MCEA Reps Endorse “No Labels, No Limits” Campaign

Call on Board of Education to Eliminate the Gifted/Talented label in elementary school

MCEA Building Reps voted overwhelmingly last Wednesday in favor of endorsing the “No Labels, No Limits” Campaign to end the screening of all second grade students as either “gifted and talented” or not “gifted and talented”.

One teacher rep shared her personal story as a mother of twins. A number of years ago, both were in MCPS in second grade, and both were tested in MCPS’ “global screening”. One child was labeled gifted and talented. The other was labeled not gifted and talented. And ever since, she has seen the different expectations, different instruction, and different opportunities. The child who was labeled not gifted and talented “missed” by just one point.

Another educator who spoke was a middle school teacher who also serves as the gifted and talented program coordinator in her school. She too supported the No Labels/No Limits Campaign, explaining that from her experience the grade two labeling was not a useful or effective means of getting children the appropriate level of services.

The No Labels/No Limits Campaign is supported by a coalition of parent, educator, student and community-based organizations. It is based on shared beliefs

 that every child deserves and is entitled to a high quality public education and high expectations irrespective of race, class, ethnicity, language, or physical ability.

 that the global screening of all second grade students and invariably sorts or "tracks" students, limiting the academic opportunities of many children and contributing to a culture of low expectations

 that the time has come to move away from labels toward a paradigm that provides every child the appropriate challenge and support. Only through equitable educational opportunities will all children be prepared for the challenges that lie ahead.  

Over the past couple of years, two MCPS elementary schools have piloted the elimination of the GT label. In its place, the focus is on identifying the educational needs of every child and providing challenging curriculum and instruction for all students. Teachers and parents at both Georgian Forest ES and Burning Tree ES have expressed their continuing support for the elimination of the labeling.

The motion approved by the MCEA Representative Assembly encourages reps to report back to their schools and promote ongoing discussions about the No Labels/No Limits Campaign. MCEA President Doug Prouty will formally notify the school administration, Board of Education and the public.

MCEA members interested in supporting this effort should contact MCEA’s Human and Civil Rights Committee. Committee Chair, George Vlasits (Blair HS), is helping to coordinate teacher involvement in the No Labels/No Limits campaign.

For more information on the No Labels/ No Limits campaign, go to the website of the Montgomery County Education Forum at http://www.mcef.org/ .

Stealth Candidate for Board of Education

One of the defining features of American democracy is the right of every citizen to run for elected office - not just those who you agree with. Our electoral process is founded on a rigorous debate over ideas, with the voters making the ultimate decision.

That is why it is more than a little disturbing when a candidate running for office seeks to hide his/her real views on the issues.

Which brings us to the case of Martha Shaerr. Shaerr is a candidate for the Montgomery County Board of Education, running against incumbent Mike Durso. In a four person race, Shaerr finished second, garnering 28% of the vote to Durso' 47% - thereby grabbing a seat in the November 2nd runoff election. The following letter to the editor was published in the September 29th issue of the Gazette:

Schaerr Profile Lacked Key Information

In The Gazette's Sept. 2 profile of Board of Education candidate Martha Schaerr ["Schaerr calls for schools to engage struggling students"], Schaerr failed to reveal perhaps the most salient feature of her involvement with the Montgomery County Public Schools. Schaerr is a member of the board of directors (and her husband is board chairman) of the Family Leader Network, which brought suit against MCPS in 2007, in an unsuccessful attempt to block implementation of eighth and 10th grade health education revisions titled "Respect for Differences in Human Sexuality."

None of this is mentioned on Schaerr's campaign website. The revisions of the courses (which may only be taken if parents opt into them for their children) were prepared in close consultation with a panel from the Maryland Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics and are based entirely on the teachings of mainstream American medical and mental health professional associations.

These revisions help make our schools safe for all of our children. The State Board of Education, without a single dissenting vote, and then the Montgomery County Circuit Court, rejected Schaerr's Family Leader Network's arguments. This baseless litigation forced MCPS to spend tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars in attorney fees.

David S. Fishback, Olney

Fishback knows that of which he speaks. For many years, he served as Chairperson of the MCPS Citizens’ Advisory Committee on Family Life and Human Development. He knows first hand about the battles to establish an appropriate sex education curriculum in MCPS.

Shaerr has every right to her opinions, and we would welcome a full and public debate over whether sex ed should be a part of the curriculum in schools. I'm confident that voters in Montgomery County would be overwhelming supportive. Too bad Ms. Shaerr has chosen to hide from voters the importance she places on taking sex education out of our schools.

Tom Israel, MCEA Executive Director.

Federal Health Care Reform Brings Changes to MCPS Plan

There has been a lot of posturing over the impact of the new federal health care legislation. The immediate changes are beginning to take shape, and it is good news for health care consumers.

Take the MCPS insurance plan for example. As a result of the federal health care legislation passed this spring, there will be a number of significant changes to the MCPS plan, effective January 1, 2011. The same is true for almost all Americans with health insurance. Within MCPS the changes include:

* expansion of coverage to overage dependents
* elimination of co-pays on preventative health care
* lowering of out-of-pocket expenses for mental health care
* elimination of lifetime caps on coverage

Overage Dependents - Young adults up to age 26 will now be eligible to remain on their parents MCPS family insurance plan - for medical and prescription drug coverage. The usual MCPS open enrollment season (when you can make any plan changes) is scheduled for October 11 - November 12. If you have overaged dependents who you wish to enroll back onto your plan, you will be able to do so during the open enrollment period, for coverage effective 1/1/11.

Preventive Health Care - In order to increase access to preventive care, the new federal health care legislation requires the elimination of co-pays on a wide range of preventive services when they are provided by in-network providers. (Co-pays for out-of-network providers remain unchanged). MCPS has already posted a list of the preventive services that will now be provided without copayments.

Mental Health Care - Plans - like MCPS' - will no longer be able to charge higher co-pays for mental health visits than they do for other medical office visits. Under the current MCPS plans, many employees have to pay 50% of the charges for mental health care visits. As of January 1st, co-pays for visits to in-network mental health providers will be limited to $10 per visit in the Point-of-Service plans and $5 per visit in the HMOs. The co-pays for out-of-network providers, under the Point-of-Service plans will improve as well. After satisfying your deductible, such charges will be treated under the same 80%/20% split as other out-of-network medical office visits.

Lifetime Maximum Coverage - Though most folks don't realize it, the current MCPS health plan - like most plans - puts a limit on the maximum amount of coverage you can receive through the plan in your lifetime. The MCPS cap has been $2 million. Just last week there was interesting news coverage of individuals with chronic illnesses requiring very expensive, ongoing treatments, who faced having to change jobs in order to maintain health insurance coverage and not 'max-out' under their employer's plan. Effective 1/1/11, federal law prohibits such lifetime caps, so the cap in  MCPS will be eliminated as well. No one ever forsees needing that kind of ongoing, expensive health care. But it is reassuring to know that you wont' risk 'maxing-out' your health coverage if you or a family member face such a situation.

More details on the plan changes will be provided in the MCPS Open Enrollment materials that will be available in the next couple of weeks.

At a  time when most Americans are suffering financially, it is a welcome sign of hope that health insurance protection for everyone is improving in concrete, measurable ways.

Teacher merit pay fails test

This just in from non-other than the Washington Post Education Report:

A study released Tuesday found that offering teachers annual bonuses of up to $15,000 had no effect on student test scores - a result likely to inflame debate about performance pay programs sprouting in D.C. schools and many others nationwide. The study suggests that teachers already were working so hard that the lure of extra money failed to induce them to intensify their effort or change methods of instruction. The experiment, in Nashville public schools, calls into question a key aspect of market-driven initiatives to improve schools that have become the vogue in some education circles. "Pay reform is often thought to be a magic bullet," said Matthew Springer, a Vanderbilt University education professor who led the study. "That doesn't appear to be the case here. We need to develop more thoughtful and comprehensive ways of thinking about compensation. But at the same time, we're not even sure whether incentive pay is an effective strategy for improving the system itself."
 » Read full article