Gifted programs, lack of, in DC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think "gifted" must be a terribly damaging term to label a child based on recent research about what creates kids who will take on challenges and stick with hard problems rather than give up?

I would love it if DC had differentiation for kids who are willing to pay attention and work hard.

In fact it does. That is the whole point of in-class differentiation. (And the SEM enrichment model as well). Every child is given the opportunity to work to their "reach" level. For example, a science project will be rather open ended. There are the basics each project must include, but a child can choose their own topic, they find their own resources (with guidance if needed), they choose the difficulty of the final project to show mastery, etc. One kid may choose bear hibernation and use DK books, while another chooses the electroconductivity of bacteria and reads primary research papers (this is not far off from a real ES example). Or an essay is assigned to compare two texts -- the teacher guides the student to choose the texts based on reading level, and while one child may write a three paragraph essay, another may write 10 pages, and yet another may create a video presentation or movie. The teacher takes each child where they are and pushes them to the next level. Mixed with that are also uniform assignments that every child does, but again, each child is guided to work on their areas of difficulty and to push their limits in the areas they find easy.

No labels needed. At our ES and MS, I see this working very well, and the model is far superior to what we had in GaTE when we were growing up.

Except parents can't brag about or feel comforted by Larla being in the gifted and talented program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think "gifted" must be a terribly damaging term to label a child based on recent research about what creates kids who will take on challenges and stick with hard problems rather than give up?

I would love it if DC had differentiation for kids who are willing to pay attention and work hard.

In fact it does. That is the whole point of in-class differentiation. (And the SEM enrichment model as well). Every child is given the opportunity to work to their "reach" level. For example, a science project will be rather open ended. There are the basics each project must include, but a child can choose their own topic, they find their own resources (with guidance if needed), they choose the difficulty of the final project to show mastery, etc. One kid may choose bear hibernation and use DK books, while another chooses the electroconductivity of bacteria and reads primary research papers (this is not far off from a real ES example). Or an essay is assigned to compare two texts -- the teacher guides the student to choose the texts based on reading level, and while one child may write a three paragraph essay, another may write 10 pages, and yet another may create a video presentation or movie. The teacher takes each child where they are and pushes them to the next level. Mixed with that are also uniform assignments that every child does, but again, each child is guided to work on their areas of difficulty and to push their limits in the areas they find easy.

No labels needed. At our ES and MS, I see this working very well, and the model is far superior to what we had in GaTE when we were growing up.

This is a great description of ideal in-class differentiation and why/how it works. Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think "gifted" must be a terribly damaging term to label a child based on recent research about what creates kids who will take on challenges and stick with hard problems rather than give up?

I would love it if DC had differentiation for kids who are willing to pay attention and work hard.

In fact it does. That is the whole point of in-class differentiation. (And the SEM enrichment model as well). Every child is given the opportunity to work to their "reach" level. For example, a science project will be rather open ended. There are the basics each project must include, but a child can choose their own topic, they find their own resources (with guidance if needed), they choose the difficulty of the final project to show mastery, etc. One kid may choose bear hibernation and use DK books, while another chooses the electroconductivity of bacteria and reads primary research papers (this is not far off from a real ES example). Or an essay is assigned to compare two texts -- the teacher guides the student to choose the texts based on reading level, and while one child may write a three paragraph essay, another may write 10 pages, and yet another may create a video presentation or movie. The teacher takes each child where they are and pushes them to the next level. Mixed with that are also uniform assignments that every child does, but again, each child is guided to work on their areas of difficulty and to push their limits in the areas they find easy.

No labels needed. At our ES and MS, I see this working very well, and the model is far superior to what we had in GaTE when we were growing up.

This is a great description of ideal in-class differentiation and why/how it works. Thank you.

I think this works if all the kids are generally close together. How does this work in 4th grade with kids who read at the 1st grade level. And you better believe that exists EoTP.

[Anonymous]

OK, so why do our Metro area suburban school districts bother with GT programming from around 3rd grade on up, including test-in all GT 4th and 5th grade schools in MoCo? GT programs exist for, what, political reasons to woo affluent voters to school districts? I'm far from convinced that the brightest and most disciplined upper elementary grades kids have their needs met via the differentiation you describe, particularly when the achievement gap spans three or more grade levels within a single classroom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think "gifted" must be a terribly damaging term to label a child based on recent research about what creates kids who will take on challenges and stick with hard problems rather than give up?

I would love it if DC had differentiation for kids who are willing to pay attention and work hard.

In fact it does. That is the whole point of in-class differentiation. (And the SEM enrichment model as well). Every child is given the opportunity to work to their "reach" level. For example, a science project will be rather open ended. There are the basics each project must include, but a child can choose their own topic, they find their own resources (with guidance if needed), they choose the difficulty of the final project to show mastery, etc. One kid may choose bear hibernation and use DK books, while another chooses the electroconductivity of bacteria and reads primary research papers (this is not far off from a real ES example). Or an essay is assigned to compare two texts -- the teacher guides the student to choose the texts based on reading level, and while one child may write a three paragraph essay, another may write 10 pages, and yet another may create a video presentation or movie. The teacher takes each child where they are and pushes them to the next level. Mixed with that are also uniform assignments that every child does, but again, each child is guided to work on their areas of difficulty and to push their limits in the areas they find easy.

No labels needed. At our ES and MS, I see this working very well, and the model is far superior to what we had in GaTE when we were growing up.

What is your ES and MS? Please name them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OK, so why do our Metro area suburban school districts bother with GT programming from around 3rd grade on up, including test-in all GT 4th and 5th grade schools in MoCo? GT programs exist for, what, political reasons to woo affluent voters to school districts? I'm far from convinced that the brightest and most disciplined upper elementary grades kids have their needs met via the differentiation you describe, particularly when the achievement gap spans three or more grade levels within a single classroom.

Most (all?) of the programs you mention in outside counties began decades ago and would be unlikely to have existed if they had to do so today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think "gifted" must be a terribly damaging term to label a child based on recent research about what creates kids who will take on challenges and stick with hard problems rather than give up?

I would love it if DC had differentiation for kids who are willing to pay attention and work hard.

In fact it does. That is the whole point of in-class differentiation. (And the SEM enrichment model as well). Every child is given the opportunity to work to their "reach" level. For example, a science project will be rather open ended. There are the basics each project must include, but a child can choose their own topic, they find their own resources (with guidance if needed), they choose the difficulty of the final project to show mastery, etc. One kid may choose bear hibernation and use DK books, while another chooses the electroconductivity of bacteria and reads primary research papers (this is not far off from a real ES example). Or an essay is assigned to compare two texts -- the teacher guides the student to choose the texts based on reading level, and while one child may write a three paragraph essay, another may write 10 pages, and yet another may create a video presentation or movie. The teacher takes each child where they are and pushes them to the next level. Mixed with that are also uniform assignments that every child does, but again, each child is guided to work on their areas of difficulty and to push their limits in the areas they find easy.

No labels needed. At our ES and MS, I see this working very well, and the model is far superior to what we had in GaTE when we were growing up.

This is a great description of ideal in-class differentiation and why/how it works. Thank you.

I think this works if all the kids are generally close together. How does this work in 4th grade with kids who read at the 1st grade level. And you better believe that exists EoTP.

We have those discrepancies WOTP, too. It works because the model is flexible. If a kid isn't ready for writing an essay, they will focus on a lower-level version of the skill, which is really reading comprehension and synthesis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, so why do our Metro area suburban school districts bother with GT programming from around 3rd grade on up, including test-in all GT 4th and 5th grade schools in MoCo? GT programs exist for, what, political reasons to woo affluent voters to school districts? I'm far from convinced that the brightest and most disciplined upper elementary grades kids have their needs met via the differentiation you describe, particularly when the achievement gap spans three or more grade levels within a single classroom.

Most (all?) of the programs you mention in outside counties began decades ago and would be unlikely to have existed if they had to do so today.

True.

And you can choose not to be convinced that it works, but I have kids who are among the brightest and most disciplined in their grades, in classes with a wide range of skill levels (including behind grade level), and it's working for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, so why do our Metro area suburban school districts bother with GT programming from around 3rd grade on up, including test-in all GT 4th and 5th grade schools in MoCo? GT programs exist for, what, political reasons to woo affluent voters to school districts? I'm far from convinced that the brightest and most disciplined upper elementary grades kids have their needs met via the differentiation you describe, particularly when the achievement gap spans three or more grade levels within a single classroom.

Most (all?) of the programs you mention in outside counties began decades ago and would be unlikely to have existed if they had to do so today.

True.

And you can choose not to be convinced that it works, but I have kids who are among the brightest and most disciplined in their grades, in classes with a wide range of skill levels (including behind grade level), and it's working for them.

+2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, so why do our Metro area suburban school districts bother with GT programming from around 3rd grade on up, including test-in all GT 4th and 5th grade schools in MoCo? GT programs exist for, what, political reasons to woo affluent voters to school districts? I'm far from convinced that the brightest and most disciplined upper elementary grades kids have their needs met via the differentiation you describe, particularly when the achievement gap spans three or more grade levels within a single classroom.

Most (all?) of the programs you mention in outside counties began decades ago and would be unlikely to have existed if they had to do so today.

True.

And you can choose not to be convinced that it works, but I have kids who are among the brightest and most disciplined in their grades, in classes with a wide range of skill levels (including behind grade level), and it's working for them.

+2

Can't imagine this model working beyond elementary school at most. Aren't we talking about a test-in middle school?

[Anonymous]

BTW - the brightest and most disciplined student in a class may not actually be 'gifted.'

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:BTW - the brightest and most disciplined student in a class may not actually be 'gifted.'

So what? Wish DC had AAP like Fairfax especially for math. But I agree, a gifted program in elementary is not a big deal. DC has a lot of immersion language elementary schools starting in preschool that others do not have.

Not having test-in middle school is another story, The main reason why people flee DC or go private.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:BTW - the brightest and most disciplined student in a class may not actually be 'gifted.'

Why are you so vested in maintaining that no child in DCPS could possibly qualify for some other jurisdiction's definition of gifted?

[Anonymous]

Sure, some may qualify, but would it be 75% of Janney?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:BTW - the brightest and most disciplined student in a class may not actually be 'gifted.'

And we come full circle. That's what many of us arguing against gifted tracking (and vouching for our advanced kids' experiences with differentiation) are saying! Most of the advanced kids in most school systems can be accommodated through differentiation--that there are very, very few profoundly gifted kids out there. Certainly not enough to justify creation of a test-in school.