Category Archives: Equity

John Rury on Ruby K. Payne

(article being discussed is subscription only)

I’ve previously expressed my thoughts on the Madison Metropolitan School District’s Talented and Gifted plan and equity issues (here, here and Robert Godfrey also posted on this here).  At the January 4, 2010 meetings, the Board of Education received an update on the plan.  From reading this update, things are worse than I had feared.

Among the materials identified as being used for staff development is a book by Ruby K. Payne, whose other work is the subject of the video above.  They are also employing The Cluster Grouping Handbook by Susan Winebrenner and Dina Brulles.  I’d like to offer some relevant quotes:

“The typical pattern in poverty for discipline is to verbally chastise the child, or physically beat the child, then forgive and feed him/her”

—–

“The poor simply see jail as a part of life and not necessarily always bad. Local jails provide food and shelter and, as a general rule, are not as violent or dangerous as state incarceration.” (Emphasis added)

—–

“And one of the rules of generational poverty is this: [women] may need to use [their] bod[ies] for survival. After all, that is all that is truly yours. Sex will bring in money and favors. Values are important, but they don’t put food on the table—or bring relief from intense pressure.”  (Emphasis added)

—-

“Also, individuals in poverty are seldom going to call the police, for two reasons: First, the police may be looking for them; second, the police are going to be slow to respond.”  (Emphasis added)

All from Ruby K. Payne, A framework for understanding poverty.

“Throughout life we all seek like-minded people with whom to work and play; we are much more comfortable with people who understand and accept us as we are.”  (Emphasis added)

Susan Winebrenner and Dina Brulles, Cluster Grouping Handbook

“I have repeatedly pointed out that people prefer the company of people like themselves, that this is natural and healthy, and that we should organize our society on this assumption.”  (Emphasis added)

—–

“Assumptions about police bias are especially common among minority groups that have the most to gain from good relations with the police. Blacks, in particular, are convinced of police “racism.” In extreme cases, this belief leads to murderous rampages like that of Brian Nichols with which this report begins. It is not an exaggeration to say that his victims might be alive today if the facts in this report were widely known. In countless less severe cases, a belief in police bias leads to suspicion, resentment, and lack of cooperation, all of which make it harder for the police to do their jobs, and more likely that minorities will suffer from crimes that could have been solved or prevented. How often do assumptions about police—and societal—racism so anger blacks that they go beyond lack of cooperation to crime itself? It is profoundly destructive for minorities to have exaggerated resentments toward the society in which they live.”  (Emphasis added)

Jared Taylor, “Reply to Tim Wise,” and “The Color of Crime.”

The last two quotes — from Jared Taylor — are ringers.  MMSD isn’t using anything from Taylor (that I know of); that’s good because the Southern Poverty Law Center labeled him one of “40 to Watch” and described him as a “courtly presenter of ideas that most would describe as crudely white supremacist.”  That Taylor, Payne, Winebrenner, Brulles all sound so much alike says much about the slippery slope of grouping, racism and classism; that MMSD’s work on TAG has taken us onto this slope is shameful and inexcusable.

Other than vague references to “research and review of support models” reading Removing the Mask: Giftedness in Poverty by Paul D. Slocumb and Ruby K. Payne is the only activity listed under the heading “Support for Underrepresented Populations.  I haven’t had a chance to read this book, but in fairness I should say that from the excerpts I’ve seen, it does contain some good things about the limited utility of standardized tests in identification.  That’s good, but I doubt it outweighs the attitudes and assumptions that are at the core of Payne’s work (a little more on Payne below).

The update also references the TAG Advisory Committee.  A membership list and , agendas, but no minutes have been belatedly posted.  It is clear that by any measure the closed appointment process fell short of the stated goal of  “reflecting [the district’s] demographic make-up.”  I’d like to particularly point out that it is very unlikely that there are any people in poverty or without college degrees represented; 47% of MMSD students are low income, 58% of district families have at least one parent without a college education.   Such gross under-representation in a committee that is supposed to address under-representation is not a good sign.   They can do better and perhaps would have done better if they had reached out beyond “people like themselves.”

That raises another issue with the Advisory Committee.  Of the 33 names listed, 11 work for the district, at least one other has a contractual relationship with MMSD via a grant, 3 others have professional lives associated with Talented and Gifted education.  I don’t think that any TAG or grouping skeptics have been included.  “People like themselves,” not representative of the community.

If TAG in MMSD is live up to the promise of equity,  identification is key (support after identification is also essential).  The sections of the update dealing with identification indicate that little or no progress has been made toward more equitable identification procedures.  We are talking more of the same:  biased achievement tests (MAP, under consideration is yet another inappropriate test, the CogAT tests also under consideration are a mixed bag) and referrals (which research shows are more biased than the tests).  The district needs to move from achievement measures to aptitude assessments and until it has been demonstrated that TAG can be equitable, they need to go slow with labeling and grouping students.  Maya Cole and Lucy Mathiak raised some of this at the meeting

There is one small positive sign in a related area.   For years I have asked for demographic breakdowns of students being served by advanced programs and participating in advanced classes.  I’ve been ignored, I’ve been told the data didn’t exist, Ive been told I would be given the data shortly…finally Superintendent Dan Nerad told me that the data on students being served by TAG (part of what I’ve asked for, but not all of it) exists but is of poor quality and would not be released (I guess I could do a Freedom of Information request).  The good news is that one of the proposed Strategic Plan Core Measures is “Advanced Course Participation Rate.”  I have been assured that this and all the student related performance measures (including TAG participation) will be reported with disaggregated demographic breakdowns.  At least then we will have a baseline measure and one that I hope will spur better and more urgent action.

I’ll leave the MMSD issues for now on a positive note and move to a very few words about Ruby Payne

Payne’s work is based on little or no research, perpetuates stereotypes and reinforces  middle class hegemony.  There are many good critiques of Payne, but most are under copyright restrictions.  These and other entries from the blog Education and Class and this from the Journal of Educational Controversy are  good places to start.

So much of the critiques go back to the critique of Great Society Culture of Poverty/Cultural Deficit approaches.  In the wake of the Black Power Movement it became untenable to equate difference with deficits, (as Payne does).  Resurgent pluralism demanded that the strengths of various cultures be recognized and respected.  This is subtle in practice.  Few dispute that schools should give children the tools they need to thrive in a culture dominated by “middle class,” liberal, capitalist norms and mores.  What Payne and other deficit practitioners do is go beyond this by elevating these norms  and mores as superior.  In the process, the liberatory potential of schooling is abandoned.  It should go without saying that this is in conflict with the Cultural Relevance program and other aspects of the Strategic Plan.   Payne, like KIPP, wants to teach poor children to “work hard and be nice” and not how to change the system that produces and reproduces inequality.

I’m going to close with another video discussing Ruby Payne, this one from 14 year-old John Wittle (worth watching).

Thomas J. Mertz

The changes made to the Madison Metropolitan School District Talented and Gifted Plan, in response to concerns raised by one or more Board members at the August 10 meeting, are smaller than I anticipated. There are also some other — relatively small – changes I would like to propose. The Board is scheduled to vote on the Plan at their Monday, August 17th meeting.

My notes and recollections from the August 10th meeting contain two areas where explicit changes were called for. The first was a more unambiguous delineation of who would be included in categories such “underserved,” “multicultural,” etc.,. The second request called for the creation of a new advisory committee that would be reflective of the community as a whole. Superintendent Dan Nerad gave what appeared to be assurances that these revisions would be made (I do not have time to review the video, but if he did not give this assurance, he selected his words very carefully to make it appear that he did). Some changes were made to the TAG Plan in the new iteration, but these have only partially addressed the concerns of Board members.

In addition, one Board member asked essential “what will this look like?” type questions. The response from Superintendent Nerad was that he may be able to give partial answers prior to the vote. This unsatisfactory response was coupled with expressions of urgency that this plan must be passed on August 17th. I find it very troubling that only one Board member asked “what will this look like?” and equally disturbing that our Superintendent called for action from ignorance. If the materials that have been distributed to the Board and made public prior to a vote are any indication, ignorance will reign; these questions will not be answered.

This is part of a disturbing pattern of secrecy and/or and lack of concern for basing decisions on the best possible information (or any information at all), which has characterized this entire TAG process. Extending this pattern, in the newspaper today, executive director of teaching and learning for the district, Lisa Wachtel, displayed an unwillingness, or perhaps an inability, to reveal how many students the district currently identifies as “Talented and Gifted.” This is the most basic information. To even begin a planning process without it, is incomprehensible. For the Board to enact the results of such a process is a dereliction of duty.

An explicit mention of who is being identified in the phrase “underserved,” has only been added in the section on “social and emotional needs.” It does not appear in the sections on identification, it is not a part of the effort towards consistency and transparency, it does not appear in the action steps on increasing participation in advanced courses, it does not appear in the evaluation section, and it does not appear in the communication section. The improved identification, consistency, and transparency along with the call for policy evaluations are probably the four best things in the plan. I support them all heartily (if with some reservations about the limits of what is possible due to both the current state of knowledge and the nature of assessments — not to mention the scarcity of resources). These are also exactly where the need to be explicit is the greatest.

Additionally, there is no inclusion of gender in the new categories. Issues of gender and perceptions of talent are well recognized. Their exclusion is yet another example of the kinds of oversights that are endemic to a rushed and secretive processes (the whole thing reminds me of the State Budget issues that MMSD was so vocal in complaining about).

I cannot find any changes concerning the makeup or role of the Advisory Committee (note, I am away from home and a bit rushed; I am not 100% sure of this and would welcome a correction via the comments). As I noted in an earlier post, the Plan itself reads:

Gifted programs must establish and use an advisory committee that reflects the cultural and socio-economic diversity of the school or school district’s total student population, and includes parents, community members, students, and school staff members.

I will add a few things. First, as much of the above shows, I believe in an open and accessible planning process. State statutes will require this of a committee authorized by the Board. Second, I think the inclusion of TAG experts and advocates is fine, but those outside of the TAG community need to be part of any advisory committee.

That takes care of what little was changed and the first swipes at what else should be. As indicated above, I cannot be as thorough as I like with this post, but I would like to touch on some other ideas for consideration. As I said in my testimony before the Board, my preference would be to do the minimum at this time, initiate an assessment of the current state of affairs and begin planning again with a more representative and open committee. I realize that it is highly unlikely that will happen, so I am offering less radical and perhaps more constructive suggestions.

Strengthen Evaluation

The Board and the community deserve a thorough reporting of success and failures. Before beginning this implementation, there should be metrics that are spelled out. These should include, at the very least, the explicit measures of participation and disproportionality linked to an expanded category of who should be considered “underserved,” as well as some assessments of consistency and transparency. If any form of “ability grouping” is implemented, the evaluation of that policy must consider all students, not just those identified as Talented and Gifted. Lastly, any evaluation should include thorough financial audits of the process and implementation. Going forward with only the vague promise of “evaluations” now, this part of the plan would be a continuance of the pattern of bad governance.

Limit the Actions on Social and Emotional Needs

I support the research and staff development in this area, because I believe that our staff needs the tools to better see where help is needed. I do not think that the pilot programs and collaborative sessions are the best use of district resources. Our social workers, psychologists and allied staff are already overworked. I think a comparative assessment of the unmet social and emotional needs of TAG students and other students is in order, prior to a commitment of resources to programming. Students of all abilities have real needs.

Set aside “Cluster Gouping”

The issues I have raised previously — particularly the lack of research on this practice — in combination with the lack of answers about what an implementation will look like, I recommend that the Board not commit to this policy at this time. Previously, I urged the Board to ask for a trial run of class assignments based on a cluster grouping policy. At a minimum, this trial run should be done and subjected to scrutiny, well before a single child is assigned to a group based on their perceived “ability.” Ideally, any and all discussions of grouping schemes should include multiple options and a thorough examination of the limits of the tools being used to label and group students.

On a side note, there are real problems involved in deciding what the proper universe for evaluation will be in determinations of “giftedness” (World, Nation, State, District, School, Grade …) and these will directly impact implementation. If it is done at the school level — as the “Cluster Grouping” scheme requires — students transferring will move in or out of “giftedness,” depending on the other students at their schools. If the consistency of district-wide metrics is used, the concepts behind “cluster grouping” are abandoned. To me this is further evidence of the arbitrary wrongheadedness of labeling and grouping policies and clearly points to the need for Individual Learning Plans for all students, not just some.

In closing, I want to note that a careful reader will have ascertained that I am in strong agreement with the movement toward improved identification of Gifted and Talented students, staff development designed to improve identification and services, consistent programing across the district, and transparency at every level and step. This common ground I share with the Advisory Committee. I just think we can and must do better in multiple areas, before making commitments to future actions and the resources to pay for them.

Thomas J. Mertz