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

mapletree said:

Cities can provide a larger variety of services than small towns.

A small town can never be everything to every individual student in every individual grade in every individual family.

You get one elementary school, one middle school, one high school with their limits. The alternative is private school.

The implication is that we should do G&T at the county level like Stuyvesant High School?

jmansky said:

Question for "myboys" (and anyone else) - does anyone know what the better districts are for G&T in NJ? In my limited and anecdotal experience, it seems that districts like Springfield, Cranford, Bridgewater provide a more robust G&T program than districts like Millburn, Livingston etc. We actually left the SOMA district when our daughter was in 1st grade and moved to a district with a G&T program. Unfortunately we did not really understand what we were doing at the time, and chose a district with a light-weight weekly pullout. What she really needed was subject acceleration (particularly math). I wish there was a database of NJ school district G&T programs - it is SO hard to make an informed decision re. districts for G&T - not to mention that these programs get cancelled frequently anyway. In retrospect I guess we would have done better in the NYC schools - seems like their G&T is fantastic.

BTW I will add that my daughter also has an IEP.

If you find any resources, please, please come back here and report.

mapletree said:

Cities can provide a larger variety of services than small towns.

A small town can never be everything to every individual student in every individual grade in every individual family.

You get one elementary school, one middle school, one high school with their limits. The alternative is private school.

There are so many real world examples that contradict these statements I don't even know where to begin.

tjohn said:

mapletree said:

Cities can provide a larger variety of services than small towns.

A small town can never be everything to every individual student in every individual grade in every individual family.

You get one elementary school, one middle school, one high school with their limits. The alternative is private school.

The implication is that we should do G&T at the county level like Stuyvesant High School?

Tjohn,

I have written that several times.

But not just for G&T.

wnb said:

mapletree said:

Cities can provide a larger variety of services than small towns.

A small town can never be everything to every individual student in every individual grade in every individual family.

You get one elementary school, one middle school, one high school with their limits. The alternative is private school.

There are so many real world examples that contradict these statements I don't even know where to begin.

Ok.

There are many real world examples that confirm it.

SOMASD is part of this world. Many parents are complaining that SOMASD cannot provide all the Individual needs of their child.

I think their point, mapletree, is that it can, and should, but simply doesn't.

It can if the town has infinite resources most of the personnel twiddling their thumbs waiting for the child that needs their specific expertise TODAY.

No reason why it cannot happen with these almost unrealistic expectations.

What?

mapletree said:

Cities can provide a larger variety of services than small towns.

A small town can never be everything to every individual student in every individual grade in every individual family.

You get one elementary school, one middle school, one high school with their limits. The alternative is private school.

In NJ I think it's more common to have regional high schools or for the HS students in really small towns to be zoned for a HS in a larger town nearby.

BaseballMom said:

mapletree said:

Cities can provide a larger variety of services than small towns.

A small town can never be everything to every individual student in every individual grade in every individual family.

You get one elementary school, one middle school, one high school with their limits. The alternative is private school.

In NJ I think it's more common to have regional high schools or for the HS students in really small towns to be zoned for a HS in a larger town nearby.

That would work.

A large hospital can do for someone with a specific person something a small clinic cannot do, just to give a non-school real life example for those who don't seem to understand.

The goal is to be set up to provide a needed service and to be able to provide when needed.

NJAGC runs a "gifted" conference every year - we went last year, and it was certainly worthwhile. However, I think, more than anything, NJ (and the country, but lets start with NJ) needs some sort of directory or rating system for public school districts G&T offerings - then people could vote with their feet (and school tax dollars, such as they are) I asked this group, at the conference last year, why they don't facilitate such a directory, and they had reasons, but I didn't really follow. Does anyone know of such a directory? It takes a long time to randomly check every districts website!
http://www.njagc.org/

I vote with my wallet. No offense or insult but I will only subsidize education within what I, I not the mommies and daddies,consider a fair limit.

There's a young family out there dying to replace me and raise the family here.

I am in favor of G&T. I am a G.

Equally disappointed in the G&T program that came out of committee. Sadly I expected little lift differentiating the programs in place, but wanted to see a clear, objective measurement tool for proactively identifying G&T kids. Found this from Dr. Osborne's mentors' school, can't be hard to replicate here. Interestingly, for the 13-14 school year, the Montgomery County School District even expanded the definition for G&T and lowered threshold for inclusion. Thoughts?

Montgomery County lowers threshold for the gifted and talented label

August 12, 2013
Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) has been identifying gifted and talented students using a process known as Global Screening. Via a public information request, this column obtained a copy of the 2009 Global Screening and Rescreening Procedures Manual (GSRPM) and began publicizing the details of the screening process.

During the second semester, all second grade MCPS students are screened in what is called the Global Screening process. This screening process also results in the public school system “labeling” the student as gifted and talented.

The first pathway to the gifted and talented (GT) label required that a student possess at least three (3) of the following five (5) indicators:

1. Reading above grade level (level P or above while in second-grade. NOTE: this is based on the Fountas-Pinnell Guided Reading Levels.);
2. Above grade level in math (one or more years);
3. Parent Survey score;
4. Obtain a requisite score on the Staff Advocacy Survey; and
5. Staff advocacy by staff members, “other than the classroom teacher.”

This pathway can be properly labeled the qualitative/subjective pathway to GT identification because simply satisfying three qualitative criteria (3, 4, and 5), is sufficient to be identified as GT.

The second pathway to the gifted and talented (GT) label, which could be called the quantitative pathway, requires a second grader to satisfy two (2) or more of the following three (3) test based criteria:

1. Score at the 75th percentile or higher on the Raven based on age;
2. Score at the 90th percentile or higher on the InView Level 1, Analogies subtest; and
3. Score at the 90th percentile or higher on the InView Level 1, Quantitative Reasoning subtest.

The third and final pathway, apparently implemented in 2009, requires a second grader demonstrate “superior cognitive ability as evidenced by individual standardized assessments, such as WISC-IV, administered and/or reviewed by a qualified MCPS examiner.”

These labeled students, for the most part, are provided access to above grade level English or math classes. Some undergo further testing, and if qualified, are granted admission to what MCPS calls Highly Gifted Centers.

In 2012-2013, the Student Instructional Program Planning and Implementation (SIPPI) process, replaced the Global Screening process in all MCPS elementary schools. The SIPPI process uses five data points:

1. Parent Input Form/Survey;
2. Teacher survey;
3. Staff advocacy;
4. Classroom performance data in reading and mathematics, and
5. InView cognitive assessment data.

According to documents available from MCPS, Grade 2 students take all five subtests of the InView Level 1: Sequencing, Analogical Reasoning, Quantitative Reasoning, Verbal Reasoning-Words and Verbal Reasoning-Context.

In a surprising twist, MCPS has lowered the threshold on the InView test from the 90th percentile to the 80th percentile.

Students who show strengths in quantitative reasoning will have access to “a math experience that routinely includes enrichment opportunities.” Students who show strength in analogical reasoning may be given “be given opportunities across all content areas to build classification and problem solving skills,” and “be given many opportunities to explain relationships and connections in their learning.” Lastly, students who show strength in verbal reasoning will be “encouraged to talk and/or write about whatever it is they are learning. They should be provided opportunities for in-depth textual analysis (i.e., interpreting symbolism and figurative language of stories) and writing.”

http://www.examiner.com/article/montgomery-county-lowers-threshold-for-the-gifted-and-talented-label

Out of 1800 students, the two presenters are expected to average 36. That means 9 for each class.

In the UK they like the five presenters to attend university. In CHS terms that is 90 students, that is 22/23 per class.

So what is the SUBJECTIVE definition oh gifted in SOMASD?

Not sure one exists.Without a G&T program in place and one not in the presentation, does one exist?

The state regulations provide adequate guidance so long as a school district has the will to do so.

@Bishop: That's my theory on why SOMSD doesn't want to undertake this -- the possibility of creating a classification system that could end up being criticized as "segregated." Hence the SOMSD pondering about what it means to be "gifted." Could it include the arts, or leadership abilities? According to the state regs, the giftedness has to be in one of 12 core content areas. This would include certain art & music disciplines. It would not include, for example my middle schooler's encyclopedic knowledge and near-perfect recall of everything that happened on certain long-running television shows.

@baseballmom seems self evident whatever system SOMSD comes up with will be lacking and highly criticized, that however should not be a deterrent. By not offering one it just delays the process of establishing a G&T program at all. All of this half starts smells of District passive-aggressive behavior that won't change until we have another uprising of parents making a stand at meetings and/or elections. Fact that this election cycle included the shell game strategy of "don't focus on G&T" as we have it already being dealt with. Such a farce.

Is there a child out there that does not have a special gift or a special talent?

Is there a child out there that could not benefit from individualized programs to have their strong points reach their full potential and to elevate their weaknesses as much as possible?

mapletree said:

Is there a child out there that does not have a special gift or a special talent?

Is there a child out there that could not benefit from individualized programs to have their strong points reach their full potential and to elevate their weaknesses as much as possible?

Not all gifts and talents require deviations from the core curriculum. The point is when the core curriculum works against a student, actually holds them back, there needs to be a way to identify and deal with that.

mapletree said:

Is there a child out there that does not have a special gift or a special talent?

Is there a child out there that could not benefit from individualized programs to have their strong points reach their full potential and to elevate their weaknesses as much as possible?

All children are different, but many are served fairly well by the level of differentiation that a classroom teacher can provide, by him/herself, with the given curriculum.

Those at the extremes of the bell curve, as well as those with Special Education needs, may be far less well served, and need more customization than more typical students, and support beyond what the classroom teacher can do unassisted.

Both ends of the curve do need to be addressed with resources that are not necessarily appropriate for the majority of the other students.

I agree that the reason Osborne has avoided the creation of a G&T program is the fear that it will wind up looking like leveled classes. NYC has been under fire for the lack of diversity in their G&T programs, especially at the High School level. Ironically, though, a well-constructed, thoughtful evaluation for G&T could reach students overlooked and underserved by leveling (which is based on classroom performance).

susan1014 said:

Those at the extremes of the bell curve, as well as those with Special Education needs, may be far less well served, and need more customization than more typical students, and support beyond what the classroom teacher can do unassisted.

Agreed. Unfortunately there seems to be a very hostile notion to giving additional challenges to students capable of moving beyond the current curriculum, or to expanding the curriculum offerings in general. Watch the meeting, it's very clear that the chairman of the Equity & Excellence Committee (steering the development if the G&T program) is of the mind that any resources spent specifically on this cohort, like their greedy brethren in Shanghai, comes at the expense of others.

Amazing, China is now less marxist than our BOE.

Yesterday's NY Times contained the obituary of the man whose work advocated for the needs of disabled and gifted students, and led to the creation of Special Education laws (and the IEP).

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/04/us/james-j-gallagher-child-development-expert-is-dead-at-87.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20140205&_r=0

One thought from the article:

"Addressing audiences about the challenge of securing appropriate education for gifted children, Dr. Gallagher liked to tell the following parable:

A local school board, petitioned to meet the needs of a group of exceptional students, was asked to furnish them with extra transportation, purpose-built equipment, specially trained instructors and time out from regular classes.

The board demurred, until it learned the precise nature of the exceptional group: the school’s varsity football team."

tbd said:

Agreed. Unfortunately there seems to be a very hostile notion to giving additional challenges to students capable of moving beyond the current curriculum, or to expanding the curriculum offerings in general. Watch the meeting, it's very clear that the chairman of the Equity & Excellence Committee (steering the development if the G&T program) is of the mind that any resources spent specifically on this cohort, like their greedy brethren in Shanghai, comes at the expense of others.

Actually, what struck me is that the Board members on the Committee had no part in the presentation, and two of the three actually asked pretty tough questions about the issues left unanswered by the plan.

FWIW, the presenter was Lydia Furnari (assistant superintendent/curriculum & instruction). The other non-Board members on the committee are Patricia Barker (director of special services) and Dr. Osborne.

To me, the response to the presentation suggested that this set of initiatives came primarily from our District staff, and that the Board members on the Committee haven't been sufficiently involved to support the work product of their Committee. If so, shame on them if they don't take ownership of their Board committee's task and outputs.

susan1014 said:

To me, the response to the presentation suggested that this set of initiatives came primarily from our District staff, and that the Board members on the Committee haven't been sufficiently involved to support the work product of their Committee. If so, shame on them if they don't take ownership of their Board committee's task and outputs.

My read was that the guiding change document was handed to the admin who were responsible for coming up with some proposals for implementation of the G&t program. I am not sure that the Committee had much to do with the proposals presented at the last meeting. Going forward, the committee will surely have some input into the proposals but now it looks unlikely that anything will be implemented in the 2014-15 year. This is not IB after all.

The new committee continues to be chaired by Mr. Gaudelli who if I not mistaken is not a proponent of any form of a G&T program. Neither he nor Andrea Wren Hardin had any substantive comments at the last meeting regarding the proposal. New members are Madhu Pai and Johanna Wright. Madhu Pai had some good questions for Dr. Furnari. Given that Johanna Wright has already voiced her reticence to serving on the Equity and Excellence committee, I believe that Madhu Pai will be the lone voice asking tough questions in that committee. Does not look very promising that any G&T program will ever be implemented in this district.

@Bishop: I agree. And I was with you 100% until "uprising.". ;-)

I appreciate all the reports and opinions above.

Susan1014,

If you test 1800 students on a variety of skills/talents, ease of learning you will find that a large number score as gifted or talented on one or more of the individual items.

No teacher I ever had could provide individualized or customized instruction to a class of X students.

That Is one on one education time. Not even if you select 9 ( 2% of a class of Mensa eligible) students in each grade of 450 students at CHS.

Moreover there is no way a small district like SOMASD can be everything to every individual student year after year. The entering class of 9th grading has specific needs different from the graduating 12th graders.

I keep stating this last point.

ETA:
We cannot divide kids into three groups consisting of bright and talented kids, average kids, below average kids anymore. Every kid has one or morr bright spots if you look for it. Every kid struggles in one or more areas if you look for it.

Repeat: A small district cannot adequately all the needs both positive and negative of every student. The model simply breaks down.

So where do we go from here if the objective is to serve each student so he/she can become the best he/she can be?

There are a number of things that the District could easily do that would not cost money.

First of all, at the elementary school level, the extreme outliers can be placed in a single class at their grade level. This gives them a chance to interact with cognitive peers in ordinary school activities. Only a few students are involved.

At the middle school level, students that take the SAT in the Johns Hopkins Center for Talented Youth program and score high enough to be admitted to college should be given free choice of the classes they want to take at high school, without the usual prerequisites. Once again, only a few students would be involved.

There is no need for a large bureaucratic program of the type so loved by educational administrators. Simply the recognition that some children have exceptional cognitive abilities and that we can help them better as individuals.

You could do that, and it probably would help some students, which is better than none. I suspect, however, that the boredom that so troubles parents would remain an issue that they and their children would need to learn to deal with anyway, because abilities and speeds in comprehension can differ markedly even among outliers. Also, putting a sixth grader in, say, an 11th-grade math class isn't a simple decision for everyone. (And what happens when that student reaches 11th grade and Columbia has no more math classes left to offer him or her?) Lastly, based on the volume of comments in these threads, my hunch is that measures that recognize only a select few might not meet with general satisfaction.

gaijin has good suggestions >>First of all, at the elementary school level, the extreme outliers can be placed in a single class at their grade level. This gives them a chance to interact with cognitive peers in ordinary school activities. Only a few students are involved.