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.

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.

Catherine A. Little, D. Betsy McCoach, and Sally M. Reis
Effects of Differentiated Reading Instruction on Student Achievement in Middle School
Journal of Advanced Academics November 2014 25: 384-402, first published on September 11, 2014 doi:10.1177/1932202X14549250

Abstract
Reading instruction often does not focus on appealing to student interests, offering choice, or responding to the needs of advanced readers. In this experimental study, we examined the effects on achievement of an instructional approach involving choice, differentiated instruction, and extensive, supported, independent reading, with corresponding elimination of regular reading instruction. The study, which incorporated multi-site cluster-randomized design, was conducted in four middle schools with 2,150 students and 47 teachers. Pretest and posttest data were collected on reading fluency and comprehension, with Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) procedures used to investigate the effects of the intervention. Results indicated similar results overall for treatment and control group students, with treatment outperforming control on reading fluency at two of the schools. The findings demonstrate that the intervention resulted in similar or higher scores for fluency and similar scores for comprehension, despite the diminished whole-group and small-group instruction provided in the intervention as compared with regular reading classes.


Ann Robinson, Debbie Dailey, Gail Hughes, and Alicia Cotabish
The Effects of a Science-Focused STEM Intervention on Gifted Elementary Students’ Science Knowledge and Skills
Journal of Advanced Academics August 2014 25: 189-213, first published on June 9, 2014 doi:10.1177/1932202X14533799

Abstract
To develop Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) talents, both researchers and policy developers recommend that educators begin early. In this randomized study, we document the efficacy of teacher professional development and a rich problem-based inquiry curriculum to develop the science talent of elementary students. The intervention, STEM Starters, a federally funded Jacob K. Javits project, provided sustained and embedded professional development to classroom teachers and to pull-out gifted program teachers to support the implementation of a problem-based curriculum in their classrooms. During the intervention, randomly assigned teachers participated in 120 hr of professional development that focused on science content, inquiry-based instruction, technological applications, and differentiated instruction within problem-based curriculum units. Statistically significant gains in science process skills, science concepts, and science content knowledge were found among gifted students in the treatment group when compared with gifted students in the comparison group.

Dina Brulles, Scott J. Peters, and Rachel Saunders
Schoolwide Mathematics Achievement Within the Gifted Cluster Grouping Model
Journal of Advanced Academics August 2012 23: 200-216, doi:10.1177/1932202X12451439

Abstract
An increasing number of schools are implementing gifted cluster grouping models as a cost-effective way to provide gifted services. This study is an example of comparative action research in the form of a quantitative case study that focused on mathematic achievement for nongifted students in a district that incorporated a schoolwide cluster grouping model. Although previous research found that gifted students performed better in the cluster setting, this study sought to determine the effects of the cluster model on nongifted students. Findings from this research indicate that general education students in the gifted cluster classes and those not in the gifted clusters experienced similar levels of academic growth in mathematics. Data disaggregated according to grade level, gender, ethnicity, and English language learner status showed that students achieved at similar rates in mathematics in gifted cluster classrooms and those classrooms without the gifted cluster groups.

et cetera et cetera et cetera...

There have been numerous studies and reports going back decades that discuss the benefits of supporting advanced learners, along with the impacts of not supporting them with an appropriate education.

Here are a few:

http://www.accelerationinstitute.org/Nation_Deceived/ND_v1.pdf

http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/index.html

Marland Report, abstract: http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED056243

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

Davidson, Jan and Bob, with Vanderkam, Laura (2004). Genius Denied: How to Stop Wasting Our Brightest Young Minds. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That's a bit of a red herring. Unlike special needs students, which demand considerably greater resources and expenditures, it actually doesn't have to cost any significant amount more to provide appropriate education to gifted students than it does to educate other students.

They are already getting an "appropriate education". What is it you actually want?

How do you know they are getting an appropriate education? Some are but some are not.

The burden of proof is on you to show it is not appropriate. That's the way it works.

Anonymous wrote:

That's a bit of a red herring. Unlike special needs students, which demand considerably greater resources and expenditures, it actually doesn't have to cost any significant amount more to provide appropriate education to gifted students than it does to educate other students.

They are already getting an "appropriate education". What is it you actually want?

How do you know they are getting an appropriate education? Some are but some are not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fact: Public schools do have limited budgets.
Question: Do you really think that providing special education teachers for the gifted is a good use of funds?

Unlike special education for special needs, special education for gifted doesn't need to cost more than general ed education. In Fairfax County, the only additional cost is the bussing.

AAP is a joke. That is what you want? You need to ask yourself why.

While I agree, it needs to be streamlined and cut back, it is not a joke.

You have not posted ONE SINGLE LINK to make your case as to why it absolutely cannot and must not be offered. All you've done is offer up your own narcissistic, condescending, arrogant and self-absorbed opinions and denials, as though you are king of the world, and just because you aren't personally having to deal with it, that therefore it does not exist and should not be dealt with.

You have utterly failed to make YOUR case.

Not the PP you're responding to but I understand her point. If you want to change something, you have to present a case. She doesn't have to present a case because she is comfortable with the status quo. You have not provided evidence that there is a current disparate impact on advanced learners either your own or overall. By evidence, you need to show impact as has been done for those with disabilities and poverty. See examples below:

http://ldq.sagepub.com/content/16/3/219.short
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20134011/pdf/20134011.pdf
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/SLDRP1503_1#.VKqo-y9OVmM
http://www.ncset.org/publications/viewdesc.asp?id=425

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fact: Public schools do have limited budgets.
Question: Do you really think that providing special education teachers for the gifted is a good use of funds?

Unlike special education for special needs, special education for gifted doesn't need to cost more than general ed education. In Fairfax County, the only additional cost is the bussing.

AAP is a joke. That is what you want? You need to ask yourself why.

She wants the teacher to tell her that her child is the smartest kid she has ever taught and that she is going to have him write an essay on how great his mother is.

Anonymous wrote:

That's a bit of a red herring. Unlike special needs students, which demand considerably greater resources and expenditures, it actually doesn't have to cost any significant amount more to provide appropriate education to gifted students than it does to educate other students.

They are already getting an "appropriate education". What is it you actually want?

I'm curious about this as well. The kids in DD's class who are ahead are getting more challenging work. Maybe it is just our elem school.

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.

That's a bit of a red herring. Unlike special needs students, which demand considerably greater resources and expenditures, it actually doesn't have to cost any significant amount more to provide appropriate education to gifted students than it does to educate other students.

They are already getting an "appropriate education". What is it you actually want?

Anonymous wrote:Fact: Public schools do have limited budgets.
Question: Do you really think that providing special education teachers for the gifted is a good use of funds?

That's a bit of a red herring. Unlike special needs students, which demand considerably greater resources and expenditures, it actually doesn't have to cost any significant amount more to provide appropriate education to gifted students than it does to educate other students.