Gifted and Talented discussions at 1/27/14 and 2/24/14 SOMSD BOE meetings

jayjayp said:

Gifted kids need to be in an environment with other smart kids.

Ms. Wright said that this was her experience as a teacher. She had other comments, that I couldn't hear very well on the video.

But, like other high demand programs in the city, there are an insufficient number of spaces:

" Given the number of seats versus the number of applications, there is no guarantee of placement, even if your child meets all of the necessary criteria. When the number of applicants with the same priority and score exceeds the number of seats available, a random assignment process will be used to determine who is accepted into the program."

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/03/03/is-your-child-exceptional/

jfburch, I think there is a difference in being eligible to apply and being chosen for a program. The 10 percent figure is more for an honors level than a true G&T program imho.

My point is that once again there isn't any clear or effective, let alone universal, definition of what a G&T program, or a G&T kid is. And in the NYC case, it's not about meeting identified needs of kids, if access is ultimately determined by the number of seats available, or even lottery.

jfburch said:

My point is that once again there isn't any clear or effective, let alone universal, definition of what a G&T program, or a G&T kid is. And in the NYC case, it's not about meeting identified needs of kids, if access is ultimately determined by the number of seats available, or even lottery.

If we wait for a "universal, definition of what a G&T program, or a G&T kid" to come along before formulating our own program, then we will be waiting forever. That's an unrealistically high barrier, especially since we are talking about the field of education where there doesn't seem to be "universal definitions" anywhere.

xavier67 said:

...we are talking about the field of education where there doesn't seem to be "universal definitions" anywhere.

Only trends and reforms and philosophies, which are much better than definitions!!!

xavier67 said:

jfburch said:

My point is that once again there isn't any clear or effective, let alone universal, definition of what a G&T program, or a G&T kid is. And in the NYC case, it's not about meeting identified needs of kids, if access is ultimately determined by the number of seats available, or even lottery.

If we wait for a "universal, definition of what a G&T program, or a G&T kid" to come along before formulating our own program, then we will be waiting forever. That's an unrealistically high barrier, especially since we are talking about the field of education where there doesn't seem to be "universal definitions" anywhere.

+1

JF, good point. I know that many "experts" are expanding the definition of gifted beyond a high IQ, usually north of 140, and the three to five percent of the population covered by that definition to include other criteria that can expand the definition to include ten percent or more of the population. While I admit a high IQ isn't the be all and end all on the subject, I am very worried that in a district such as SOM the definition will be expanded to the point where the program becomes meaningless for the truly gifted.

This is very much the case of what happened with the honors tract which my recollection is started out with around ten percents of the students and then grew to way over half the students over thirty years to please the voter parents.

For the record I think that a special program for the top three to five percent is a good idea, although I don't know how you group this small a group in a relatively small district, and have no problem with a true honors tract for the top ten percent achievers.

(sigh) I am hardly advocating for a universal solution, or against meeting the needs of G&T kids.

The state defines what is G&T and requires all districts to have a program to meet the needs of these students. It is very clear.

http://www.state.nj.us/education/aps/cccs/g_and_t_req.htm

There is no requirement that districts laboriously study and define what is G&T. This is all a snow job and delay tactic.

The amount of time spent analyzing and studying an issue is inversely proportional to Brian Osbornes desire to have that program.

Delevelling 7th grade.... Announced in May, implemented in Sept.
Delevelling 8th grade.... Announced in Marc, implemented in Sept
IB middle school transformation program .... Announced in March, implememented, kind of, sort of, in Sept, but since nobody is really clear on what exactly has been transformed... Who knows.

G&T program... Studied laboriously for two years with no definition of what the program will be, who it will serve, how it will be implemented... No date of action. Still waiting for a definition of G&T.

@campbell29: All-time greatest MOL post, ever. Well done.

wnb said:

The state defines what is G&T and requires all districts to have a program to meet the needs of these students. It is very clear.

"Those students who possess or demonstrate high levels of ability, in one or more content areas, when compared to their chronological peers in the local district." If that's a clear way to distinguish between students, I applaud your acuity.

sprout said:

However, the implementation across the state of Vermont, where they are beginning to implement Personal Learning Plans across the whole state (once again, here is my link from above: http://www.reformer.com/news/ci_25022346/vermont-helps-students-personalized-learning-plans), seems like a model we could explore.

A personalized learning plan for seventh and ninth graders (to start) that "matches their career interests and aspirations"? And here I was thinking that students were even being confronted with questions about college too soon. Individual plans that account for a child's general interests sound like a useful tool, allowing for some self-inspired pursuits, and are indeed a component of all three options proposed to the BOE. But I wouldn't want my child's education to revolve around one. What he doesn't know he doesn't know is just as important, if not more so, as what he thinks he wants to know.

bobk said:

This is very much the case of what happened with the honors tract which my recollection is started out with around ten percents of the students and then grew to way over half the students over thirty years to please the voter parents.

If bobk's recollection is accurate, this is interesting in light of Jeffrey Bennett's response at the meeting, and mod's previous comment here, dismissing concerns that demand will outstrip G&T admissions. Or, as they put it, fears that parents will "storm" the district (a term that, if used by Andrea Wren-Hardin, I must have missed). Without any research at all, I think it's safe to say that if parents see value in a program, many will understandably do all they can to get their child involved in it, even if they deem him or her only "garden-variety" qualified. No storming is necessary -- just typical attempts at influence -- to expose cracks in selection criteria, increase the chances of "creep" and require additional resources and time to deal with them. I wouldn't exaggerate the burden, or use it as an excuse not to proceed, but I wouldn't discount it, either.

I think Mr. Bennett may have also misconstrued the point about youngsters who demonstrate abilities encouraged by parents who specialize in those skills. To me, it sounded like a caution against assuming the 6-year-old daughter of a philosophy professor is gifted because she can name-check Socrates, Hume and Kant, not a call to hold little Stu Mill to a higher standard because his father was a thinker, too. (While John Stuart Mill's Galatean upbringing did not prevent him from living a happy life, even advocates might find his childhood clustering a bit extreme.)

Mr. Bennett's clarification about the net finances was very helpful. Much appreciated.

jayjayp said:

Gifted kids need to be in an environment with other smart kids. Individualized stuff sounds nice but it does not feed the intellectual stimulation of being around other smart kids.

Been there. Our child spent two and half years in an academic magnet middle school in Philadelphia. Over all, the experience was a positive one, for the reason that jayjayp and Ms. Wright have stated. It was not, in my view, a need. (Admittedly, I'm spare with my acknowledgment of any G&T "needs.") When we moved here, stimulating peers awaited at MMS as well, academically and otherwise. It didn't require spending all day in class with a limited group to draw from their gifts.

Clustering here would bring a few questions to mind. First, the scale that kriss and bobk have noted. Philadelphia has 0.15 million students ( ;-) ). This allows for a school-size cluster, large enough to expose students to peers with a wide variety of interests and backgrounds in classroom combinations that shift by subject and by year. Even if SOMA's gifted students could fill a class for each grade, wouldn't that grouping be a bit confining, year in and year out?

In a related matter, honors classes can be fluid; students who didn't make the cut can prove their merit over time and get another chance. According to G&T supporters in these threads, however, giftedness is a way of "thinking differently," an innate characteristic. Which would mean, as some have suggested, that students could and should be evaluated at an early age. But would supporters accept that, if giftedness isn't something that can be acquired, it would be tough to justify any change in a denial?

Beyond that, gifted kids have different talents. Some might have special aptitude mainly in math, some in verbal or artistic areas. Leadership, etc. How would a cluster of them differentiate?

To anybody who has read this far: I hope you have a measure of trait No. 10 on the chart that mod linked to. You could use a laugh by now.

@DaveSchmidt "If that's a clear way to distinguish between students, I applaud your acuity"

Every year the district tests kids' reading abilities. If you have a young elementary child who reads at a middle or high school level, I would say that they "possess or demonstrate high levels of ability in one content area when compared to their chronological peers in the local district."

I know someone who was on the committee which wrote the state mandate and is the director of the Gifted Child Clinic in New Brunswick. A few years ago, I told the administration and BOE that she was willing to be consulted at no charge as the district developed a G&T program. If there is any confusion about what giftedness is, I guess you can either throw up your hands and say it's unclear or you can seek clarification and solutions from professionals, literature and existing programs. Since all of our surrounding districts have G&T programs, it really shouldn't be that hard to find out what has been effective elsewhere and bring that here, especially over the course of the past 2 years. Provided the district actually wants to, as Campbell's post makes clear. I am still waiting for someone to explain how IB has benefitted my child or what are the metrics that are being used to find out if it is working.

DaveSchmidt said:

bobk said:

This is very much the case of what happened with the honors tract which my recollection is started out with around ten percents of the students and then grew to way over half the students over thirty years to please the voter parents.

If bobk's recollection is accurate, this is interesting in light of Jeffrey Bennett's response at the meeting, and mod's previous comment here, dismissing concerns that demand will outstrip G&T admissions. Or, as they put it, fears that parents will "storm" the district (a term that, if used by Andrea Wren-Hardin, I must have missed). Without any research at all, I think it's safe to say that if parents see value in a program, many will understandably do all they can to get their child involved in it, even if they deem him or her only "garden-variety" qualified. No storming is necessary -- just typical attempts at influence -- to expose cracks in selection criteria, increase the chances of "creep" and require additional resources and time to deal with them. I wouldn't exaggerate the burden, or use it as an excuse not to proceed, but I wouldn't discount it, either.

I think both Sandra Karriem and Andrea Wren Hardin spoke to this point. I am not sure about the exact terms used by them, but seem to recollect "besieged". I guess the concern about mission creep is best demonstrated by the numbers given by the Super at the meeting about honors level in high school - 85% in SS honors and 60% in Science and LA honors

I would think that if this were a legitimate concern, the program would be defined more clearly. I think that more transparent the program is the more successful it will be. IB is a promising program, but it looks like it has not been demystified for the teachers who are supposed to use it for instruction and hence all the complaints. Similarly, if a G&T program is not clear as to its goals and targets, there will be many pushing for it and to Andrea Wren Hardin's point, many who are disappointed. (By the way, call me cynical, but I read her comment to be more like political fear of disappointing supporters. Disappointment has been used as an excuse to get rid of the current enrichment in elementary as kids left behind in the class feel sad. However, no one has bothered to ask the kids who would have been in enrichment how they feel about the destruction of the that program.)

I think Mr. Bennett may have also misconstrued the point about youngsters who demonstrate abilities encouraged by parents who specialize in those skills. To me, it sounded like a caution against assuming the 6-year-old daughter of a philosophy professor is gifted because she can name-check Socrates, Hume and Kant, not a call to hold little Stu Mill to a higher standard because his father was a thinker, too.

I think this discussion was related to identifying kids in K with the fear that privilege was masquerading as giftedness. I'm sure Mr. Bennett is well aware of the advantages that kids from privileged families have and I think that he made a good point. At the K level, certain areas of giftedness may be more apparent than others. Narrowing down the categories of identification at the K level might be helpful in separating privilege from giftedness.

As an aside, there has been a certain glibness about attributing high achievement to just privilege and advantage. Not a BOE member, but I don't think I will ever forget the comment by a CHS teacher in a documentary where he said that Level 4 kids were just better at playing school than others. While many may be, there are many as well who are genuinely turned on by learning.

Clustering here would bring a few questions to mind. First, the scale that kriss and bobk have noted. Philadelphia has 0.15 million students ( ;-) ). This allows for a school-size cluster, large enough to expose students to peers with a wide variety of interests and backgrounds in classroom combinations that shift by subject and by year. Even if SOMA's gifted students could fill a class for each grade, wouldn't that grouping be a bit confining, year in and year out?

I don't think SOMA could ever have a class full of G&T kids in each grade in every school. But the cluster grouping that I am envisioning is more about teacher efficiency. I think it is easier to train one teacher per subject per grade well in how to work with G&T kids rather than training all of them in all subjects. So i'm thinking 3 mathy kids in one class, 3 lit kids in another, leadership/art/music kids spread throughout the grade. Does it create a perception of a smart class vs. dumb classes, I don't know. But kids are pretty perceptive and know who is good at what and don't begrudge each other their talents. It's the parents who are the issue when it comes to perceptions of cluster grouping.

In a related matter, honors classes can be fluid; students who didn't make the cut can prove their merit over time and get another chance. According to G&T supporters in these threads, however, giftedness is a way of "thinking differently," an innate characteristic. Which would mean, as some have suggested, that students could and should be evaluated at an early age. But would supporters accept that, if giftedness isn't something that can be acquired, it would be tough to justify any change in a denial?

I think you have early bloomer and late bloomers and yes, those who develop a passion based on encouragement from someone. I, too, am not sure that giftedness is a fixed quality but I think it is a good idea to have a continual process of identification starting early as I agree with Andrea Wren Hardin that many of these kids have mod's trait # 11 and 12, which are often misconstrued by teachers as opposition, disruption etc.

To anybody who has read this far: I hope you have a measure of trait No. 10 on the chart that mod linked to. You could use a laugh by now.

You made me go back and look for that link Did I manage to beat you in length of post?

@Chalmers1, I wasn't suggesting the throwing up of hands. Yes, there are ways to seek clarity. I just don't think it will be found in the state guidelines. As dg64 said, well-defined, transparent criteria will be important. From the BOE presentation, it didn't strike me that the district had made much progress on this front.

@dg64, thanks for the thoughts, especially on clustering. And I'm happy to call it a tie.

Simply putting the top 3 kids in each grade in the same class would be a help. It would cost nothing.

gaijin said:

Simply putting the top 3 kids in each grade in the same class would be a help. It would cost nothing.

But how do you decide on 3 when there are all the different areas in which to be gifted (art, math, writing ...) and what happens to #4 if you even have a way to rank them in this manner?

DaveSchmidt said:

wnb said:

The state defines what is G&T and requires all districts to have a program to meet the needs of these students. It is very clear.

"Those students who possess or demonstrate high levels of ability, in one or more content areas, when compared to their chronological peers in the local district." If that's a clear way to distinguish between students, I applaud your acuity.

@DaveSchmidt, Why did you not quote the entire definition?

"...and who require modification of their educational program if they are to achieve in accordance with their capabilities" is a very important part of the definition, perhaps even the most important part.

You intentionally omitted it, why?

sac said:

gaijin said:

Simply putting the top 3 kids in each grade in the same class would be a help. It would cost nothing.

But how do you decide on 3 when there are all the different areas in which to be gifted (art, math, writing ...) and what happens to #4 if you even have a way to rank them in this manner?

You don't. It isn't about "top 3." It's about students for whom the curriculum hampers their ability to succeed to their full abilities.

wnb said:

"...and who require modification of their educational program if they are to achieve in accordance with their capabilities" is a very important part of the definition, perhaps even the most important part.

You intentionally omitted it, why?

Because that part of the bromide is as vague as the first, and I thought continuing the quote would be redundant. Any child could require a modification to the educational program in order to achieve to his or her capabilties.

If that is the definition -- in its entirety -- that you'd like to use for participation in a G&T program, then I really would brace for a storm.

DaveSchmidt said:

sprout said:

However, the implementation across the state of Vermont, where they are beginning to implement Personal Learning Plans across the whole state (once again, here is my link from above: http://www.reformer.com/news/ci_25022346/vermont-helps-students-personalized-learning-plans), seems like a model we could explore.

A personalized learning plan for seventh and ninth graders (to start) that "matches their career interests and aspirations"? And here I was thinking that students were even being confronted with questions about college too soon. Individual plans that account for a child's general interests sound like a useful tool, allowing for some self-inspired pursuits, and are indeed a component of all three options proposed to the BOE. But I wouldn't want my child's education to revolve around one. What he doesn't know he doesn't know is just as important, if not more so, as what he thinks he wants to know.

Dave: You also misquoted Sprout's article. The text reads "each student eventually will develop a personalized learning plan that matches their career interests and aspirations with their learning, which could include internships and college courses."

A personalized learning plan is not just about career readiness. It's about students taking an active role in shaping their learning and in identifying what they know AND what they don't know. But I think we need a separate thread on what personalized learning is.

ALee said:

Dave: You also misquoted Sprout's article. The text reads "each student eventually will develop a personalized learning plan that matches their career interests and aspirations with their learning, which could include internships and college courses."

A personalized learning plan is not just about career readiness. It's about students taking an active role in shaping their learning and in identifying what they know AND what they don't know. But I think we need a separate thread on what personalized learning is.

As with the quotation that wnb flagged, my motivation was brevity (in a post that was already too long). In this case, I thought it would be apparent that, in a learning plan, the career interests and aspirations would be matched with learning. I didn't mean to suggest it was all about career readiness. If the lightheartedness of my surprise -- though surprise nonetheless -- that "career" and "seventh and ninth graders" would be mentioned in the same breath did not come through, the fault is mine. (My guess is that this part of Vermont's plans does not apply until later high school years, but the article left room for a reader to wonder.)

And if a personalized learning plan is not centered on a student's own interests, then with relief I stand corrected.

DaveSchmidt said:

And if a personalized learning plan is not centered on a student's own interests, then with relief I stand corrected.

Well, that's a valid concern. If it's tied to a standard, then the plan can't be entirely driven by a student's own interests. Like most other things, much depends on how personalized learning is implemented. Not sure any schools have figured it out completely.

DaveSchmidt said:

wnb said:

"...and who require modification of their educational program if they are to achieve in accordance with their capabilities" is a very important part of the definition, perhaps even the most important part.

You intentionally omitted it, why?

Because that part of the bromide is as vague as the first, and I thought continuing the quote would be redundant. Any child could require a modification to the educational program in order to achieve to his or her capabilties.

If that is the definition -- in its entirety -- that you'd like to use for participation in a G&T program, then I really would brace for a storm.

First, you take the first part and omit the second. Now, you take the second part and omit the first. The point is that the two things need to be taken together in their entirety and in doing so there is a definition to work with.

It is not true that "any" child could require modification, because the first part specifically narrows this to a subset of the population, while the second part further narrows it to an even smaller subset of the population. And in each case the language is specific enough. Two clear conditions need to be met, the student needs to perform above peer level and the student needs to be hampered by the existing curriculum. If both of those conditions are met, then a program must exist to meet that student's needs. This is pretty straightforward.

I repeat: I applaud your acuity.

ETA: Where I, unlike you, remain confounded is regarding the means of determining what a comparatively high (or is it merely above?) level of ability is and, following that, which students who possess it are already achieving in accordance to it and thus require no modifications.

Not to be too nit-picky, but there does seem to be a difference in the amount of time spent debating the merit between programs highly favored by the admin, and those that are not deemed to be so important.

Despite the fact that no other district in NJ has a middle school IB program ( and the one district that had it abandoned it), the IB program went forward, full steam in an extremely quick time frame. Nobody expected it to be perfect on Day One, and it hasn't been, yet, people are willing to give it a chance to work out the kinks and hope that eventually it will be worthwhile.

On the other hand, implementing a G&T program affects far fewer kids than a middle school transformation, costs way less money and has far less than a universal impact than the IB program. But there seems to be a lot of hesitancy about going forward because it won't be perfect on day one, and MSO hasn't conducted exhaustive study and analysis.

If the district is willing to implement things like an IB program without doing a lot of research, analysis and due diligence, it should be equally willing to experiment with G&T.

DaveSchmidt said:

I repeat: I applaud your acuity.

ETA: Where I, unlike you, remain confounded is regarding the means of determining what a comparatively high (or is it merely above?) level of ability is and, following that, which students who possess it are already achieving in accordance to it and thus require no modifications.

Really? Assessing students' abilities and needs is a basic function of an educational institution. A school that can't do that effectively is fundamentally dysfunctional. Beyond dysfunction lies willful ignorance.

wnb said:

Assessing students' abilities and needs is a basic function of an educational institution. A school that can't do that effectively is fundamentally dysfunctional. Beyond dysfunction lies willful ignorance.

As I alluded to in a previous page in my example of being assessed for something as 'simple' as a sports team, assessment is a highly imperfect science.

sprout said:

wnb said:

Assessing students' abilities and needs is a basic function of an educational institution. A school that can't do that effectively is fundamentally dysfunctional. Beyond dysfunction lies willful ignorance.

As I alluded to in a previous page in my example of being assessed for something as 'simple' as a sports team, assessment is a highly imperfect science.

Yet, compliance with the state mandate is not. Though it does require admitting that there is some portion of the student population for whom your curriculum is insufficient. What a curious coincidence that the two populations for whom that applies are marginalized by our administration under the very Newspeak-like label of "inclusion."