What should Public schools do for your child if she reads 3 grades above ?

[Anonymous]

What you have provided is better than what you provided early but not by much. Do you not see how what you provided is different than what was provided regarding research on the education of the disabled? I'm trying to help you but you're not making it easy.

http://www.accelerationinstitute.org/Nation_Deceived/ND_v1.pdf This is clearly a biased policy paper. It has, perhaps, some solid evidence in it but from the tone, this is something I'd expect to see discussed on Fox News.
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/index.html Published in 1983! This was 30 years ago. So much has changed in the last 30 years.
Marland Report, abstract: http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED056243 Published in 1971! This was published before I was born! This was back when learning disabled kids weren't even in general ed classrooms!

Along with innumerable books, articles and other works which point out the flaws and impacts of not providing an adequate and appropriate education for advanced learners, examples:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/05/nyregion/05education.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0 I read the first page and didn't see how it was germane to a discussion on advanced learners

Davidson, Jan and Bob, with Vanderkam, Laura (2004). Genius Denied: How to Stop Wasting Our Brightest Young Minds. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. Don't know why you included this. It's a book, not a research study.


I don't believe I'll be returning to this thread. I find the tone has become too much like a Fox News show.

[Anonymous]

I find the tone has become too much like a Fox News show.

You must not watch Fox News. I agree with your analysis and I love Fox News.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I find the tone has become too much like a Fox News show.

You must not watch Fox News. I agree with your analysis and I love Fox News.

Not the PP, but I prefer my fake news to be from Comedy Central.

[Anonymous]

Not the PP, but I prefer my fake news to be from Comedy Central.

The sad part is that you believe Jon Stewart is a real journalist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What you have provided is better than what you provided early but not by much. Do you not see how what you provided is different than what was provided regarding research on the education of the disabled? I'm trying to help you but you're not making it easy.

http://www.accelerationinstitute.org/Nation_Deceived/ND_v1.pdf This is clearly a biased policy paper. It has, perhaps, some solid evidence in it but from the tone, this is something I'd expect to see discussed on Fox News.
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/index.html Published in 1983! This was 30 years ago. So much has changed in the last 30 years.
Marland Report, abstract: http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED056243 Published in 1971! This was published before I was born! This was back when learning disabled kids weren't even in general ed classrooms!

Along with innumerable books, articles and other works which point out the flaws and impacts of not providing an adequate and appropriate education for advanced learners, examples:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/05/nyregion/05education.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0 I read the first page and didn't see how it was germane to a discussion on advanced learners

Davidson, Jan and Bob, with Vanderkam, Laura (2004). Genius Denied: How to Stop Wasting Our Brightest Young Minds. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. Don't know why you included this. It's a book, not a research study.


I don't believe I'll be returning to this thread. I find the tone has become too much like a Fox News show.

LOL! There were also three recent research studies posted at 11:46 which support advanced learning.

You are just like FOX News: Spin, lie, dismiss, deny.... That's all you've demonstrated yourself to be capable of - not a single article, citation or report to support your anti-advanced-learner position.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I find the tone has become too much like a Fox News show.

You must not watch Fox News. I agree with your analysis and I love Fox News.

That explains why there isn't any meaningful dialogue on this thread. You think the validity of a statement is based on how loudly and how often it's repeated. Good luck making your case with the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have a very gifted DS. Scored very highly on all tests. He was bored out of his mind in public school. It is a stretch for us, but we sent him to private, which meets his need much better. Now I understand why I was always angry at the local public. It just was not a good fit for him. BTW, FCPS considers gifted students SN -- that is how they get their funding. That is why they call it "services" Just a technicality. Having a very gifted child is different, but not nearly as hard as a real SN child. Not remotely the same.

+100 to bad fits, frustrations, problems and poor outcomes. Yes - it's different, and certainly not as bad as Special Needs, but is still a marginalized and underserved community just the same.

LOL!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The OP said that her daughter's needs are not being met. How can you argue that it is not true.

I'm sorry. My bad. OP is an expert in her child and that is sufficient. You're right. Can't argue that OP's DC is truly gifted and her needs aren't being met.

OP, you need to go right to the principal and demand your DD be put in the highest reading group. If the principal refuses, go to your School Board member.

Has OP even talked to the teacher?

[Anonymous]

LOL! There were also three recent research studies posted at 11:46 which support advanced learning.

You are just like FOX News: Spin, lie, dismiss, deny.... That's all you've demonstrated yourself to be capable of - not a single article, citation or report to support your anti-advanced-learner position.

I'm not anti-advanced learner in the least and I don't know how you interpreted my posts as that. Like many other PPs, I don't believe advanced learners in our area are poorly served. I don't believe their needs are unmet. I wonder if you even read the abstracts you posted at 11:46. Only one of the studies focused solely on 'gifted' students (the one on Science-Focused STEM Interventions) and it pertained more to the effects of increased professional development for teachers. It compared two populations of gifted students. One population had teachers who attended professional develop, the other population did not. The results, not surprising, showed greater achievement in the group which had teachers that had additional training.

The first study documented the benefits of differentiated reading instruction. It mentions nothing about gifted learners and it seems the results are applicable to all learners.

I'm not sure why you included the third study. It just seems to show that 'non-gifted' students in a gifted classroom achieved at a rate similar to those not in a gifted classroom. I guess the conclusion is that being non-gifted in a gifted classroom doesn't hurt you. How does that prove your point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Not the PP, but I prefer my fake news to be from Comedy Central.

The sad part is that you believe Jon Stewart is a real journalist.

Where did I say that? I said FAKE news.

[Anonymous]

Good luck making your case with the school.

Wrong person. I'm against making GT special needs..........I think the GT kids can be accomdated by the classroom teacher. In fact, as a teacher and a parent, I know that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

LOL! There were also three recent research studies posted at 11:46 which support advanced learning.

You are just like FOX News: Spin, lie, dismiss, deny.... That's all you've demonstrated yourself to be capable of - not a single article, citation or report to support your anti-advanced-learner position.

I'm not anti-advanced learner in the least and I don't know how you interpreted my posts as that. Like many other PPs, I don't believe advanced learners in our area are poorly served. I don't believe their needs are unmet. I wonder if you even read the abstracts you posted at 11:46. Only one of the studies focused solely on 'gifted' students (the one on Science-Focused STEM Interventions) and it pertained more to the effects of increased professional development for teachers. It compared two populations of gifted students. One population had teachers who attended professional develop, the other population did not. The results, not surprising, showed greater achievement in the group which had teachers that had additional training.

The first study documented the benefits of differentiated reading instruction. It mentions nothing about gifted learners and it seems the results are applicable to all learners.

I'm not sure why you included the third study. It just seems to show that 'non-gifted' students in a gifted classroom achieved at a rate similar to those not in a gifted classroom. I guess the conclusion is that being non-gifted in a gifted classroom doesn't hurt you. How does that prove your point?

You are hung up on a label of "gifted" - that isn't the issue, we're really talking about adequate support for advanced learners, through differentiation and grouping, and that's what those articles supported.

And you still haven't made the case to support your side. Nor did you particularly refute anything with whiny complaints about "bias" or flimsy and arbitrary judgement of "not relevant" because it didn't specifically mention the word "gifted"

You aren't living up to your own expectations of others in debate.

[Anonymous]

we're really talking about adequate support for advanced learners, through differentiation and grouping, and that's what those articles supported.

Any good teacher can differentiate--in fact, any teacher who cannot differentiate should not be teaching.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

we're really talking about adequate support for advanced learners, through differentiation and grouping, and that's what those articles supported.

Any good teacher can differentiate--in fact, any teacher who cannot differentiate should not be teaching.

Sadly many teachers cannot.

And even the best teachers, while they might be able to differentiate a grade or two ahead and behind, would have a VERY hard time differentiating when, for example, they are in a 5th grade DC middle school and some kids can barely read at all, and others can read at a college level (and that *DOES* happen more often than you might think).

[Anonymous]

And even the best teachers, while they might be able to differentiate a grade or two ahead and behind, would have a VERY hard time differentiating when, for example, they are in a 5th grade DC middle school and some kids can barely read at all, and others can read at a college level (and that *DOES* happen more often than you might think).

I taught school--and I know that happens. However, it is a lot easier to differentiate for the child who is at a college level than for the one who cannot read. Believe me.