STARR 9.12.11 LISTEN AND LEARN AT SPRINGBROOK HIGH SCHOOL Frederick Stichnoth, fred.stichnoth@yahoo.

com September 13, 2011 Superintendent Dr. Joshua Starr conducted the second in a planned series of 10 Listen and Learn events. This is a summary of and comment on his opening remarks, parent questions and Superintendent responses. The meeting was fairly well-attended, perhaps by 250 parents, and also by Board members Kauffman and Durso, Chief School Performance Officer Frank Stetson, Chief of Staff Brian Edwards, new NEC/Sherwood Community Superintendent Beth Schiavino-Narvaez, Department of Enriched and Innovative Programs Director Martin Creel, White Oak Middle School principal Virginia de los Santos, new Springbrook principal Sam Rivera, Springbrook assistant principals and teachers. Translators were available. Notes were taken on large sheets of paper taped to the wall. I could not read the notes from where I sat. I do not know what will be done with them. SUMMARY Parents main concerns were support for ability grouping, red zone education inequity, and Northeast Consortium choice process dysfunction. Dr. Starr displayed an interesting sociological outlook, skepticism of parents, true belief in heterogeneous classrooms and in-class differentiation, and willingness to understand variability among schools in a school-by-school, atomistic way (i.e, not correlated with FARMS). With respect to gifted and talented education, Dr. Starr supports access of all students, heterogeneous grouping and magnets (an unexplained exception to heterogeneous grouping). No decision has been made with respect to the continuation of such acceleration opportunities as continue to exist, including accelerated math in the upper grades. Needs of higher-ability students, including higher-ability math students in lower grades, will be addressed through differentiation. Dr. Starrs overall function was to stake out positions contrary to the main concerns of parents. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Dr. Starr said that he was listening: he was not ready to make statements and/or judgments, and could not solve every problem. Two on-going processes would facilitate

his understanding of the system: the transition team comprised of insiders and some outsiders which would deliver its report next week; and the Listen and Learn events. His budget would be a manifestation of what he had learned. Dr. Starr was born in Brooklyn, grew up in Westchester County, began his career as a Special Education teacher, worked in accountability and curriculum in New York City, served as Superintendent in Stamford, Connecticut. Stamford is one-tenth the size of MCPS, but has a very similar demographic make up. Stamford required a 180: this is not the case in MCPS. Whats gone on here is remarkable, and citizens should be quite proud. We are the first school system to have gone to the moon; now we have to figure out how to get to Mars. Will the same tools suffice? Dr. Starr has begun to perceive certain patterns and themes. First, there is variability. Schools with similar characteristics differ in programming and results. Also there is variability within schools. Second, there are lots of initiatives, lots of stuff going on. Dr. Starr wants to slow down, take a deep breath, and see how everything fits together. MCPS cannot do everything well; programming requires time and money, and resources are declining. Third, Dr. Starr will emphasize accountability: Are we sure were doing it? He mentioned accountability for race and for professional development. He pays attention to the say/do ratio: promises made versus performance undertaken. He believes in reciprocal accountability, in which the central office is responsible to provide support and resources to the schools. Adults can learn from each other. Fourth, Dr. Starr hopes to expand the circle of stakeholder involvement. Fifth, he remarked on how much Montgomery County residents value schools and their staff. QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES Question 1. A parent asked whether Dr. Starrs children attend MCPS schools. The parent commented that many students in Advanced Placement and Honors classes were not ready for those classes. AP has morphed. Students are not well-served by the heterogeneity of ability in these classes. Dr. Starr responded that schools are a great sorting mechanism, and referred to James Conant Bryants factory model. Schools perpetuate the social and democratic order. Eighty-three percent of new jobs will require some type of higher education. Schools have not been fulfilling their mission in preparing students to fill these jobs and participate in society. There are many gates associated with AP and Honors. More students should have access. Data shows that, when schools raise standards, students meet them.

Stamfords Project Open Door succeeded: AP participation and supports for teachers increased; more students attained scores of 3 or higher on the AP exam; students were supported in overcoming barriers. Question 2. A parent asked about system supports for middle-performing students, particularly Latinos, to prevent dropping out. Dr. Starr said that schools needed to name names. Every student must have at least one adult in the school building who knows that student. Dr. Starr also mentioned interventions and supports, offering the AVID program as an example. Question 3. A parent of a student at Jackson Road Elementary School pointed out that many schools did not have a large and active parent group. Leadership must be developed. Many active and vocal parents left the school. Dr. Starr responded that in any community there are many very vocal folks. One had to inquire as to their credibility, and Dr. Starr believes that he has a very good filter for this. He does not believe that many people in the County know that whole of the system; he contrasted a single area of the County to the whole. We should strive to understand the dynamics throughout the County. He is fortunate, by reason of a very competent staff that runs day-to-day affairs, to be able to get out and see all of the schools. Question 4. A parent observed that many students academic performance was bolstered by their athletic participation; once that participation ended, grades dropped. Dr. Starr said that he did not have a plan for this. He again emphasized naming names: every student should be supported by at least one adult in the school building. Question 5. A parent commented on the equity issue in the Northeast Consortium and throughout the County. There is an East-West divide. As an example, he mentioned trips to Capitol Hill financed by parents in the West-County. All students deserve support to have the same opportunities. Dr. Starr has heard about these differences, real and perceived. He must tease out the reality from the perceptions. Question 6. A parent said that parents and students were aware of the curriculum only as it was presented day-by-day. He would like to be able to know where the curriculum was headed over the next several-month period, and order to better participate in the learning of his child. Dr. Starr agreed that parents should know what curriculum will be presented.

Question 7. A parent commented again on inequality, particularly the difference in quality and achievement gap between proximate schools that had caused him to send one of his children to private school. Dr. Starr said that the system needed to be accountable, with a well thought-out strategy. Schools had life cycles of better and worse performance. Question 8. A parent with a student at Argyle Middle School, a middle school magnet consortium school, asked about the continuation of middle school reform, particularly innovative programs like that at Argyle, in light of budget constraints. Dr. Starr mentioned his say/do ratio: if we say we will do it, do we follow through? He perceived that middle school reform is in limbo; it is something that he will take a look at. Question 9. A parent discussed ability grouping. She asked how Lexiles might fit into grouping. She suggested comparing median Lexile scores at Burnt Mill (an NEC elementary school) and Burning Tree. California groups its Gate students. Dr. Starr said that there is no one-size-fits-all. Students move ahead in different ways, times and contexts. In education, school systems are boxed-in by year-to-year decisions, while individual students may make huge progress over a few-month period and then be stagnant for the next several months. We need different supports in the classroom. Lexiles provide useful data in determining what kind of book a student should read, but should not be used for the purpose of ability grouping. Question 10. A Springbrook High School student asked for modification in the application of the NEC choice mechanism. He noted that Springbrook had a census at 84 percent of its capacity, whereas each of the other two consortium high schools exceeds 100 percent of capacity. He observed that these schools were seen as more attractive than Springbrook. Dr. Starr said that he supports the choice process. Choice is the American way in our consumer society. He did not know why parents choice of school x (i.e., one of the two more attractive NEC schools) should be understood as bad for school y (i.e., Springbrook). Students do well when an adult in the building supports them, when they are challenged and engaged (such as by the Elementary Integrated Curriculum). Question 11. A parent asked about Dr. Starrs philosophy regarding homework. Dr. Starr said that he often is unsure about what homework accomplishes; it should not be busy-work. Some parents think that there is a correlation between homework and rigor; there is no correlation. Question 12. A parent asked about the Burnt Mills Spanish Immersion program.

Dr. Starr said that this was a technical question that he could not answer. Question 13. A parent observed that discrepancies were hidden by magnet programs. We must understand what benefits magnets provide. Dr. Starr said that he supports a strong magnet program. We need to find the right balance and be transparent. He said that people have a tendency to perceive value on the basis of whether someone else has something. Question 14. A parent asked about the new Elementary Integrated Curriculum. She said that students liked challenge. Parents at her school had met with the principal, and the principal had said that there is no room for acceleration in mathematics under the EIC. The parent said that students already had mastered the on-grade curriculum standards, and that it would be wasteful for them to spend a whole year repeating it. Why cap kids? Dr. Starr said the EIC, also called Curriculum 2.0, allowed learning in an integrated way. With math, there are issues. Who gets acceleration? The old system was not working for a lot of students; some were over-accelerated. The new curriculum provides enormous resources to allow teachers and students to go deeper. Students were helped in developing number sense. Teachers may not yet be familiar with the curriculum. They were being provided resources and training to help them differentiate. No decision has yet been made regarding math acceleration in the upper grades. Question 15. A parent inquired about non-teaching MCPS positions, and suggested an objective, perhaps independent, evaluation of the need for the current number of these positions. He suggested the MCPS consolidate to save money. Dr. Starr said that he looked at every position in compiling the budget. Nonteaching positions were necessary to allow teachers to have what they need. He had read a study to the effect that education has one of the worst ratios of line workers to total staff; i.e., there are few supervisors to many teachers. Question 16. A parent asked Dr. Starr how MCPS will support the choice process, with equality. She said that one school (Springbrook) has a high FARMS population and is under-capacity; this school will decline in the perception of parents and potential students. Dr. Starr said that choice should not be an either/or. Schools should focus on things they can control; and we cannot control which schools families choose. If we want Springbrook to be the best school, then what is the vision in the school? Question 17. A parent asked about MCPS response to different student learning styles (e.g., kinesthetic and tactile).

Dr. Starr responded that recent research had revealed that there are not as many different learning styles as had previously been thought. Question 18. A parent with students at White Oak and Key Middle Schools (base area schools for Springbrook High School) advocated ability grouping, stating that students were bored and that parents were pulling students out of these schools. Dr. Starr said that in a properly-differentiated classroom no student is bored. We need to raise the bar for all children. He pointed to his track record in Stamford in which he lead reforms that raised standards and performance for all students, including black, brown and poor. He asserted that the world is not grouped by ability; we are supposed to work with each other, and learn and grow together. (He made an under-thebreath aside acknowledging grouping by housing price.) On the other hand, parents have the right to make sure that their children are challenged at the appropriate level. We need great curriculum and professional development. He has not made up his mind about continuation of acceleration opportunities that currently exist. The EIC is very promising. The use of strict ability grouping has not served the entirety of the population, although it has served portions of the population very well. He should be held accountable for both remediation and acceleration. We should focus on shared interests. Question 19. A parent with a student in danger of dropping out of school asked about possible remedies. Dr. Starr said that the parent should talk with the school principal. Question 20. A former MCPS and private school principal asked about school security and school resource officers. Dr. Starr said that schools must be safe. This begins with naming names: the relationships between individual students and individual adults within the school building. Dr. Starr supports school resource officers, on the conditions that (1) the right people hold these positions; (2) the officers are supervised by the Police Department; (3) the principal, not the officer, is in charge of the building; (4) MCPS not be responsible for paying the officers salaries and benefits. OVERVIEW OF PARENT AND SUPERINTENDENT POSITIONS Parents interests. The concerns of the NEC parents who attended the meeting might be best grasped by categorizing them. Support for ability grouping Question 1: Question 9: Question 14: Question 18: AP and Honors Lexiles, California model EICno math acceleration Boredom, parents leaving NEC schools

Inequity of red zone education Question 2: Question 3: Question 5: Question 7: Question 19: Latino dropouts Differential parent involvement Differential parent supportfield trips Variable proximate schools, parents leaving NEC Latino dropouts

Dysfunctional NEC Choice process Question 10: Census/capacity differences, Springbrook less attractive Question 16: Springbrook: high FARMS, under-capacity, declining perception Technical/miscellaneous Question 4: Question 6: Question 8: Question 11: Question 12: Question 13: Question 15: Question 17: Question 20: Academic performance linked to athletic participation Parent understanding of upcoming curriculum Budgetmiddle school magnet consortium continuation Homework Spanish immersion Magnet benefits and discrepancies Budgetnon-teaching MCPS positions Learning styles Security, school resource officers

Superintendents themes. Dr. Starrs responses reveal the following themes. Sociological outlook Question 1: Schools as a great sorting mechanism Question 10: Choice is the American, consumer-society, way Question 18: World is not grouped by ability, except by housing price Political skepticism Introduction: Expand circle of involved stakeholders Question 3: Questionable credibility of very vocal folks Skeptical that parents know the whole system Question 5: Questionable reality v. perception of red/green disparity Question 13: Tendency to perceive value based on covetous comparison Naming names: every student linked to adult in building

Question 2: Question 4: Question 10: Question 20:

Response to Latino dropout problem Response to academic/athletic link Response to Springbrook choice problem Basis of school security

Heterogeneous classroom with differentiated instruction Question 1: Question 9: Question 13: Question 14: Question 18: Accountability Introduction: Question 7: Question 8: Question 18: Reciprocal accountability, say/do ratio Response to variability among red zone schools Say/do ratio response to MSMC continuation MCPS accountable for remediation and acceleration Expanded AP and Honors access Spurts of individual development; supports in classroom Exception: strong magnet support Differentiation to solve math deceleration Proper differentiation eliminates student boredom

Variability among schools Introduction: Question 7: Question 13: Question 16: school Listen, learn, but stake out positions. Contrary to Dr. Starrs introductory professed unwillingness to make statements and/or judgments, a major purpose of this meeting was to stake out positions, draw lines and deflect issue and activists. Dr. Starr is firmly opposed to ability grouping (except in magnets), and supports greater program access among all students. Acceleration and ability grouping have worked well for some students but not for others. He is a true believer in in-class differentiation. Dr. Starr is skeptical of very vocal folks and doubts that parents can know the whole system. Dr. Starr downplays the red zone/green zone disparity. Inequality is a matter of school life cycles. Dr. Starr believes that schools should solve their own problems and make their own way. He does not know why disproportionate choice of Blake and Paint Branch High Schools would be bad for Springbrook High School. He criticizes the perception of Among schools with similar characteristics Schools have life cycles Criticism of value depending on whether someone else has Schools focus on what they can control, vision within

value based on whether someone else has something. Schools should control what they can control; we cannot control families choice of schools. Parents repeatedly expressed three concerns: support for ability grouping, concern with red zone/green zone inequity and the NEC choice dysfunction. While one presumes that Dr. Starr heard the repetition of these concerns (and that they are memorialized in the notes taken by MCPS employees), he did not support or assume accountability for any of the three concerns, but staked out a position in opposition to each one of them. MY BRIEF RESPONSE Ability grouping. As over 850 parents have commented, MCPS must Challenge Every Child. http://www.gtamc.org/challenge-every-child. It is not managing to do so. Every teacher differentiates to some degree. As the breadth of student abilities within the classroom expands, the difficulty of differentiation expands. Superstar teachers can manage this difficulty; average teachers cannot; MCPS cannot base its strategy on the fantasy of a superstar teacher in every classroom. Ability grouping has been proven to work for high- and low-achievers, and to improve self-esteem both high- and low-achievers. (Kulik, Slavin) The position against ability grouping is very heavily influenced by ideology, as distinguished from pedagogy. Inequity in the red zone. MCPS defines equity as expectations and access for all students so that outcomes are not predictable by race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, language proficiency, or disability. Inspection of school-byschool MCPS data, and scatter plot graphing of this data, displays the firm correlation of performance against MCPS standard benchmarks and race, ethnicity and socioeconomic status. The red zone, the NEC (with the Downcounty Consortium), and Springbrook High School are ground zero of inequity. The Board professes to be committed to doing whatever it takes to eliminate the inequity. However, Dr. Starr studies variability among groups of schools with similar characteristics (euphemism for similar percentages of poor, African-American and Latino students); one would infer that variability between groups of schools with differing characteristics (e.g., rich schools as compared with poor schools) does not constitute inequity subject to the Boards commitment. The inference is corroborated by continuing inaction. Dr. Starr seems to believe that each school, and each principal, is responsible for its own fate. MCPS has begun relieving red zone principals of their assignments due to

their failure to achieve equity at the lowest benchmark: NCLB proficiency. These principals are being scapegoated. MCPS preserves inequity by its complicity in assigning poor students to one set of schools and wealthier students to another set of schools: Dr. Starr noted sorting by house price (residential tracking). We look forward to Dr. Starrs reciprocal accountability: Dr. Starr, the new Community Superintendent and Carver generally must stop the plausible deniability and put some skin in the game. Choice dysfunction. Springbrooks census is decreasing, its share of everFARMS students is increasing, and its test scores are in the bottom quartile of MCPS high school scores and declining. MCPS proudly admits to maximizing first choice, which is absolutely contrary to the law establish by Board resolutions and which has permitted these adverse trends to pass a tipping point. MCPS does not act to restore Springbrooks attractiveness, though such intervention by the central office is integral to choice theory and nationwide choice practice. Contrary to Dr. Starrs assertion, we can control which schools families choose through investment and program improvement. Erick Lang, Marty Creel, and Phil Kauffman each have advised that its just a phase were going throughmarket your way out of it. Dr. Starr stakes out the position that the school should pull itself up by its bootstrapssink or swim on its own. Parents perceive that the school is sinking. Staking out a position against parents. Dr. Starrs welcoming message is not well work with you to address your concerns. Rather, he questions vocal parents credibility, parents ability to understand the system, and parents perception versus reality of SES disparities. The system knows best with regard to ability grouping, the red/green disparity and Springbrook/NEC choice dysfunction.

10