How to meet the needs of the gifted child in DCPS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What can be done within DCPS to meet the needs of the gifted child? What can be done currently, and what avenues should we pursue to improve the capabilities within DCPS?

Currently, DCPS is attempting to use SEM as a solution, but this is clearly not a blanket solution. It will suit the needs of a good range of children, so it shouldn't be labeled as "garbage," but does it do anything for the exceptionally gifted child? Does it provide a means to engage the child that is already becoming disconnected from his/her studies, and isn't being identified because of poor grades?

As PP mentioned, a lot depends on definitions and complex issues like screening, evaluations, etc. Have you contacted DCPS directly? Matthew Reif is listed as the Director of Advanced and Enriched Instruction.

Of course DCPS does not operate in a charter-less vacuum like FFX or MoCo public school systems. The argument of "if DCPS builds it, the G&T will come" assumes that whatever "it" is will be competitive with every charter school as well as the burbs.

Perhaps the G&T question should be how do we harness the combined educational capacity of the District - charters and DCPS, DC Public Library (free 3-D printer ), private schools and universities?

I'm not sure where to even begin on this one. But I am concerned that having our minority and low income kids (the students most likely to fit OP's description) spread across so many different types of schools that we are missing a huge opportunity to better identify and serve all students.

I guess with would fall under the DME? Some type of accelerated learning consortium?

OP here. I think this captures my original thoughts, as well. I left the original post intentionally vague, just to kick off brainstorming (seems to be working).

For me, I worry about the kids that fall through the cracks. DS12 was almost one of those. We had the means, however, to have him tested independently about a year ago. That makes him one of the lucky ones. Obviously, we're involved parents, so we'll make sure he is taken care of, and he'll be just fine.

But, if we didn't have the means or the wherewithal to have him tested, I am certain he would NOT be doing well right now. He would be high risk, at best. So, it doesn't take a great leap to realize that there are a number of such kids that are never identified. They may not have books all over their homes; they may not have parents who have had experience as an educator or psychologist. When they do standardized tests, they may test well below their capabilities. Since they are bored in class, they may not have high enough grades to qualify for pull-out education.

It's this group of potential casualties that gets me moving. I really don't have any good ideas of how to capture them, and help them out. The earlier, obviously, the better, but how do you catch them?

From watching both of our children, it seems to me that the only accurate tests are those administered by psychologists, where they can quantify uptake of new ideas, spatial memory, and working memory. I just don't see how we can massively profile every child in DCPS.

[Anonymous]

I concur. These discussions go nowhere because way more think their children are "gifted" than the number that really test as such. Mostly those asking these questions have children that score what the dominant terminology these days calls "advanced" and they seek educational solutions that meet their kids at that level most of the time. The question is then how much time and attention "advanced" kids get and what classroom model works best for them (e.g. differentiation vs. tracking).
In my judgment, elementary school students are best served with in-class differentiation. They develop discontinuous at various speeds, making any sort of separation meaningless, for both advanced and struggling students. Supplemental push-in and pull-out can complement that. At the middle school level, although much of that is still at work and few kids excel at everything, offering basic and advanced courses can accommodate different ability levels. I also love the School-wide Enrichment Model (SEM) that provides for a tiered and flexible way to challenge those students who want and can handle it in a project-based manner. High School seems to be where specializations and ability-tracking makes most sense. That should be complemented by "bridges" that allow students to "cross over" as they develop into advanced learners, recognizing that some develop advanced academic skills a little later than others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I concur. These discussions go nowhere because way more think their children are "gifted" than the number that really test as such. Mostly those asking these questions have children that score what the dominant terminology these days calls "advanced" and they seek educational solutions that meet their kids at that level most of the time. The question is then how much time and attention "advanced" kids get and what classroom model works best for them (e.g. differentiation vs. tracking).
In my judgment, elementary school students are best served with in-class differentiation. They develop discontinuous at various speeds, making any sort of separation meaningless, for both advanced and struggling students. Supplemental push-in and pull-out can complement that. At the middle school level, although much of that is still at work and few kids excel at everything, offering basic and advanced courses can accommodate different ability levels. I also love the School-wide Enrichment Model (SEM) that provides for a tiered and flexible way to challenge those students who want and can handle it in a project-based manner. High School seems to be where specializations and ability-tracking makes most sense. That should be complemented by "bridges" that allow students to "cross over" as they develop into advanced learners, recognizing that some develop advanced academic skills a little later than others.

I guess we can only really know about our own children (ours are fine, so no need to try to solve anything for them).

In our case, child #1 was one of those "fall through the cracks" kids. SEM wouldn't work for him, because like many kids, nothing has grabbed his attention enough to care about a project. Without the passion, there is no drive, and no achievement. Instead, he sat in the back of the class, not causing trouble, and was completely ignored. He taught himself what he cared about, and isolated himself from classroom activities. This child needed a complete overhaul of his curriculum and environment. He's in BASIS now, and happy -- not because of the acceleration (though he is proud of that), but rather, because of the depth across the curriculum, day in, day out. Nothing else would suffice for him.

Child #2 is nice, loving, and engaged. He was easy to spot, because he did things in class that other kids his age just didn't do. SEM works well for him, though it is exhausting for us as parents, since we are the ones actually providing all the meaningful enrichment. If SEM was implemented per its theory, it would probably be great.

As for myself, I was in an interesting position during high school -- my school gave me a large catalog of courses to choose from, and I could do each one at a pace which suited me. I was not forced to progress out of my age group. It was great -- self-tracking! I only graduated early because I completed the entire catalog (a pretty pathetic catalog, in hindsight). Besides the fact that the material was substandard, the only real flaw I could see in the model was that you needed a cross-section of teachers to be available at all times. It's a shame that the only proponents of this approach are EPGY, CTY, Northwestern, et al... (oh, and Responsive Ed, but there's that substandard material again)

[Anonymous]

It's a shame that the options aren't there - considering DCPS spends far more per student than any other district in the nation, to include districts that ARE able to provide viable options for G&T students. There's really no excuse for it. Lack of resources or diversion of resources certainly isn't an acceptable excuse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's a shame that the options aren't there - considering DCPS spends far more per student than any other district in the nation, to include districts that ARE able to provide viable options for G&T students. There's really no excuse for it. Lack of resources or diversion of resources certainly isn't an acceptable excuse.

It sounds to me that DCPS IS doing it....but that people aren't fully aware of it. Maybe because what they're doing is fairly new or not fully spread out to enough schools to be considered a critical mass. But to say that they're not doing anything isn't true. There was just a thread on here about how they had these advanced reading groups at 40 something elementary schools...Junior Books or something like that. And the people on here are already talking about SEM. And of course the paper just had how DCPS was pushing Advanced Placement classes.

[Anonymous]

In many schools in well off areas you do have a lake woebegone effect, most of the kids are above average so the majority of the teaching is for the average is for the majority of the class. Many of us then don't see this as extra or pull out because there is a critical mass. Our kids may be getting more than we think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a shame that the options aren't there - considering DCPS spends far more per student than any other district in the nation, to include districts that ARE able to provide viable options for G&T students. There's really no excuse for it. Lack of resources or diversion of resources certainly isn't an acceptable excuse.

It sounds to me that DCPS IS doing it....but that people aren't fully aware of it. Maybe because what they're doing is fairly new or not fully spread out to enough schools to be considered a critical mass. But to say that they're not doing anything isn't true. There was just a thread on here about how they had these advanced reading groups at 40 something elementary schools...Junior Books or something like that. And the people on here are already talking about SEM. And of course the paper just had how DCPS was pushing Advanced Placement classes.

Ok, to be fair, they are doing something.

Junior Great Books is the kind of thing every school should have for every child, not just the GT ones. So, that's not really a program -- it's more like a mission critical resource.

AP is also taught at most high schools, but it doesn't reach kids until high school at the earliest, and not until the junior year for most courses. It does offer an accelerated track, but only at the very end of the game. Again, not at all a GT program, but rather, something that should be considered mission critical for anyone.

For GT, pretty much only SEM exists, and it is a partial implementation of it. A pull-out program addresses high achievers (top 15% or so), but doesn't do much for the top 5%, or for the kids who are so bored that they aren't paying attention in class at all. For SEM to be successful, it needs to approximate the objectives of an IEP (sore topic, I know) -- that is, it needs to be individualized to provide appropriate depth throughout the school week, and not just for a couple of hours on one day.

Hopefully, they will get the kinks out of the SEM program. I'm not ready to throw the program out. I just don't see how it remotely approaches sufficiency at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In many schools in well off areas you do have a lake woebegone effect, most of the kids are above average so the majority of the teaching is for the average is for the majority of the class. Many of us then don't see this as extra or pull out because there is a critical mass. Our kids may be getting more than we think.

For the middle of the class, maybe. But for the exceptionally gifted? Probably no.

This was from an interesting article by Miraca Gross, in the mid-90s:

"Because moderately gifted students so greatly outnumber students at the higher levels of giftedness, the identification procedures which are generally recommended, and the programs which are developed for the gifted and talented, are generally based on the characteristics, learning styles and needs of the moderately gifted. Yet researchers have noted profound differences between moderately and exceptionally gifted students on almost every cognitive and affective variable studied. In terms of intellectual capacity alone, the profoundly gifted student of IQ 190 differs from moderately gifted classmates of 130 to an even greater degree than the latter differ from intellectually handicapped students of IQ 70. If they are to come anywhere near maximizing their remarkable intellectual or academic potential, exceptionally and profoundly gifted children require an educational program which differs significantly in structure, pace and content from that which might be offered to the moderately gifted." link

The key point from this study was that a significant change is required for the most significant outliers. A tough need to meet, I know, but DCPS has ridiculous resources at its disposal.

[Anonymous]

But again, how many of these kids are there? According to this chart they are in the .01 percentile. At best representing under 500 students in the system.

http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/iqtable.aspx

No system is designed for that group, there maybe needs to be a nationwide network, but it makes no sense to think in in these ranges generally.

I think the real issues is what to do with the economically advantaged, generally smart 80% kid who may be in a class that is not challenging him. There just are more of these.

[Anonymous]

I think DCPS has been expanding SEM over the past few years I know we have it at Stuart Hobson this year and its new to us. We want it at Watkins (our feeder school) too.

[Anonymous]

I think G&T is a ridiculous term in the DC educational context. What are you're kids gifted with? Being born to highly educated, decently compensated parents who make them eat well balanced meals and go to bed on time. The result is that the kids test out as exceptional in DC. What we need is a test-in middle school where the minimum requirement is performing at grade level. Not pull-out classes for those supposedly endowed with genius and have been deemed "gifted."

[Anonymous]

I was never allowed into a G&T program at my public middle school. This was actually a great benefit to me because when I got into a private high school I always felt I had something to prove and took the hardest classes possible.

[Anonymous]

What if DCPS adopted the center school model that FCPS and MOCO uses? They picked a handful of schools that are underenrolled at the moment then kids who qualify would go there instead. Could solve some issues with underutilized schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a shame that the options aren't there - considering DCPS spends far more per student than any other district in the nation, to include districts that ARE able to provide viable options for G&T students. There's really no excuse for it. Lack of resources or diversion of resources certainly isn't an acceptable excuse.

It sounds to me that DCPS IS doing it....but that people aren't fully aware of it. Maybe because what they're doing is fairly new or not fully spread out to enough schools to be considered a critical mass. But to say that they're not doing anything isn't true. There was just a thread on here about how they had these advanced reading groups at 40 something elementary schools...Junior Books or something like that. And the people on here are already talking about SEM. And of course the paper just had how DCPS was pushing Advanced Placement classes.

As I understand it, they've supported advanced readers in some elementary schools. AP isn't really G&T but it's great that they are pushing APs. APs are just your basic college prep. Beyond that, they are supporting G&T in a VERY limited fashion. SEM in just a tiny handful of schools - and even then, it's one or two pullouts per week. Some progress but it's not exactly what anyone would call a robust G&T program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think G&T is a ridiculous term in the DC educational context. What are you're kids gifted with? Being born to highly educated, decently compensated parents who make them eat well balanced meals and go to bed on time. The result is that the kids test out as exceptional in DC. What we need is a test-in middle school where the minimum requirement is performing at grade level. Not pull-out classes for those supposedly endowed with genius and have been deemed "gifted."

Lay off, "snowflake" lady. You obviously have nothing to contribute here.