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

[Anonymous]

Since the "other" thread was hopelessly derailed, I'd like to re-pose a more appropriate set of questions:

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?

PLEASE do provide insightful comments, so that we can get a meaningful conversation going! PLEASE refrain from insults, "snowflake" debates, or badgering. If someone starts on that track, identify the trolling for what it is, and leave it alone. We need this conversation, and we need some focus.

[Anonymous]

Ok, some quick thoughts about the types of programs implemented in schools (don't have time for much more right now):

SEM: pull-out education once or twice a week for high-performing students. Good: reaches a large number of kids, and a number of studies have shown that once/week is enough for many kids. Bad: does not encourage differentiation.

Acceleration: advance the child by one or more grade levels, to provide greater challenges. Good: students get a head start, and often benefit from being placed with older children. Bad: places too much emphasis on speed, and not enough on depth; kids are often not socially mature enough to accelerate; kids may need acceleration in only specific subject areas.

Tracking: group kids according to ability, particularly in STEM subjects or language arts. Good: provides some differentiation, and allows classes to provide more depth. Bad: can create segregation; difficult to schedule classes; requires more specialized staff.

As far as I am aware, no public school is offering true individualization...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok, some quick thoughts about the types of programs implemented in schools (don't have time for much more right now):

SEM: pull-out education once or twice a week for high-performing students. Good: reaches a large number of kids, and a number of studies have shown that once/week is enough for many kids. Bad: does not encourage differentiation.

Acceleration: advance the child by one or more grade levels, to provide greater challenges. Good: students get a head start, and often benefit from being placed with older children. Bad: places too much emphasis on speed, and not enough on depth; kids are often not socially mature enough to accelerate; kids may need acceleration in only specific subject areas.

Tracking: group kids according to ability, particularly in STEM subjects or language arts. Good: provides some differentiation, and allows classes to provide more depth. Bad: can create segregation; difficult to schedule classes; requires more specialized staff.

As far as I am aware, no public school is offering true individualization...

Isn't BASIS essentially grouping kids already? I don't see that as causing segregation there.

Acceleration does not make sense to me, though. If a child learns at twice the rate of her peers, then doesn't acceleration just postpone problems for a year? Plus it really just boils down to getting a more advanced stack of busywork that isn't teaching anything.

[Anonymous]

I really think this depends on the child. Are we really talking about a kid in the top 5 percentile? Are they advanced in both math and reading and writing? Have you talked to the principal of the school? Are there other children similarly advanced? I read somewhere about Jeff Bezos as a child being incredibly advanced. They basically gave him some independent projects but kept him with his cohort so he learned social skills. Personally I think some parents get siderailed by their child's ability and sometimes miss the whole child part.

[Anonymous]

Truly gifted children just don't need this stuff. At least mine didn't.

[Anonymous]

Profoundly gifted children (think math prodigies that can do long division or more in their head at age 4) will rarely be well served by a G&T program, their parents are going to need to advocate for their unique needs and few school systems accommodate them well. More typically gifted children, think top 3 percent academically able nationally but more concentrated in pockets of well educated people, can be well served by good differentiation and SEM type models. I, DH and most of my current friends were identified as "g&t" in our youth and had a variety of advanced classes and pull outs. This is often genetic so it is not surprising that many kids in the DC metro area are advanced academically. I support strong differentiation, tracking where appropriate and attempting to engage all kids in depth. We have been well served so far in our JKLMM, and I expect Deal to be strong as well (although I may examine Hardy's SEM program she we get closer). I think the models for differentiation need to be expanded to other schools.

[Anonymous]

OP, it's difficult to have these conversations unless there is a common understanding of what "gifted" means. What is your definition?

[Anonymous]

I was in a tracked system g&t pull outs growing up in inner city Denver. Testing since that point indicates I am in the 85 percentile. So advanced but not genius. What helped me growing up were teachers that had high expectations and sometimes would give me more difficult assignments.

[Anonymous]

This is what DCPS says on its webpage that it does for "Advanced and Enriched Instruction"...then you can scroll down a bit further to get information about the Schoolwide Enrichment Model (SEM). There is also information if you scroll down about International Baccalaureate which I'm not sure if they consider part of their advanced and enriched offerings or not.

http://dcps.dc.gov/DCPS/Learn+About+Schools/Academic+Offerings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Truly gifted children just don't need this stuff. At least mine didn't.

Intelligence is clearly not genetic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I really think this depends on the child. Are we really talking about a kid in the top 5 percentile? Are they advanced in both math and reading and writing? Have you talked to the principal of the school? Are there other children similarly advanced? I read somewhere about Jeff Bezos as a child being incredibly advanced. They basically gave him some independent projects but kept him with his cohort so he learned social skills. Personally I think some parents get siderailed by their child's ability and sometimes miss the whole child part.

That didn't work out too well now did it!

[Anonymous]

DCPS is not actually employing SEM as it is defined by the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. Actual SEM does not *rely* on pull out, but on enriching and differentiating curricula for everyone in the school. Yes, pull out is one strategy, but one that is employed in very specific circumstances and to specific ends.

It's too bad that DCPS doesn't utilize actual SEM protocol, because it is a highly successful model in a many different school districts and benefits a wide variety of learners, including G&T students (for which Renzulli, the creator of the model, has a very specific definition). I suspect it does not work as well in a place that has such a focus on accountability, since SEM tends to focus on applied skills and project based learning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Truly gifted children just don't need this stuff. At least mine didn't.

Intelligence is clearly not genetic.

Adoption.

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I really think this depends on the child. Are we really talking about a kid in the top 5 percentile? Are they advanced in both math and reading and writing? Have you talked to the principal of the school? Are there other children similarly advanced? I read somewhere about Jeff Bezos as a child being incredibly advanced. They basically gave him some independent projects but kept him with his cohort so he learned social skills. Personally I think some parents get siderailed by their child's ability and sometimes miss the whole child part.

I think this is a very pertinent question. BASIS feeds on parents who think their kids need to go 100 mph faster than the general population. Based on the attrition rate, it is clear that the strategy fails many kids, while a handful do extraordinarily well.

We have two kids, with very different needs. The older one is 2e, and moves along much faster than testing had predicted. In his case, moving up with his intellectual maturity would be disastrous, because he does not have the social maturity to go along with it.

Our other child probably could accelerate comfortably, but he is calmer and more driven. He likely falls into the category that psychologists talk about being more apt to succeed though younger than his peers. We are still hesitant to do this, though, because the "child" part is so important. Why does this kid have to go to college a year sooner? Get a job a year sooner? Because he MIGHT do something great?

Both my wife and I (funny how that happens) started school are year younger than our peers, and graduated a further year younger, starting college at 16. Intellectually, we both did fine. But, we sure could have used the extra time to grow up. Then again, I'd probably still be the nutcase I am now, so who knows???