Gifted and Talented discussions at 1/27/14 and 2/24/14 SOMSD BOE meetings
Jan 29, 2014 at 3:54am Edited
Agree with your thoughts on the committee process. Seems the committee members were as surprised by the report as we were. The district has been working on this for over a year and a half and yet we are no where nearer implementation of a G&T program. We rammed through IB, we rammed through further deleveling. Clearly the forces that don't believe G & T is a worthy goal have controlled the process (non-process).
I was not at all impressed with the identification piece of the puzzle which fails to employ an objective means of identification with a tool made for that purpose. The identification for non academic giftedness - for Art, Music , Dance, Leadership is similarly vague.
The real loser in re-branding what we already do as a G& T program are those students that fly under the radar. Often these are not the students that shine to the teacher . Nor are they the students getting 100 on all tests or even handing in all their homework.
Why we would not already be a member of a non-profit county level gifted education group speaks volumes about the stilted way we as a district view gifted education.
I was not at all impressed with the identification piece of the puzzle which fails to employ an objective means of identification with a tool made for that purpose. The identification for non academic giftedness - for Art, Music , Dance, Leadership is similarly vague.
The real loser in re-branding what we already do as a G& T program are those students that fly under the radar. Often these are not the students that shine to the teacher . Nor are they the students getting 100 on all tests or even handing in all their homework.
Why we would not already be a member of a non-profit county level gifted education group speaks volumes about the stilted way we as a district view gifted education.
Discussion on MOL is good, but I do wish more parents would speak more at the Board meetings. I have in the past and will continue to do so. I do appreciate the few parents that do, including Mr. Glickman's comments at the beginning of the last meeting.
mod said:
I was not at all impressed with the identification piece of the puzzle which fails to employ an objective means of identification with a tool made for that purpose. The identification for non academic giftedness - for Art, Music , Dance, Leadership is similarly vague.
The real loser in re-branding what we already do as a G& T program are those students that fly under the radar. Often these are not the students that shine to the teacher . Nor are they the students getting 100 on all tests or even handing in all their homework.
I would echo and amplify this...the process described seemed more like a way to give added kudos to the kids who already have lots of support. The identification process seemed focused on looking at existing accomplishments and ability to articulate a passion about something.
The identification, as described, seems likely to focus on the kids who have already been given the most support outside of school hours, and who are already succeeding within school hours, rather than making sure to identify the students of unusual talent who may be most in need of support and compass.
Chalmers1 said:
Discussion on MOL is good, but I do wish more parents would speak more at the Board meetings. I have in the past and will continue to do so. I do appreciate the few parents that do, including Mr. Glickman's comments at the beginning of the last meeting.
I have, in the past on a different issue, and find it a dispiriting experience...but I suppose I'll do so again, although it often seems like a waste of an evening.
At this point, suing the District is probably the only option. Although my children have long since graduated, I would be happy to contribute to the costs of legal action.
When mr.edzie spoke at a mtg. and used, as one example of the lack of commitment to high achievement, the interim progress reports that only allow students to "meet" but not "exceed" curricular goals, a high ranking PTA president who didnt't know that he as my husband reported to me that 'one guy wouldn't stop talking about his kids report card.'
Does anyone want to meet to plan strategy - speaking at meetings? Letter writing? Etc. if we come together it may be more powerful.
Does anyone want to meet to plan strategy - speaking at meetings? Letter writing? Etc. if we come together it may be more powerful.
When is the next meeting? And how much longer until the Board has to make a decision?
It seems our district pays attention, allocates resources and gets things done where they want to. Special Ed? Check. IB? Check. Achievement gap? Check.
G& T? Notsomuch.
G& T? Notsomuch.
Jan 30, 2014 at 2:23am Edited
mammabear said:
It seems our district pays attention, allocates resources and gets things done where they want to. Special Ed? Check. IB? Check. Achievement gap? Check.
G& T? Notsomuch.
As a parent of a student who has Autism and ADHD, please do not put educating special needs students in the same category as an "optional" G&T program. My special needs kid has every right to an education as your G&T kid. My kid gets a very "basic" education in the district and like other special needs students, he can use a heck of a lot more services, but the district can not provide them (financially). Over the years, I've spent lots of money on more intensive therapies for my son...and this is to help my child thrive and be successful in a mainstream school setting.
Educating special needs children is FEDERALLY MANDATED. G&T is not. I normally avoid these G&T discussions because you G&T parents always make it a competition between G&T and other services that the district provides. You G&T parents can be really insensitive when it comes to the struggles of many of our students.
Jan 30, 2014 at 2:34am Edited
Esiders said:
mammabear said:
It seems our district pays attention, allocates resources and gets things done where they want to. Special Ed? Check. IB? Check. Achievement gap? Check.
G& T? Notsomuch.
As a parent of a student who has Autism and ADHD, please do not put educating special needs students in the same category as an "optional" G&T program. My special needs kid has every right to an education as your G&T kid. My kid gets a very "basic" education in the district and like other special needs students, he can use a heck of a lot more services, but the district can not provide them (financially). Over the years, I've spent lots of money on more intensive therapies for my son...and this is to help my child thrive and be successful in a mainstream school setting.
Educating special needs children is FEDERALLY MANDATED. G&T is not. I normally avoid these G&T discussions because you G&T parents always make it a competition between G&T and other services that the district provides. You G&T parents can be really insensitive when it comes to the struggles of many of our students.
Every child should be allowed to flourish and be the best they can be. EVERY KID. That includes children with disabilities, as well as G&T kids. Every child should be supported.
Stop making assumptions about me and my kids. I don't have a G&T kid. I actually have one with ADHD and one with an IEP. But thanks for playing.
Esiders, please, please don't make this into a fight between Special Ed and G&T, even if mammabear seems to portray it that way.
There are plenty of kids who are both needs and G&T, and whose Special Ed needs are often masked by their intelligence to the extent that they don't get properly classified and helped or supported in their gifts...they just become miserable failing students whose flashes of brilliance keep them from failing and getting the attention they need for Autistic Spectrum issues, ADHD or Learning Disabilities.
One part of dealing with G&T properly would be more correctly meeting each student where he/she is and helping them to thrive. This isn't about giving more to kids who are already top students and achievers...it is about reaching the ones who aren't being reached by the way we do things now.
There are plenty of kids who are both needs and G&T, and whose Special Ed needs are often masked by their intelligence to the extent that they don't get properly classified and helped or supported in their gifts...they just become miserable failing students whose flashes of brilliance keep them from failing and getting the attention they need for Autistic Spectrum issues, ADHD or Learning Disabilities.
One part of dealing with G&T properly would be more correctly meeting each student where he/she is and helping them to thrive. This isn't about giving more to kids who are already top students and achievers...it is about reaching the ones who aren't being reached by the way we do things now.
Susan, I'm not portraying any fight between Special Ed and G&T. I am speaking (in general terms) to district resources and how they are currently allocated. It should not be either/or. All kids needs should be met.
susan1014 said:
Esiders, please, please don't make this into a fight between Special Ed and G&T, even if mammabear seems to portray it that way.
There are plenty of kids who are both needs and G&T, and whose Special Ed needs are often masked by their intelligence to the extent that they don't get properly classified and helped or supported in their gifts...they just become miserable failing students whose flashes of brilliance keep them from failing and getting the attention they need for Autistic Spectrum issues, ADHD or Learning Disabilities.
One part of dealing with G&T properly would be more correctly meeting each student where he/she is and helping them to thrive. This isn't about giving more to kids who are already top students and achievers...it is about reaching the ones who aren't being reached by the way we do things now.
Susan I totally get what you are saying. Growing up, I was one of those "twice exceptional" students. I had a neurological disorder and the only thing that kept me out of special education classes, was my IQ. I remember how the school struggled to deal with me...meetings with specialists, the many psych tests - all leading to the same result: "she's gifted but we don't know why she misbehaves or what to do with her". I wouldn't want any child to go through what I did.
BUT, I resent any parent who makes an insensitive presumption that "our district pays attention, allocates resources and gets things done where they want to. Special Ed? Check.". Special education is not a "want to" it's a "HAVE TO" allocation to provide special education students with a free and appropriate education. Why does it have to be a competition...why can't we work together to make sure all students get the education he/she needs?
Echoing Susan, I don't think that this should be a G&T vs. special ed or achievement gap discussion. Clearly, resources are and should continue to be allocated to special ed and the achievement gap. Being federal mandates the district hopefully can't step away from allocating resources to these issues though there have been cuts directed at special ed in the last few years.
The question is whether we can continue to ignore G&T kids and their needs. G&T is yet another unfunded mandate from the state, which the district seems to want to fulfill by not allocating any meaningful resources. Right now the plan is for the district to dismantle the math enrichment program at the end of the year but there is no plan to address the needs of kids at the elementary level who may have advanced math abilities or potential. The same goes for all other subjects. The plan proposed by the district basically reiterates that differentiated instruction will take care of these needs. However, there is no plan for professional development to ensure that this will really happen.
The question is whether we can continue to ignore G&T kids and their needs. G&T is yet another unfunded mandate from the state, which the district seems to want to fulfill by not allocating any meaningful resources. Right now the plan is for the district to dismantle the math enrichment program at the end of the year but there is no plan to address the needs of kids at the elementary level who may have advanced math abilities or potential. The same goes for all other subjects. The plan proposed by the district basically reiterates that differentiated instruction will take care of these needs. However, there is no plan for professional development to ensure that this will really happen.
What is an acceptable objective measure to decide who gets G&T services?
I am 100% with mamabear. All kids should be getting what they need, and our district is failing in challenging some of our kids. I work with individual with special needs and it is a sad reality that most school districts cannot provide all the services these kids would benefit from. Still, there is no excuse to totally ignore that some kids need to be challenged more. We should not be making any comparisons.
It is appalling that the district wants to save money by taking away the little G&T program we have.
As for having one 6th grade student who goes to CHS for math- I know his situation well. His parents had to battle a long time with the district to get him appropriately placed.
It is appalling that the district wants to save money by taking away the little G&T program we have.
As for having one 6th grade student who goes to CHS for math- I know his situation well. His parents had to battle a long time with the district to get him appropriately placed.
Esiders said:
BUT, I resent any parent who makes an insensitive presumption that "our district pays attention, allocates resources and gets things done where they want to. Special Ed? Check.". Special education is not a "want to" it's a "HAVE TO" allocation to provide special education students with a free and appropriate education. Why does it have to be a competition...why can't we work together to make sure all students get the education he/she needs?
Finish my sentence please. We allocate funds to all sorts of things in this district. As well we should. Some is mandated, some is not. This is NOT about special Ed. We owe owe it to ALL students to provide them with the appropriate services. That does NOT stop at Special Ed. It means all kids, G & T included.
Who will pay for this? I believe we are underfunding education and, painful though it may be, I believe we need to pay more. However, I believe I hold a minority viewpoint in saying this.
susan1014 said:
The fact that there is a 6th grader taking math at CHS should not be used as proof that we do gifted math education well accross the district.
I really hesitated commenting on this, for privacy reasons, so I will speak as broadly as possible, and everything I say is my opinion ONLY. I do not have firsthand information about what goes on in this class, but mainstreaming does not always serve the student who is put in a classroom of students where he/she is exceptional/different, nor does it always effectively serve the other students in the classroom. One of the ingredients for its success is giving a teacher who is charged with this kind of classroom training and development to properly handle such a classroom well. It is my opinion that this is not happening in this situation. If the district sees this action as meeting needs of G&T, particularly for kids who may have special needs, then they are missing the target.
bellina said:
It is appalling that the district wants to save money by taking away the little G&T program we have.
As for having one 6th grade student who goes to CHS for math- I know his situation well. His parents had to battle a long time with the district to get him appropriately placed.
Bellina, I had assumed that might be the case, but am glad to have real information.
One of my big issues with how we allegedly serve G&T students well is that it is all anecdotal. My sense is that we give accomodations to occasional kids whose parents advocate aggressively for them, and then claim those occasional one-off agreements as evidence of a thoughtful approach to G&T issues.
Not every kid gets moved up to a higher level of math when they should. My child was taught that it is OK to read science fiction novels in the back of the elementary school classroom when math is boring (in spite of my advocacy for something more). The elementary Math pull-outs that are being discontinued were the source of the very little new learning in math that she did at school in late elementary.
She scored 299 or 300 on every NJASK math assessment (making the District look good), and then ended up in disciplinary trouble for reading in class in middle school. She is still struggling with an expectation that math should be effortless to learn, a belief that is driving her out of top level HS courses.
What is the target? One thing I have noticed from the g&t discussions is that the kids cannot be nicely packaged into a single high-level group. So, for some certainly, taking courses at CHS while in middle school and then Seton Hall or something while in CHS is the appropriate course of action.
kareno said:
susan1014 said:
The fact that there is a 6th grader taking math at CHS should not be used as proof that we do gifted math education well accross the district.
I really hesitated commenting on this, for privacy reasons, so I will speak as broadly as possible, and everything I say is my opinion ONLY. I do not have firsthand information about what goes on in this class, but mainstreaming does not always serve the student who is put in a classroom of students where he/she is exceptional/different, nor does it always effectively serve the other students in the classroom. One of the ingredients for its success is giving a teacher who is charged with this kind of classroom training and development to properly handle such a classroom well. It is my opinion that this is not happening in this situation. If the district sees this action as meeting needs of G&T, particularly for kids who may have special needs, then they are missing the target.
Agreed...and to speak broadly, also for privacy reasons, I suspect that emotional/classroom maturity issues block this sort of placement for a good number of the children who need it most.
Jan 30, 2014 at 4:37am Edited
eliz said:
What is an acceptable objective measure to decide who gets G&T services?
Not a simple answer. Several types of individual IQ tests are often used and adapted to account for possible skewed results of the twice exceptional. Another tact is using above level tests in the way that SAT is used in the Johns Hopkins Talent Search. Researchers and experts agree that peer level tests (like our standardized tests, NJASK and Terranova) are useless for identification of giftedness and relying on classroom achievement/teacher recommendation alone will almost always miss gifted students - particularly those from lower socioeconomic levels or those with other learning differences such as ADHD or spectrum disorders like Aspergers
Here are some links to peruse:
http://www.davidsongifted.org/db/Articles_id_10150.aspx
http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/testing.htm
http://www.gifteddevelopment.com/About_GDC/newiqtests.htm
http://tip.duke.edu/node/96#Commonly%20Used%20Instruments
edited to add links.
susan1014 said:
kareno said:
susan1014 said:
The fact that there is a 6th grader taking math at CHS should not be used as proof that we do gifted math education well accross the district.
I really hesitated commenting on this, for privacy reasons, so I will speak as broadly as possible, and everything I say is my opinion ONLY. I do not have firsthand information about what goes on in this class, but mainstreaming does not always serve the student who is put in a classroom of students where he/she is exceptional/different, nor does it always effectively serve the other students in the classroom. One of the ingredients for its success is giving a teacher who is charged with this kind of classroom training and development to properly handle such a classroom well. It is my opinion that this is not happening in this situation. If the district sees this action as meeting needs of G&T, particularly for kids who may have special needs, then they are missing the target.
Agreed...and to speak broadly, also for privacy reasons, I suspect that emotional/classroom maturity issues block this sort of placement for a good number of the children who need it most.
It was another district and the age was younger, but our experience in a similar situation -- though we appreciated the attempt -- was pretty much a wash.
ETA: When kmt and I had a discussion about this, I ended up more receptive to a broader application that created a greater mix of ages in classes, which could alleviate the emotional/maturity issues that may arise when it's one kid among 30 others all several years older.
Jan 30, 2014 at 4:49am Edited
Esiders points out, "Special Ed" is federally mandated.
I'll add, G&T is state mandated. You kind of were implying it is optional whereas Special Needs is not. But that's not actually true. They're both mandated at some level.
I think mammabear's point is a valid one, the BOT picks and chooses which mandates it wishes to follow. Perhaps part of that is based on the fact that the state's G&T mandate has no teeth whatsoever, and that the BOT has so far been good and crafting a message that "our regular curriculum is G&T" or something to that effect.
I'll add, G&T is state mandated. You kind of were implying it is optional whereas Special Needs is not. But that's not actually true. They're both mandated at some level.
I think mammabear's point is a valid one, the BOT picks and chooses which mandates it wishes to follow. Perhaps part of that is based on the fact that the state's G&T mandate has no teeth whatsoever, and that the BOT has so far been good and crafting a message that "our regular curriculum is G&T" or something to that effect.
wnb said:
Esiders points out, "Special Ed" is federally mandated.
I'll add, G&T is state mandated. You kind of were implying it is optional whereas Special Needs is not. But that's not actually true. They're both mandated at some level.
I think mammabear's point is a valid one, the BOT picks and chooses which mandates it wishes to follow. Perhaps part of that is based on the fact that the state's G&T mandate has no teeth whatsoever, and that the BOT has so far been good and crafting a message that "our regular curriculum is G&T" or something to that effect.
Exactly!
Jan 30, 2014 at 5:27am Edited
http://www.us.mensa.org/learn/gifted-youth/
http://www.mensaforkids.org/
These guys may offer some suggestions or ideas on programs that can be set up in a school/home environment for G Kids.
They have been involved in it since their founding.
It's very difficult for any community to handle comprehensive personalized education because each child has different needs and the next child that enters the system has needs that differ from the children who exited the system and the school will need time to identify, design, introduce the program.
There's the money element too. It does not exist at the local level. Perhaps some of these programs could be handled at the county level. At a wider geographical level, it may be easier and more affordable to handle individual needs.
http://www.mensaforkids.org/
These guys may offer some suggestions or ideas on programs that can be set up in a school/home environment for G Kids.
They have been involved in it since their founding.
It's very difficult for any community to handle comprehensive personalized education because each child has different needs and the next child that enters the system has needs that differ from the children who exited the system and the school will need time to identify, design, introduce the program.
There's the money element too. It does not exist at the local level. Perhaps some of these programs could be handled at the county level. At a wider geographical level, it may be easier and more affordable to handle individual needs.
This is such a sensitive topic for me. I have been teaching in the realm of G&T for numerous years. I taught at one of the top G&T schools in NYC and now I am a teacher and creator of a pull-out G&T program in NJ.
My understanding of our school district is that we have enrichment programs rather than a true G&T program. They are not the same. Although it is state mandated to have a G&T program, very loose guidelines are placed on the requirements of the programs. This is very different than special education programs which is a federal mandate and uses a large portion of federal funding as well. Special education deserves every service and penny it receives, and truly deserves more. However, every child deserves the services that would benefit he/she including G&T. When districts were hit hard a few years ago with the massive budget cuts, the easiest thing to eliminate was G&T because districts could say that all teachers were differentiating in the classroom. However, many teachers do not differentiate across the board in their rooms. It is almost an impossible expectation. In addition, many teachers and PARENTS do not understand what a gifted learner looks like. Do you know how many times I hear, “ I can’t believe this student is in G&T they don’t do their HW.” And on the other side, I hear from parents, how well they scored on NJASK or how they always do well in class. That is not necessarily the criteria for a gifted learner. So, often teachers will “differentiate” by giving more worksheets or a higher-reading level. Again, this is not meeting the needs of the learner. It has to be more rigorous work, higher-level questioning and more in –depth knowledge. In addition, teachers are being judged by test scores, so of course, they are naturally going to focus on the struggling learner.
I think SOMA school district, has a lot to figure out with regards to a G&T program. At least, they have it on their agenda. It’s a start. Many districts still do not have a G&T program and aren’t even acknowledging the need. Parents need to keep pushing for it but at the same time understand what it takes to create a new and successful program. Then when a program is in place we will have a discussion about the measures used aren’t fair and how could my “gifted” child not be in the program. Something I deal with on a daily basis…
My understanding of our school district is that we have enrichment programs rather than a true G&T program. They are not the same. Although it is state mandated to have a G&T program, very loose guidelines are placed on the requirements of the programs. This is very different than special education programs which is a federal mandate and uses a large portion of federal funding as well. Special education deserves every service and penny it receives, and truly deserves more. However, every child deserves the services that would benefit he/she including G&T. When districts were hit hard a few years ago with the massive budget cuts, the easiest thing to eliminate was G&T because districts could say that all teachers were differentiating in the classroom. However, many teachers do not differentiate across the board in their rooms. It is almost an impossible expectation. In addition, many teachers and PARENTS do not understand what a gifted learner looks like. Do you know how many times I hear, “ I can’t believe this student is in G&T they don’t do their HW.” And on the other side, I hear from parents, how well they scored on NJASK or how they always do well in class. That is not necessarily the criteria for a gifted learner. So, often teachers will “differentiate” by giving more worksheets or a higher-reading level. Again, this is not meeting the needs of the learner. It has to be more rigorous work, higher-level questioning and more in –depth knowledge. In addition, teachers are being judged by test scores, so of course, they are naturally going to focus on the struggling learner.
I think SOMA school district, has a lot to figure out with regards to a G&T program. At least, they have it on their agenda. It’s a start. Many districts still do not have a G&T program and aren’t even acknowledging the need. Parents need to keep pushing for it but at the same time understand what it takes to create a new and successful program. Then when a program is in place we will have a discussion about the measures used aren’t fair and how could my “gifted” child not be in the program. Something I deal with on a daily basis…
In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
I encourage anyone interested in this issue to go to the Board page on the website, and watch the presentation (it is about 2 hours into the meeting).
Here are a few of my thoughts after a careful watching, from memory (as my computer ate my notes):
1. The presentation and document clearly aimed at framing what we currently have (less the 4th and 5th grade pull-out math, which is being discontinued) as an effective but unrecognized program for academically gifted students. It is basically a "rebranding" document for current activities, which the presenter believes we do quite well.
Supposedly we differentiate effectively to outliers, with higher level reading books, and the ability to "compress" math, or accelerate students to a different grade. I do wish I had seen more evidence of this with my mathematically gifted elementary schoolers.
So the report applauded the district for improved academic extracurriculars, high school AP courses, etc., and proposed no significant changes in classroom instruction for academically gifted students.
At my most optimistic, what was proposed suggests a better effort to identify students, and to more broadly copy best practices. The fact that there is a 6th grader taking math at CHS should not be used as proof that we do gifted math education well accross the district.
2. The main new addition is a proposal to identify students gifted in the arts, music, dance, leadership, etc., differentiate their intruction in those areas, and provide showcases for their talent (e.g. a District-wide gallery show). In addition, there is a plan to pilot an elementary math competition program at Seth Boyden this year. And, oh yes, they plan to give parents lists of outside opportunities that might be of interest. And maybe they will eventually let kids work ahead in the online ST Math...
3. In an aside, the presenter mentioned a nonprofit Essex County Steering Committee for Gifted and Talented Education which offers a range of academic competitions and activities for local students, of which our District IS NOT A MEMBER?!? Why the **** not? Here is a link to a Livingston Schools G&T newsletter giving a sense of what our kids are missing:
http://www.livingston.org/cms/lib4/NJ01000562/Centricity/Domain/24/Our%20GT%20Advocate%20Fall%202013.pdf
4. Most of the Board members asked good questions, and made it clear that they did not see this as a finished product, and had some significant issues with it. Ever so politely, they pretty much made it clear that what was presented was lacking an actual proposal, adequate budget information, or implementation planning, and that it would be a disservice to move forward on anything so incomplete. (As far as I can remember, Ms. Wright had used up all of her questions on the IB presentation, and was the one Board member with nothing to say here)
5. Dr. Osborne's main observation was that implementation tends to work best when done in stages.
So, reading the tea leaves of this, we will likely get a "G&T program" that is mostly a rebranding of existing policies, with a few nice extracurricular add-ons, and a music/dance/art track. Its implementation will be delayed beyond September 2014, since it isn't ready for prime time yet, and it will likely be implemented in stages, as is the case for IB, so many students will be years from seeing anything from it.
Honestly, this is even less than the low expectations that I had for this project.
--------
FWIW, according to the District website in 2012-13 the Equity and Excellence Committee included Guadelli, Bennett, Crawford and Wren-Hardin; in 2013-14 it includes Guadelli, Pai, Wren-Harden and Wright. Three of the four current committee members asked the presenting staffer, Ms. Furnari, tough questions that (in my opinion) should have been asked and resolved in Committee.
I had to go back and look up the Committee membership, since there didn't seem to be anyone on the Board speaking for this document, which allegedly came out of a Board-led committee. The discussion suggested (to me) that the Board Committee members may not have been adequately involved in the thinking behind the document. This does not feel like a true output of an engaged committee process.