Get Schooled

By Nikole

April 5, 2006 11:36 AM | Link to this

I think that the disparity in numbers across counties has more to do with how many students the program can hold. At the school I worked in we had a gifted teacher that split her time between 2 schools, and could only have so many students. I had 2 students that I wanted tested, and only 1 got tested, and that was because he had previously been in the gifted program at his previous school.

By BlindHomer

April 5, 2006 11:49 AM | Link to this

Just eyeballing the numbers it looks like the average for the metro area may be around 9%. How can 9% score at or above the 96th percentile and meet other criteria? There must be some 92nd percentile kids with pushy parents. However, moving resources from the lowest common denominator to the near gifted sounds like a good thing.

By high school teachers

April 5, 2006 12:17 PM | Link to this

Public schools did this for years before it was a frowned-upon practice: it’s called tracking.

By Dan

April 5, 2006 12:24 PM | Link to this

It makes zero sense that 23% of decatur children are “gifted” Blind homer is correct, clearly not all of the criteria are listed in the link, other wise those % would be far lower. It kind of smacks of the same underlying thought process that gives most kids B’s so they can get a hope scholarship. It is this type of manipulation that makes all of the testing necessary. And before people start to say “whats wrong with letting the border line kids in” the next step would be letting ALL the kids in, thereby dumbing down the program to where all semblence of elite status is effectively eliminated and you wind up with….. public school

By LitMajor

April 5, 2006 12:29 PM | Link to this

Most students would benefit from more interesting classes and the innovative techniques used in “gifted programs.”

In my opinion, the PC classes (the gifted program my son is enrolled in)are only doing above average work. It is not as challenging as it should be but they do more than other kids in the same grade. Academic fairs, field trips, you name it.

I challenge all school systems to broaden the education of all students. I’m sure most will show improvement.

My daughter just had her kindergarten assessment and the questions were ridiculous for a 5yr old. I’m confident she’ll be placed in the gifted program as well. Not because she’s highly intelligent (which she very well may be) but because she is able to read, write her name as well as all the members of our family without any assistance, and knows her address. My 4yr old is also being taught these things so he will probably be in the program next year.

My point here is that they will be exposed to the gifted program because of the slight advantage that they have over others at 5 years of age. Therefore, this program will start them off in an advanced learning environment. What if more children were exposed programs such as this? I think we would see the difference.

By luvs2teach

April 5, 2006 12:31 PM | Link to this

HST - exactly what I was going to say! If we’re pulling out for remediation, and pulling out for gifted and almost-gifted - why isn’t this just “ability-grouping”?

BlindHomer - also exactly what I was thinking. I recently read (sorry can’t remember the exact source) that only 2 - 3 % of the population is “truly gifted” - the rest are just bright. It smacks of the same type of inflation that makes an A what the average child gets as opposed to a C.

Nikole - I think availabilty of gifted programs and teachers is a factor, but I also think economics is a factor as well - wealthier areas of the metro region have more gifted kids in programs. I think it may be a chicken and egg scenario though - more educated people tend to have better paying jobs and be more concerned and involved with their children’s education.

And pushier…

As a parent of two kids who were often tested, but never quite made it, I would’ve liked for a program like this to be available - particularly in middle school - see my middle school rant for the reasons why ;-)

By luvs2teach

April 5, 2006 12:35 PM | Link to this

LitMajor - have you ever read about the study where teahers were told their children were all above-average-to-gifted learners (even when they weren’t)?

The teachers went in and did amazing lessons - they thought if a student didn’t do well it must be the teacher (because of the “abilities” of these “gifted” students) and so worked harder to make sure they understood. They were more patient and more understanding - they took more time.

Interesting, eh?

By LitMajor

April 5, 2006 12:51 PM | Link to this

Luvs2teach, I’ve read about those teachers in some of my education classes. I believed it then and I believe it now. I was at a conference last week where the independent and private school reps basically said that all of their students are college material and would be attending either 1. an elite college or 2. a “regular” college.

Sad to say, I believe some of the representatives showed up only to bash the public school system but they only reinforced my argument. Intelligent kids aren’t that way because their parents make lots of money. To assume that all private school students are college material, one must know/think they’ve been taught material that will prepare them for college. That’s what’s missing in public schools. Average students are not being asked to do much. Without pushy parent (like myself), they wouldn’t be required to make the effort sometimes neccessary to exceed the norm.

By Nikole

April 5, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this

I think that the point should be made that the test used to assess many students is the ITBS, therefore it is in comparison to the entire nation, and not just the state of Georgia. That is why I do not find it hard to believe that many kids do score in the higher percentiles, it is only comparing their score to national norms.

By BlindHomer

April 5, 2006 01:09 PM | Link to this

luvs2 - Just depends on how you want to define gifted. I just checked my daughter’s county requirements and its 96th percentile on mental ability test (IQ?) AND 90th percentile on standardized achievement test. She didn’t get in until 3rd grade because K-2 requires 99th percentile. My best gifted story, that ties to yesterday’s middle school blog, is she came home early in 6th grade and told me the gifted language arts teacher was mean. I asked her if she meant strict or tough and she said both. I thought thank god. The teacher stayed with the class (the only gifted language arts teacher in that middle school) for all three years. By then all the students loved her and wanted her to go to high school with them. Now her students fill the Honors and AP classes at the high school. Three morals to the story. The best and brightest deserve the resources. There are success stories in public middle schools in Georgia, lots of them. And sometimes one person can make a difference.

By Teacher Teacher

April 5, 2006 01:34 PM | Link to this

Doesn’t almost gifted qualify as an oxymoron, you know, like country classic or pretty ugly?

By BlindHomer

April 5, 2006 01:46 PM | Link to this

T2 - Maybe, but aren’t more tracks better than the 3 sizes fit all approach, gifted, remedial (regular), or special ed?

By Decaturparent

April 5, 2006 02:02 PM | Link to this

Dan, I live in Decatur and have two kids in the system. One (the oldest) is in gifted and the other (the youngest) is high achieving but is not in gifted. I am on the school council at the younger kid’s school and I can assure you that they have not dumbed down the gifted standards and that connected parents (I am one so I should know) cannot get a kid into gifted that does not qualify, period.

Decatur is very strict about admittance to its gifted program, although it really does make an effort to identify children who would not typically be noticed as being gifted.

It just happens to be that Decatur is a relatively small system by metro standards, and it has a bunch of super bright kids. The City of Decatur is swarming with professors, scientists, lawyers and doctors because of its proximity to the CDC, as well as a bunch of hospitals and colleges. The vast majority of these professionals are happy enough with the Decatur school system to send their kids there because all schools in the system are good schools.

In other larger districts, I would guess that a lower overall percentage of professionals send their kids to the districts’ schools because not all of the schools are high achieving (although most metro districts do have some very high achieving schools). Therefore, even though there may be a bunch of gifted kids in the high performing schools, there would be far fewer in the lower performing schools so the average % of gifteed kids throughout the district is lower.

Take a look at public schools in other districts like Vanderlyn, Walton High, Peachtree Middle or Morningside and see how high their gifted populations are. You will find that they are at least as high as Decatur’s overall percentage. Why? …because parents who give a darn about education are actually willing to send their kids to those schools rather than bailing for private school.

Decatur also has its share of all types of kids so don’t start slamming us as an elitist school system. We have a very diverse mix racially and socioeconomically. I believe that we are currently about half minority and somewhere around 35-40% free/reduced lunch.

By decaturparent

April 5, 2006 02:05 PM | Link to this

Nikole,

My understanding is that the CogAT is the test to determine if a kid gets into the gifted program. I believe that that test is used statewide, but I may be wrong. The CogAT is a mental aptitude test, while the ITBS tests skills learned. Both are nationally normed tests.

By BlindHomer

April 5, 2006 02:40 PM | Link to this

It’s 96th percentile CogAT plus 90th percentile ITBS in the far northwestern exurbs. I guess they must have missed AYP at Decatur High due to sped kids.

By Nikole

April 5, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this

I think that I am referring to the 2nd set of qualifiers. And in that set, they took my student’s ITBS scores as the intellectual ability I suppose.

By BlindHomer

April 5, 2006 03:00 PM | Link to this

It was the math scores for the economically disadvanteaged that caused Decatur high to miss AYP. Perhaps that also explains why their SAT scores were lower than the noted academic powerhouses of Oconee, Fayette, and Fulton counties. Perhaps those gifted kids just don’t test well, but then how did they get into the gifted program? Somehow I don’t think elitism is the problem.

By jim d

April 5, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this

I kind of suspect that separating the “almost-gifted” as well as the gifted may be a thing that all the parents that have fought for years for inclusion of children with special needs will challenge, perhaps even in court. It would appear that we might be headed back to “tracking.” With a lot of the research indicating that mainstreaming these kids actually benefits them I’m wondering if any parents of children with special needs have any thoughts on this?

By decaturparent

April 5, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this

Decatur is definitely working on the math thing. Frankly, I wonder if the math curriculum, Everyday Math, is part of the problem. I know it’s very popular, especially in private schools, but I think it teaches too many ways to solve a problem at once, and a lot of kids get confused. I know I get confused. Whatever happened to just adding and carrying and long division?

Well, that’s a topic for another blog.

By BlindHomer

April 5, 2006 03:55 PM | Link to this

jim d - Benefits whom, the special needs kids or the almost gifted? One of my worst stories takes place the first day of 2nd grade, before the gifted program. I asked how was 2nd grade and the response was “boring, we’re repeating everything we did last year”. That’s mainstreaming and NCLB and everything else that drives regular classes to remedial mediocrity.

By jim d

April 5, 2006 04:18 PM | Link to this

Homer, I don’t disagree. But the point is that parents of children with needs apparently have some leverage. I personally know more than a few that struggled for years towards inclusion for their children.

My experience as a parent of a very gifted child and my concerns about mainstreaming kids that needed individual attention, and the time it took from the regular classes as well as the gifted classes while my child was in elementary school were always met with “we aren’t concerned about the gifted kids because we know they will do well.” So you see I have experienced first hand some of the discrimination towards the gifted kids. My statement and question was merely more of an observation and a question directed at parents that fought so long and hard for inclusion. I kind of feel they may have a problem with taking the top 25-40% of the class out of the equation.

I certainly hope I’m wrong, but knowing these parents leads me to believe this will become an issue.

By BlindHomer

April 5, 2006 04:43 PM | Link to this

I understand your point. I’ve related how my daughter’s middle school wanted to cut out gifted science to devote resources to getting their sped kids to pass AYP. The issues are some blend of ethics and economics, the allocation of scarce resources. I approach it politically. Socialism would take from the able and give to the needy, but this is a capitalistic country and we generally allocate resources where they get a better return. One of the regular bloggers got enough education and motivation to go to KSU and earn a degree and a certificate and now he’s giving back to the community as a highly motivated teacher, something many of the sped kids wouldn’t be able to do no matter how many resources you invest in them. If tracking facilitates this, let’s have tracking.

By Ernest

April 5, 2006 05:02 PM | Link to this

Decaturparent, you hit the nail on the head with your 2:02 comment! The demographics of that community makes a BIG difference in the size of the gifted progam. This makes one REALLY understand why some advocate for neighborhood schools. You mentioned a few schools in DeKalb County that have large gifted populations. At the same time, other schools in the county don’t have enough children to run a high achievers program. The question always is, do you you condemn those children that happen to live on the other side of the attendance line? This is a problem we may never solve.

By Dan

April 6, 2006 08:53 AM | Link to this

You know I knew that word elite was going to be misinterpreted. How did it get to be a bad thing. Elite simply means cream of the crop. My point is when you expand the boundries for socio political reasons, you no longer have all cream. It is the essence of what plagues the public schools, or any public institution for that matter, despite any feel good positive reinforcment mumbo jumbo all people/children are not created equal and to promote the theory helps no body. As far as you contention that decatur doesn’t dumb down it’s program. That may well be true but it is highly unlikely in a title 1 school that didn’t achieve it’s ayp (and contrary to blind homers comment it was not just the “economically disadvantaged” that caused that according to the districts website) It would be a statisical phemomenon (near impossible) for 22% of the kids to finish in the 96 percentile of the academic tests allegedly used for the program. Especially in a state that consistently fares worse on the national tests than their own state tests.

By jim d

April 6, 2006 09:21 AM | Link to this

Homer, unfortunately our public educational system is more socialistic than capitalistic.

If we go back and look at the history of public education and those that fashioned our current system around the turn of the 20th century it becomes understandable. Here’s a few historical quotes from that time that might help one understand.

In 1888, the Senate Committee on Education was getting jittery about the localized, non-standardized, non-mandatory form of education that was actually teaching children to read at advanced levels, to comprehend history, and, egads, to think for themselves. The committee’s report stated, “We believe that education is one of the principal causes of discontent of late years manifesting itself among the laboring classes.”

John Dewey wrote in 1897: “Every teacher should realize he is a social servant set apart for the maintenance of the proper social order and the securing of the right social growth.”

In 1905 Elwood Cubberly—the future Dean of Education at Stanford—wrote that schools should be factories “in which raw products, children, are to be shaped and formed into finished products…manufactured like nails, and the specifications for manufacturing will come from government and industry.”

About the same time the Rockefeller Education Board—which funded the creation of numerous public schools—issued a statement which read in part: “In our dreams…people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands. The present educational conventions [intellectual and character education] fade from our minds, and unhampered by tradition we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or men of science. We have not to raise up from among them authors, educators, poets or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians, nor lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen, of whom we have ample supply. The task we set before ourselves is very simple…we will organize children…and teach them to do in a perfect way the things their fathers and mothers are doing in an imperfect way.”

And even President Woodrow Wilson got into the picture in a speech to businessmen: “We want one class to have a liberal education. We want another class, a very much larger class of necessity, to forego the privilege of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks.”

So you see the earth shakers of a hundred years ago are responsible for the current state of affairs in public education. They fashioned it to be exactly the way it is.

BTW, the historical quotes above can all be read in John Taylor Gatto’s book, The Underground History of American Education: An Intimate Investigation into the Problem of Modern Schooling (New York: Oxford Village Press, 2001), or the entire book can be accessed by going to Gatto’s web site http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/index.htm I highly recommend the read.

By Karen Armsby

April 6, 2006 09:41 AM | Link to this

If there is one thing I hate is the educational pigeon holing and labelling of everything and everyone. Gifted is one of those terms that creates undue pride and arrogance in the hearts and minds of the designated, and at the opposite end of the spectrum creates disappointment, envy and hopelessness in the hearts and minds of those who are almost, not quite, or clearly not gifted! WHY??

Why can’t educators give all students the expectation of and possibility of achieving the highest goals? Allow the students to move at their own rate through the curriculum. Then the truly gifted students will move faster and move on, and be served by the schools, not held back with the average and the struggling. The above average will have the hope and possibility of moving faster, too, and many may catch up with those performing at the highest level. Give hope and encouragement to all, and move them along as their achievement progresses.

Abolish the social constraints of age grouped grade levels and create ability groups for all, regardless of age. Educate until the age of 17 or 18 max, then let them go!

By jim d

April 6, 2006 09:49 AM | Link to this

Amen, Karen!!

By MMM

April 6, 2006 10:30 AM | Link to this

Way to go Karen. BUT there is money for the system in those labels!

Our charter school’s mission IS to challenge all the kids—and we have no intension of pulling out the GIFTED to give them what that article clearly show all the kids benifit from. But boy has it been an uphill battle to try and get the money to use for everyone AND convince CERTAIN parents that the label is not as important as the enrichment that ALL the kids are being given!

By MMM

April 6, 2006 10:36 AM | Link to this

Way to go Karen. BUT there is money for the system in those labels!

Our charter school’s mission IS to challenge all the kids—and we have no intension of pulling out the GIFTED to give them what that article clearly show all the kids benifit from. But boy has it been an uphill battle to try and get the money to use for everyone AND convince CERTAIN parents that the label is not as important as the enrichment that ALL the kids are being given!

By Susie

April 6, 2006 10:53 AM | Link to this

Kids who leave kindergarten reading are eligible for the gifted program where? My daughter and most of the other kids in her pre-k class started kindergarten reading, thanks to their pre-k teacher. My little one was reading Junie B. Jones in kindergarten, Beverly Cleary in first grade. I knew she was a good reader, but didn’t know that qualified her for “gifted.”

I’ve never cared anything about our “gifted” program in my kids schools…it’s not like they give the kids more challenging work, they just get more of the same work the others are doing. I don’t see the point in that. If the work was harder, it might make sense, but I don’t see the sense in simply “more” work.

By Susie

April 6, 2006 10:54 AM | Link to this

Kids who leave kindergarten reading are eligible for the gifted program where? My daughter and most of the other kids in her pre-k class started kindergarten reading, thanks to their pre-k teacher. My little one was reading Junie B. Jones in kindergarten, Beverly Cleary in first grade. I knew she was a good reader, but didn’t know that qualified her for “gifted.”

I’ve never cared anything about our “gifted” program in my kids schools…it’s not like they give the kids more challenging work, they just get more of the same work the others are doing. I don’t see the point in that. If the work was harder, it might make sense, but I don’t see the sense in simply “more” work.

By Susie

April 6, 2006 11:06 AM | Link to this

Is this “Almost Gifted” thing in Clayton County an attempt to get the kids who do their work and want to learn in classrooms separated from the ones who are there to make trouble and nothing else? If so, I say GO FOR IT, and they can call it whatever they like. If it will get the kids who are actually there to get their educations (whether they are actually gifted or not) out of the classrooms with the heathens who do nothing but disrupt, more of the kids who WANT to will have a chance to succeed.

By jim d

April 6, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this

Susie, I agree 100%, but I also believe there will be a strong contingent of parents that will strenuously object and that will cause the politicans to cave on this one.

By Karen Armsby

April 6, 2006 11:25 AM | Link to this

MMM, Label the levels of instruction, not the students. Allow the students to move at their own pace, responsinble for their own work and achievements. Let the teachers sort out the best and the brightest and those who achieve, and decide who needs to stay at the base level for more instruction. Change the goal for “No Child Left Behind” with its negative wording to “Every Child Working to Potential.” Let the superintendents and boards worry about the wording for fund allocation.

By Susie

April 6, 2006 11:26 AM | Link to this

yeah, and which parents will they be? The parents of the heathens, no doubt.

By jim d

April 6, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this

No Doubt!

By Susie

April 6, 2006 12:46 PM | Link to this

“Every Child Working to Potential…”

I like that.

By MMM

April 6, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this

Karen—the school levels the kids in 5 groups for language by 3rd grade—but the groups are fluid corresponding roughy to “exceeding”,”meeting”, and “not meeting” CRCT levels,”School within a school—for refugees that have had no prior schooling in any language”, and “remedial for those with true learning disablities rather than just lack of exposure”. 3 groups math—and the IB units are all done together. Because IBPYP focuses on questions and themes, it is organized in a way that allows the answers to be at many levels.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t matter that my 99% percentile Iowa kids are challenged without being social outcasts in this environment. We are 4 years into having this school and haven’t gotten an extra dime for the field trips, extra teachers for “School within a school” etc. because we haven’t labeled and provided gifted certified teachers per the DOE rule on how it “should” be done.

We are presently working on charter revisions to get approval to deliver services OUR way and still get the gifted money—-but we will still have to label and tell the computer system who is and isn’t officially gifted per the traditional methods to get any money.

By Lee

April 7, 2006 09:13 AM | Link to this

Gifted, A/P, Honors, College Prep, etc. It doesn’t matter what you call it. The reality is that schools realize that they should segregate students by ability, but it’s not Politically Correct to call it “Tracking.”

I wholeheartedly agree with Karen’s comment “Abolish the social constraints of age grouped grade levels and create ability groups for all, regardless of age.” In my daughter’s Private School, she frequently has classes comprised of 6th, 7th, and 8th graders. Everyone is on the same ability level and it works very well.

By luvs2teach

April 7, 2006 04:51 PM | Link to this

Blind Homer - I was using the psychological definition of gifted (top two percent)as opposed to the educational (with money attached) definition.

For those of you referring to the ITBS - it is a norm-referenced test (as opposed to the CRCT, which is criterion referenced). A common misperception is that students are being compared to other students who took the same test that year across the country - that’s not what happens.

Every so often (how often would be a question to ask the testing company), the testing company administers the test to a norming group - it is to this group that your student(s) get(s) compared.

Another misperception is what the GE, or grade equivalency number means. For example, a parent sees that his 4th grader has scored a GE of 7.8 (seventh grade, 8th month) on a math section of the ITBS. The parent might assume that his child is capable of 7th grade work, when that’s not what that means at all.

The GE shows what the average student of that grade level was capable of on the test that your child took. In other words, our example child did as well on the 4th grade test as a 7th grader in the 8th month of school would do on that same 4th grade test.

Happy testing!

By luvs2teach

April 7, 2006 04:58 PM | Link to this

LitMajor - I was posting at the same time you were - I didn’t read your 12:51 post until after I posted.

I wasn’t referring to you as being pushy - I was referring to the parents of students who are clearly not gifted (I’m talking about 60 to 85th percentile) fighting to get their students in gifted classes for reasons other than the educational challenge (namely to get them in classes with a “better” quality of classmate or, as Karen mentioned, the right to be able to crow about having a child in the gifted class).

BTW, Karen, great idea (11:25 post), something I’ve mentioned and talked about for a long time now. People talk about the success of the one-roomed schoolhouse - well, that was one of the things they did.

By Karen Armsby

April 10, 2006 09:03 AM | Link to this

luvs2teach, Thanks. Do you think it is possible to transform the present age based class groupings in elementary school into achievement based levels? (Ignoring the present limited gifted classes.) I think some would call it tracking, but if done correctly each student would be in a group learning at the same rate, and not in all subjects. A student may be great in math and go to the higher level, but stay on the base level where he needs more work in language arts.

My kids middle school did sort four class team groups by ability, and they were in the gifted teams along with high level students that were not classified as gifted but had the potential to succeed at the higher level. High schools allow students to go ahead in math and many have increased the number of AP classes, so they allow students to move ahead also.

My concern is the stifling of potential in elementary school.

By Ernest

April 10, 2006 02:37 PM | Link to this

Karen:

Maybe you should consider running for State School Superintendent :)! Sounds like you are suggesting a ‘Montessori’ approach to education, especially in the primary years. If that is the case, I’m all for it also. While there should not be a ‘ceiling’ with regards to the level of instruction, there probably needs to be a ‘floor’ to ensure a 10 year old who obviously needs remediation isn’t in a lowel level instruction setting with 5-6 year olds. Maybe the sizes of the classes would be smaller in the earlier years to ensure everyone ‘gets it’ and has a foundation to succeed.

Where do we get started on this???

By Karen Armsby

April 11, 2006 08:19 AM | Link to this

Ernest, Thanks, and LOL about running for State School Superintendent. I wish!

How to start? 1. Take the present elementary grades and make K-2 a unit, and 3-5 a unit within which kids start at the floor and advance up 3 (or more) levels of instruction in the core subjects. Advance or retain students every six weeks.