As part of the Board's review of professional development and curriculum this evening, I was wondering if you would consider focusing at least one full day of professional development next year to the needs of gifted learners in our schools?Since the demise of [our] well-regarded gifted learning program four years ago, which directly served about 100 students in grades K-8, very little has been implemented to ensure that every child's learning needs are being met.Add to this the disturbing conclusion of a 2005 study that found 68% of Connecticut teachers hold erroneous beliefs about the characteristics of gifted students. Moreover, a disturbingly small percentage of teachers in Connecticut believe that they have received adequate pre-service and in-service professional development to teach a differentiated curriculum to gifted students in the regular classroom. I've attached a short synopsis of current research that supports these conclusions.Even when teachers are given some training in differentiation and curriculum modification, they are reluctant to implement these practices in their classroom, according to a 2003 study. In fact, the study found that teachers are unwilling to eliminate previously mastered curriculum material for fear that student achievement on State tests could drop. This, despite research that shows high ability learners show no decline in achievement test scores even when 40-50% of the curriculum is eliminated in at least one subject area.The 2003 Minnesota study recommends that teachers receive not only professional development targeted to gifted learners, but also follow-up support so that they can actually make improvements in their classroom instruction. Stephanie Hirsch, Deputy Executive Director of the National Staff Development Council stated, "Training without follow up is malpractice."I urge you to consider a more aggressive teacher training and support program to better meet the needs of gifted learners. We are fortunate to be quite close to the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, located at the University of Connecticut at Storrs. We need only take better advantage of the resources located close to home to improve the quality of education for our most able students.
I don't hold out a lot of hope on this one. But it's probably good just to keep things from falling to far off the radar screen. Here's a link to the research synopsis that was attached to the e-mail.
Keeping gifted & talented kids on the radar screen is important.
ReplyDeleteGood for you.
Hey, it would be better to actually educate them.
ReplyDeleteOn the radar screen is good too.
Of course, at this point, I'd be happy just to get a response.
Excellent letter. Those who deviate from the mean on the higher end, as you well know, tend to get less attention each year - and the situation isn't getting better.
ReplyDeleteWhat a fantastic letter. I do hope you get some kind of response... your letter certainly deserves one. Your gifted learner even more so.
ReplyDeleteWe moved from a district in another state with funding, trained staff, and excellent gifted programing. One year later in a top performing CT school with NO gifted program, I see a huge change in my children. Offering extra enrichment work just doesn't take the place of a well thought out gifted program. It's not just about academics and rigor, it's about people who understand gifted children. It's also about providing an opportunity for these children to interact with intellectual peers. It requires differentiation on a whole new level.
The state of gifted education in CT is dismal. It truly is an injustice in more ways than I care to think about. I do so hope that your excellent letter motivates some attention and even better some positive action on the part of your district.
Keep up the good fight!
Well, so far, silence is the only response.
ReplyDeleteThe meeting tonight had a long presentation on the state of curriculum and professional development.
Not one word about gifted.
Not a single response.
Oh well. I expected as much.
All the questions were directed to technology. We are all technology all the time. We are embedding job coaches to help teachers with technology.
Does technology improve student achievement? Ummm, No.
Does teaching gifted students at an appropriate level improve performance? Yes.
But really, this is just the beginning.
Uggggh. Then they wonder why we're a litigious society. Desperate times and such...
ReplyDeleteRedefine "parental involvement".
Be the proverbial "squeaky wheel".
Concernedctparent: where were you before moving to Connecticut? I'm curious where you found decent gifted programming.
ReplyDeleteSurprisingly enough, in Tucson, AZ. I won't go as far as to say it was perfect, but the director of the program at our school was amazing and there was certainly a strong belief that meeting the needs of gifted learners was of significant importantance.
ReplyDeleteIn first grade they had students who were able in "extended math", in second grade those who were able in "extended reading" and prior to third grade they offered cogAT testing (optional). From 3-5 those identified based on CogAt, teacher recommendation, standardized test scores, etc. were in an "interdisciplinary program". The students in this program (there were 5 in the third grade last year) were also in "extended math" and were appropriately grouped for language arts as well. "Extended" was available to any student who was capable, not just the interdisciplinary kids.
Although it was a pull-out program, all the teachers were on board and worked closely with the gifted program objectives and the director of the program. Teachers were very well trained in "differentiation" and were careful to challenge each student at appropriate levels. Being in the interdisciplinary program didn't require having to make up missed work as the program was carefully planned to integrate with the 3-5 curriculum. There was no stigma attached to these kids either.
The school also had great opportunities for further enrichment available to all students: Lego Robotics, Odyssey of the Mind, Great Books, Chess Club, Foreign language, Mad Science, etc.
This was a public school. Boy, you don't appreciate what you have until it's gone.
It sounds like a model program. How big were class sizes? Was there any effort to group flexibly in the regular classroom?
ReplyDeleteMy sister is an 8th grade teacher just south of Tucson.
Small world.
There were about 20-22 children per class. They did group flexibly in core subjects in the regular classroom.
ReplyDeleteWe do miss Tucson! Lived in the Foothills (CFSD was the district) and I can't say enough about the schools or teachers. I have to say that having a learning environment like the one at CFSD is is an amazing advantage for all types of learners.
Wow -- 20 to 22 kids is not a small class. My sister's classes are usually smaller than 18 kids, but that's because there are so few kids in their town (it is mostly a retirement community).
ReplyDeleteThe tough thing about the AZ school system was that about 1/2 the kids were non-English speakers and the other 1/2 were the kids of doctors/lawyers/professionals that serve the retirees.
And there are no kids in the middle. Just two extremes. Made the teacher's lesson planning a real challenge.
That range of learning needs would certainly be a challenge.
ReplyDeleteThe classes at our previous school were nicely mixed. Teachers moved around to accomodate the needs of different learners and students moved around for math, in particular as early as second grade. Parents were very involved (not just baking and typing) with the ability grouping, learning centers, etc. and I believe that made a huge difference in the teacher's ability to differentiate and meet the needs of diverse learners.
Certainly night and day when I compare the AZ to the CT schools.
Concerned
ReplyDeleteCan you tell us what kinds of changes you see in your kids now that they don't have a gifted program?
Also: what do you think of the La Salle tracking approach - would that work for your kids (assuming academic rigor, which I think is present there), or would they need a separate gifted program?
The biggest change I see is that they just don't seem as interested in school, particularly the one who just completed grade 4. That drive to excel and excitement about learning something new just doesn't seem to be awakened anymore.
ReplyDeleteMy oldest has had a difficult time adjusting and I kept trying to tell myself that it was because of the move and that she just needed more time, but it never really got better.
It's really intangible and difficult to pinpoint but school has become something to complete (like a to-do list) and not a place to be intellectually challenged. There's been quite a bit of sadness this year, mostly because no one really seems to "get her" intensity.
For my son it's not quite such an emotional issue, he's just plain old bored. Bored can mean trouble and he's been working hard all year to stay out of it (finishes work early and likes to talk). Don't get me wrong, it's important to learn self-control, but it shouldn't be the main thing you're learning for that many hours a day.
I am unfamiliar with the La Salle tracking approach but of course now you've made me curious about it...
As to academic rigor, I think it's very important in that children should be challenged to the best of their abilities and they should learn to work for knowledge. Be hungry for it. I have a thing about work ethic.
I am not certain that they would need a separate gifted program. However, I do believe that if teachers are appropriately trained in identifying and understanding giftedness and its many manifestations and that there exists a school environment that encourages differentiation (authentic tailoring of teaching to appropriately challenge) you can live without a gifted program per se. However, I have seen little evidence of schools without a "gifted program" in place that still make a concerted effort to commit sufficient time, energy and resources to assure that the very particular needs of these learners are being met. Gifted programs are usually one of the first things cut out of a school budget because they don't have to worry about their standardized test scores... and lately, it seems that's all that matters.
The unfortunate thing is that when gifted learners are appropriately integrated into the classroom environment it raises the bar for everyone. Just as they need an environment were their uniqueness is more normalized and they feel safe to express themselves to their ability, they also benefit from the opportunity to collaborate with a community of learners that is representative of society as a whole. Gifted children are not necessarily gifted at everything, but in those areas where the grade specific curricula does not meet their needs, they really do need something that goes beyond.
As to academic rigor, I think it's very important in that children should be challenged to the best of their abilities and they should learn to work for knowledge. Be hungry for it. I have a thing about work ethic.
ReplyDeleteAmen to that. Many gifted kids crumble when they meet their first challenge--typically in college. In most K-12 environments these days they coast (if they even make it through--the statistics for drop outs, suicides, etc. are sobering), never needing to develop skills for dealing with hardship, failure, or a strong work ethic.
My mantra has recently been: every student deserves to be appropriately challenged in school. Isn't this really what equity should be about? No child without a challenge! (NCWC!). For accountablility, this could be translated into individual assessments of progress, rather than these group statistics (why do we have an AYP group statistic for special ed kids under NCLB and not gifted kids?)
If appropriate challenge were the goal, it would be clear that schools are failing many kids.
My kids are bored, too. Disinterested. Frustrated. School is just stupid in their opinion. Most of the time, I find it hard to disagree. It's very sad for me to watch as I loved school, but it was different back then...
Interesting that you were in Tucson. I have friends in Albuquerque and in their schools (at least in the northern part of the city) there are fabulous gifted/talented services, just like you describe in Tucson. They also seem to have mostly avoided the infiltration of constructivist teaching practices although I think I heard a rumor that APS was adopting Everyday Math so I suppose it's just a matter of time.
Is it just my imagination, or does it seem that generally gifted services are much better in the southwest and southeast than they are in the northeast or midwest?
I'm from Lake Wobegon, of course, where we're ALL above average.
Yes Vicki,
ReplyDeleteWe're all the same here in the midwest. No one's any better. I think I'll move to AZ.
Actually, I've been very lucky, so far. In spite of the strong constructivist leanings of various teachers and administrators, the gifted program here is fairly decent. When there isn't a pullout or a special class being formed, they flat-out track.
Don't know how long that will last, though. I'm seeing signs of change already, and not in a good way. I'm hearing rumors that the math program is going to be re-structured, and not in a more rigorous way.
It's funny. I was revisiting my AZ district's website and it sounds very constructivist as I read it. Yet I believe it said most of the same things when we were there even though it didn't feel constructivist.
ReplyDeleteFor example, my then 3rd grader's teacher was a math major and very pragmatic about her lessons, math in particular. There were manipulatives but only after direct instruction on the overhead (no smartboards there). Then the students broke out into ability groups and the extended math kids from other classrooms came to her room, a few of the students moved to another classroom where the lesson was slower paced but on the same topic. They had homework that was very traditional and they stressed mastery of the basics as early as kindergarten (adding and subtracting). Perhaps they found that mysterious balance of limiting discovery only to those occassions when content had been mastered and as a way of reinforcing it.
Maybe the southwest still has that "renegade" mentality. I know Tucson still has that small western town feeling as opposed to Phoenix which has become another big city. I hear Phoenix is very constructivist in the public education system and I do hope it doesn't creep into the good thing they've got going in Tucson.
The other pressure public schools have are very competitive parochial schools and the charter schools which have become quite a force in Arizona, particularly in Tucson. In fact, one of the "best" high schools in the nation is a charter school in Tucson. Those schools put pressure on the public schools to step up to the plate too. That's a really good thing.