“DEFINING DIFFERENTIATION DOWN” IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY

PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Reflection based on Leading for Equity

Frederick Stichnoth
August 31, 2009

Egregious achievement gaps pers ist among demographic groups in Montgomery

County (Maryland) Public Schools. Housing price disparities sort students, containing
minority and FARMS students in red zone schools . MCPS’ school assignment practices
ratifying this “ins titutional barrier” to equity -- “institutional racism” -- contort MCPS’
equity strategy.

MCPS Superintendent Dr. Jerry D. Weast proclaimed a strategy of differentiating

the allocation of system resources between the red zone and the wealthier, whiter, green
zone in order to ameliorate the gaps. However, it is not clear whether differentiation
remains a central aspect of MCPS strategy, or how MCPS’ intensified rhetoric of
excellence and equity will affect the development of whatever differentiation strategy
does remain. The new rhetoric, elicited by the intractable persistence of the gaps, tacitly
testifies that MCPS’ modest differentiation has not worked.

Toleration of residential sorting is complemented by diffident resource

differentiation, modest system -wide performance targets (which MCPS acknowledges to
be lower in the red zone than in the green zone) and lesser programming in the red zone:
defining differentiation down.

Leading for Equity: The Pursuit of Excellence in Montgomery County Public

Schools , by Stacey M. Childress, Denis P. Doyle, David A. Thomas, Harvard Education
Press, July 2009, celebrates Dr. Weast’s pursuit of equity. (Page numbers that are not
otherwise attributed pertain to this book.) The celebration overlooks MCPS’ partial
definition of equ ity and the perverse effects of its single -minded pursuit. Nor does the
book present the statistics, which show that performance outcomes remain predictable by
race, ethnicity and socio -economic status, with poor performance localized in the low -
SES red zone.

Simplistic equity neither fits the system’s complex demographic mix, largely
segregated in contrasting socio-economic zones, nor furthers Dr. Weast’s boldly
proclaimed but perversely implemented “differentiated” approach to these zones. MCPS’
simpl istic equity is the wrong tool for the task. As a direct consequence of its use, high-
performing red zone students are underserved and their parents shut out of participation.

The title refers toDaniel Patrick Moynihan’s "Defining deviancy down: How we've become accustomed to
alarming levels of crime and destructive behavior." The American Scholar, (Winter, 1993).
 Equity should be redefined to focus on demographic parity across the full
spectrum of performance outcomes produced by the system and to mandate equal access
to programming in addition to equal outcomes. In so doing, MCPS would resume
serving “all” students, not deferring service to some while “serving the neediest first. ”
To serve all students equitably , MCPS must supplement rhetoric with i mplementation of
Dr. Weast’s differentiated allocation of resources strategy.

Demographics: Red Zone and Green Zone Sorting. In MCPS, racial, ethnic
and socio-economic status groups are distinguished not only by their education outcomes
but also by residential geography. African-American and Hispanic, high -poverty, lower-
performing students are concentrated in that half of MCPS schools which are located in
an area of the County that Dr. Weast labeled the “red zone;” white, higher-SES, better-
performing students live in the “green zone.” This is Dr. Weast’s basic insight, from
which initial strategy developed:

‘My first approach was to define the problem and try to understand the issues we
were working on before looking for solutions. Then the question became, what
do you do if 75-80% of all minority students live in a well -defined geographical
area, 75-80% of all poverty is in that same area, 75-80% of all students learning
English are in that same area, and disproportionately lower student performance
occurs across that same geographical area?’ 34

Green Zone/Red Zone Demographic Comparison

Green Zone Red Zone

Number of students 72,944 67,129
Percentage “minority” 38 75
Percentage FARMS 9 37
Percentage ESOL 5 14
Application for 2006 Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award,
MCPS, May 2006, Figure 3.1-2, page 14.

The red zone contains 64.4 percent of all MCPS “minority” students and 79 percent of all
MCPS FARMS students.

MCPS developed a Northeast Consortium of three red zone high schools and a
Downcounty Consortium of five red zone high schools in the late 1990’s for the pu rpose
of supporting integration (as well as addressing overcrowding, improving student
achievement and narrowing the achievement gap). A recent report concludes that
“neither consortium reversed minority isolation nor improved socio -economic
integration. For the most part, the decreases in White enrollment among consortia high
schools mirrored trends experienced among all MCPS high schools. However, consortia
increases among students ever eligible for Free and Reduced Priced Meals exceeded
districtwide trends.” Cost and Performance of Montgomery County
Public Schools’ High School Consortia, OLO Report Number 2009-4, Office of
Legislative Oversight, Montgomery County Co uncil, November 25, 2008, page ii.
http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/council/olo/reports/pdf/2009 -4.pdf;

2
data appendices--
http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/council/olo/reports/pdf/2009 -
4_appendix.pdf .

MCPS’ school assignment practices conspire with resident ial sorting to contain
minority and FARMS students in red zone schools . Thus, MCPS imposes an
“institutional barrier” (see “School as an equity lever,” below) to the realization of equity,
which contorts its own equity strategy.

Because the consortia strategy failed and MCPS does not address the basic
institutional barrier that supports segregation, any strategy, and every programmatic
tactic, must account for this conjunction of residential demographics and variable
performance. But, contrary to Dr. Weast’s proclaimed “differentiation” strategy, MCPS
has largely defined differentiation down.

Gaps: Black/White, Red/Green. Leading for Equity is remarkably short on the

data that would measure leadership’s attainment of equity . The following data are
derived elsewhere.

The table below displays the persistence of egregious racial achievement gaps for
MCPS as a whole. It presents the 2008 “Student Performance Targets” from MCPS’
strategic plan, Our Call to Action (OCA), the related but higher Seven Keys to College
Readiness (7K) benchmarks (see “Excellence, differentiated down ,” below), and the
respective percentages of all students, African -American students and white students who
reached these targets.

2007-2008 Results on OCA/Seven Keys Benchmarks

Benchmark MCPS % All African- White
(OCA and/or 7K) target % American % %
K: reading text level 3-OCA TBD 92.6 90.5 96.5
text level 6-7K None 65.4 58.5 77.2
G 2: TN/2 50th percentile-OCA TBD 72.2 56.0 86.3
th
70 percentile-7K None NA NA NA
ES: reading MSA proficient or 71.8 90 82 96
higher-OCA
Advanced-7K None 41 23 56
MS: reading MSA proficient or 71.1 86 77 95
higher-OCA
Advanced-7K None 53 33 72
G 5: Grade 6 Math proficiency 37.2 43.1 25.1 56.8
G 8: Algebra 1, grade D or 67.3 59.6 38.4 74.7
higher-OCA
C or higher-7K None NA NA NA
G 11: Algebra 2 None NA NA NA
Grade 12: AP 3 or IB 4 56.6 47.4 20.5 59.6
Grade 12: SAT 1650 or ACT 24 None 37.6 11.5 53.9

3
OCA % Targets: Our Call to Action: Pursuit of Excellence: The Strategic Plan for the Montgomery
County Public Schools, 2009-2014, approved by the Board of Education June 22, 2009, pages 6-7.
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/boe/meetings/agenda/2008-09/2009-
0622/5.0%20Our%20Call%20to%20Action%2006 -22-09.pdf.

K reading: “Attainment of End-of-Year Reading Benchmarks in Kindergarten to Grade 2: 2006-2008,”

Clare Von Secker, Huafang Zhao, Marilyn Powell, MCPS Office of Shared Accountability, September
2008, Table A2, page 23.
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/2008/K-
2Benchmarks_09-26-08.pdf.

TN/2: Memorandum, “Performance of Montgomery County Public Schools Grade 2 Students on the 2008
TerraNova Second Edition,” Dr. Stacy L. Scott, Associate Superintendent, MCPS Office of Shared
Accountability, to Elementary School Principals, September 8, 2008, Table 1, page 1.
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/2008/2008TN2-
PrincipalMemo.pdf. *Sets out 50th percentile, not 70th percentile, data. 70th percentile data is not yet
available to the public, per 11/7/08 email from Dr. Stacy L. Scott. The percentages of students with
composite scores at or above the 50th NCE are presented in aggregate for the red zone (61.2%), the green
zone (81.7%) and all MCPS (72.2%).

2008 MSA reading advanced: 2008 Annual Re port on Our Call to Action, MCPS, pages 7-8.
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/about/strategicplan/annualreport/pdf/AnnualReportCalltoAc tion08.
pdf.
School Improvement in Maryland, Maryland State Department of Education.
http://www.mdk12.org/data/NewGraphs.aspx?Nav=20.1|1.2|2.22|5.2|3.4|10.15|15.99#datatable -allgrades.

Math 6: 2008 Annual Report on Our Call to Action, MCPS, page (vii).
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/about/strategicplan/annualreport/pdf/AnnualReportCalltoAction08.
pdf. 37% of red zone students and 51% of green zone students enrolled in Math 6 or higher in Grade 5
(2006-2007). Presentation, “School Finance and the Achievement Gap: Funding Programs the Work,” Dr.
Frieda K. Lacey,MCPS Deputy Superintendent, The 2008 ETS Addressing the Achievement Gaps
Symposiums, page 25. http://www.ets.org/Media/Education_Topics/pdf/school%20finance/Lacey.pdf.

Algebra 1: “Successful Completion of Algebra 1 or Higher-level Mathematics and Successful Completion

of Geometry or Higher-level Mathematics 2007-2008,” Missy Gumula, MCPS Department of Policy,
Records, and Reporting, February 2009, Table 3, page 4.
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/regulatoryaccountability/pdf/repo rts/AlgebraGeometry
2008.pdf.

Algebra 2: This data is not yet available to the public, per 4/14/09 email from Dr. StacyL. Scott, Associate
Superintendent, Office of Shared Accountability.

AP: 2008 Annual Report on Our Call to Action, page (x).

http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/about/strategicplan/annualreport/pdf/AnnualReportCalltoAction08.
pdf.

SAT: Memorandum, “SAT Participation and Performance of the MCPS Class of 2008,”Superintendent
to Board of Education, August 26, 2008, Table A11: percentage of graduates who achieved SAT combined
score 1650 or higher and/or and ACT composite score 24 or higher.
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/info/pdf/SATScoresClassOf2008.pdf.

2008 Annual Report on Our Call to Action, pages vii-x.

http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/about/strategicplan/annualreport/pdf/AnnualReportCalltoAction08.
pdf. OCA and the Annual Report target a mean score for graduates who participated in the SAT: 1638 in

4
2007, 1642 in 2008, 1646 in 2009 and 1650 in 2010. The 2008 and 2009 mean scores by demographic
group are provided in the following table.

MCPS benchmark targets culminate in an SAT target score of 1650. The

following table shows the 2008 and 2009 mean SAT combined scores of students who
took the test, by demographic group.

2008 and 2009 SAT Mean Combined Scores

of SAT Participants by Demographic Group

Demographic group 2008 2009

OCA 2008 Target 1642 1646
All students 1616 1615
African-American 1336 1356
Asian-American 1720 1748
Hispanic 1401 1398
White 1740 1733
2008 Annual Report on Our Call to Action, page ix.
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/about/strategicplan/annualreport/pdf/AnnualReportCalltoAction08.
pdf.

“Trends in ACT and SAT Testing Taking: 2006 to 2008, Performance Update,” Clare Von Secker, MCPS
Applied Research Unit, November 2008, Table 3, page 3.
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/2008/2008SSAT-
ACTUpdate_forWeb.pdf.

"2009 SAT Participation and Performance for Montgomery County Public Schools, Maryland, and the
Nation," Shihching Liu and Clare Von Secker, MCPS Applied Research Unit, August 2009, Table A3.
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/2009/Acco untability%20
Update%202009%20SAT%20Participation%20and%20Performance.pdf

Evaluation of MCPS’ red/green differentiation strategy requires a comparison of

red zone results to green zone results. However, despite the centrality of the red
zone/green zone distinction to Dr. Weast’s proclaimed strategy, MCPS publishes almost
no data that presents averages by zone.

The table below compares the performance of the Northeast Consortium schools
to average MCPS performance. The Northeast Consortium (NEC) is comprised of three
red zone high schools and their associated red zone feeder middle and elementary
schools. Data regarding the Northeast Consortium is presented here as a proxy for red
zone performance generally (given the lack of MCPS data determined for each of the red
zone and the green zone, as a whole).

5
 Northeast Consortium Seven Keys Data

NEC School K G2: G3-8: MSA G5: G8: G11: AP SAT

Reading TN/2 Reading Math Algebra Algebra 3+ 1650
Level 3 50 th% Advanced 6+ 1 2 2008 2008
[Level 6*] [70th%*] 2008 2007 (A, B, C (A or B)
2008 2008 or D)
[A, B, NA
C*]
2008

James H. 41.0% 32.4%

Blake
Paint Branch 40.5 32.6
Springbrook 35.3 34.9
MCPS HS 46.4 48.8
OCA Target 56.6 None

Banneker 39.1% 45.3%

Briggs 39.5 48.5
Chaney
Farquhar 57.7 60.2
Key MS 28.4 50.8
White Oak 34.0 50.0
MCPS MS 53.4 59.6
OCA Target None 67.3 None

Burtonsville 96.7% 70.1% 29.3 25.2%

Fairland 95.7 43.2 22.6 25.3
Greencastle 82.5 50.0 18.2 19.8
Cloverly 93.2 90.7 38.6 39.7
Galway 84.3 45.5 19.4 32.7
Page 88.1 69.2 26.7 25.8
Sherwood 95.5 72.0 47.9 38.2
Stonegate 90.6 83.3 39.4 53.5
Burnt Mills 85.7 70.8 20.8 12.2
Drew** 96.8 68.9 51.5** 53.9**
Broad Acres 91.1 51.7 17.1 3.0
Cannon 77.0 55.2 20.8 26.7
Road
Cresthaven - - 20.2 23.2
Roscoe Nix 96.3 56.0 - -
Jackson 94.9 55.6 14.3 27.6
Road
Westover 94.4 60.5 40.9 65.9
MCPS ES 92.6 72.2 40.5 38.6
OCA Target TBD TBD None 33.3

6
*The K reading level, G2: TN/2 and G8: Algebra 1 objectives differ between OCA Student
Performance Targets and Seven Keys benchmarks; data pertaining to the higher Seven Key
benchmarks are not available publicly.

**Drew is a “Center for the Highly Gifted”—a magnet school, which affects Grades 4 and 5 data.

“Attainment of End-of-Year Reading Benchmarks in Kindergarten to Grade 2: 2006-2008,” Clare Von

Secker, Huafang Zhao, Marilyn Powell, MCPS Office of Shared Accountability, September 2008, Table
A3, page 26.
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/2008/K -
2Benchmarks_09-26-08.pdf.

TN/2: Memorandum, “Performance of Montgomery County Public Schools Grade 2 Students on the 2008
TerraNova Second Edition,” Dr. Stacy L. Scott, Associate Superintendent, MCPS Office of Shared
Accountability, to Elementary School Principals, September 8, 2008, Table A4, page A-7.
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/2008/2008TN2-
PrincipalMemo.pdf. *Sets out 50th percentile, not 70th percentile, data. 70th percentile data is not yet
available to the public, per 11/7/08 email from Dr. Stacy L. Scott, Associate Superintendent, Office of
th
Shared Accountability. The percentages of students with composite scores at or above the 50 NCE are
presented in aggregate for the red zone (61.2%), the green zone (81.7%) and all MCPS (72.2%).

2008 MSA reading advanced: 2008 Annual Repor t, MCPS, pages 7-8.
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/about/strategicplan/annualreport/pdf/AnnualReportCalltoAction08.
pdf. School Improvement in Maryland, Maryland State Department of Education.
http://www.mdk12.org/data/NewGraphs.aspx?Nav=20.1|1.2|2.22|5.2|3.4|10.15|15.99#datatable-allgrades

Math 6: “Successful Completion of Math A or Higher-Level Mathematics by the End of Grade 5 2006-
2007,” Laura M. Steinberg and Missy Gumula, MCPS Department of Reporting and Regulatory
Accountability, September 2007.
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/regulatoryaccountability/pdf/reports/MathA2007.pdf .
37% of red zone students and 51% of green zone students enrolled in Math 6 or higher in Grade 5 (2006
-
2007). Presentation, “School Finance and the Achievement Gap: Funding Programs the Work,” Dr. Frieda
K. Lacey, MCPS Deputy Superintendent, The 2008 ETS Addressing the Achievement Gaps Symposiums,
page 25. http://www.ets.org/Media/Education_Topics/pdf/school%20finance/Lacey.pdf.

Algebra 1: “Successful Completion of Algebra 1 or Higher-level Mathematics and Successful Completion

of Geometry or Higher-level Mathematics 2007-2008,” Missy Gumula, MCPS Department of Policy,
Records, and Reporting, February 2009, Attachment D.
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/regulatoryaccountability/pdf/reports/AlgebraGeometry
2008.pdf.

Algebra 2: This data is not yet available to the public, per 4/14/09 email from Dr. StacyL. Scott, Associate
Superintendent, Office of Shared Accountability.

AP: Memorandum, “INFORMATION: Class of 2008 Advanced Placement Exam Participation and
Performance,” Dr. Stacy L. Scott, Associate Superintendent, MCPS Office of Shared Accountability, to
High School Principals, February 12, 2009, Tables A-2, A-4.
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/2009/Class%20of%2020
08%20AP%20Exam%20Participation%20and%20Performance.prin.mem.pdf . The OCA Target pertains to
students scoring AP 3 or higher or IB 4 or higher; the Memorandum pertains to students scoring AP 3 or
higher, not IB 4 or higher.

SAT: Memorandum, “SAT Participation and Performance of the MCPS Class of 2008,”Superintendent to
Board of Education, August 26, 2008, Table A12: percentage of those students who took the SAT and/or

7
the ACT who achieved SAT combined score 1650 or higher and/or and ACT composite score 24 or higher.
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/info/pdf/SATScoresClassOf2008.pdf.

2008 Annual Report on Our Call to Action, pages viii, xii, 15-6.
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/about/strategicplan/annualreport/pdf/AnnualReportCalltoAction08.
pdf. OCA and the Annual Report targets a mean score for graduates who participated in the SAT: 1638 in
2007, 1642 in 2008, 1646 in 2009 and 1650 in 2010.

Northeast Consortium outcomes are lower than MCPS average and MCPS target
outcomes, a disparity that widens in upper grades.

The County Council’s O ffice of Legislative Oversight ’s 2008 Cost and

Performance of Montgomery County Public Schools’ High School Consortia report also
analyzed the degree to which gaps have been narrowed in the red zone’s Northeast
Consortium (NEC) and Downcounty Consortium (DCC).

The following table displays gaps pertaining to the major NEC and DCC student
performance goals and one additional above grade-level measure. The gaps entail
comparisons: of all students in each respective high school to all MCPS high school
students; of each respective high school’s Black and Latino students to that same
school’s White students; of each respective high school’s FARMS students to all
students in that same school. The comparisons are made by ratios (for example, of the
percentage of James Hubert Blake’s Grade 9 students taking Algebra 1 to the percentage
of all MCPS Grade 9 students taking Algebra 1), expressed as percentages. One hundred
percent indicates parity (between Montgomery Blair’s All percentage and MCPS’ All
percentage on the SAT, for example). As numbers decline below 100, the gap increases.
The seven instances of numbers exceeding 100 indicate that Montgomery Blair (a red
zone magnet school) bests MCPS or that the percentage of Wheaton’s Latino students is
greater than the percentage of Wheaton’s White students scoring 3 or higher on the AP
test.

For each of the four data points, data from the OLO report has been taken from
the earliest year for which comparable data is available and from the most current year
for which data is available. (These snapshots provide only a rough, provisional, view of a
trend.) Progress in closing the gap is indicated by an increase in the number in the latter
year; a worsening of the gap is indicated by a decrease in the number in the latter year.
A worsening of the gap as to each ratio and data point is bolded.

8
 Red Zone Consortia Gap Ratios and Trends
Ratios, expressed as percentages (%)

Algebra 1 AP 3+ SAT Graduates

Grade 9 score @ AP 5
1999 2007 2004* 2007 2006 2008 2002 2006
Blake All/MCPS All 96 98 99 94 95 92 48 77
Blake B/Blake W 62 64 33 30 83 82
Blake L/Blake W 70 79 43 81 87 84
Blake F/Blake All - 66 - - 87 87
Paint Branch All/MCPS All 114 99 82* 78 95 92 95 73
Paint Branch B/Paint B W 78 69 44* 39 87 84
Paint Branch L/Paint B W 95 84 43 54 87 93
Paint Branch F/Paint B All - 69 - - 95 88
Springbrook All/MCPS All 99 90 90* 81 95 92 58 42
Springbrook B/S W 66 74 27* 30 79 77
Springbrook L/S W 47 61 45* 56 82 81
Springbrook F/S All - 64 - - 88 91
Blair** All/MCPS All 103 103 100 103 157 135
Blair** B/Blair W 19 27 65 70
Blair** L/Blair W 21 40 68 73
Blair** F/Blair All 75 78
Einstein All/MCPS All 68 81 89 91 43 33
Einstein B/E W 25 24 78 70
Einstein L/E W 38 65 77 75
Einstein F/E All 86 87
Kennedy All/MCPS All 58 57 87 83 42 29
Kennedy B/K W 45 36 80 79
Kennedy L/K W 59 43 84 80
Kennedy F/K All 94 87
Northwood All/MCPS All
Wheaton All/MCPS All 55 59 80 81 18 52
Wheaton B/W W 70 44 90 81
Wheaton L/W W 183 185 95 78
Wheaton F/W All 97 94
Cost and Performance of Montgomery County Public Schools’ High School Consortia, OLO Report
Number 2009-4, Office of Legislative Oversight, Montgomery County Council, November 25, 2008;
derived from Appendix B, Tables 1, 3, 6, 14, 15;
http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/council/olo/reports/pdf/20 09-4_appendix.pdf ; and
“Advanced Placement Exam Participation and Performance for the MCPS Classes of 2002 to 2006,” Clare
Von Secker, MCPS Department of Shared Accountability, November 2006, Table B4.
http://mcps.k12.md.us/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/2006/APCohorts_2002-2006_11 -30-
06.pdf. (MCPS has not published such AP data for subsequent years.)

Abbreviations: All—all students in the particular high school or MCPS high schools; B—Black; W—
White; L—Latino; F—FARMS.
*Paint Branch and Springbrook Advanced Placement data from 2000 (not 2004).
**Montgomery Blair High School is a magnet school.

9
 The data show:

1. The greatest gap among cohorts compared (rows in the table) is that
between Blacks and Whites.

2. The Black/White performance gap generally is increasing, though

Springbrook High School and Montgomery Blair High School (a magnet) have had
successes in narrowing it.

3. The Latino/White gap is closing, except at Montgomery Blair High School

(a magnet).

4. Gaps are widening between consortia schools and MCPS, with exceptions
at Blake, Montgomery Blair (a magnet) and Einstein High Schools.

5. The greatest gap as to any data point (columns in the table) is that
measuring above grade-level performance: the percentage of graduates scoring 5 on the
AP exam.

In red zone consortia schools, the Latino gap is closing; the Black gap is
widening; consorti a, red zone, student performance is falling farther and farther behind
MCPS’ averages; the outcomes become more predictable by race and SES at
benchmarks exceeding college readiness.

Overall, very significant gaps exist both between demographic groups r egarding
the OCA and Seven Keys targets, and between the red zone and the green zone regarding
the Seven Keys targets and the OLO report measures. MCPS’ strategy does not appear to
be working.

Positive differentiation: the proclaimed strategy. Residential sorting into the

red zone and green zone demographic pattern (a barrier to equity that MCPS accepts)
facilitates allocation of school system money and management , “differentiated” between
the two zones. “Because of residential patterns, students who were farthest behind were
concentrated in certain areas, allowing for increased, differential investments at the
school level based on students’ learning needs.” 134

Leading for Equity identifies the following red zone differentiations instituted
early in Dr. Weast’s tenure:

1. An additional annual $2,000 per red zone student; 35

2. Full-day kindergarten, reduced elementary school class sizes and

elementary school teacher coaches; 37

3. Math content coaches; 43

10
 4. Skillful Teacher trainin g—used first in the red zone; 80

5. MClass:Reading 3D comprehensive literacy assessment software —used

first in the red zone. 99

Today, K-2 class sizes in “the most hi ghly impacted schools” aver age 17 students,
as compared with 26 students in other schools. Full -day Head Start classes are provided
in 18 Title I schools, and Title I schools offer extended-day supports. Math content
coaches serve in Title I schools, high -needs schools and selected middle schools. Finally,
“a comprehensive model for funding, staffing, and programming [not publicly available]
was implemented in the most highly impacted elementary schools in the county….A
continuous review of the model is in place to maximize the use of resources, as well as to
develop and implement pl ans to meet the requirements for schools in need of
improvement, corrective action, or restructuring.” Our Call to Action: Pursuit of
Excellence: The Strategic Plan for the Montgomery County Public Schools, 2009 -2014,
approved by the Board of Education June 22, 2009, pages 47, 48, 51.
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/boe/meetings/agenda/2008 -09/2009-
0622/5.0%20Our%20Call%20to%20Action%2006 -22-09.pdf.

These, however, MCPS describes as “strategies and initiatives that have been
implemented….” Our Call to Action, page 47. While these programs continue, they
have become part of the baseline of MCPS programming —they are relegated to that
chapter of MCPS’ strategic plan which records its past history. The portion of the
strategic plan that sets forth ongoing “Strategic Initiatives” does not describe
differentiation of resources between the red and green zones. Indeed, the term
“differentiation ,” as it pertains to resources allocation (not its completely different use as
an instruction technique) , is used only once in Our Call to Action, and only in an
introductory “Joint Letter” of the Board of Education President and the Superintendent,
and only with respect to history and vague principles: “Our values embrace the
differentiated approach that has been so successful in helping our neediest children make
great strides in achievement.” Our Call to Action, page 3.

Leading for Equity describes the inception of these positive differentiations, but
neither the book nor MCPS discusses their on -going development or current funding
differences. It is not clear that differentiation remains a central aspect of MCPS strategy:
defining differentiation down .

Revision: Equity and Excellence. Leading for Equity describes “a shift in the
tone of conversations” beginning in 2005. 126 Then Board members (now County
Council members) Nancy Navarro and Valerie Ervin “questio ned the pace of the
implementation of the strategy and the effectiveness of specific initiatives to help African
Americans and Hispanics achieve academically.” 112 The context of discussions shifted
from “diversity” and “color-blindness” to “courageous conversations,” “putting race on
the table” and “critical race theory.” 121-129 This shift culminated in inclusion in
MCPS’ current strategic plan of a “Framework for Equity and Excellence:”

11
 Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) is committed to equity and
excellence for all students. Equity in our schools is defined as high expectations
and access to meaningful and relevant learning for all students so that outcomes
are not predictable by race , ethnicity, socioeconomic status, language
proficiency, or disability. Excellence is achieved through high standards that
ensure that all students are college or career ready as high school graduates.
[emphasis added] Our Call to Action: Pursuit of Excellence: The Strategic Plan
for the Montgomery County Pub lic Schools, 2009-2014, approved by the Board of
Education June 22, 2009, page 5.
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/boe/meetings/agenda/2008 -09/2009-
0622/5.0%20Our%20Call%20to%20Action%2006 -22-09.pdf.

The formulation that “student achievement is not predictable by race” first appeared for
MCPS in its 2008 strategic plan. 2008 Our Call to Action, page 1. The formulation that
students should be “college -ready” first appeared in this 2009 strategic plan, though it
had long been the system’s objective “to prepare all students to be successful for college
and/or career opportunities after high school.” 2003 Our Call to Action, page 4. The
2009 strategic plan thus links equity and excellence, focuses on “outcomes” in defining
equity, specifies the “outcomes” as college or career readiness, and implicitly defines
college readiness in accordance wi th the national standard. See “Excellence,
differentiated down,” below.

It is not yet apparent how this narrow and intensified rhetorical commitment to
excellence and equity will affect the differentiation strategy initially proclaimed by Dr.
Weast, but subsequently deemphasize d in public discussion and MCPS’ strategic plan.
The new rhetoric responds to the intractable persistence of the gaps, and thereby tacitly
admits that MCPS’ modest differentiation has not worked.

School as an equity lever. To close the educational outcomes gap under the new
equity framework, MCPS undertakes to remove existing school -based barriers and use
the school to counteract external environmental causes.

To “radically change institutional pra ctices that perpetuate inequity,” MCPS

eliminates institutionalized racism and institutional barriers. 12 Dr. Weast explained
“that ‘institutionalized racism is the failure to act on removing institutional barriers that
hold students of a particular race behind.’” Institutional barriers are “those policies ,
procedures, and practices that do not serve all children equitably .” 122

As an example of an institutional barrier, whole class ability grouping constitutes

“a tiered system that sorts students based on the belief that only some children can learn
at high levels,” (4)—that some children are “‘born smart.’” 80 Grouping is rejected not
because it is an ineffective means to the end of raising achievement for students and
groups of students at all performance levels, but because it is a racist institutional
barrier—intrinsically bad. Ability grouping tends to segregate by race, ethnicity and SES
in red zone schools. But ability grouping also replicates in red zone schools the ability

12
grouping accomplished through the residential sorti ng (that MCPS not merely “fail[s] to
act on removing” but conspires to maintain) . Residential sorting benefits green zone
outcomes through ability grouping, but ability grouping constitutes an impermissible
institutional barrier in the red zone.

Dr. Weast’s team “acknowledged that they could not change their students’
socioeconomic status but committed to changing school and district factors that were in
their control in order to bring the quality of education in the Red Zone up to that in the
Green Zone.” 21 “Problem definitions that focus on blaming others, such as ‘There isn’t
enough money,’ or ‘The union is against it,’ or ‘If only parents would…,’ are tempting
because they can absolve schools and districts of the responsibility for taking action.
MCPS was willing to identify its own practices at the school and central office level that
were contributing to student performance problems. As author Rick DuFour puts it,
rather than focusing outward on forces over which it had little control, MCPS focused on
problems that were within its sphere of influence.” 152-153

Leading for Equity does not inquire whether MCPS officials believe that internal
system programming should merely do the best that it can within its “sphere of influence”
while accepting the constrain ts of the inequitable external residential sorting and the
socio-economic environment generally or, in the alternative, that internal system
programming should overreach its “sphere of influence” to overcome external
environmental disparities and achieve outcome equity.

This was resolved by the Board of Education during its preparation of the
Framework for Equity and Excellence . The Board stated these principles: “Equity
recognizes that the playing field is unequal and a ttempts to address the inequity;” “Serve
the neediest first;” and “What ever it takes!” Draft minutes, BOE Retreat, January 26
and 27, 2009. http://www.scribd.com/doc/16332772/January26and272009Retreat . These
principles suggest that the effect of the external “playing field” environment can be
overcome by school programming. System strategy and school practices are to be
focused on the neediest, red zone, students, until outcomes are no longer predictable by
need. School, by itself, can overcome the socio-economic environment and “bring the
quality of education in the Red Zone up to that in the Green Zone.”

Closing the gap is a vital objective to prosecut e (at greater than “all deliberate
speed”) across the bureaucratic timeline measured in decades and Superintendent tenures.
But, the bureaucratic time horizon is out of phase with that of the parent and the
education of his/her child. I n the bureaucratic meantime, all other goals, outcomes, and
students, are to be (and have been) subordinated.

Negative differentiation: defining differentiation down. Leading for Equity

described what above was called “positive differentiation :” “allowing for increased,
differential investments at the school level based on students’ learning needs.” 134 But
disparate student learning needs at the school level also cause decreased MCPS
investments —disinvestments —at the school level. Two examples follow.

13
 An MCPS Community Superintendent stated that the MCPS Offi ce of School
Performance (Community Superintendents responsible for principal and school
performance within various geographical clusters of system schools) does not evaluate
schools or principals “on the basis of any one factor” (referring specifically to policy-
mandated programming for “gifted and talented” students); but rather on the “gestalt”—
whether the principal is “meeting the needs in the building.” Oral presentation to
Accelerated and Enriched Instruction Advisory Committee, Adrian Talley, MCPS
Community Superintendent, October 16, 2008. The big picture as to the average needs in
the building differs between green zone buil dings and the red zone . (See the tables in
“Gaps: Black/White, Red/Green,” above.) Thus, programming is differentiated b etween
the red zone and the green zone on the basis of the disparate average needs between
zones. The red zone schools’ relatively smaller groups of high ability students are not
perceived as a prominent feature of their “gestalts.” Therefore, MCPS deemphasizes red
zone schools’ accountability for providing instructional services to their high ability
cohorts.

MCPS central office administrative staff have asserted that green zone schools
and red zone schools have differe nt benchmarks of success : performance targets are
lower in the red zone because performance outcomes have been lower and the contained
SES-mix is more challenging . Oral presentation to Accelerated and Enriched Instruction
Advisory Committee, Martin Creel, Director, MCPS Department of Enriched and
Innovative Programs, September 11, 2008.

Several factors explain negative differentiation in the red zone. First, given the
broader dispersion of student abilities in red zone schools, serving all red zone students is
less cost effective, hence more expensive; principals state that they have neither the
teacher nor administrative capacity to serve all students. Second, the Board of
Education’s rule of “serve the neediest first” defers service to the non-needy. Third, the
myopic optics of equity (avoiding the appearance that “only some children can learn at
high levels”) dictate that visible distinctive programming be avoided within each
individual school (though permitted between different—red zone v. green zone—schools,
where it is invisi ble).

A green zone teacher asked Dr. Weast how the teacher could address MCPS’
many objectives in a relatively larger green zone classroom; Dr. Weast “asked her
whether she would like to move over to one of the Red Zone schools where she coul d
have a class of fifteen.” 51 A green zone father asked that his son have full-day
kindergarten; Dr. Weast responded “‘He can if you move to the Red Zone.’” 142 The
authors present these anecdotes to celebrate Dr. Weast’s insistence on positive
differentiation in service of equity. But, in addition, the anecdotes illustrate MCPS’
cynical calculus : despite some differentiated allocation of resources to the red zone, and
away from the green zone, green zone teachers and parents nevertheless remain captive
of its superior educational opportunities. Their lack of real choice reveals how little
MCPS’ meager positive differentiation could improve the balance of educational
opportunities between the zones. This imbalance is accepted by MCPS over the
intermediate future.

14
 Differentiation’s lesser allocation to the green zone of school system money and
management does not adversely affect green zone student achievement. Test scores “for
the types of students who have traditionally been enrolled in AP” did no t decline. 38
“Quality in the Green Zone never wavered.…” 133 Green zone achievement is not
sensitive to the withdrawal of resources.

Obviously, MCPS money and management do not set the instructional pitch in the
green zone; it is set by expectations of high-SES parents and students concentrated in the
green zone. SES segregation occurs through residential sorting, encouraged through
MCPS policies and practices. SES segregation produces disparate “needs in the
building,” which are then addressed by disparate benchmarks and disparate instructional
practices. Toleration of residential sorting is accompanied by differentiated
programming: defining differentiation down. MCPS produces two distinct school
systems, separate and unequal.

Excellence, differentiated down. Perhaps the most revealing and consequential

instance of defining differentiation down is the definition of excellence as remediation -
free college.

Management for equity requires the comparison of group performance around

selected outcomes. MCPS has selected a single outcome for this purpose, and labeled it
“excellence .” Formerly there were three graduation standards: college-bound,
vocational, general education. 20 “Weast strongly believes that children should not be
sorted into vocational or general tracks, but rather they should all be given the
foundations for academic mastery.” 30 Under the rubric of equity, high standards and the
foundations of mastery, graduation standards have been narrowed to the “North Star” of
“college or career ready,” proclaimed as the “common standard of excellence that would
apply to every classroom in every school.” 133 College readi ness is defined as
“acquisition of the knowledge and skills a student needs to enroll and succeed in credit -
bearing, first-year courses at a postsecondary institution, such as a two- or four-year
college, trade school, or technical school. Simply stated, readiness for college means not
needing to take remedial courses in college.” The Forgotten Middle: Ensuring t hat All
Students Are on Target for College and Career Readiness before High School, ACT,
2008, page 1. http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/ForgottenMiddle.pdf. (Cited
in “Closing the Gap: Seven Keys to College Readiness for Students of all
Races/Ethnici ties,” Clare Von Secker, MCPS Applied Research Unit, Office of Shared
Accountability , February 2009.
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/boe/meetings/agenda/2008 -09/2009-
0428/7%200%20Seven%20Keys%20to%20College%20Readiness.pdf .) Remediation-
free college is the sole “outcome” for testing demographic group equity. Remediation-
free college is selected , in part, because it does not impose an insurmountable
“institutional barrier ” to optics of equal outcomes.

MCPS has determined a trajectory of successive K -12 benchmarks, culminating

in SAT 1650, to guide its students and parents toward college readiness. (See the table

15
row and column headings in “Gaps: Black/White, Red/Green,” above.) The “Seven
Keys to College Readiness ” is a family outreach program marketed throughout the
County but clearly targeted to the red zone. A green zone mother dismissed the Seven
Keys: “‘I glanced at it, felt that it didn’t really apply to my family, and moved on.’”
“Montgomery Co. Touts, ‘Seven Keys to College Readiness’ as an Academic Pathway,”
Daniel de Vise, The Washington Post, May 18, 2009.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2009/05/17/AR2009051701884.html .

MCPS’ college readiness is not a “common standard of excellence ;” it does not

“apply to every classroom in every school; ” it is a standard fitted to red zone
demography. It is the outcome toward which red zone programming is aligned and by
which the predictability of o utcomes by race will be judged. MCPS has determined that,
by thus serving these “neediest first” -- defining differentiation down -- the percentage of
remediation -free red zone students will approach the percentage of remediation -free
green zone students. Thus, red zone outcomes and green zone “outcomes” will be equal.

Stakeholder marginalization and exclusion. Leading for Equity describes

MCPS’ commitment to stakeholder participation. Dr. Weast is quoted as saying, “‘We’re
in the marketplace of ideas and results, and the community must have confidence in what
we say and do.’” 61 “Weast created the conditions under which multiple stakeholder
groups felt as if they owned the results.” 137

While MCPS professes to include the full breadth of its stakeholders, its strategy
is focused on “serv[ing] the neediest first.” The authors find that “MCPS works to
involve Hispanic and African American members of the community in the strategy. The
district works closely with the National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People (NAACP), Identity (a Latino youth organization), Upcounty and Downcounty
Latino Network, Montgomery County Latino Education Coalition, and other advocacy
groups.” 70 MCPS targets these organizations and their traditionally-underrepresented
parents, while assuming the continuing contentment of high -SES green zone parents.
The MCPS strategy is least cognizant of gifted and talented students and high -SES red
zone parents. Participation of parents of gifted and talented students (often white and/or
high -SES) has been marginali zed in Study Circles and the Accelerated and Enriched
Instruction Advisory Committee (discussing a pending change in MCPS’ policy on gifted
and talented education) and excluded from Baldrige School Impro vement Teams (setting
individual school goals ), the K-12 Mathematics Work Group (addressing complaints that
mathematics is accelerated too much) , and the Deputy Superintendent’s Global Screening
Project Team (addressing demographic disparities in the identification of gifted and
talented students). Marginalization and exclusion manifest MCPS determination to
protect its Framework for Equity and Excellence from gifted and talented parents and red
zone parents who find it counterproductive: “This organizational culture also will serve
to protect the ongoing work to promote equity and excellence from external factors that
could possibly disrupt the work or distract staff from their focus.” “Framework for
Equity and Excellence, ” 2009 Our Call to Action, page 5.

16
 Reprogramming equity, excellence and differentiation. 1. Equity and
excellence . MCPS’ criterion for equity is half right: “that outcomes are not predictable
by race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, language proficiency, or disability.” However,
“outcomes” are plural—not a single, “common standard” of remediation-free college.
Remediation -free college is not a meaningful outcome in the green zone; MCPS, in the
green zone, in fact, produces far higher outcomes. A finding of equal percentages
attaining remediation -free college would not show that real MCPS “outcomes” (plural)
are not predictable by race or zone. If MCPS adheres to the right measure of equity, then
it must take into account the full spectrum of outcomes in fact produced by its system.
The definition of excellence must be differentiated in order to pursue true equity.

A remediation-free start to college eases the way to college graduation and

productive function in the society and economy. It is both a higher goal, and one more
based in the real world, than graduation from high school or proficiency on Maryland’s
NCLB test. It is an excellent achievement for many, and for the school system.

Remediation -free college is not an excellent achievement for green zone families
or for high-achieving red zone students or high -SES red zone parents. Excellence should
be “differentiated” to parallel the differentiated zones, to guide high -achieving red zone
students, and to better assess whether actual “outcomes” (plural) are equal between
zones. Excellence should be differentiated by a parallel, but higher, trajectory of
performance benchmarks , culminating in SAT 2100 and AP 5. School and system
accountability would be judged as performance is monitored along both trajectories.

Yet the “outcomes” criterion for equity is only half sufficient : schools likewise
must provide access to levels of instructional programming that is not predictable by
zone. This will entail, in particular, a real gifted and talented program, with ability
grouping (parallel to the system’s ability grouping through residential sorting , for as long
as the system preserves it), in red zone schools.

2. “All” at once. The Board’s “serve the neediest first” principle is an improper
objective. This objective means that, until the “playing field” is leveled and equity of
outcomes attained on the expansive bureaucratic time horizon , the education of all
demographic segments except that neediest will be subordinated in principle and
postponed in practice.

While “equity” of outcomes is a vital purpose, so is education generally --helping

each child realize his/her individual goals and abilities. This equally basic purpose will
be advanced by equity of access to instructional programming.

Also, “serve the neediest first” is a principle that applies only in the red zone.
Green zone instructional practices are not determined by MCPS’ basic services . “Serve
the neediest first” establ ishes a college -readiness floor which, given the challenging
“gestalt” in red zone building s, becomes a ceiling for high -SES red zone students. Thus,
“serve the neediest first” means the perpetuation of two systems, red and green, separate
and unequal. “Serve the neediest first” must be repudiated.

17
 3. Stakeholder inclusion. MCPS’ Framework for Equity and Excellence is a
profoundly political, ideological , statement (crafted largely in secret). It is blind to
important facets of the equity, excellence and red zone parity th at it purports to serve. Its
truly radical character is revealed by the Framework’s threat “to protect the ongoing work
to promote equity and excellence from external factors that could possibly disrupt the
work or distract staff from their focus.”

The Board of Education must realize that its “neediest f irst” interpretation of its
Framework for Equity and Excellence leaves better -prepared red zone students
underserved. Their second-class status is “protected” by intentional, blatant,
disenfranchisement of their parents.

The community would be better served by a Board open to the political process
and the petitions of underserved students and parents.

4. Return to positive differentiation. Until the adverse effects of MCPS-

sanctioned residential sorting are neutralized and educational opportunities between
zones are equalized, the red zone must be allocated disproportionately great financial,
staffing and management resources and be encouraged to adopt instructional practices
that replicate green zone advantages. These practices will include, for e xample, ability
grouping and real accelerated and enriched instruction; a nd will complement the
expanded outcomes plus programming criteria for equity and the restoration of a single
system-wide set of benchmarks.

Copyright: Frederick Stichnoth

18