Gifted kids in DCPS (specifically Lafayette)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot of people can relate to your post, OP, even if they haven't had their child tested as gifted. The curtain has really been pulled back this year with virtual learning, now we have hints at what goes in actual school. My conclusion is our traditional school system is to bring a cohort of children up to a [very low] minimum standard, that is testable. There are some kids on the screen I see (mostly girls) who are just kind of putting up with it or somehow find it okay, but it is absolute misery. Children are capable of so much more. I don't have a real answer for you other than we are hanging out on the waitlists of many montessori PCSs with the hope that children being able to drive their own learning a bit more has to be better than this. It'll be a drive, but anything is better than this.

I think we all tend to forget that Public School is meant to educate the masses. There is a set of standard knowledge/skills we all want the population to basically comprehend. Schools plan their delivery to the "average" student, with the knowledge that there will be some below and some above the average. That "average" is probably a lot lower than most of us realize. (When you are above that average and surround yourself with people above that average, it seems crazy that the "average" is what it is.) This system works because it is all about delivering that basic knowledge/skills to the most number of people. It is a pure cost/benefit situation for society. If they were to spend too much time/energy focused on the above average students, the pay off would not be worth it. Those kids already have the knowledge/skills the government wants its population to have. Therefore, it makes more sense to deliver extra time/energy to focus on those below average. My conclusion- Public School works in the way it is supposed to. But if we expect above average students to have more attention/challenges/etc, government/society/whatever has determined it isn't worth the cost to them. Thus, it is on you the parent to provide that extra.

I totally agree with this. This blogger Penelope Trunk (she's eccentric but also often insightful) has been saying this for years, and argues that the best thing for more advanced students is homeschooling with tutoring. Public school serves as enormously important service for the public to get most kids up to a certain level, but its purpose is not to push the brightest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kids are like yours, OP. Their teachers focus on having them work on the learning apps provided in Clever -- Lexia, iReady, Reflex, etc. On the elementary school level, these apps are very, very good, because they provide the solid basis kids need to advance quickly once in middle/high school.

I myself was placed in a gifted program starting in first grade, and by the time my class graduated high school, most of my classmates would be considered highly successful in DCUM terms. When I remember what I was learning at the elementary level, academically, much of it is the same as what is in those apps.

NP here. This is really helpful, PP. Can you tell me more about how these apps work in practice? They finish their class work then are assigned work on the apps? They are assigned work on the apps as homework/outside of school? Are they collaborative at all or do the kids work on them individually at their own pace?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot of people can relate to your post, OP, even if they haven't had their child tested as gifted. The curtain has really been pulled back this year with virtual learning, now we have hints at what goes in actual school. My conclusion is our traditional school system is to bring a cohort of children up to a [very low] minimum standard, that is testable. There are some kids on the screen I see (mostly girls) who are just kind of putting up with it or somehow find it okay, but it is absolute misery. Children are capable of so much more. I don't have a real answer for you other than we are hanging out on the waitlists of many montessori PCSs with the hope that children being able to drive their own learning a bit more has to be better than this. It'll be a drive, but anything is better than this.

I think we all tend to forget that Public School is meant to educate the masses. There is a set of standard knowledge/skills we all want the population to basically comprehend. Schools plan their delivery to the "average" student, with the knowledge that there will be some below and some above the average. That "average" is probably a lot lower than most of us realize. (When you are above that average and surround yourself with people above that average, it seems crazy that the "average" is what it is.) This system works because it is all about delivering that basic knowledge/skills to the most number of people. It is a pure cost/benefit situation for society. If they were to spend too much time/energy focused on the above average students, the pay off would not be worth it. Those kids already have the knowledge/skills the government wants its population to have. Therefore, it makes more sense to deliver extra time/energy to focus on those below average. My conclusion- Public School works in the way it is supposed to. But if we expect above average students to have more attention/challenges/etc, government/society/whatever has determined it isn't worth the cost to them. Thus, it is on you the parent to provide that extra.

I totally agree with this. This blogger Penelope Trunk (she's eccentric but also often insightful) has been saying this for years, and argues that the best thing for more advanced students is homeschooling with tutoring. Public school serves as enormously important service for the public to get most kids up to a certain level, but its purpose is not to push the brightest.

My kids are among “the brightest” as defined here. They are thriving at Deal and Wilson, and they thrived in ES, as well. They are also self-motivated and engaged. My (anecdotal) experience is that the biggest complainers about their kids’ not being challenged are generally the most entitled, with kids who see school as a drag that’s below them rather than an opportunity (presumably because their parents are constantly talking about how terrible and unchallenging school is).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids are like yours, OP. Their teachers focus on having them work on the learning apps provided in Clever -- Lexia, iReady, Reflex, etc. On the elementary school level, these apps are very, very good, because they provide the solid basis kids need to advance quickly once in middle/high school.

I myself was placed in a gifted program starting in first grade, and by the time my class graduated high school, most of my classmates would be considered highly successful in DCUM terms. When I remember what I was learning at the elementary level, academically, much of it is the same as what is in those apps.

NP here. This is really helpful, PP. Can you tell me more about how these apps work in practice? They finish their class work then are assigned work on the apps? They are assigned work on the apps as homework/outside of school? Are they collaborative at all or do the kids work on them individually at their own pace?

Depends on how your class/teacher works. In my experience, typically all the kids work on a class assignments, with the brightest kids helping the kids that need more help. Then they are either assigned individual app work, or will work on apps with kids at their same level. All of my kids' teachers also assigned app work to be done at home. Because the apps are adaptive, they are presenting work at each child's level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids are like yours, OP. Their teachers focus on having them work on the learning apps provided in Clever -- Lexia, iReady, Reflex, etc. On the elementary school level, these apps are very, very good, because they provide the solid basis kids need to advance quickly once in middle/high school.

I myself was placed in a gifted program starting in first grade, and by the time my class graduated high school, most of my classmates would be considered highly successful in DCUM terms. When I remember what I was learning at the elementary level, academically, much of it is the same as what is in those apps.

NP here. This is really helpful, PP. Can you tell me more about how these apps work in practice? They finish their class work then are assigned work on the apps? They are assigned work on the apps as homework/outside of school? Are they collaborative at all or do the kids work on them individually at their own pace?

Depends on how your class/teacher works. In my experience, typically all the kids work on a class assignments, with the brightest kids helping the kids that need more help. Then they are either assigned individual app work, or will work on apps with kids at their same level. All of my kids' teachers also assigned app work to be done at home. Because the apps are adaptive, they are presenting work at each child's level.

Also wanted to add that with my kids, I have found this practice to be incredibly helpful. The social aspects my kids have learned by helping other children learn has been great, and I applaud the teachers for really fostering that in their classrooms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids are like yours, OP. Their teachers focus on having them work on the learning apps provided in Clever -- Lexia, iReady, Reflex, etc. On the elementary school level, these apps are very, very good, because they provide the solid basis kids need to advance quickly once in middle/high school.

I myself was placed in a gifted program starting in first grade, and by the time my class graduated high school, most of my classmates would be considered highly successful in DCUM terms. When I remember what I was learning at the elementary level, academically, much of it is the same as what is in those apps.

NP here. This is really helpful, PP. Can you tell me more about how these apps work in practice? They finish their class work then are assigned work on the apps? They are assigned work on the apps as homework/outside of school? Are they collaborative at all or do the kids work on them individually at their own pace?

Depends on how your class/teacher works. In my experience, typically all the kids work on a class assignments, with the brightest kids helping the kids that need more help. Then they are either assigned individual app work, or will work on apps with kids at their same level. All of my kids' teachers also assigned app work to be done at home. Because the apps are adaptive, they are presenting work at each child's level.

Also wanted to add that with my kids, I have found this practice to be incredibly helpful. The social aspects my kids have learned by helping other children learn has been great, and I applaud the teachers for really fostering that in their classrooms.

My kid is autistic with learning disabilities. This model was terrible for her, since having the "smartest" kids in the class help her only pointed out her differences more and made her feel othered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids are like yours, OP. Their teachers focus on having them work on the learning apps provided in Clever -- Lexia, iReady, Reflex, etc. On the elementary school level, these apps are very, very good, because they provide the solid basis kids need to advance quickly once in middle/high school.

I myself was placed in a gifted program starting in first grade, and by the time my class graduated high school, most of my classmates would be considered highly successful in DCUM terms. When I remember what I was learning at the elementary level, academically, much of it is the same as what is in those apps.

NP here. This is really helpful, PP. Can you tell me more about how these apps work in practice? They finish their class work then are assigned work on the apps? They are assigned work on the apps as homework/outside of school? Are they collaborative at all or do the kids work on them individually at their own pace?

Depends on how your class/teacher works. In my experience, typically all the kids work on a class assignments, with the brightest kids helping the kids that need more help. Then they are either assigned individual app work, or will work on apps with kids at their same level. All of my kids' teachers also assigned app work to be done at home. Because the apps are adaptive, they are presenting work at each child's level.

My kid is not at a NW DCPS, but she takes math with the grade ahead of her. Then, in terms of apps, some are automatically adaptive (Freckle, Lexia), so the teacher can assign 20 minutes of work or work after you finish your normal assignments and everyone in the class is working at a different level automatically; alternatively, in some apps, the teacher can assign different work to different kids (IXL) or just jump some kids a grade level (Zearn). We fought for the math placement, because we didn’t think the app differentiation was enough; in ELA, there are more kids above grade level, so they have can fill above-level reading and writing small groups, and Lexia is great for the theory stuff (phonics rules, spelling rules, etc).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids are like yours, OP. Their teachers focus on having them work on the learning apps provided in Clever -- Lexia, iReady, Reflex, etc. On the elementary school level, these apps are very, very good, because they provide the solid basis kids need to advance quickly once in middle/high school.

I myself was placed in a gifted program starting in first grade, and by the time my class graduated high school, most of my classmates would be considered highly successful in DCUM terms. When I remember what I was learning at the elementary level, academically, much of it is the same as what is in those apps.

NP here. This is really helpful, PP. Can you tell me more about how these apps work in practice? They finish their class work then are assigned work on the apps? They are assigned work on the apps as homework/outside of school? Are they collaborative at all or do the kids work on them individually at their own pace?

Depends on how your class/teacher works. In my experience, typically all the kids work on a class assignments, with the brightest kids helping the kids that need more help. Then they are either assigned individual app work, or will work on apps with kids at their same level. All of my kids' teachers also assigned app work to be done at home. Because the apps are adaptive, they are presenting work at each child's level.

My kid is not at a NW DCPS, but she takes math with the grade ahead of her. Then, in terms of apps, some are automatically adaptive (Freckle, Lexia), so the teacher can assign 20 minutes of work or work after you finish your normal assignments and everyone in the class is working at a different level automatically; alternatively, in some apps, the teacher can assign different work to different kids (IXL) or just jump some kids a grade level (Zearn). We fought for the math placement, because we didn’t think the app differentiation was enough; in ELA, there are more kids above grade level, so they have can fill above-level reading and writing small groups, and Lexia is great for the theory stuff (phonics rules, spelling rules, etc).

This. Giving your kid an app to challenge them is way subpar to having live instruction by a teacher to a similar peer group.