to accelerated and enriched reading/language arts programs, including the
William and Mary Reading/Language Arts and Junior Great Books units. Increased availability
of these programs enables more students to have access to instruction in critical reasoning skills
using high-quality texts with challenging themes and issues.
MCPS also has improved its global screening process. In Title I schools, MCPS has expanded
the number of schools participating in the Program of Assessment, Diagnosis, and Instruction
(PADI). PADI nurtures and enhances the early identification of potentially gifted students in

diverse populations, especially those whose giftedness may not have been revealed in
standardized tests and assessments. In 2002 a six-school analysis was completed that compared
similar schools with high Free and Reduced-price Meals System (FARMS) enrollments and high
enrollments of African American and Hispanic students. More than twice the percentage of
PADI students are recognized as gifted than schools not using PADI.
The Title I initiative, which funds a 0.5 teacher position for gifted and talented services, has
demonstrated that consistent professional development, coupled with services in place as
students need them, can build student capacity for more challenging instruction. Results from
the first three years of implementation indicate that, in the majority of these schools, more
students are gaining access to gifted and talented (GT) services and more staff are prepared to
provide those services across grade levels.
MCPS has also increased the number of “seats” available in Center Programs for the Highly
Gifted and middle school magnet programs, and has made some progress by reducing disparities
in identification and invitation rates for Center Programs for the Highly Gifted.
Policy Implementation: Challenges
While many of these initiatives have given more students, whether identified as GT or not,
greater access to rigorous instruction, barriers remain that challenge the vision developed in the
policy and prevent it from becoming a daily reality for every student in every classroom within
the system.
One of the biggest challenges is that local schools are inconsistent in their implementation of GT
programming and services. This unevenness impacts students from all clusters and all
backgrounds, and many students who need accelerated and enriched instruction do not receive it.
Another challenge is that access to services for Highly Gifted Center highly gifted students is
restricted by limited funding and capacity of these programs. While Highly Gifted Center
programs have expanded to seven schools and an upcounty middle school magnet has been
established, capacity has not increased commensurate with the rising percentage of students
identified as gifted and the rising percentage of students whose standardized test scores and
assessment data suggest that they may need more rigorous instruction than is available in local
schools. Of special concern is the lack of access to these GT services appears to affect African
American and Hispanic students disproportionately and, from the available data, students
receiving special services as well.
Professional development that emphasizes recognition of and programming for highly able
students is inadequate and presents another challenge. While there is some staff development
available to teachers regarding effectively identifying and servicing gifted students, many
teachers would benefit from training in how to recognize various manifestations of giftedness,
how to effectively plan for and deliver differentiated instruction, and how to support students
who have the potential or the desire to pursue more challenging material.

A fourth challenge is limited accessibility to data on GT services and outcomes. In part, this is
because data are collected at the local school level rather than systematically warehoused in and
disseminated from a central location. Local school educators do not have easy access to
longitudinal data to help them follow the progress of individual students. This lack of easy
access makes the delivery of appropriate services to students more difficult, and systematic
monitoring of local school programs nearly impossible. Further, parents are not provided with
useful information about individual students that could help them effectively advocate for their
children.
Disparities also exist in access, service, and outcomes, especially for African American and
Hispanic students and those students receiving special services. From the limited data available,
it is clear that significant populations of African American and Hispanic students, students from
poverty, English language learners, and students with disabilities are underserved in MCPS
programs and services for GT students. (See Appendix B for detailed data analysis.)
Clearly, these challenges indicate that MCPS must redouble its efforts to meet the policy’s goal
of ensuring that all students receive educational experiences and opportunities that will enable
them to achieve at their highest potential.
The Committee
The deputy superintendent of schools convened the Deputy Superintendent’s Advisory

Committee on Gifted and Talented Education (DSAC) in January 2004 to examine the county’s
current efforts to implement the policy and make recommendations on improvements. The
committee was charged with identifying “areas that must be addressed to ensure full
implementation of the Policy on Gifted and Talented Education and provide supports for
students to increase capacity for Honors and Advanced Placement course work.”
The committee’s membership was intended to provide broad representation of the various
interest groups in the county. Special attention was paid to ensure that the composition of the
committee was diverse, and committee members had the opportunity to bring additional informal
organizational input from the groups that they represented. (See Appendix A for a list of
committee members.)
Committee Process
For the next 18 months, the committee read a selected body of research on various aspects of
gifted and talented education, reviewed data on MCPS GT programs, visited Grade 4 and 5
classes in the Center Programs for the Highly Gifted, and heard from several expert speakers on
current practices and initiatives, including a presentation on the Information Management
System (IMS) and the Data Warehouse. The committee engaged in an issues identification
exercise and formed two work groups to address what it felt to be the most important issues for
investigation—access to GT services and delivery of GT services—and formed subcommittees
to further research, develop, and refine recommendations in these areas. The committee then
reviewed the recommendations of the two work groups, identified the most critical issues that
emerged, and combined the recommendations of the two groups into this final report. It is the
committee’s belief that, if adopted, these recommendations will lead to a broader range of

learners succeeding at rigorous academic levels because they will have access to appropriate
instruction and a continuum of services at their local schools, not just in countywide programs.
Recommendations
The Deputy Superintendent’s Advisory Committee for Gifted and Talented Education has
developed recommendations in response to its charge to identify “areas that must be addressed to
ensure full implementation of the Policy on Gifted and Talented Education and provide supports
for students to increase capacity for Honors and Advanced Placement course work.” They are as
follows:
I. Strengthen Accountability Measures
II. Improve and Expand Programs
III. Implement Systematic Collection and Analysis of Data
IV. Provide Equal Access for all Students to GT Programs and Services

Recommendation I: Strengthen Accountability Measures
Discussion
Committee discussions revealed a commonly held perception that there is an uneven level of
services for high-ability students within and across all schools. To ensure that they are meeting
the needs of all students, achieving student growth beyond proficiency, and implementing Policy
IOA-RA with fidelity, schools need to be held accountable. The single most important and
immediate action to improve the effectiveness of gifted instruction is to improve both the process
for monitoring the services provided and the process for monitoring student performance.
Effective monitoring and follow-up communicate to schools the expectation that that they are
accountable for maintaining consistency, increasing the quantity, and improving the quality of
accelerated and enriched offerings, critical elements in ensuring equal access to programming.
Implementation Strategies
Implementation Strategy A: Make improvements in the program-monitoring

process in order to better examine the outcomes of GT services
MCPS currently has a process for monitoring GT programs. This process is largely narrative and
lacks significant quantitative data inputs. A more robust data-driven program evaluation effort
would provide a broader and timelier tool to use in monitoring whether all student populations
have equitable access to GT programs and services.
IA1. Require yearly status reports

Currently, schools are reviewed on a four-year cycle. Instructional specialists conduct
monitoring interviews with identified school principals, complete a monitoring form, collate the
information, and share findings with directors in the Office of School Performance (OSP).
Included in the monitoring report are recommendations to support full implementation of the GT
policy and school requests for future resources to sustain programs and services. However, there
is a strong need for greater consistency in the follow-up by staff from OSP and the Office of
Curriculum and Instructional Programs (OCIP) to school-level GT program monitoring. To
augment this process, the committee recommends that MCPS require schools to submit a yearly
action plan status report after they have participated in the monitoring process. Such reporting
will set a clear expectation for necessary follow-up to the action plan established during
monitoring.
IA2. Enhance evaluation criteria in the program-monitoring process

Schools should be evaluated on how accurately and equitably they identify students for
accelerated and enriched services, with a particular emphasis on improving access for student
populations that are currently underserved. There should be a longitudinal component to this
evaluation to determine if students who appear prepared for higher levels of rigor actually gain
access. This evaluation should examine how closely the demographics of the students accessing
GT services reflect the overall demographic makeup of the school population.

IA3. Expand participation of Accelerated and Enriched Instruction (AEI) in walk-
throughs
To further ensure effective monitoring of local school programs, the committee recommends that
instructional specialists from AEI participate in all walk-throughs and program reviews currently
conducted by OSP and the Department of Curriculum and Instruction. This participation will
ensure that the walk-through will include a review of the components that address and serve the
needs of high-ability students.
IA4. Collect parent feedback

It is also important to collect parent feedback as part of a more comprehensive assessment of the
strengths and weaknesses of a school’s accelerated and enriched offerings. Core elements of this
parental input that are consistent across schools would assist schools in determining whether
appropriate instruction for students is available and access to this instruction is fair, inclusive,
and clearly explained.
IA5. Publish summary indicators

Program monitoring at local schools should require collecting a set of summary indicators that is
made public as part of the data currently reported in Schools at a Glance.
Implementation Strategy B: Develop an annual report devoted to GT programs

and include GT data in existing annual reports
Besides holding local schools more accountable, MCPS must enhance systemwide accountability
and transparency by monitoring what actually happens to students who have been identified as
GT and those who may not be identified but who show potential for high achievement.
IB1. Collect and report performance data

Because an important goal of the policy is to match students who have the capacity for achieving
at high levels of rigor with appropriate services, the committee recommends that MCPS monitor
the system’s success in achieving this goal by collecting and reporting data that address the
following questions:
• Are identified high performing students being matched with rigorous curriculum?
• Are students who have the potential to perform at high levels, but are not currently
identified, being matched with rigorous curriculum and given the supports they need to
succeed?
• Do students who are identified or have shown potential to perform at high levels show
similar progress across schools?
• Do members of various subgroups who have been identified show similar levels of
progress? Do students who have shown potential also show similar levels of progress
across the various subgroups?
Data from these questions should be analyzed by racial and ethnic group, income level, gender,
special education status, and the student’s first language.
IB2. Publish an annual performance report with a longitudinal component

The committee recommends that MCPS develop an annual performance report on GT services in
an effort to report data on trends over time so that better decisions about programs can be made.
The ultimate goal of this report would be to ensure that every student who is capable of

accelerated and enriched instruction is receiving it; therefore, it should include data to determine
if the needs of high-ability students are being served equally well across schools. This report
should show the rate of participation, growth, and performance level for high-ability students,
disaggregated by gender, race, FARMS, and for the GT/LD subpopulation. MCPS should also
develop a set of criteria to use for the category of students who are not identified, but have
shown potential in nontraditional ways. The data should be pulled from MCPS data and used for
this report. A proposal for the content of this report should be developed by MCPS and vetted
for public comments prior to implementation.
This reporting should include a longitudinal component. For example, examining average Grade
5 Maryland School Assessments (MSA) performance outcomes for students identified as gifted
in Grade 2 could address whether comparable students are experiencing similar long-term
outcomes. Information, such as the proportion of identified students who score “advanced” on
the MSA and who successfully complete Math A by the end of Grade 5, would indicate the level
of effectiveness of acceleration and enrichment provided within the instructional program.
These longitudinal outcomes for identified students should also reflect the quality of services
available to students not initially identified but who show potential or emerging strength in
specific areas. This annual report should provide data on high school outcomes, such as
successful completion of AP course work and IB programs, for students who exhibit high
abilities in middle school using performance criteria such as successful completion of Algebra 1
or above by Grade 8.
Enhanced data collection and reporting could also be designed to address the upcoming reporting
requirements of the Maryland State Department of Education regarding the documentation of
services provided by local school systems and the participations rates across student groups.
IB3. Document and publish local programs and offerings

Besides a separate report on GT services, local programs and offerings should be documented
and included in existing reports such as Schools at a Glance and in the proposed annual gifted
and talented performance report. MCPS currently produces annual reports on school-level
performance measures such as the MSA, Algebra 1, PSAT, SAT, and AP. These existing
accountability reports should be enhanced to include reporting for identified GT students and for
students who exhibit high abilities in middle school, using performance criteria at the school
level.
Implementation Strategy C: Build accountability measures into the local school

improvement plan and expand the role of the GT committee
To increase schoolwide accountability, it is important to include the needs of gifted students and
the need for equitable access to accelerated and enriched instruction in the school improvement
planning process. The GT committee’s role needs to be expanded from its current status as an
oversight body tasked with monitoring identification of GT students and GT program
management, to a more robust committee, involved in making program decisions and monitoring
the effective implementation of the goals of the county GT policy at the school level, both in

designated GT courses and in the regular classroom. The Baldrige school improvement team
should include a representative from the GT committee.
Implementation Strategy D: Include criteria for GT policy implementation in staff

performance evaluations
School-based staff should be held accountable for their delivery of GT services and
implementation of the GT policy.
ID1. Include a GT component in the evaluation criteria for principals and

supervisory staff
During their own evaluation process, principals should identify how they provided leadership to
ensure the effective implementation of a comprehensive GT program under standard one of the
Administrative and Supervisory Professional Growth System (PGS).
ID2. Include a GT component in the evaluation criteria for staff development

teachers
Accountability criteria should be developed for the evaluation of the Office of Organizational
Development’s (OOD) role in implementing the GT policy and ensuring the effectiveness of
staff development teachers in promulgating effective GT instruction at all schools.
ID3. Add evaluation criteria for elementary school GT liaisons and 0.2 GT
coordinators
To strengthen and validate the role these teachers play in building local school programs, MCPS
should consider a seventh standard in the teacher PGS for the GT liaison or .2 GT coordinator
positions that includes indicators specific to the position, much the same way it currently does
for resource teachers.
ID4. Include a GT component in evaluation criteria for guidance counselors

Include performance evaluation criteria for guidance counselors that would indicate that they are
being held accountable for appropriately recommending placement for students who show
potential, motivation, or capacity to undertake high-level work.
ID5. Include a GT component in the evaluation criteria for all instructional staff
Include GT-specific goals and measures in the PGS and the Professional Development Plans
(PDPs) for all teaching staff.
Summary of Implementation Strategies for Recommendation One

• Make improvements in the program-review process in order to better monitor the
outcomes of GT services.
• Develop an annual report devoted to GT programs and include GT data in existing annual
reports.
• Build accountability measures into the local school program.
• Include criteria for GT policy implementation in staff performance evaluations.

Recommendation Two: Improve and Expand Programs
Discussion
Services for gifted students in local schools and for highly gifted students through countywide
and regional programs should be improved and expanded. The chief issue for local school
programs is the lack of consistency within and across schools. Many local schools have not fully
implemented the GT policy and do not offer a wide range of GT experiences and opportunities to
their students. Committee discussions regarding the inconsistency of policy implementation
surfaced concerns that lack of access to GT services particularly affects schools with a
disproportionate high share of minority and low-income children. Believing that all children,
regardless of background, can achieve at high levels if given both opportunity and support, the
committee recognized the need to improve local school programs and make them more
consistent countywide.
Countywide programs are limited in number and capacity. The Center Programs for the Highly
Gifted, countywide middle school magnet programs, and countywide high school magnet
programs serve approximately 4 percent of MCPS elementary school, 3 percent of middle
school, and 2 percent of high school students, respectively, providing opportunities to learn
among intellectual peers to a small percentage of students. The number of slots at the high school
level has increased little, albeit some, over the past 18 years, despite a 50 percent increase in the
student population. As a result, these programs are becoming more and more competitive at a
time when the diversity within MCPS is increasing, especially with respect to non-English-
speaking students, students eligible for Free and Reduced-price Meals (FARMS), and
underrepresented student populations such as African American and Hispanic students. In
addition, programs for other aspects of giftedness (e.g., leadership, arts) also need to be
expanded.
Implementation Strategy A: Strengthen the model for the delivery of GT services

at the local school level
IIA1. Define components of an effective GT program

A major challenge to strengthening the model for the delivery of GT services at the local school
level is that the components of an effective program are not clearly defined by the county. By
defining and establishing a continuum of programming and services available at each local
school, stronger, more comprehensive programs will result and consistency across schools will
more likely occur.
IIA2. Allocate a part-time GT specialist in every elementary school

Another step toward improved local school delivery is to allocate a part-time GT specialist at
each elementary school. The results of the Title I Gifted and Talented Initiative clearly illustrate
that the assignment of a GT staff position with specifically defined responsibilities has a
significant positive impact on GT policy implementation and student performance.

Benchmarking data from other districts, including Fairfax, Howard, and Baltimore counties show
similar gains in identification and services once they allocated staff positions for GT services.
IIA3. Enhance the role of the .2 GT coordinator

At the middle school, more prominent and consistent use of the .2 GT coordinator should be
made by guaranteeing that this designated teacher receive release time, and that the time is
focused on GT services such as dissemination of materials, modeling, parent outreach,
counseling, and student advocacy. A systemwide recognition of the importance of this role at the
middle school level will aid in policy implementation and service delivery.
Implementation Strategy B: Expand existing programs to meet the growing needs

of the county
IIB1. Expand seats in Center Programs for the Highly Gifted and middle and high
school magnet programs
MCPS identifies more students than can be served in the spaces available at Center Programs for
the Highly Gifted and magnet programs. And, as the early childhood initiatives experience more
success, more students will meet the threshold for giftedness and the number of students
identified as highly gifted will continue to increase. As the number of students in need of these
services continues to grow, it becomes more imperative that the county expand the number of
“seats” available in the Center Programs for the Highly Gifted programs, the countywide “test-
in” middle school and high school magnet programs, and programs for the gifted who are also
learning disabled (GT/LD).
IIB2. Fund an upcounty magnet high school

An example of this urgent need is the upcounty Roberto Clemente middle school magnet
programs. Once students complete the program offered there, they will have to compete for one
of only 200 seats in the existing Montgomery Blair magnet and Richard Montgomery IB
programs. Currently, there is no upcounty high school magnet to accommodate them. With the
establishment of an upcounty high school magnet to align with the Roberto Clemente magnet,
the county could better accommodate those highly gifted students whose needs may not be met
at their home high schools.
IIB3. Expand programming and services for GT/LD students

Another area of growing need for program expansion lies with the services currently provided
for students identified as GT/LD. Currently, there is some training and programming available
for teachers of these twice exceptional students. While the phenomenon of the GT/LD child has
become more and more a part of GT discourse and the MCPS profile, there has not been a
commensurate increase in the availability of services. MCPS needs to research and implement
best practices in this area to expand its current programming at the local schools to include a
wider range of services for GT/LD students.
IIB4. Expand programming for students with nontraditional forms of giftedness

Other aspects of giftedness such as leadership and the arts currently are under-addressed by the
GT programs and services available at both local schools and centers. Although MCPS has
made some efforts to develop these talents in students through signature programs and the new

middle school magnets, there is still much more to be done. MCPS should explore the best
means of surfacing these manifestations of giftedness and examine its current program offerings
to see how they can best be expanded to meet the needs of those students who demonstrate talent
in nontraditional forms of giftedness.
Implementation Strategy C: Enhance staff development and support activities for

key local school staff involved in GT service delivery
Effective professional development is paramount to the attainment of the school system’s goals
regarding GT programming. As the demand for services in accelerated programs continues to
grow, local schools face the challenge of meeting the needs of highly able students. And, with
the increasing diversity within the county, these needs are not always immediately apparent.
Teachers must recognize and build upon the strengths and talents of culturally, ethnically, and
linguistically diverse students who may demonstrate their gifts in nontraditional ways. (See
Appendix C for further discussion.)
IIC1. Expand gifted education training for instructional staff

Instructional staff should have training and support that will enable them to–
• apply flexible grouping practices and differentiation strategies in the classroom;
• use tiered resources in the curriculum guides, such as challenge math questions, to enrich
instruction for all students;
• develop cultural competence to meet the needs of a diverse student population;
• properly interpret and use global screening data for instructional planning;
• implement strategies for communicating high expectations;
• develop deep content knowledge to accelerate instruction as students progress; and
• address the social and emotional needs of highly able learners.
(See Appendix D for further details about teaching highly able learners.)
IIC2. Reinstate specialized GT in-service classes

Other teacher training focusing on developing or enhancing specific skills will enable teachers to
better implement the GT policy at the local school level. The committee suggests that the county
reinstate the in-service classes “Teaching the Gifted in Elementary School” and “Teaching the
Gifted in Middle School” that focus on general strategies, philosophy, and techniques for
teaching the highly able.
IIC3. Train and support staff development teachers

It is important to clarify the role of the staff development teacher as it relates to support and
implementation of the policy. Staff development teachers at the elementary level would benefit
from receiving instruction, observing modeling of effective practices, and learning specific
strategies suited to highly able learners. Such experiences would increase teacher capacity and
encourage dissemination of best practices in teaching these students. This could be
accomplished, for example, by establishing bimonthly daylong meetings between specialists
from Accelerated and Enriched Instruction and staff development teachers. Equipping the
teachers with tools and strategies to support local staff in GT instruction would strengthen local
school instruction.

IIC4. Train and support GT liaisons and .2 GT coordinators
GT liaisons at the elementary school level and .2 GT coordinators at the middle school level
should continue to receive ongoing training in best practices and the essential components of an
effective GT program.
IIC5. Develop GT training for guidance counselors

Guidance counselors in middle and high schools play a critical role in ensuring that all students
have access to a rigorous, challenging, and enriched course of study and should be trained and
supported in this effort. Often, students are capable of mastering more rigorous content, but are
not motivated or confident to do so. Guidance counselors should encourage students to take more
challenging courses rather than simply take what is required. The AEI should develop training
sessions specifically for counselors to educate them about topics such as–
• characteristics of gifted students;
• gifted programming in the middle and high school;
• challenges faced by gifted students from low-income, immigrant, African-American, or
Hispanic families;
• challenges faced by GT/LD and GT/ED students;
• social and emotional needs of highly able learners;
• the requirement of the GT policy for open access to challenging courses; and
• mentoring and proactively nurturing students’ potential.
IIC6. Train and support principals and supervisory staff

To support principals and supervisory staff, the committee recommends training in how to
identify effective differentiation strategies during formal and informal observations, as well as
training in understanding the elements of an effective, comprehensive GT program.
IIC7. Expand the use of communication technologies to deliver student data to

teachers
The expansion of communication technologies to provide teacher support for GT instruction
would also strengthen local programming and services. Current development of the Teaching
Centered Model, which will utilize handheld devices providing real-time access to student
formative and summative assessment data and help guide student instruction, should include
assessments and data related to high-ability students. Teachers should be trained to effectively
use this data to differentiate instruction and provide more acceleration and enrichment for those
students ready to move ahead.
IIC8. Expand the AEI Web site

The Maryland Teacher Professional Development Standards recommend the use of
communication technology to broaden the scope of collaboration among teachers. Expanding
information on GT strategies and sample lesson plans on the AEI Web site would enable
teachers to share best practices and continue to build their capacity.

Implementation Strategy D: Disseminate to local schools models of service
delivery from Center Programs for the Highly Gifted and magnet programs to
strengthen their programs
IID1. Disseminate lessons, materials, and resources from centers and magnet
schools
After visiting various center programs, committee members recognized the importance of having
center and magnet schools serve as models of high expectations, acceleration, and enrichment.
The AEI should identify ways to disseminate lessons, materials, and other resources developed at
the various center and magnet schools to enrich local school GT programming. These resources,
coupled with the high expectations they reflect, provide teachers with solid and practical
examples of challenging instruction.
IID2. Use centers and magnets for professional development experiences

Besides receiving resources, identified teachers could do year-long internships at the Center
Programs for the Highly Gifted, working with the teachers and learning their methods. The
interns could then return to their home schools and serve as leaders in gifted programming.
IID3. Allocate time for dissemination and collegial conversations

At the same time, the focus of the programs for the highly gifted must continue to be to provide
an appropriate education for students whose needs cannot be met in the regular classroom.
Adequate support must be given to the teachers in these programs so that they have adequate
time to balance teaching with sharing of their expertise with colleagues.
Summary of Implementation Strategies for Recommendation Two

• Strengthen the model for the delivery of GT services at the local school level.
• Expand existing programs to meet the growing needs of the county.
• Enhance staff development activities and support for key local school staff involved in
GT service delivery.
• Disseminate to local schools models of service delivery from center and magnet
programs to strengthen their programs.

Recommendation Three: Implement Systematic Collection and
Analysis of Data
Discussion
The MCPS Strategic Plan, under its goal of ensuring success for every student, commits MCPS
to “develop and implement high quality information systems”, and further commits MCPS to
provide “a continuum of services for its gifted and talented students.” These objectives are
complementary. High quality information systems are a necessary component for providing a
continuum of services for gifted and talented students. Consequently, easily and readily usable
data must be available for teachers to make instructional decisions; for parents/guardians to
advocate more effectively for their children and become better partners with their children’s
teachers; and for MCPS to promote continuous improvement through implementing structures
and processes for ongoing research-based data-driven program evaluation.
Implementation Strategy A: Collect longitudinal data and use the ability of

systems such as IMS and data warehouse to ensure retention of student
assessment data
Longitudinal student-specific data should be collected and analyzed to ensure that students are
appropriately accessing accelerated and enriched instruction at all grades, including honors, AP,
and IB courses in high school, and to better inform teachers’ instructional decisions. Any
assessment data indicating that a child should receive more rigorous instruction should be made
available along with other individual student data through SIMS and the Data Warehouse to
teachers and principals. These data must be easy for teachers and others to access and use.
Data, indicating whether or not a student has been taught curriculum extensions; how well the
student performed on unit assessments (at least for the previous and current academic years) and
standardized tests, such as the second grade global GT screening tests (currently the Raven and
InView); and results of the Terranova CTBS, MSAs, center and magnet school screening tests,
should follow the student electronically and be easily accessible through the data warehouse or
IMS.
Currently, existing data are not easily or readily available to school administrators and teachers
to support classroom decision-making. Assessment results are often “lost” after the student
leaves the grade in which the assessment was administered. Thus, vertical articulation and
flexible grouping decisions may well be made without these critical pieces of information. The
lack of adequate data, including data tracking the progress of students identified during the
Grade 2 global screening, impedes rigorous long-term evaluation of MCPS GT programs and
activities.
Absent longitudinal data, it is difficult to monitor whether students are receiving a strong
foundation in the primary grades, an important prerequisite for success in later Honors, IB and
AP coursework. Similarly, it is difficult to identify gaps in students’ understanding of math

concepts, for example, that need remediation in order to prepare for more rigorous instruction in
middle and high school.
Implementation Strategy B: Take Inventory, evaluate, and consolidate existing

GT data collection efforts
Currently, GT data are collected at several locations within MCPS—at schools, in the GT office,
and in MCPS centralized data collection systems. As a part of its ongoing data initiatives, MCPS
should undertake a systematic inventory of data relevant to gifted and talented education,
evaluate whether it is collecting the appropriate data, and consolidate these data at the
appropriate organizational level. It is likely that some of what is collected would be extremely
useful if more easily available, while other data currently collected may be too burdensome to
merit collection, duplicative, or unnecessary. Finally, it is likely that there will be gaps in the
data that are collected. These gaps should be remedied.
Implementation Strategy C: Use data to strengthen GT identification and center

and magnet invitation processes
IIIC1. Create a structure for collecting K–12 data

MCPS is committed to a data-driven approach to public education. However, it appears that
there is no structured method to use quantitative data to ensure that all students have access to as
rigorous an educational experience as possible. The literature suggests that giftedness may
manifest itself at a later stage in a student’s education than Grade 2, or may manifest itself in
areas not captured by global screening. Therefore, it is important to match the continuum of
services available to gifted and talented students to every student, not just those identified in the
global screening as gifted and talented, at various stages in their education. The Grade 2 global
identification process, while helpful, must be supplemented by a dynamic use of assessment data
to identify students who would benefit from more rigorous instruction. And, as students move
through school, data should be used to identify those students who have not been formally
identified as GT but who may benefit from more rigorous instruction in particular areas.
IIIC2. Use data to inform selection and expansion of programs

Data should also be used to strengthen the selection processes for the centers and middle and
high school magnet programs. In particular, data should be used to review these selections
processes and determine whether the existing criteria are appropriate predictors of success in
these programs. Finally, evaluating these data may assist MCPS in determining whether
additional magnet programs are needed to provide rigorous instruction to students who are
highly able and cannot receive the level of rigor they need in the regular classroom.
IIIC3. Backmap data

While the school system is refining its data collection and reporting for GT programs and
services, it should also backmap a subset of existing data to determine whether students who now
take Honors, AP, and IB courses were identified as gifted and talented in the MCPS Grade 2
global screening process, or received GT services in elementary and/or middle school. To
reduce the resources involved in implementing this recommendation, MCPS should consider
using statistically valid sampling.

IIIC4. Use data as a predictor for success
Data-driven program evaluation efforts such as these can also assist MCPS in identifying which
student characteristics are the best predictors for success in these programs, and whether
additional efforts are needed to encourage students with these characteristics to apply. Knowing
these characteristics will also assist teachers in making instructional decisions that will prepare
students to succeed in the rigor that the centers and magnets provide and help parents more
effectively evaluate the centers/magnet option.
Implementation Strategy D: Seek stakeholder input on data collection
MCPS should seek input from a variety of stakeholders, including teachers, principals, the
Department of Shared Accountability, parents/guardians, and external entities regarding what
data should be collected to support the development and implementation of MCPS gifted and
talented programs and services, and how its activities can provide timely support for instructional
decisions, better information for parents, and information needed for evaluation efforts.
MCPS should also seek stakeholders’ input regarding the burdens associated with existing and
proposed data collection, and whether equally useful information can be obtained in a less
burdensome manner such as statistical sampling.
Summary of Implementation Strategies for Recommendation Three

• Collect longitudinal data and use the ability of systems such as the IMS and Data
Warehouse to ensure retention of student assessment data.
• Take inventory, evaluate, and consolidate existing GT data collection efforts.
• Use data to strengthen GT identification as well as the centers and magnet invitation
process.
• Seek stakeholder input on data collection.
(See Appendix E for additional details regarding these implementation strategies.)

Recommendation Four: Provide Equal Access for all Students to
Gifted and Talented Programs and Services
Discussion
Students of color, students from poverty, GT learners, and students with disabilities are often
underrepresented in gifted and talented programs. These culturally, linguistically, and
economically diverse students have the potential to achieve at high levels but often do not
because their unique cognitive, emotional, and social development needs have not been
recognized or addressed in schools. The consequence has been the historical underrepresentation
of culturally diverse students in GT programs. Although MCPS is making strides in this regard,
we cannot assume that only those children labeled as GT in the Grade 2 global screening, or
those invited under the current selection criteria to attend a magnet program, would benefit from
accelerated or enriched instruction. If the policy is to be implemented with fidelity, then it must
examine the institutional and external barriers to accessing GT programs and remedy them.
Implementation Strategy A: Improve the screening process for “test-in”

programs to recognize various manifestations of giftedness
Given that there is more than one way of demonstrating readiness for more rigorous instruction,
MCPS should examine its process of selecting students for county “test-in” programs. MCPS
should look for ways to broaden the indicators used to identify student strengths and potential. At
the same time, MCPS should ensure the validity of these indicators as predictors of success.
Implementation Strategy B: Continue revising global screening
The county should continue its efforts to provide support prior to the Grade 2 global screening
process, such as the PADI initiative currently being undertaken at several elementary schools.
Further, the global screening process needs to continue to undergo revision to ensure that it is
effectively used to surface giftedness.
Implementation Strategy C: Enhance training for staff so that they can better
recognize and support students who could benefit from greater rigor
It is critical that MCPS continue to offer training and professional experiences that develop
teachers’ cultural competence. This cultural competence would improve teachers’ ability to
recognize various manifestations of giftedness and provide them with a wider repertoire of
teaching strategies to support students’ different ways of learning. Culturally, ethnically, and
linguistically diverse students often have ways of representing their knowledge that are different
from the mainstream. Unfortunately, if teachers are poorly prepared to recognize alternate ways
of representing knowledge, they may interpret cultural differences in communication, learning,
and behavior as limitations in students’ ability to handle challenging material.

Implementation Strategy D: Strengthen Parental Outreach and Training
IVC1: Outreach
Families knowledgeable about GT services and programs help support and improve the delivery
of services at the local school level. Research addressing the importance of parental involvement
highlights the need for schools to develop culturally sensitive ways to reach out to parents and
invite them to be involved in the decision-making processes of the school. By making parents
partners with the school and helping them effectively advocate for their children, local schools
can help families, especially those of underserved students, better access appropriate GT
programs and services.
MCPS has done an excellent job of being responsive to educated parents who demonstrate high
levels of interest in their children’s education. Schools often do not always provide challenging
educational opportunities for students independent of their parent’s level of involvement. Many
parents, however, do not understand the expectations for parental involvement, nor do they have
the means to be effective advocates for their children’s education. Marginalized by culture,
language proficiency, socioeconomic status, educational level, or the lack of time or resources
needed to learn how to navigate the system, these parents need education not only about what
GT programs and services are available, but also how to access them, interpret testing data, and
avail themselves of the human and material resources available at the local school and county
levels. (See Appendix F for more specific details about outreach recommendations.)
IVC2: Provide easily accessible and understandable data

Parents need data in formats that are easily and readily accessible and should receive training on
how to use the data appropriately to advocate for their children. Making easy-to-understand data
available to parents/guardians is a critical step in helping them to become more effective
advocates for their children and partners in their education.
Implementation Strategy E: Promote institutional advocacy
There is also a critical need for institutional advocacy for those students who lack family
advocacy. Each school should designate a staff member to be responsible for monitoring the
progress of those students who do not have a strong support network outside of the school. This
designee would be tasked with making sure that students are accessing appropriate services,
receiving appropriate levels of challenge, and appropriately being placed in programs matched
with the highest level of rigor they can handle.
Summary of Implementation Strategies for Recommendation Four
• Improve the screening process for “test-in” programs to recognize various manifestations
of giftedness.
• Continue revising global screening.
• Enhance training for staff so that they can better recognize and support students who
could benefit from greater rigor.
• Strengthen parent outreach and training.
• Promote institutional advocacy.

I. Improve accountability: The committee believes that full implementation of the GT policy
has been hindered by insufficient accountability. It recommends that MCPS monitor the
outcomes of the gifted services, collect and analyze data on the programs’ effectiveness in
achieving those outcomes, and use these data to improve service delivery. In addition, MCPS
should assign performance criteria used to evaluate key school-based staff responsible for service
delivery to the desired outcomes described in the policy.
II. Improvement and expansion of programs: The quality of gifted programs, especially those
at local schools, is uneven. The committee recommends that MCPS clearly define the
components of a fully developed program and hold staff accountable for implementation. That
accountability must be supported with professional development for those staff responsible for
identification and service delivery. Models of service delivery from Center Programs for the
Highly Gifted and magnet programs must be disseminated to local schools to strengthen their
programs. Services must address all aspects of giftedness found in the policy, including those
students receiving special education services. MCPS must meet the increasing need for
additional seats in programs for the highly able.
III. Systematic collection and analysis of data: In its commitment to using student, staff, and
system performance data to monitor and approve achievement, the committee recommends that
MCPS use a longitudinal approach in data collection. Relevant assessment results and key
services received should follow the students through their MCPS careers. Such an approach
must utilize the capabilities of the IMS and Data Warehouse as repositories of relevant data.
MCPS should make summary data regarding outcomes of service easily available to parents and
stakeholders, and make specific data regarding services available to parents and instructional
staff for both advocacy and support.
IV. Equal access: More must be done to ensure consistency among local schools in providing
access for all students to high-quality programs and services. Those services must be in place and
available to students in all schools as they require them. Such consistency will require additional
staff support such as the .5 positions currently in Title I schools. MCPS must strengthen parent
involvement and increase its capacity as well as that of staff and the broader community to
advocate for individual student access to programs and services.

Appendix A
Deputy Superintendent’s Advisory Committee For
Gifted and Talented Education
Original Members of Committee Members as of May 2006
Name Name
Antoine, Elise Center Teacher, Pine Crest ES
Avila, Bryan Signature Program Coordinator, Antoine, Elise C. Instructional Specialist, Accelerated
Sherwood HS and Enriched Instruction
Barclay, Christopher Parent Barclay, Christopher Parent
Butler, Dr. Yvette Gapbusters Butler, Yvette Gapbusters
Cade, Michele Parent Cade, Michele Parent
Camacho, Carolyn Parent Camacho, Carolyn Parent
Dennis III, Beverly Parent Creel, Marty Acting Director, Accelerated and
Enriched Instruction
Easley, Tonya Parent Dennis III, Beverly Parent
Edgehill-Smith, Dr. Parent Easley, Tonya Parent
Yvette
Ervin, Valerie Parent Edgehill-Smith, Dr. Parent
Yvette
Faden, Janice Director, Elementary School Instruction Faden, Janice Director, Elementary School Instruction
Ferrell, Linda Director, School Performance Ferrell, Linda Director, Middle School Instruction
Galloway, Monroe Parent Graves, Donna Supervisor, Diversity

Training/Development
Graves, Donna Staff Development, Diversity Initiatives Jackson, Robyn R. Assistant Principal, Thomas W. Pyle
MS
Harvey, Dr. Karen Director, Curriculum and Instruction Jasperse, Catherine Principal, Rock Creek Valley ES
Jackson, Robyn Student Support Specialist, Thomas Kaplan-Wassell, Gail Instructional Specialist, Accelerated
W. Pyle MS and Enriched Instruction
Jasperse, Catherine Principal, Rock Creek Valley ES Lang, Erick J. Director, Enriched and Innovative
Programs
Kaplan-Wassell, Gail Instructional Specialist, Accelerated McHale, Diane Parent
and Enriched Instruction
McHale, Diane Parent McManus, Doug Parent/NCBR3
McManus, Doug Parent/NCBR3 Scofield, Susie Parent
Rosas, Rosalva Principal, Roberto Clemente MS Shevitz, Betty Instructional Specialist, Accelerated
Scofield, Susie Parent Siegelbaum, Laura Acting Supervisor, Accelerated and
Enriched Instruction
Shevitz, Betty Instructional Specialist, Accelerated Versel, Marcia Instructional Specialist, Accelerated
and Enriched Instruction and Enriched Instruction
Talley, Adrian Principal, Rosemont ES Watts, Sherry Instructional Specialist, Accelerated
Versel, Marcia Instructional Specialist, Accelerated Wilson, Crystal Parent

Watts, Sherry Instructional Specialist, Accelerated Zaldivar, Enrique Parent
Wilson, Crystal Parent
Wong, Hoi May Parent
Zaldivar, Enrique Parent
Appendix B
Data Regarding Access to Gifted and Talented Programs, Services, and
Outcomes (The GT Achievement Gap)
Summary
In recent years, MCPS has improved opportunities and outcomes with respect to gifted and
talented (GT) programs and services for all students at local schools. In many grades, larger
percentages of students in Grades 3—8 are demonstrating high-level mastery of MCPS rigorous
curriculum, and at the higher grades, mastery of AP course work. More African American and
Hispanic students are being invited to attend MCPS programs for the highly gifted.
Notwithstanding these successes, and the MCPS commitment to “raise the bar and close the
gap,” successes occur primarily in “raising the bar” while difficulties persist in “closing the gap.”
Disparities in opportunities and outcomes exist based on students’ race and ethnicity. Data
suggest that African American and Hispanic students have less access to gifted programs and
services than do White and Asian American students. (The MCPS data available to the Deputy
Superintendent’s Advisory Committee on Gifted and Talented Education have too little
information regarding American Indians to determine whether this is true for this subgroup as
well.) These two groups also have lower GT identification rates in the Grade 2 “global” GT
screening process, and generally lower rates of application for and invitations to attend the
Center Programs for the Highly Gifted and the countywide “test in” middle school and high
school gifted programs.
Data also indicate that African American and Hispanic students have lower outcomes on
standardized tests that are intended to measure high levels of mastery of the grade-level
curriculum. The growth in the percentages of African American and Hispanic students receiving
“advanced” scores in the Maryland School Assessments (MSA) Reading and Math tests since
2003 has been uneven. The gap between the percentage of these students receiving advanced
scores and the percentage of White students doing so is closing for some grade levels, but
increasing for others.
African American and Hispanic students’ participation in International Baccalaureate (IB) and
Advanced Placement (AP) courses is rising, but still lags behind the participation of other
groups. Even more troublesome, the gaps between the percentages of African American and
Hispanic students on the one hand, and the percentage of White students on the other, taking one
or more AP examinations and the gaps in earning scores of 3 or higher on at least one AP
examination, are growing.
Both the research and available MCPS data also suggest that lower levels of access to GT
programs and services, as well as lower standardized test scores are correlated, with
socioeconomic status (either measured by rates of participation in the Free and Reduced-price
Meals (FARMS) programs or by using more complex composite measures), and with learning
English as a second language, perhaps more strongly than correlations based on students’ race
and ethnicity.

Introduction
In public education much attention has been paid to the “achievement gap.” This phrase refers to
the national phenomenon of disparities in educational outcomes among student subgroups,
especially in standardized test scores. The student subgroups compared are most often groupings
by gender, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, English language learners, students receiving
special education services, and students under Individualized Education Plans (IEP) because of
the requirements of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
Research suggests the disparities in scores reflect differential levels of cognitive development
and that they are present when students enter public school and persist throughout public school.
Federal law (the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)) requires schools to make yearly progress
toward eliminating the gaps in mastery of grade-level material among certain subgroups, as
measured by scores on states’ standardized tests, and to eliminate it entirely by 2014. MCPS is
also committed to closing this gap, as it strives to ensure success for every child and to provide a
rigorous instructional program. The MCPS approach is sometimes referred to as “raise the bar
and close the gap.” MSA data for 2005 illustrate MCPS success in achieving these goals and its
progress toward meeting the NCLB requirements as well. These data also suggest, however, that
disparities persist and in some cases are growing.
For more than 25 years, research has suggested disparities in GT identification rates, and thus
access to GT programs and services when these activities are examined for many of the student
subgroups described above. Federal, state, and local school statutes and policies often
emphasize, in the area of gifted policy, that giftedness is not limited to certain student subgroups
and that school systems should strive to reduce GT disparities as well. The Maryland Bridge to
Excellence law, for example, states that “gifted and talented students are to be found in youth
from all cultural groups, across all economic strata, and in all areas of human endeavor.” Policy
IOA: Gifted and Talented Education, similarly states that giftedness is “present in children and
youth from all cultural groups, across all economic strata, and in all areas of human endeavor.”
Policy IOA goes on to require special efforts with respect to “underachieving and traditionally
underrepresented students,” including GT/LD students.
The committee examined MCPS data regarding achievement in local schools, countywide “test-
in” magnet programs, and in other settings where enriched and accelerated instruction occurs to
explore whether all children have equal access to GT programs and services and are achieving
the outcomes intended under Policy IOA. We examined Grade 2 GT identification, invitations to
attend the highly rigorous Center Programs for the Highly Gifted, and the countywide “test-in”
middle school and high school magnet programs. We also examined Maryland School
Assessment (MSA) scores at the Advanced level as well as enrollment and successful test taking
in AP courses, and enrollment in IB programs. Progress is occurring, but disparities persist and
in some cases are growing.
Because of the limitations of the available data, this paper primarily examines data disaggregated
by race and ethnicity. National research, published as well as incomplete (and sometimes
preliminary), MCPS data, and anecdotal evidence suggest that other identifiable groups such as

students receiving special services—FARMS, special education services, services under Section
504 of the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and English language learners, and perhaps
categories used by other school systems such as emotionally disabled students, also have
disparities in the rates at which they are identified as gifted, and therefore may not have
appropriate access to the levels of rigorous instruction offered by many school systems to gifted
students. Outcomes for students receiving special services are included in some of the MCPS
data and the MSA data. These data show that these subgroups also have lower outcomes in the
areas examined.
As an editorial matter, we have avoided using the term “underserved,” or an alternative term
such as “underrepresented,” to describe African American and Hispanic students1 whose lower
GT identification rates, lower rates of invitation to centers and test-in magnet programs, lower
rates of MSA achievement at the advanced level, and lower rates of enrollment and success in
AP courses suggest that they may not have full access to GT programs and services. It is worth
noting again that other subgroups may also fall into this category. These disparities in gifted
identification, access, and outcomes represent a GT dimension to the concept of “achievement
gap,” but one that MCPS’ “raise the gap and close the gap” approach also has had some success
in attempting to address.
Second Grade Global Gifted and Talented Screening
MCPS has commenced a number of initiatives to ensure that all students who are gifted are
identified in the early grades. As required under Policy IOA, MCPS uses multiple indicators of
academic and leadership potential. MCPS has added staff to Title I schools (“.5 positions”) to
assist teachers, paraeducators, and other school staff in recognizing giftedness. MCPS has
expanded the Program of Assessment, Diagnosis, and Instruction (PADI). PADI uses the
concept of “identification through instruction” and nurtures critical and creative thinking skills in
Grade K–2 students in diverse populations. For five years MCPS has worked to strengthen skills
of all students in the primary grades through expanding all-day kindergarten, smaller class sizes,
and its reading initiative as well as changes intended to improve the curriculum.
Line 2 shows that the number of students in each group identified as GT in 2005 declined
compared with the number identified in 2002, for every group except Asian American students.
Lines 5a and 5b reflect declines in 2005 percentage GT identification rates for all subgroups
compared with 2002 and 2004, respectively, with the largest declines for Hispanic students and
the smallest for White students. (Line 5b is included to illustrate the sharp and disparate drop in
identification rates, which occurred in 2005 after MCPS made changes to the global screening
process.)
(Although not reflected in these data, MCPS directed that schools increase rescreening in
Grades 3 and 4 to identify students who may have been missed in the initial Grade 2 screening.)
1
As noted above, MCPS also has official data in many of these areas for students receiving special services and the
state of Maryland has published MSA data for these subgroups that are available as well. In addition, in the interest
of clarity, generally data are shown only for the earliest and most recent years for which data are available. In the
interest of length, generally only data disaggregated by race and ethnicity are included in this document; however,
all the available data suggest that these students suffer from the same difficulties.

Table 1: Second Grade Global Gifted and Talented Screening 2002–2005
Global GT Screening Asian American African American Hispanic White *Total

2002 2005 2002 2005 2002 2005 2002 2005 2002 2005
1 Number of students screened 1,384 1,568 2,007 2,196 1,813 2,079 4,454 3,995 9,682 9,875
2 Number of students identified 647 710 412 411 356 354 2,058 1,840 3,473 3,333
3 % screened of Total screened 14.3 15.9 20.7 22.2 18.7 21.1 46.0 40.5 100.0 100.0
4 % identified of Total identified 18.6 21.3 11.9 12.3 10.3 10.6 59.3 55.2 35.9 33.8
5a % of racial or ethnic group identified 46.7 45.3 20.5 18.7 19.6 17.0 46.2 46.1
5b year-to-year % change -21.2 -23.3 -42.8 -19.3 -24.2
5c 2002 - 2005 % change -3.1 -8.8 -13.3 -0.3 -5.9
Gap (compared with White
5d -0.5 0.8 25.7 27.3 26.6 29.0
students)
Line 5a shows that GT identification rates for African American and Hispanic students still lag
overall GT identification rates and identification rates for other student subgroups. Line 5d
shows that the gaps in GT identification rates for African American and Hispanic students
compared with White students are increasing.

Fourth and Fifth Grade Center Programs for the Highly Gifted
Centers data illustrate two phenomena that lead to disparities in access to the centers programs:
disparities in application rates among student subgroups and disparities in the percentages of
students invited among student subgroups.
The application rate phenomenon also has two components. African American and Hispanic
students each constitute slightly more than 20 percent of Grade 3 MCPS students; however, they
constitute a much smaller percentage of the applicant pool for the Center Programs for the
Highly Gifted. White and Asian American students apply for the centers in a higher proportion
than their proportion of the overall MCPS student population. Possible causes for the disparities
in applicant rates include carryover effects from the disparate gifted identification rates;
differences in the effectiveness of outreach efforts; transportation issues that may be more acute
for some groups; continued institutional gatekeepers; and disparate levels of rigorous instruction
and positive outcomes in the primary grades.
The second component is the disparity in the percentages of students invited, although here
progress has occurred. Table 2a, line 5 reflects increases in centers invitation rates for all
subgroups. Line 5a shows that African American and Hispanic students achieved the largest
gains. Although Line 3 shows that centers invitation rates for African American and Hispanic
students still lag overall behind center invitation rates and invitation rates for other student
subgroups, line 5b shows that the gap is closing, albeit more slowly than the increases in line 5a
might suggest.
The combined effect of disparities in application and invitation rates is that relatively few
African American and Hispanic students are receiving the higher level of rigor that the centers
provide.2
Table 2a. Centers Program for the Highly Gifted 2001–2005

Center Programs for the Highly
Gifted Asian American African American Hispanic White *Total
2001 2005 2001 2005 2001 2005 2001 2005 2001 2005
1 No. of students applied 284 452 92 168 68 132 824 970 1,268 1,722
2 No. of students invited 59 119 10 34 7 24 181 259 257 436
3 % applied of total applied 22.4 26.2 7.3 9.8 5.4 7.7 65.0 56.3
4 % invited of total invited 23.0 27.3 3.9 7.8 2.7 5.5 70.4 59.4 20.3 25.3
5 % of racial or ethnic group invited 20.8 26.3 10.9 20.2 10.3 18.2 22.0 26.7
5a 2001–2005 % change 26.7 86.2 76.6 21.6 24.9
5b students) 1.2 0.4 11.1 6.5 11.7 8.5
2 Several interesting data points are present for White students. Lines 1 and 2 show that the number of White
students who apply and the number invited have increased. Lines 3 and 4 show that White students’ percentage of
the applicant pool and the percentage of White students invited have both declined. Put another way, the increases
for White students in lines 1 and 2 are less than the increases for other groups, resulting in the drop in lines 3 and 4.

Comparing the percentage in line 5a with the numbers on line 2 puts a human face on the
remaining challenges. From 2001 to 2005, the percentage of African American students invited
from the African American student applicant pool jumped by more than 86 percent, and the
equivalent increase for Hispanic students was more than 76 percent. These percentage increases
translate into a total of 34 African American and 24 Hispanic invitees out of a total of 436.
Moreover, the sharp drop in 2005 global screening GT identification rates for African American
and Hispanic students does not portend well for the 2006 application and selection processes.
Middle School Magnet Programs
As with the centers, the test-in middle school magnets programs have disparities in application
rates and disparities in the percentages of students invited among student subgroups.
Table 3a, line 3 shows a significant increase in the percentage of African American students in
the applicant pool during 2001–2005; however, the percentage of Hispanic students in the
applicant pool has dropped. Much of the increase in the number of African American student
applications occurred when the programs at the Roberto Clemente Middle School opened in
2003, when 206 students applied. Similar increases occurred for White and Asian American
students in 2003, when 760 White and 560 Asian American students applied. Since 2003 the
number of White students applying for the Math/Science/Computer Science magnets and the
number of African American students applying for the Humanities and Communications
magnets has dropped.
The numbers of Hispanic and White students applying for humanities and communications
middle school magnet programs, line 1, tables 3a, and 3c, have increased since 2002, the
percentage increases were smaller than the percentage increases in overall applications. This
phenomenon caused the percentages of these students in the applicant pools, line 3, tables 3a and
3c, to fall. The same effect occurred for White students apply to the Math/Science/Computer
Science magnet programs.
Moreover, the percentage of Asian American students invited, line 5a, tables 3a–3c, has dropped.
The percentages of Hispanic and White students invited to the Humanities and Communications
magnets, line 5a, table 3c, have also dropped.
Line 5b, tables 3a–3c, show the gap between percentages of African American students in the
applicant pool invited to middle school magnet programs and White students in the applicant
pool invited, has declined substantially, while the percentage of Hispanic students invited to
attend these magnets also has improved. Much of this improvement occurred this year, after
protests by a group of parents of African American students regarding the middle school magnet
selection process.

Table 3a: Middle School Magnets
Asian African
Middle School Magnets American American Hispanic White *Total
Year ====> 2002 2005 2002 2005 2002 2005 2002 2005 2002 2005
1 Number of students applied 364 575 118 212 80 108 560 718 1122 1614
2 Number of students invited 104 148 13 51 11 19 150 203 278 422
3 Percentage applied of total applied 32.4 35.6 10.5 13.1 7.1 6.7 49.9 44.5
4 Percentage invited of total invited 37.4 35.1 4.7 12.1 4.0 4.5 54.0 48.1
Percentage of racial or ethnic group
5 invited 28.6 25.7 11.0 24.1 13.8 17.6 26.8 28.3 24.8 26.1
5a 2002–2005 % change -9.9 118.4 27.9 5.6 5.5
5b Gap (compared with White students) -1.8 2.5 15.8 4.2 13.0 10.7
Table 3b: Middle School Math/Science/Computer Science Magnets

Asian African
MS Math/Sci./Com. Sci. Magnets American American Hispanic White *Total
Year ====> 2002 2005 2002 2005 2002 2005 2002 2005 2002 2005
Percentage of racial or ethnic group
5 invited 24.8 21.9 6.2 19.5 6.8 15.4 19.6 25.8 19.3% 22.7
5a 2002–2005 % change -11.5 217.1 125.6 31.5 18.0%
5b Gap (compared with White students) -5.2 3.8 13.4 6.2 12.8 10.4
Table 3c: Middle School Humanities and Communications Magnets

Middle School Humanities/Comm. Asian African
Magnets American American Hispanic White Total
Year ====> 2002 2005 2002 2005 2002 2005 2002 2005 2002 2005
5 Percentage of racial or ethnic group invited 35.7 32.1 17.0 30.3 22.2 20.9 34.6 30.8 32.0 30.5
5a 2002–2005 % change -10.1 78.7 -5.8 -10.9 -4.6
5b Gap (compared with White students) -1.1 -1.3 17.6 0.5 12.4 9.9

MSA Advanced Scores Grades 3–8
MSA Reading
The good news is that the percentage of students achieving advanced scores is increasing, and
increasing for all almost all grades for all groups. The percentage increases are also significant.
For example, in the Grade 3 Reading, the percentage of Asian American students achieving
Advanced increased by 70 percent from 2003 to 2005; for African American students the
increase was 12 percent; for Hispanic students, the increase was 116 percent; and for White
students, the increase was 56 percent.
The challenge is the intractability of the achievement gap at the advanced level. When MCPS
released the 2005 MSA scores, it included graphs showing changes from 2003 to 2005 in the
achievement gap in Grade 3 Reading scores. Looking at the gap between African American and
White students’ scores “at or above proficient,” the percentage point gap decreased 30 percent.
Comparing Hispanic and White students’ scores, the gap decreased 36 percent. Looking solely
at advanced scores, the gap between Grade 3 African American and White students increased 42
percent, while the gap between Grade 3 Hispanic and White students increased 45 percent.
Again, looking at Grade 3 students, this gap has actually increased for both African American
and Hispanic students each year the MSA has been administered. For Grade 5 African
American and Hispanic students, the 2005 gaps are greater than those that existed in 2003. It is
important to note that generally modest reductions in these advanced achievement gaps occurred
for both groups in Grades 4, 5, and 6; results were mixed for Grades 7 and 8.
Table 4a: 2003/43–2005 MSA Achievement Gaps: Montgomery County, Maryland

Advanced Reading
Grade Percent Advanced (higher is better) Achievement Gaps (lower is better)
Asian American African American White Hispanic White - Afr. Amer. White - Hispanic
2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005
3 18.1 24.8 30.7 4.2 6.3 8.9 21.8 26.6 33.9 3.1 4.6 6.7 17.6 20.3 25.0 18.7 22.0 27.2
4 30.6 28.6 8.3 9.4 34.5 34.6 6.9 8.4 26.2 25.2 27.6 26.2
5 48.4 51.8 53.8 17.1 18.7 18.5 53.9 56.5 55.7 14.2 15.7 15.8 36.8 37.8 37.2 39.7 40.8 39.9
6 58.0 52.6 21.9 18.9 61.6 54.3 19.3 15.6 39.7 35.4 42.3 38.7
7 49.1 51.0 15.5 18.6 55.7 57.6 15.5 15.9 40.2 39.0 40.2 41.7
8 43.4 39.8 44.5 17.2 12.6 12.8 54.7 46.3 46.9 12.4 9.9 11.6 37.5 33.7 34.1 42.3 36.4 35.3
As an approximation of the human face of the gap, only 192 African American and 137
Hispanic Grade 3 students achieved advanced reading scores in 2005. If the same percentage of
African American and Hispanic Grade 3 students had achieved advanced in 2005 as the
3
In 2003, the MSAs were only given to Grades 3, 5, and 8 students. In 2004, Grades 4, 6, and 7 students were
tested for the first time.

percentage of White students, 539 more African American students, and 556 more Hispanic
students would have achieved this high level of mastery of the curriculum.
MSA Math
While the year-to-year percentages of advanced math scores also are generally increasing, for
several subgroups the percentages fall as the grade increases. The math data also illustrate the
wrong way to close the achievement gap. The 2005 gaps noted on the right side of Table 4b
generally fall as the grade increases. However, these falls are artifacts caused by the fact that
scores for White students are falling more rapidly than those of African American and Hispanic
students. On the other hand, the drop from 2004 to 2005 in the gap for Grade 4 Hispanic
students was accompanied by rising percentages of advanced scores for both Hispanic and White
students.
Table 4b: 2003/4–2005 MSA Achievement Gaps: Montgomery County, Maryland

Advanced Mathematics
Grade Percent Advanced (higher is better) Achievement Gaps (lower is better)
White - Afr.
Asian American African American White Hispanic Amer. White - Hispanic
2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005
3 38.0 45.2 55.6 8.6 11.9 15.7 37.9 42.3 52.8 8.3 12.1 14.8 29.3 30.4 37.1 29.6 30.2 38.0
4 53.5 57.6 14.1 15.3 51.8 52.9 14.2 17.7 37.7 37.6 37.6 35.2
5 35.0 40.3 50.5 3.6 6.1 9.8 27.5 33.9 43.2 5.0 7.1 10.7 23.9 27.8 33.4 22.5 26.8 32.5
6 39.4 43.0 3.9 5.7 28.1 32.3 5.4 6.4 24.2 26.6 22.7 25.9
7 37.7 43.8 3.2 4.5 27.3 33.3 3.9 5.7 24.1 28.8 23.4 27.6
8 43.9 48.7 54.0 6.0 6.2 8.7 38.1 38.8 41.1 7.6 7.4 8.7 32.1 32.6 32.4 30.5 31.4 32.4
High School Magnet Programs

The seemingly dramatic improvement in the percentage of African American students invited to
the IB magnet program at Richard Montgomery High School and Math/Science/Computer
Science magnet program at Montgomery Blair High School is an artifact of the very small
numbers involved. It represents an improvement from six African American students invited to
the class of 2005 to 14 students invited to the class of 2009. In a countywide system of almost
140,000 students with more than 11,000 8th graders, only 14 African American students and
seven Hispanic students were among the 295 students initially invited to the two high school
magnet programs’ classes of 2009.

Table 5a: High School International Baccalaureate
And Math/Science/Computer Science Magnets
Asian
High School Magnets American African American Hispanic White *Total
Class of ====> 2005 2009 2005 2009 2005 2009 2005 2009 2005 2009
1 No. of students applied 601 653 155 149 38 70 706 459 1,504 1,335
3 % applied of total applied 40.0 48.9 10.3 11.2 2.5 5.2 46.9 34.4 -7.7
4 % invited of total invited 37.3 55.3 2.2 4.7 0.7 2.4 59.4 36.9 -16.6
5 % of racial or ethnic group invited 16.8 25.0 3.9 9.4 5.3 10.0 22.8 23.7 18.0 22.1
5a 2005–2009 % change 48.5 142.7 90.0 4.1 34.9
5b students) 6.0 -1.2 18.9 14.4 17.5 13.7
Table 5b: High School Math/Science/Computer Science Magnet

Asian
Mont. Blair Math/Sci/Comp. Sci. American African American Hispanic White *Total
Class of ====> 2005 2009 2005 2009 2005 2009 2005 2009 2005 2009
1 No. of students applied 300 331 74 68 15 31 296 189 685 621

5 % of racial or ethnic group invited 16.0 25.4 2.7 10.3 6.7 9.7 21.3 22.2 16.6% 22.1
5a 2005–2009 % change 58.6 280.9 45.2 4.4 44.4
5b students) 5.3 -3.2 18.6 11.9 14.6 12.5
Table 5c: High School International Baccalaureate Magnet

Asian
Richard Montgomery IB American African American Hispanic White *Total
Class of ====> 2005 2009 2005 2009 2005 2009 2005 2009 2005 2009
1 No. of students applied 301 322 81 81 23 39 410 270 819 714
5 % of racial or ethnic group invited 17.6 24.5 4.9 8.6 4.3 10.3 23.9 24.8 19.2% 22.1
5a 2005–2009 % change 39.3 75.0 135.9 3.8 15.4
5b Gap (compared with White students) 6.3 0.3 19.0 16.2 19.6 14.6
High School AP Courses: Race and Ethnicity
MCPS data regarding AP courses show that African American and Hispanic students’ access to
and success in these courses is improving. The gap is growing between the percentage of
African American and Hispanic students taking at least one AP examination and White students
doing so. Also growing is the gap between the percentage of African American and Hispanic
students scoring 3 or higher in at least one exam and White students doing so. The negative
numbers for Asian American students mean that they are outperforming White students in both
of these categories. (Table 6)
Table 6: AP Examination Participation and Success Rates by Race and Ethnicity

for Graduating Seniors During High School Careers 2000, 20044
Asian African Hispanic White
American American
Percentage taking at least one exam: 2000 47.8 11.1 16.9 43.0
Percentage taking at least one exam: 2004 66.9 23.3 29.5 58.5
2000 Gap (compared with White students) -4.8 31.9 26.1
Percentage scoring 3 or higher on at least one exam: 38.7 8.1 15.5 37.0
2000
Percentage scoring 3 or higher on at least one exam: 52.7 14.6 23.4 49.8
2004
It is clear that much work remains to be done. In addition to the gaps shown in Table 6, success
rates vary dramatically by school. In 2004, for schools with five or more students in the
demographic cohort, only 5.1 percent of Watkins Mill High School African American students
received a score of 3 or better in their high school career, while at Walter Johnson and
Springbrook, this percentage was 24.1. In 2004, for schools with five or more students in the
demographic cohort, only 15.0 percent of Watkins Mills High School Hispanic students received
a score of 3 or better in their high school career, while at Churchill, this percentage was 73.1.
International Baccalaureate Programs: Primary, Middle Years, and Diploma Programs

On April 12, 2005, the superintendent of schools provided the Board of Education with an
update on the status of the K–12 International Baccalaureate programs in the Montgomery
County Public Schools (MCPS). Included in this update was a table setting out the
demographics of students participating in authorized International Baccalaureate Organization
(IBO) programs (Table 7). The table illustrates African American and Hispanic students’
participation in these programs.
4
Note: corrections made to conform to online version of Table 10 of Report (page 17)
http://www.mcps.k12.md.us/departments/sharedaccountability/pdf/performance/AP%20Report0305.pdf

Table 7: Demographics of Students Participating in Authorized IBO Programs
African Asian American
Program American American Hispanic White Indian Total FARMS Spec. Ed. ESL
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. No. No. No.
0
.
PYP 90 19.0 118 24.9 43 9.1 222 46.8 1 2 474 96 39 52
0
.
MYP 410 17.3 321 13.5 398 16.8 1242 52.4 1 0 2372 454 195 277
0
.
DP 55 10.2 138 25.7 32 5.9 312 58.0 1 2 538 13 9 34
Data elsewhere in that update show little progress since 2002 in improving access for African
American and Hispanic students to IB diplomas at Bethesda-Chevy Chase, Richard
Montgomery, and Springbrook high schools. In most cases, any increase in access averaged one
student or less per year over the four-year period.

Appendix C
Professional Development: Cultural Competency and Gifted Education
Introduction
Research consistently indicates that most educators are ill-prepared to work with culturally,
ethnically, and linguistically diverse students. As a result, teachers interpret the cultural
differences in communication, learning, and behavioral styles of diverse students from a deficit
perspective. This deficit perspective limits teacher recognition of students’ gifts and talents and
students’ access to rigorous instructional programming (Ford, 2002; Shade, 1999; Gay, 2000).
In addition, many teachers lack adequate training in gifted education. The lack of training and
sensitivity to the characteristics and needs of gifted students hinders teacher ability to identify
students for Gifted and Talented (GT) programs as well as their ability to work effectively with
students to develop their potential (Ford, 2002). These findings point to the need to provide
training and professional experiences that address these dual goals of cultural competence and
gifted education.
Process for Identifying Areas of Focus

Cultural Competence
As the student population becomes increasingly diverse, so too must professional development
proactively build educators’ cultural competence in pursuit of providing equitable educational
outcomes for culturally diverse students. Research consistently suggests that cultural competence
requires educators to self-examine their own cultural beliefs, expectations, attitudes, and
assumptions that give rise to deficit perspectives regarding the abilities and capabilities of
culturally diverse students. So too must educators acquire information about and understanding
of the cultural experience, background, and learning styles of culturally diverse students. This
understanding is critical to helping students make connections between what they are learning in
school and their own lives. When students perceive content as relevant to themselves, their
interest, motivation, and engagement in academic pursuit increases. As teachers increase their
cultural competence through enhanced understanding of self and students, they must develop
skill in delivering culturally responsive instruction that maximizes the academic, cognitive,
social-emotional, and cultural development of students.
James Banks, professor of education at the University of Washington, Seattle, has delineated the
specific professional development outcomes that must be addressed if educators are to modify
educational programming so that students from diverse ethnic, racial, cultural, and language
groups will have equitable opportunities to learn in their classrooms. According to Banks:
• Teachers must understand the ways that race, ethnicity, culture, language, and social class
interact in complex ways to influence student behavior.
• Teachers must uncover and identify their personal attitudes toward different racial,
ethnic, language, and social groups.
• Teachers must uncover and identify their behaviors related to diverse racial, ethnic,
language, and social class groups.
• Teachers must acquire knowledge about the history and cultures of diverse ethnic, racial,
and cultural groups.

• Teachers must be knowledgeable about the diverse perspectives on historical and current
events within different ethnic, racial, cultural, language, and cultural communities.
Gifted Education
In gifted education, the professional’s learning curve is steep. Students, parents, and
administrators expect a challenging instructional program, regardless of whether a teacher has
been teaching 3 months or 30 years. A first-year teacher is expected to be in command of all
aspects of teaching that a veteran teacher is, including engaging students who are easy to
overlook, such as minority GT students. Conversely, a veteran teacher is expected to be
responsive to the new cultures entering her classroom and maintain high academic standards. In
other words, both novice and veteran are held accountable for high student academic
achievement for all groups. Training to build cultural competence should not be narrowly linked
to higher academic achievement but rather to recognizing the intellect of all students.
A school system that is proactive about teacher expectations rather than reactive to problems is
one that will maintain a high-performing workforce. A new expectation can be described as
follows:
• Changing instruction to match assessment
• New colleagues and administrators
• New instructional standards or curriculum
• Adapting instruction with an unfamiliar student population
This document will focus on teacher training that promotes the success of GT students,
specifically the expectation of engaging African American and Hispanic students, low-income
students, English language learner, and students with disabilities who do not fit traditional
images of precociousness.
Professional Development
Building the cultural competence of staff in a school system as large and culturally diverse as the
Montgomery County Public Schools is a complex task. Several questions must be considered
before an efficient and effective professional development program can be implemented. These
questions include the following:
• What specific knowledge, understanding, and skills do educators need to ensure that the
strengths, gifts, and talents of culturally diverse students are recognized?
• What audiences should participate in professional development?
• What is the timeline for delivering professional development?
• What are the most efficient delivery methods for professional development?
• What measures should be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the professional
development?
• How will available resources be deployed to design, deliver, and evaluate professional
development?
• What additional resources are required?

Appendix D
Teaching the Highly Able Student

The Deputy Superintendent’s Advisory Committee for Gifted and Talented Education
recommends that all instructional staff in MCPS be provided with ongoing, job-embedded
professional development that builds capacity to identify the gifts of students and work
effectively with students to develop their potential.
• Provide all instructional staff with professional development to do the following:

1. Use specific, and observable strategies that communicate high expectations to
students. Decades of research confirms that teachers form expectations about
students’ learning capabilities based on their own biases and perceptions (race,
socioeconomics, language, gender, physical appearance, etc.). Though these low
expectations are unintentional and unconscious, they are at the root of the under-
identification of minority students in rigorous instructional programming and GT
programs.
2. Build understanding of the traditional and nontraditional characteristics of highly
able students. Teachers must be able to recognize giftedness in its many forms to
provide equitable access to GT programs.
3. Use specific and observable strategies to nurture critical and creative thinking in
all students.
4. Use specific strategies to promote student interest, motivation, and engagement in
learning. This includes strategies for helping students make connections between
what they are learning in school, and their own background, experience, and
reality. Teachers must recognize and build upon the cultural capital that students
bring to school.
5. Establish and nurture caring relationships between the teacher and students and
between students in support of academic achievement.
6. Recognize and correct inequitable practices and structures that are barriers to
equitable participation in GT programs.
7. Use global screening instruments and other identification tools, interpret the
results/data, and use the data to design and deliver rigorous instructional
programming.
• Build scaffolding and enrichment options into curriculum for students who can handle
more. For example, the use of resources like Jacob’s Ladder allow students below grade
level to quickly and systematically build reading comprehension skills to move into
grade-level instruction and beyond. Carefully selected texts may be required to begin
moving students beyond grade-level indicators. The strategies developed and
disseminated by the Division of Accelerated and Enriched Instruction should be
incorporated into every staff development activity and supported by the staff
development teacher, reading specialist, math coach, resource teacher, and
interdisciplinary resource teacher.

• For those students with a level of giftedness (academic, artistic, etc.) requiring
educational settings outside the regular classroom, ensure that there are sufficient
opportunities for them to be among their peers.
• Incorporate into all training programs, to all staff, the perspective of how new concepts
can be best taught to gifted students. A repeated inclusion of the “how to teach and to
deal with the emotional issues” of gifted students will start to create a countywide
consciousness among all staff that paying attention to giftedness not only helps the gifted
students but all students as well. Unless all staff are trained and fully implementing it,
neither nonidentified nor identified students will get adequate accelerated and enriched
instruction at their local school.
• Include in every school part-time GT specialists supporting regular teachers when
designing activities and taking students for special projects. Staff centers and magnets
with highly trained, highly qualified teachers with experience, expertise, and advanced
skills in gifted education.

Appendix E
Specific Recommendations Regarding Data Availability

Seek Stakeholder Input on Data Collection
Recommendation. The committee recommends that MCPS enhance its ongoing efforts to
improve data collection and dissemination activities by seeking additional input from
stakeholders on how these efforts can improve gifted and talented programs and services. In
particular, MCPS should seek stakeholder input on how its activities can provide timely support
for instructional decisions, better information for parents, and information needed for evaluation.
Rationale. MCPS should seek input from a variety of stakeholders, including teachers,
principals, the Department of Shared Accountability, parents/guardians, and external entities
regarding what data should be collected to support MCPS GT education programs and services.
In conjunction with Recommendation 2, below, MCPS should also seek stakeholders’ input
regarding the burdens associated with existing and proposed data collection, whether similar data
are collected elsewhere, at what organization level and in what information system these data
should reside, and, whether equally useful information can be obtained in a less burdensome
manner (sampling, for example).
Take Inventory, Evaluate, and Consolidate Existing GT Data Collection Efforts

Recommendation. The committee recommends that MCPS, as a part of it ongoing data
initiatives, undertake a systematic inventory of data relevant to gifted and talented education,
evaluate whether it is collecting the appropriate data, and consolidate these data at the
appropriate organizational level.
Rationale. The advisory committee initially believed that MCPS collected data on its GT
programs and services in a systematic fashion and that these data would be readily available to
the committee to inform and assist members in their work. We discovered that these data are
collected at several locations within MCPS such as at schools, the GT office, and in some MCPS
centralized data collection systems. Although limited data on the Center Programs for the
Highly Gifted and countywide middle and high school magnet programs were made available to
the committee, it proved impossible to receive other useful data on MCPS GT programs and
services within a reasonable time.
The committee believes that it is essential that MCPS review and revamp its GT data collection
activity in order to implement many of the committee’s other recommendations to strengthen
MCPS GT programs and services. As a critical first step, we recommend that MCPS conduct an
inventory of what GT-related data it collects, where these data reside, and whether the data are
collected in paper or electronic format. It is likely that some of what is collected would be
extremely useful, if more easily available, while other data currently collected may be too
burdensome to merit collection, duplicative, or unnecessary. These data should be collected, if at
all, in the appropriate electronic systems that will permit implementation of the other data
recommendations. Finally, it is likely that there are gaps in the data that are collected and these
gaps should be remedied.

Data Should Follow the Student
Recommendation. Longitudinal student-specific data should be collected and analyzed to
ensure that students are appropriately accessing accelerated and enriched instruction at all
grades, including Honors, AP, and IB courses in high school, and to better inform teachers’
instructional decisions. Any assessment data that could indicate that a child should receive more
rigorous instruction should be made available, along with other individual student data, through
SIMS and the Data Warehouse to teachers and principals. These data must be easy for teachers
and others to access and use.
Rationale. The MCPS Strategic Plan states, as one of its objectives, that MCPS provide a
continuum of services for its gifted and talented students. However, the lack of adequate data,
including data tracking the progress of students identified during the Grade 2 global screening,
impedes rigorous long-term evaluation of GT programs and activities. We note that this
recommendation is consistent with the Strategic Plan’s objective that “MCPS staff have access to
relevant and timely information to ensure student success,” but adds what the committee believes
to be the critical idea that access should be easy.
Use Data to Strengthen GT Identification as well as Center and Magnet Invitation

Processes
Recommendation. Data should be used to identify those students who have not been formally
identified at GT but who may benefit from more rigorous instruction in particular areas.
Moreover, data should be used to strengthen the selection processes for center, middle and high
school magnet programs. In particular, these selection processes should be reviewed to
determine whether the existing criteria are appropriate predictors of success in these programs.
Finally, evaluating these data may assist MCPS in determining whether additional magnet
programs are needed to provide rigorous instruction to students who are highly able and cannot
receive the level of rigor they need in the regular classroom.
Rationale. The committee believes it is important to match the continuum of services available
to GT students to every student, not just those identified in the global screening as GT, at various
stages in their education. The Grade 2 identification process, while helpful, must be
supplemented by a dynamic use of assessment data to identify students who would benefit from
more rigorous instruction.
Data-driven program evaluation efforts can help MCPS identify which student characteristics are
the best predictors for success in these programs as well as identify whether additional efforts are
needed to encourage student with these characteristics in underserved populations to apply.
Knowing these characteristics will also assist teachers in making instructional decisions that will
prepare students in underserved populations to succeed in the rigor that the centers and magnets
provide and assist parents in more effectively evaluating the centers/magnet option.

Make Data Easily Available to Parents/Guardians
Recommendation. Data should be made available to parents in formats that are easily
accessible, and parents should receive training on how to appropriately use the data to advocate
for their children.
Rationale. The MCPS Strategic Plan as well as research acknowledges that importance of
parental involvement in the educational process. Making easy-to-understand data available to
parents/guardians is a critical step in helping them to become more effective advocates for their
children and partners in the education of their children.
Use GT Data for Program Evaluation

Recommendation. Data should be used to evaluate how accurately and equitably programs are
identifying students for GT services and how well programs are providing GT services to those
students who have been identified with a particular emphasis on improving access for student
populations currently underserved. These data should be built into a process of continuous
improvement for GT services.
Rationale. MCPS staff evaluate schools’ efforts to implement the Policy on Gifted and
Talented Education and, indeed, have assisted other school districts in developing evaluation
instruments. However, this process is largely narrative and lacks significant quantitative data
inputs. A more robust data-driven program evaluation effort with respect to
GT education would provide an additional dimension to this activity. It would also provide a
broader and timelier tool to use in monitoring whether all student populations have equitable
access to GT programs and services.

Appendix F
Parent Outreach and Institutional Advocacy

Parental Involvement
Background
• The academic achievement gap between African American and Hispanic students
compared with White and Asian students is even greater when examining access to GT
programs and services.
• Lack of access for African American and Hispanic students to GT and magnet programs
compared to White and Asian students.
• MCPS parents often are not provided with information about GT and magnet programs
and how to prepare their students for rigorous curriculum.
• Parental involvement by African American and Hispanic parents is crucial when
considering the success of these students.
Introduction
Parental outreach by schools is integral to connecting schools and parents. As this relationship
forms and is fostered, an improvement in communication, access, and most important, parental
involvement will be evident. Parental involvement not only helps to empower parents to become
avid advocates for their children, but also influences children’s developmental and educational
outcomes through such mechanisms as modeling and reinforcement and instruction, as mediated
by the parent’s use of developmentally appropriate activities and the fit between parental
activities and the school’s expectations (Hoover-Dempsy and Sandler, 1995). The barriers to
parental involvement in schools include, but are not limited to, income, ethnicity, language,
alienation from schools, and attitudes of teachers. A high priority should be placed on removing
barriers and designing activities to stimulate and maintain parental involvement. Epstein
suggests designing parental outreach efforts around the following themes: (1) basic obligations
of families to provide for the safety and health of their children; (2) basic obligation of schools to
communicate with families about school programs and the individual progress of their children;
(3) parental involvement at school; (4) parental involvement in learning activities at home; (5)
parental involvement in decision making at school, and (6) collaboration and exchange with
community organizations (Eccles and Harold, 1993). These provide the basis for the following
recommendations:
• Distribute literature about rigorous curriculum, GT, and Magnet opportunities within
MCPS at kindergarten roundup and other similar gatherings (i.e., Aim High; Parent’s
Guide to Kindergarten; A Resource Guide to Services, Support, and Advocacy Groups in
GT Education, etc.). Provide opportunities to discuss or respond to questions during
meetings or link interested parents with appropriate personnel.
• Staff members will be available to speak with parents about GT curriculum and other
opportunities for exposure to rigor available within the school and throughout the county
at Back to School Night.

• Teachers will use parent/teacher conferences as an opportunity to discuss and show how
their children have been exposed to rigorous materials and give suggestions to parents on
how they can support their child’s academic success (i.e. models of student work,
curriculum guides, etc.).
• Hold annual informational meetings for all elementary school parents about GT
instruction, identification, and the Highly Gifted Centers.
• Hold special informational meetings for Grade 5 parents in addition to the annual
informational meeting for all parents. This meeting would also be hosted by elementary
schools and would further address middle school accelerated learning opportunities,
including accessing Honors classes and other issues that are germane to Grade 5 students
(i.e., family life education, middle school experience, etc.).
• Meetings targeting Grade 8 students regarding high school magnets and other accelerated
learning opportunities, should be conducted during the first semester of each school year
by Accelerated and Enriched Instruction (AEI) staff.
• Information about Honors, AP, and other accelerated programs offered at the home
school and how parents can access them for their children should be provided during
regularly scheduled Grade 9 parent meetings.
• Opportunities for parents and prospective students to hear testimonials from students
currently enrolled in accelerated programs (i.e., Honors, AP, academies, IB, and magnet
programs) should be presented.
• Working in collaboration with other departments in MCPS and the county, the AEI will
create workshops to train parents as education promoters in their communities.
Education promoters will work with parents at every level to explain resources within
MCPS that encourage participation in accelerated academic programs. Some of the
activities education promoters will perform are listed below:
o Assist with magnet school application preparation
o Assist parents in understanding their role in the parent-teacher conference.
o Assist parents in filling out the course selection for middle and high school.
o Work with parents on activities they can implement at home to support a rigorous
program.
MCPS should explore ways in which to compensate these promoters (i.e., stipend, gift
card, etc.). The role of education promoters could be expanded to broader issues related
to navigating the school system.
• Principals will share best practices for parent outreach at their various meetings.
• Transportation and childcare should be provided when needed.
Parent outreach is essential to educational success. Outreach stimulates parent involvement,

making it one of the most practical and effective means of improving educational outcomes. It

has the potential to increase student performance, narrow the achievement gap, increase college
application rates, and lower suspension rates. There are also long-term implications for other
disparities, including those found in health care and economics. These recommendations are
intended to educate parents about available educational opportunities that will help prepare their
children for college and the workforce. When parents are better informed and become involved
they can work together with teachers to provide the necessary support and assistance for
students. Finally, most of these recommendations can be easily implemented at little or no cost to
the school which eliminates the need to secure funding.
Institutional Advocacy
• Pooling the 0.5 GT positions into a team of full-timers, who can best focus their efforts
on a coordinated objective of supporting GT initiatives, which include serving as
advocates for students.
• Expanding the number of school counselors, so that they can truly fulfill their—already
written—advocacy mandate.

Deputy Superintendent’s Advisory Committee for Gifted and Talented Education
Education Report
Recommendation One: Strengthen accountability measures
Implementation Strategy A: Make improvements in the program-monitoring process in

order to better examine the outcomes of GT services
IA1. Require yearly status reports
IA2. Enhance evaluation criteria in the program-monitoring process
IA3. Expand participation of AEI in walk-throughs
IA4. Collect parent feedback
IA5. Publish summary indicators
Implementation Strategy B: Develop an annual report devoted to GT programs and

include GT data in existing annual reports
IB1. Collect and report performance data

IB2. Publish an annual performance report with a longitudinal component
IB3. Document and publish local programs and offerings
Implementation Strategy C: Build accountability measures into the local school

improvement plan and expand the role of the GT Committee
Implementation Strategy D: Include criteria for GT policy implementation in staff

performance evaluations
ID1. Include a GT component in the evaluation criteria for principals and supervisory
staff
ID2. Include a GT component in the evaluation criteria for staff development
teachers
ID3. Add evaluation criteria for elementary school GT liaisons and 0.2 GT
coordinators
ID4. Include a GT component in evaluation criteria for guidance counselors
ID5. Include a GT component in the evaluation criteria for all instructional staff
Recommendation Two: Improve and expand programs
Implementation Strategy A: Strengthen the model for the delivery of GT services at the
local school level
IIA1. Define components of an effective GT program
IIA2. Allocate a part-time GT specialist in every elementary school
IIA3. Enhance the role of the 0.2 GT coordinator
Implementation Strategy B: Expand existing programs to meet the growing needs of the
county
IIB1. Expand seats in Center Programs for the Highly Gifted and middle and high
school magnets
IIB2. Fund an upcounty magnet high school
IIB3. Expand programming and services for GT/LD students
IIB4. Expand programming for students with nontraditional forms of giftedness
Implementation Strategy C: Enhance staff development and support activities for key
local school staff involved in GT service delivery
IIC1. Expand gifted education training for instructional staff
IIC2. Reinstate specialized GT in-service classes
IIC3. Train and support staff development teachers
IIC4. Train and support GT liaisons and 0.2 GT coordinators
IIC5. Develop GT training for guidance counselors
IIC6. Train and support principals and supervisory staff
IIC7. Expand use of communication technologies to deliver student data to teachers
IIC8. Expand the AEI Website
Implementation Strategy D: Disseminate to local schools models of service delivery

from center and magnet programs to strengthen their programs
IID1. Disseminate lessons, materials, and resources from centers and magnet
schools
IID2. Use centers and magnets for professional development experiences
IID3. Allocate time for dissemination and collegial conversations
ii
Recommendation Three: Implement systematic collection and analysis of data
Implementation Strategy A: Collect longitudinal data and use the ability of systems
such as the IMS and Data Warehouse to ensure retention of student assessment data
Implementation Strategy B: Take inventory, evaluate, and consolidate existing GT data

collection efforts
Implementation Strategy C: Use data to strengthen GT identification and center and

magnet invitation processes
IIIC1. Create a structure for collecting data K–12
IIIC2. Use data to inform selection and expansion of programs
IIIC3. Backmap data
IIIC4. Use data as a predictor for success
Implementation Strategy D: Seek stakeholder input on data collection
Recommendation Four: Provide equal access for all students to GT programs

and services
Implementation Strategy A: Improve the screening process for test-in programs to

recognize various manifestations of giftedness
Implementation Strategy B: Continue revising global screening
Implementation Strategy C: Enhance training for staff so that they can better recognize
and support students who could benefit from greater rigor
Implementation Strategy D: Strengthen Parental Outreach and Training

IVC1: Outreach
IVC2: Provide easily accessible and understandable data
Implementation Strategy E: Promote institutional advocacy
iii

MCPS DSAC Report Final

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

MCPS DSAC Report Final

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Schools

MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

November 20, 2006

To: Dr. Jerry D. Weast, Superintendent of Schools

From: Frieda K. Lacey, Deputy Superintendent of Schools

Subject: Deputy Superintendent’s Advisory Committee on Gifted and Talented

• Staff in AEI is working with community superintendents to implement a monitoring

Gifted and Talented Education Report 2

Policy Implementation: Successes

Policy Implementation: Challenges

The Committee Process

Recommendation One: Strengthen Accountability Measures

Recommendation Two: Improve and Expand Programs

Recommendation Three: Implement Systematic Collection and Analysis of Data

Appendix A: Deputy Superintendent’s Advisory Committee for Gifted Education

Appendix B: Data Regarding Access to GT Programs, Services and Outcomes

Appendix C: Professional Development: Culture Competency and Gifted Education

Appendix D: Teaching the Highly Able Student

Appendix E: Specific Recommendations Regarding Data Availability

Appendix F: Parent Outreach and Institutional Advocacy

Gifted and Talented Education Report i

Gifted and Talented Education Report ii

I Strengthen Accountability Measures

• monitors the outcomes of its gifted services;

• provides professional development for key school-based staff responsible for

Gifted and Talented Education Report iii

The Committee believes that MCPS should–

III. Implement Systematic Collection and Analysis of Data

• strengthening the ability of MCPS-wide data systems such as the Instructional

Gifted and Talented Education Report iv

• Strengthen parent involvement in GT issues through more effective outreach, and

Gifted and Talented Education Report v

Policy Implementation: Successes

Gifted and Talented Education Report 1

Policy Implementation: Challenges

Gifted and Talented Education Report 2

The deputy superintendent of schools convened the Deputy Superintendent’s Advisory

Gifted and Talented Education Report 3

I. Strengthen Accountability Measures

II. Improve and Expand Programs

III. Implement Systematic Collection and Analysis of Data

Gifted and Talented Education Report 4

Implementation Strategy A: Make improvements in the program-monitoring

IA1. Require yearly status reports

IA2. Enhance evaluation criteria in the program-monitoring process

Gifted and Talented Education Report 5

IA4. Collect parent feedback

IA5. Publish summary indicators

Implementation Strategy B: Develop an annual report devoted to GT programs

IB1. Collect and report performance data

IB2. Publish an annual performance report with a longitudinal component

Gifted and Talented Education Report 6

IB3. Document and publish local programs and offerings

Implementation Strategy C: Build accountability measures into the local school

Gifted and Talented Education Report 7

Implementation Strategy D: Include criteria for GT policy implementation in staff

ID1. Include a GT component in the evaluation criteria for principals and

ID2. Include a GT component in the evaluation criteria for staff development

ID4. Include a GT component in evaluation criteria for guidance counselors

Summary of Implementation Strategies for Recommendation One

Gifted and Talented Education Report 8

Implementation Strategy A: Strengthen the model for the delivery of GT services

IIA1. Define components of an effective GT program

IIA2. Allocate a part-time GT specialist in every elementary school