Gifted programs, lack of, in DC

[Anonymous]

If you did your research you'd see that most commonly-found GT programs (gifted pull out programs) have a very low rate of effectiveness. Therefore what is their real purpose in which they are "effective"? Mostly just further segregating students. Advanced students' needs can and should be met. However, traditional programs such as what many on here are advocating for is not the answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Won't happen because the racial makeup wouldn't match the city.

Because only rich white kids are "truly gifted"

Actually, most gifted programs of the traditional sort overidentify white students. (And Asian students). So, in effect, your rhetorical comment is statistically accurate to an uncomfortably, and unacceptably, high degree.

[Anonymous]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/district-introduces-gifted-programs-to-push-talented-students-keep-families/2015/06/06/4132f25e-ffc8-11e4-833c-a2de05b6b2a4_story.html

[Anonymous]

Someone posted an article about a large urban school district that had managed to deal with this problem. Maybe somewhere in Texas?

Basically, they tested EVERY kid for giftedness, not just those whose parents put them forward. They also used a test that was harder to "game" and that was meant to test intelligence rather than just preparedness.

But this is a tough question. We know that basically every gifted test in use over-identifies middle and upper class kids. We also know that stress and poverty can impact IQ. So is the problem that the tests look for a kind of "intelligence" that is easier to game and prep for? Or is the problem that our poor kids aren't even getting a chance to compete because their lives are so stressful that their brains are not developing the same way?

Either way, I can totally understand why DCPS would be nervous about programs that would further segregate the schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you did your research you'd see that most commonly-found GT programs (gifted pull out programs) have a very low rate of effectiveness. Therefore what is their real purpose in which they are "effective"? Mostly just further segregating students. Advanced students' needs can and should be met. However, traditional programs such as what many on here are advocating for is not the answer.

source / citation, please?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/district-introduces-gifted-programs-to-push-talented-students-keep-families/2015/06/06/4132f25e-ffc8-11e4-833c-a2de05b6b2a4_story.html

The SEM approach is really not the same thing. The bottom line is that we do need to track some students. Its just completely wrong to expect kids who perform two levels above grade to be in the same classroom with kids two levels behind. the achievement gap in DC might be the highest in the country, if a school ever needed tracking its this one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:According to the Census, there are only 24,000 kids aged 10-14 in DC--and that's a major overstatement of how many high schoolers there will be in a few years since families will send kids to private school or move out of the District. Even if they all went to public high school, about half would be in charters. The top 1% of DCPS kids would only be 24 kids per grade, which is not enough to run a very interesting high school--especially since the top couple dozen most gifted kids in DC are not going to be gifted in the same way: some are going to want to do physics research and some are going to write plays and some are going to build computers and some want to learn Hindi and study international relations.

I think the DCPS application high schools plus AP at Wilson and IB at Eastern offer rigorous curricula, though the schools each have aspects that make them not a great fit for certain kids. A motivated student can also use the resources of the universities, agencies, organizations, etc. in the city to do a whole lot more.

Fixing the pipeline seems like a useful step--identifying smart kids at early grades and working with them in ways parents like. And there could be improvements (different ones for each school) at SWW, Banneker, Wilson, Eastern, etc. But building a whole new TJ-like school makes a lot less sense to me than working on McKinley Tech, which has the same aims.

Have you talked to the top IB Diploma candidates at Eastern lately, or their IB Diploma Program Coordinator? Do you know that the "rigorous curricula" you describe led to a first-year IB Diploma pass rate in the mid 20s, versus in the high 30s in the better suburban programs (the IB Diploma Point pass range is 24-45)? This year, half the Diploma candidates couldn't earn the minimum 24 points. Flash forward ten years, and little is likely to have changed at the rate we're going.

You're not fooling me because I've volunteered in Eastern's fraught IB Diploma Program. Nobody else should be fooled either. Not a good fit for certain kids, my foot. Try middle class kids, period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you did your research you'd see that most commonly-found GT programs (gifted pull out programs) have a very low rate of effectiveness. Therefore what is their real purpose in which they are "effective"? Mostly just further segregating students. Advanced students' needs can and should be met. However, traditional programs such as what many on here are advocating for is not the answer.

source / citation, please?

https://books.google.com/books?id=ZIZJiXMUYS0C&pg=PA114&lpg=PA114&dq=gifted+programs+lack+of+efficacy&source=bl&ots=dJISs91xOw&sig=C-AW_dDdpBm-n26bXhdLe2CNQw0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjC4sOe24HKAhVCPT4KHZFEBpQQ6AEIJzAB#v=onepage&q=gifted%20programs%20lack%20of%20efficacy&f=false

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/district-introduces-gifted-programs-to-push-talented-students-keep-families/2015/06/06/4132f25e-ffc8-11e4-833c-a2de05b6b2a4_story.html

The SEM approach is really not the same thing. The bottom line is that we do need to track some students. Its just completely wrong to expect kids who perform two levels above grade to be in the same classroom with kids two levels behind. the achievement gap in DC might be the highest in the country, if a school ever needed tracking its this one.

In terms of adopting a GT program, DCPS has intentionally selected SEM, with the understanding that this is not a "traditional" gifted program. The two are not analogous, of course, but please don't think "Gifted programs, lack of, in DC" as the topic of this thread is just the result of an oversight. It is intentional. Traditional gifted programs, in the perspective given by DCPS, are not effective or useful (more likely of potential harmfulness) and were therefore not implemented. Real differentiation, with appropriate instructional resources and adequate professional development, along with flexible homogenous groupings (no one is saying that can't or shouldn't occur), along with the SEM approach are what DCPS has aligned itself with.

[Anonymous]

I have gotten some traction through channels at my son's DCPS and at DCPS central office. If you want the programs, you need to start speaking up, because people do seem to be listening. And do it nicely, collaboratively, and productively. Look for ways to get involved in decision making--parent cabinets, policy councils, etc.

[Anonymous]

So DCPS has a gifted program that is not a gifted program but a gifted program for ALL. How egalitarian!

If you want a real gifted program, you'll have to move out of DC or send your kid to private school. Same as it's always been.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you did your research you'd see that most commonly-found GT programs (gifted pull out programs) have a very low rate of effectiveness. Therefore what is their real purpose in which they are "effective"? Mostly just further segregating students. Advanced students' needs can and should be met. However, traditional programs such as what many on here are advocating for is not the answer.

source / citation, please?

https://books.google.com/books?id=ZIZJiXMUYS0C&pg=PA114&lpg=PA114&dq=gifted+programs+lack+of+efficacy&source=bl&ots=dJISs91xOw&sig=C-AW_dDdpBm-n26bXhdLe2CNQw0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjC4sOe24HKAhVCPT4KHZFEBpQQ6AEIJzAB#v=onepage&q=gifted%20programs%20lack%20of%20efficacy&f=false

The book you cite uses out of date research from 25 years ago.

Here is more recent research on the effectiveness of flexible ability grouping:

https://www.nagc.org/resources-publications/gifted-education-practices/grouping

DCPS is doing a disservice to gifted disadvantaged students by not offering effective, rigorous gifted education IMO since gifted education via private schools and other venues are less accessible to them. Gifted students from well off families will find a way and have the means to get their student an education to meet their needs.

It is also truly unrealistic and not an effective use of a teacher's time to place students who are years and years apart academically in the same classroom. Who do you think the teacher is going to focus on??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to the Census, there are only 24,000 kids aged 10-14 in DC--and that's a major overstatement of how many high schoolers there will be in a few years since families will send kids to private school or move out of the District. Even if they all went to public high school, about half would be in charters. The top 1% of DCPS kids would only be 24 kids per grade, which is not enough to run a very interesting high school--especially since the top couple dozen most gifted kids in DC are not going to be gifted in the same way: some are going to want to do physics research and some are going to write plays and some are going to build computers and some want to learn Hindi and study international relations.

I think the DCPS application high schools plus AP at Wilson and IB at Eastern offer rigorous curricula, though the schools each have aspects that make them not a great fit for certain kids. A motivated student can also use the resources of the universities, agencies, organizations, etc. in the city to do a whole lot more.

Fixing the pipeline seems like a useful step--identifying smart kids at early grades and working with them in ways parents like. And there could be improvements (different ones for each school) at SWW, Banneker, Wilson, Eastern, etc. But building a whole new TJ-like school makes a lot less sense to me than working on McKinley Tech, which has the same aims.

Have you talked to the top IB Diploma candidates at Eastern lately, or their IB Diploma Program Coordinator? Do you know that the "rigorous curricula" you describe led to a first-year IB Diploma pass rate in the mid 20s, versus in the high 30s in the better suburban programs (the IB Diploma Point pass range is 24-45)? This year, half the Diploma candidates couldn't earn the minimum 24 points. Flash forward ten years, and little is likely to have changed at the rate we're going.

You're not fooling me because I've volunteered in Eastern's fraught IB Diploma Program. Nobody else should be fooled either. Not a good fit for certain kids, my foot. Try middle class kids, period.

I've never heard of this program (my son is in 1st at a charter), but could you explain what you mean by this comment? Do you mean the program is a bad fit for middle class kids? Or that its only a good fit for middle class kids? Why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you did your research you'd see that most commonly-found GT programs (gifted pull out programs) have a very low rate of effectiveness. Therefore what is their real purpose in which they are "effective"? Mostly just further segregating students. Advanced students' needs can and should be met. However, traditional programs such as what many on here are advocating for is not the answer.

source / citation, please?

https://books.google.com/books?id=ZIZJiXMUYS0C&pg=PA114&lpg=PA114&dq=gifted+programs+lack+of+efficacy&source=bl&ots=dJISs91xOw&sig=C-AW_dDdpBm-n26bXhdLe2CNQw0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjC4sOe24HKAhVCPT4KHZFEBpQQ6AEIJzAB#v=onepage&q=gifted%20programs%20lack%20of%20efficacy&f=false

The book you cite uses out of date research from 25 years ago.

Here is more recent research on the effectiveness of flexible ability grouping:

https://www.nagc.org/resources-publications/gifted-education-practices/grouping

DCPS is doing a disservice to gifted disadvantaged students by not offering effective, rigorous gifted education IMO since gifted education via private schools and other venues are less accessible to them. Gifted students from well off families will find a way and have the means to get their student an education to meet their needs.

It is also truly unrealistic and not an effective use of a teacher's time to place students who are years and years apart academically in the same classroom. Who do you think the teacher is going to focus on??

That link talks about grouping (within a classroom), not tracking, which is the type of G&T some people are pushing for. Also, one of the authors cited is the main force behind Schoolwide Enrichment Model.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Won't happen because the racial makeup wouldn't match the city.

But it would match the country. We don't live in Nigeria, despite of what some folks seem to think.