I believe in differentiation and teaching every child to their potential,

I'm neither poster above. It never ceases to amaze me that people on DUUM assume there are only two people posting!





Then you ought to swap email addresses. You're perfect for each other.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ Yup, you're confused alright. You aren't even consistent in your critiques of the articles.



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?

What? Not consistent? I wasn't the one who posted articles purporting to be about advanced learners but weren't. One was about differentiated reading instruction and made no reference to 'advanced' learners, one was about teacher development in 'gifted' classrooms and one was about 'non-gifted' students in a 'gifted' classroom. You then told me I was hung up on the term 'gifted'.

I believe you have some mental health challenges and that there is no point in engaging with you. I should have signed off when I learned you like the approach of the Fox Network but will do so now. Good bye.

I'm neither poster above. It never ceases to amaze me that people on DUUM assume there are only two people posting!

Anonymous wrote:^ Yup, you're confused alright. You aren't even consistent in your critiques of the articles.



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?

What? Not consistent? I wasn't the one who posted articles purporting to be about advanced learners but weren't. One was about differentiated reading instruction and made no reference to 'advanced' learners, one was about teacher development in 'gifted' classrooms and one was about 'non-gifted' students in a 'gifted' classroom. You then told me I was hung up on the term 'gifted'.

I believe you have some mental health challenges and that there is no point in engaging with you. I should have signed off when I learned you like the approach of the Fox Network but will do so now. Good bye.

Anonymous wrote:^ Yup, you're confused alright. You aren't even consistent in your critiques of the articles.

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?

Then what are you doing posting on a DC area forum? You certainly can't be from around here because all the jurisdictions around here don't seem to have the problems you think yours does. Maybe if you spent a little more time doing advocacy work instead of caterwauling on DCUM you'd make a difference. Of course, that would require to adopt an approach other than a Fox News host.

Hey, GOOD FOR YOU that you have such a wonderful AAP program for your kids, that you are happy with. But unfortunately some of us are in different school districts and different jurisdictions from you, and don't have the same for our kids as you do for yours and don't happen to think things are fine the way they are.

That's what makes everything you've ever said on the subject pretty much irrelevant and pointless to the rest of us. You simply don't get it.

Anonymous wrote:3 grades above current grade level isn't much. The school should allow her to read more advanced books during free reading and that's about it. This is a bright kid, not a gifted kid. When your kid is reading at college level in second grade, get back to me.

Anonymous wrote:3 grades above current grade level isn't much. The school should allow her to read more advanced books during free reading and that's about it. This is a bright kid, not a gifted kid. When your kid is reading at college level in second grade, get back to me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm confused. You were the one who posted the articles at 11:46. None of them discuss 'advanced' learners and two of them were specific to 'gifted'. It seemed to me that by including them, you were using 'gifted' and 'advanced learner' interchangeably. If you're not, what's the difference? If gifted is different from advanced, then why did you include articles that were relevant to gifted instead of advanced? Also, those articles supported intervention and differentiation for ALL learners, not just advanced/gifted.


You also seem to forget that I don't have anything to prove. I think things are fine the way they are. I'm happy with the AAP program my kids attend.

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?

Anonymous wrote:

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.