NY cutting gifted programs due to lack of diversity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I could care less about the label. What's important is that the students get the support and level of academic challenge that's appropriate to their level of capability.

SEM, as implemented in DCPS, appears to just be in-class differentiation. Historically, differentiation at DCPS has been in name only, they teach to the middle and ignore everyone else. The majority of teachers cannot do differentiation well.

Even so, DCPS does not implement the full SEM model, they only do a few small pieces. There's no real opportunity in DCPS for acceleration. Maybe it's a start - but it's a very small one and they have very far to go if they want to attract or retain students.

DCPS does not implement the full SEM model, they only do a few small pieces? The link that someone gave a few postings back says "SEM is a non-traditional approach to gifted and talented education developed originally by Dr. Joseph Renzulli, director of the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. Each SEM school has one full-time, professionally-trained enrichment resource teacher who facilitates a wide range of academic course offerings that falls largely outside of the core curriculum. For more information on the SEM program, please see our SEM FAQ Page."

That's not "just in-class differentiation". How come you didn't get your information correct before making incorrect assumptions?

Maybe, it's because that's what DCPS says? The SEM FAQ page is vague and nonspecific. But, every other reference that DCPS has put out on the topic of SEM cites it in the context of differentiation, which at DCPS has been in-class.

http://dcps.dc.gov/DCPS/About+DCPS/Press+Releases+and+Announcements/Press+Releases/DCPS+Announces+Gifted+and+Talented+Programs+at+Two+Middle+Schools+in+the+2012-2013+School+Year

"enrichment-based differentiated teaching"

http://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/Hardy+Middle+School

"a focus on differentiation and the School Enrichment Model"

In scouring all of the best information made available by DCPS to the public, what other conclusion is a parent going to come to, other than that it's differentiation?

Also, in looking at the SEM website and seeing the checklists they show for individual school districts (they don't even list DCPS) - they show that a limited, piecemeal implementation is typical for SEM, so I think it would be extraordinary for anyone to conclude they are implementing the full program. The Renzulli site also cites differentiation, as do DCPS confratute materials. Historically, any differentiation that DCPS has ever done has been in-class differentiation.

But since you seem insistent on saying that's incorrect, by all means please post some materials that show otherwise. A parent shouldn't have to rely on calling around and searching for a story that is different than what DCPS publishes.

Dickwad, did you see above where it said all of those SEM schools have a full time SEM teacher?? You don't have to go around calling schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that Latin and Basis draw people shows that a challenging middle school, not necessarily gifted but aimed somewhere way above the lowest common denominator. If Latin can't take anyone other than who the lottery serves them, it shows that a challenging school is a good idea and that it could work without test-in and such divisive things.

Take a space and put a program in like this. I kind of think this is what Chancellor Henderson meant when she made her remarks about middle schools. A charter knockoff. Like take the Meyer space now that Cardozo's out of there and set up DCPS Challenge Middle School and put in a clone of a top suburban middle school program, lottery entry only.

Some of this model is by design. Yes the schools have to take all comers, but they make clear the academic demands and expectations. This has a dual purpose of attracting students who can handle the challenge and dissuading those who cannot.

I'd have no problem with DCPS offering a similar model. This isn't a zero sum game. Not every student needs to be an advanced learner, but there needs to be a place for those who are.

Exactly. Call it DC We Will Officially No Joke Make this Hard for You Middle School. Teach as if there is no need for remediation, and do remediation via tutoring and assistance programs, not during class or dragging the program out. Make it clear that if you get a C- average for a semester, you have to leave/go back to your inbound school, no matter if mommy cries. I would try hard to keep everyone there on track of course, but at the end of each semester it is a no excuses program. And guarantee that certain programming will be offered there even if dollars do not follow students, so, that (counterintuitively) the students will actually follow the programming and bring the dollars with them.

It sounds like exactly like BASIS. Why do we need another one?

Well, when the Chancellor hinted at that, she got smacked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with the NY schools is that they test at an age where the results are less indicative of gift than, how much test prep parents do. Yes well off kids are academically prepared and that is what most of us need. The problem is that there are a lot of quite capable poor kids, they just don't have the supports well off kids have to excel, that is what we need to figure out how to find to have a more viable system.

There's a vast wealth of free resources out there. I was a FARMS kid who tested well, ended up in G&T, AP tracks and ended up in college with scholarships - mainly just because of libraries and museums. All it takes is kindling their curiosity and pointing them in the right direction. Add to that the availability of the internet - even more free resources right at your fingertips, and the libraries have computers to take you there.

I don't buy that it's all about non-FARMS families loading their kids up on expensive prep, camps and enrichment. Most of the parents I know do very little of that, if any.

Except that most gifted and talented programs don't use an IQ test they use reasoning and problem solving tests.



Educated high SES parents have the kind of enriched home life that tends to skew early life IQ tests. Many of those "gifted" kids from K will turn into more run of the mill smart kids by 4th or 5th grade. Not all, but a decent percentage. Most places don't test for G&T until 3rd grade. K is way too early.

Sure, accuracy is a lot lower in K but testing becomes more solid over time - which is why testing ought best to be done at various intervals.

The problem is that when NY did do interval testing, no kids were dropped. Apparently parents created major administrative headaches trying to prove that their dear darling should still be considered gifted. It became an administrative headache. Basically it just entrenched early privilege.

The whole "poor people just need a library" to compete with rich kids might have held water back in the 80's but there are now so many families gaming the system and a whole cottage industry of companies that help prep 4 years to pass a g and t test that poor families couldn't compete.

that said maybe dcps should model itself off mcps or fcps and create some gifted centers at schools with low enrollment. Then they'd like get more economic diversity in their school

I don't think your "so many families gaming the system" argument holds water. There are many aspects of an IQ test that cannot be "gamed" and any gains that can be learned through test prep will be modest at best. A normal kid with 100 IQ will not be able to get a score of 145 through test prep.

The far bigger issue is that many poor families do not even avail themselves of the many options that are already available to them - some of which we have here in DC are the best in the world. As such, what good would any additional enrichment do?

Except many gifted and talented programs don't use just IQ to prove gifted-ness. There's usually several tests like the non verbal assessments, cognitive assessments.

Go to the AAP forum of this board and tell me there aren't parents trying to game the students by having them do test prep, tested independently if they didn't like the kid's first results. The same thing is happening in NYC and probably all over the place.

First of all, the AAP forum is irrelevant, because this is a DC thread, check the title: "DC Public and Public Charter Schools" and AAP is meaningless in DC because there are no similar options available here in DC. If you are talking about Fairfax or elsewhere, then why are you even posting here? For our part, we're in, what, according to DCUM is a "well regarded, highly sought after" top DC school with a student who's in the top 5% of high performers there (who did test with high IQ, not that it ever got us anything because DC doesn't offer anything for G&T students) - and we know a lot of families of the other top performers there as well, and virtually none do much if any outside enrichment courses as you are trying to suggest - if anything at all, we (and most other families we know) just use some free online content like Khan Academy, we go to the library, we go to the museums, we let DC explore curiosities, and that's about it. No expensive "prep", camps or outside classes. Frankly, we can't afford it and would prefer to save for DC's eventual college.

Secondly, even if someone were to try and boost IQ scores through prep, or getting an independent test result, any gains would be minimal. Even a gain of 10 points would be an unrealistic expectation. Maybe Fairfax has some parents who are a little nuts like that but I hardly think what goes on in the AAP thread is any meaningful indication of anything other than that a handful of nutcase angst-filled posters exist on DCUM. And, "trying to game the system" doesn't necessarily translate into "successfully gaming the system". No amount of test prep will meaningfully boost little Johnny Average's IQ into the gifted range.

Thirdly, to what ends? It ultimately just ends up putting the student on a more demanding and challenging path, with a lot more work and a lot higher expectations involved. It's not as though you just get a medal for achievement, barriers are removed, a red carpet is unfurled, and somehow everything is suddenly magically better for the student.

And fourth, you didn't address the question - if low-SES families aren't even going to the library or museums or making use of the wealth of things they already have available to them, do you seriously think adding something more will somehow change anything?

Well, rather than relying on your gut instincts and assumptions, let's take a look at exactly how meaningless the NYC public schools' gifted programs have become as well-off parents avail themselves of testing services: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/14/nyregion/as-ranks-of-gifted-soar-in-ny-fight-brews-for-kindergarten-slots.html?_r=0

Same thing would happen here. G&T would simply mean above-average rich kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There aren't many profoundly gifted kids. Certainly not enough in DC to open a school just for them. I have nephews in a larger urban city that attend a gifted school, WIPPSI/WISC scores have to be 130+ (Just gifted) and they have trouble filling grades. Why should DC put forth resources to educate a handful of kids when they cannot get the majority of kids at grade level?

You would be surprised. There are plenty of kids with IQs over 130 to fill a couple of classes. The fact that most of those kids have not been identified is beside the point (and maybe another issue altogether).

[Anonymous]

IQ is an outdated, culturally-biased measure. A way for parents to feel their kids are special despite the fact that it is very biased by a person's socioeconomic background.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I could care less about the label. What's important is that the students get the support and level of academic challenge that's appropriate to their level of capability.

SEM, as implemented in DCPS, appears to just be in-class differentiation. Historically, differentiation at DCPS has been in name only, they teach to the middle and ignore everyone else. The majority of teachers cannot do differentiation well.

Even so, DCPS does not implement the full SEM model, they only do a few small pieces. There's no real opportunity in DCPS for acceleration. Maybe it's a start - but it's a very small one and they have very far to go if they want to attract or retain students.

DCPS does not implement the full SEM model, they only do a few small pieces? The link that someone gave a few postings back says "SEM is a non-traditional approach to gifted and talented education developed originally by Dr. Joseph Renzulli, director of the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. Each SEM school has one full-time, professionally-trained enrichment resource teacher who facilitates a wide range of academic course offerings that falls largely outside of the core curriculum. For more information on the SEM program, please see our SEM FAQ Page."

That's not "just in-class differentiation". How come you didn't get your information correct before making incorrect assumptions?

Maybe, it's because that's what DCPS says? The SEM FAQ page is vague and nonspecific. But, every other reference that DCPS has put out on the topic of SEM cites it in the context of differentiation, which at DCPS has been in-class.

http://dcps.dc.gov/DCPS/About+DCPS/Press+Releases+and+Announcements/Press+Releases/DCPS+Announces+Gifted+and+Talented+Programs+at+Two+Middle+Schools+in+the+2012-2013+School+Year

"enrichment-based differentiated teaching"

http://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/Hardy+Middle+School

"a focus on differentiation and the School Enrichment Model"

In scouring all of the best information made available by DCPS to the public, what other conclusion is a parent going to come to, other than that it's differentiation?

Also, in looking at the SEM website and seeing the checklists they show for individual school districts (they don't even list DCPS) - they show that a limited, piecemeal implementation is typical for SEM, so I think it would be extraordinary for anyone to conclude they are implementing the full program. The Renzulli site also cites differentiation, as do DCPS confratute materials. Historically, any differentiation that DCPS has ever done has been in-class differentiation.

But since you seem insistent on saying that's incorrect, by all means please post some materials that show otherwise. A parent shouldn't have to rely on calling around and searching for a story that is different than what DCPS publishes.

Dickwad, did you see above where it said all of those SEM schools have a full time SEM teacher?? You don't have to go around calling schools.

What does "a full time SEM teacher" mean? Does it mean pullouts? A totally separate track? Does it mean after-school activities? Or enrichment curriculum prepared and provided to regular teachers for differentiation during in-class activities? It COULD mean any number of things but unfortunately it really doesn't tell anyone a blessed thing about what it ACTUALLY means. You're really out of bounds calling people names when there is nowhere near enough information for anyone to make even a remote guess at what it's supposed to mean.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:IQ is an outdated, culturally-biased measure. A way for parents to feel their kids are special despite the fact that it is very biased by a person's socioeconomic background.

If you think it's about "making parents feel their kids are special" then you are truly gifted with cluelessness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:IQ is an outdated, culturally-biased measure. A way for parents to feel their kids are special despite the fact that it is very biased by a person's socioeconomic background.

The "cultural bias" argument gets thrown around based mainly on nothing other than results. A majority of the questions have little to do with culture and the few that do on occasion get cited are either outdated example or are extremely specious. If it's truly biased to match the criticisms then one would expect that it should skew to favor wealthy white Americans, but in fact it skews to favor Asian-Americans. The ultimate reality of it is that the correlation between IQ test performance and race is far smaller and far less meaningful than the correlation between IQ test performance and income level.

[Anonymous]

http://theweek.com/article/index/253607/are-differences-in-iq-to-blame-for-income-inequality

[Anonymous]

The article goes to show that even an elite white insider can trip up on an IQ test - which tends to counter the arguments of bias toward wealthy, powerful white insiders. The ability to answer those questions has more to do with things like paying close attention to the question and applying critical thinking, rather than being knowledge- or culture-based questions.

Howard Gardner says there are all kinds of intelligence. Yes, absolutely true, there are.

But the only kinds that really matter in terms of basic human survival and success are societal ones - the ones that you can monetize or otherwise derive some benefit from. Having giftedness in some obscure area won't do you any tangible good unless you can find some way to find some benefit in life from it. "Hey, look, I can blow synchronized snot bubbles!" "Yeah, great, kid. Now go away."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that Latin and Basis draw people shows that a challenging middle school, not necessarily gifted but aimed somewhere way above the lowest common denominator. If Latin can't take anyone other than who the lottery serves them, it shows that a challenging school is a good idea and that it could work without test-in and such divisive things.

Take a space and put a program in like this. I kind of think this is what Chancellor Henderson meant when she made her remarks about middle schools. A charter knockoff. Like take the Meyer space now that Cardozo's out of there and set up DCPS Challenge Middle School and put in a clone of a top suburban middle school program, lottery entry only.

Some of this model is by design. Yes the schools have to take all comers, but they make clear the academic demands and expectations. This has a dual purpose of attracting students who can handle the challenge and dissuading those who cannot.

I'd have no problem with DCPS offering a similar model. This isn't a zero sum game. Not every student needs to be an advanced learner, but there needs to be a place for those who are.

Exactly. Call it DC We Will Officially No Joke Make this Hard for You Middle School. Teach as if there is no need for remediation, and do remediation via tutoring and assistance programs, not during class or dragging the program out. Make it clear that if you get a C- average for a semester, you have to leave/go back to your inbound school, no matter if mommy cries. I would try hard to keep everyone there on track of course, but at the end of each semester it is a no excuses program. And guarantee that certain programming will be offered there even if dollars do not follow students, so, that (counterintuitively) the students will actually follow the programming and bring the dollars with them.

It sounds like exactly like BASIS. Why do we need another one?

Well, when the Chancellor hinted at that, she got smacked.

She got smacked by the status quo establishment that doesn't want any change or challenge. But that was only the smack she got from one side.

For not acting and not providing robust options, she also gets smacked by all of the parents who are fed up with the status quo, who see the lackluster DCPS behemoth continue to lumber along with nothing good in sight, and decide to yank their kids out of DCPS.

At the end of the day, who do you listen to? What parents want? Or what the establishment and union wants? Listen to the establishment and pretty soon everyone leaves. Then, you don't have to listen to them anymore because there's nobody left to teach. On the other hand, it might make more sense to listen to parents in the first place, before that happens.

[Anonymous]

Parents don't take away her livelihood, politicians do. Who would you listen to

[Anonymous]

SEM resource teachers at Hardy do pull-outs throughout the day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No lack of diversity may not be the only reason, but if all it does is allow well off parents, in this case predominantly white kids to get extra advantages on your tax dollar, why should it be supported. I get why gifted programs are needed, I was in one in Denver and it made a world of difference for education. However, a program such as the one in New York only cements privilege it does not really meet the need for advanced educational opportunity for advanced kids.

What "privilege" and "extra advantage" would that be? I think that's a red herring. Nobody ever asks about G&T in job interviews, nor does it generally get you anything special toward college or anywhere else in life. It's really just about keeping students sufficiently challenged and engaged when they outpace the regular curriculum.

If it does not confer advantage why do you fight so hard for it? Because the presumption is that these programs have better teachers and materials that will help your child maximize their potential. When it drains it from the pool or excludes because the testing is too early it is a crappy allocation of resources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No lack of diversity may not be the only reason, but if all it does is allow well off parents, in this case predominantly white kids to get extra advantages on your tax dollar, why should it be supported. I get why gifted programs are needed, I was in one in Denver and it made a world of difference for education. However, a program such as the one in New York only cements privilege it does not really meet the need for advanced educational opportunity for advanced kids.

What "privilege" and "extra advantage" would that be? I think that's a red herring. Nobody ever asks about G&T in job interviews, nor does it generally get you anything special toward college or anywhere else in life. It's really just about keeping students sufficiently challenged and engaged when they outpace the regular curriculum.

If it does not confer advantage why do you fight so hard for it? Because the presumption is that these programs have better teachers and materials that will help your child maximize their potential. When it drains it from the pool or excludes because the testing is too early it is a crappy allocation of resources.

More nonsense. We fight hard for it because it's what's appropriate for those students to meet them where they are at, just as we as parents would do for special needs students. It doesn't necessarily mean "better" teachers - it just means teachers who can meet them at an appropriate level, for example maybe they are academically ahead and ready for high school content but socially and emotionally still at a middle school level with their peers. Also, it doesn't "drain resources" - those were students who needed to be taught anyways. The only thing you are doing is teaching them differently. And as for your hysterics about "exclusion because of early testing", you are condemning G&T even before it's existed. Nobody in DCPS is doing or proposing G&T admissions in those early years. Given the arguments you've put forward can all be shown to just boil down to disingenuous strawmen, there really isn't much real reason why you should be fighting so hard against it.