Get Schooled

By Larry

April 25, 2007 9:53 AM | Link to this

This law expressly prohibits the board from making any demands on participating private schools other than basically proving they are, in fact, a school.

If the parents want their kids to participate in state mandated tests, the host public school must provide these tests, not the participating private school. The host public school receives no funding for this requirement.

No, I don’t see regulation as a barrier.

By JustMe

April 25, 2007 9:53 AM | Link to this

Groan. What a mess this will be.

What this means is that private schools, if they accept vouchers, will have to abide by the stupid NCLB rules and regulations as well as the State regulations.

Actually, as a public school teacher, it will be interesting to see how private schools will now have to jump through the same hoops that we have to jump through…..

By Blind Homer

April 25, 2007 9:58 AM | Link to this

Great niche for private schools that can provide discipline and focus for ADD/ADHD kids for aropund $9000 a year. This bill is terrible though. I have read several comments about public schools needing competition, but I doubt this will lead to improvements in public school SPED programs. The more able and involved parents will abandon the public schools for private ones, leaving only the dregs in the public school system.

By teach overseas

April 25, 2007 10:06 AM | Link to this

I think many parents and lawmakers greatly overestimate the number of private schools that will be willing to handle these special needs kids.

Private schools are private because they don’t want to deal with the federal bull. Private schools that want federal money are called CHARTER schools and have not proven to be significantly more sucessful than regular public schools.

Lots of smoke and mirrors trying to keep pushy parents happy. Good luck to them.

By Blind Homer

April 25, 2007 10:14 AM | Link to this

Teach and Just - The law states they will get the state portion of funds. I don’t think they get any Federal money and perhaps this allows them to avoid NCLB and other Fderal compliance requirements.

By WFC

April 25, 2007 10:14 AM | Link to this

Much ado about almost nothing. Very few established private schools will accept “voucher students” for the simple reason that their core supporter families don’t want their children in an environment of disruption and discipline problems.

By nel

April 25, 2007 10:31 AM | Link to this

From past experience, private schools eye’s tend to stard glazing over when they realize that a child might take a little work. They surely won’t be jumping over one another to take these non-traditional children, unless they really, really want the money that is.

By Larry

April 25, 2007 10:43 AM | Link to this

Blind Homer - you are correct; private schools do not have to comply with NCLB or any other federal funding mandates. Again, this bill makes state tests optional, but the public school must administer these tests if the voucher recipient elects to participate.

You may have noticed Jeb Bush declared Florida’s voucher program a success, but didn’t provide any private school assessment statistics. That’s because he doesn’t have any. This is the lack of accountability some of us mentioned.

By jim d

April 25, 2007 10:55 AM | Link to this

There are several hurdles left to clear.

I suspect though that we will see some churches accommodate. I also suspect that current private schools that do decide to accept them won’t be doing much inclusion in order to “maintain the peace” with current enrollees.

Parents that elect to take their children this route may discover they are abandoning some of the rights they currently enjoy and not maintain the ability to regain them by going back to public school in the future.

Personally I would think this legislation should make public school administration ecstatic. They will maintain all local funding which picks up the highest percentage of the expense of educating these needy children. Certainly sounds like a win/win to me. Parents get what they want and schools don’t have to fork over all of the money they currently spend.

I’ve also gotten to the point that I’m willing to accept almost any change in the educational status-quo as a positive.

By Ernest

April 25, 2007 10:58 AM | Link to this

I took the time to read the Act and must say it seems to be well written. Some of the concerns expressed when we blogged on this earlier also seem to be addressed, such as the state wide test scores not going back back to the resident district. Not only that but the parent must request for the test to be administered. The parents are ‘financially responsible’ and that includes transportation. The language also makes it clear that this should not be interpreted as vouchers or tuition tax credits.

I agree with several earlier posts, I find it hard to believe many private schools will jump at this. I can see those that don’t live far from neighboring public schools possibly using this, assuming they offer needed services. Lastly, it will be interesting to see the rules developed by the State Board for implementing this program. Assuming it is approved, applications for this must be in by June 30th. Does that give time for private schools to apply for participation?

By Star

April 25, 2007 11:05 AM | Link to this

Blind Homer-The SPED laws are really complicated. Many educators are leaving special education areas because of all rules and regulations that have to abide by. They are endless and they change everyday. This passage of legislation is going to be a disaster. Case in point..A public school hires X number of teachers because they are anticipated these SPED students to show up, and the parents decide after 2 months they want to take advantage of the vouchers, well the students leave and go to the private school leaving the teacher that is under CONTRACT left to do nothing. She will still get paid even if she has NO students. Also the SPED students can go to the private school and take the state funds with them, but what happens when the parents decide in the middle of the school year, they don’t like the private school anymore and want to come back? Does the money come back with them…No! So who loses…EVERYBODY! More money has to be shelled out to accomdodate the returning student. It is going to be a MESS!!

By JustMe

April 25, 2007 11:27 AM | Link to this

Larry and others….

I don’t see how the State Board of Education can explain or justify how two students (special needs or not) getting the same diploma and yet not completing the same things (jumping through the same hoops). There will be a crowd of parents complaining like crazy if this is allowed to happen.

And, if the private school gets any federal money, they will have to do the NCLB garbage. If those vouchers do not include federal money, then I guess they don’t have to worry about it.

Yeah, I can see Marist letting in tons of special needs kids (behavior problems, learning disabilities, etc.) - those rich parents would love it……

I wonder if now public schools can refuse vouchers? Interesting!

By jim d

April 25, 2007 11:31 AM | Link to this

Not so fast star,

Sped teachers are qualified to teach regular students so thats nat a real problem. to the contrary it may work to reduce some class sizes and contracts can be drawn up citing the difference in salary should a sped teacher be required to teach a regular class.

Bottom line—if a system is spending X amount and loses X amount when a student leaves the net loss is “0”

As for kids moving around? Not really a problem. The schools will be reporting quartly and payments will be made quarterly. I fail to see any major losses occuring from this.

By jim d

April 25, 2007 11:35 AM | Link to this

Just me.

Yes it appears a student must be accepted at either another public school or a private school prior to money changing hands. So if a public school doesn’t have room I must assume they are not required to accept a voucher student, the student would remain at their home school until the parent locates a participating school willing to accept the child.

If I’m reading the legislation correctly.

By Bridget Gutierrez

April 25, 2007 11:43 AM | Link to this

Larry: The legislation reads in part:

“To be eligible to enroll a scholarship student, a participating school shall: … Regularly report to the parent and the department on the student’s academic progress, including the results of pre-academic assessments and post-academic assessments given to the student, in accordance with department guidelines.”

Seems to me that the State Department of Education guidelines — as referenced in this passage — could include requiring use of a state test.

I’ve been told by one of the staffers working on the bill that that was exactly the intent. Of course, we won’t know for sure until we see the proposed rules.

By jim d

April 25, 2007 11:51 AM | Link to this

Star,

Lets also look at human nature in regards to parents moving children around a lot.

SPED parent moves child from school “A” to school “B” because they are disatisfied with School “A”. Parent then becomes disatisfied with School “B”. Does parent move child back to School “A” knowing they won’t be happy or do they start looking for school “C”?

I believe if a problem exists it may be more one if a participating school kicks a kid out immediately after a quarterly payment is recieved. What then becomes of the child? Well from what I’ve read School “A” would bare the burden and wouldn’t be able to refuse services. The question I suppose is how often this might happen??

By jim d

April 25, 2007 11:57 AM | Link to this

Bridget,

after re-reading the legislation: Am I correct in that the home school looses federal money and state money and is regired to anti up the local portion of providing this student with an education at the home school?

If this is correct, testing is an expense that the home school might retain or be able to recoup from their next quarterly distribution for that student.

By jim d

April 25, 2007 12:04 PM | Link to this

How this might work:

Student leaves home school to go to participating school “A”, parent isn’t satidfied after a month and moves chail back to home school. Home school deducts any incurred expense for educating child for 2 months from a future payment to school “A”.

Say parent decides to move child mid-quarter from participating school “A” to participating school “B”. Home school witholds future payement to school A and send it to school B.

Everyones happy.

By Nja

April 25, 2007 12:16 PM | Link to this

First of all, I really doubt a lot of private schools are rushing to open their doors for special needs students. Secondly, if they do leave the public schools will be happy. I know here in my state special needs students who have been taught off grade level all year, must test on grade level for our state standardized tests. This will seriously bring the scores down. This is all a mess.

By Bridget Gutierrez

April 25, 2007 12:17 PM | Link to this

jim d: I’m not sure I understand your question. But it’s safe to say that it’s still unclear exactly what monies the public school system might lose through this transaction.

As you know, school systems have three sources of funds: local, state and federal.

If memory serves, in the Florida McKay Scholarship Program school systems only lose the state portion of funding for those students who leave.

We don’t know yet whether that will be the way it works here. But, if it does, that would mean that the amount of the scholarship would be much less than what the public school actually pays to teach those students.

By Ernest

April 25, 2007 12:23 PM | Link to this

Along the lines of JimD’s question, another area of concern could be with the the school systems requirement to notify eligible participants. There is a ‘nominal’ expense associated with this however is the school system protected if a parent indicates they were not made aware of this option?

If there are any SPED teachers reading the blog today, I’m curious of your thoughts of the defined disabilities. Is there a possibility for the scholarship to be misused based on these?

By jim d

April 25, 2007 12:43 PM | Link to this

Larry,

“the host public school must provide these tests, not the participating private school. The host public school receives no funding for this requirement”

Where’s it say that? it says the host school must provide times and places but nowhere does it state they can not charge for these services. To the contrary it states that a parent accepting a vouceher assumes assumes full financial responsibility for the education of the scholarship student.

20-2-2114

(b) Upon acceptance of the scholarship, the parent assumes full financial responsibility for the education of the scholarship student, including transportation to and from the participating school.

C) For a student who participates in the program whose parents request that the student take the state-wide assessments pursuant to Code Section 20-2-281, the resident school system shall make available to the student locations and times to take all state-wide assessments. Test scores of private school students participating in the state-wide assessments shall not be applied to the system averages of the resident school system for data reported for federal and state requirements.

By JustMe

April 25, 2007 12:53 PM | Link to this

MUST a public school accept a voucher, even if they have room? Is so, then I cry “foul.” Because, I am sure that a private school will not be forced to accept a voucher!

If what I think is true, I think that many public schools will now say “no thanks” to special ed students and their vouchers. After all, they consume more than their share of resources. Plus, leaving out special ed students mean a better chance of making AYP!

As a public school teacher, I think I’m gonna like this!

What’ll likely end up happening is that a few private schools specializing in special ed will pop up to collect the voucher money. These schools will be paramount to “institutions” and the kids education will suffer (just my projection).

By high school teacher

April 25, 2007 12:55 PM | Link to this

Actually, as a public school teacher, it will be interesting to see how private schools will now have to jump through the same hoops that we have to jump through…..

Actually, JustMe, the sped student’s test scores still count in with the host public school, even though said student isn’t receiving an education from there. That’s logical, right? ~please detect dripping sarcasm~

By jim d

April 25, 2007 1:02 PM | Link to this

Just me,

That may happen but not for long. Parents in that case will be flocking back to their host schools.

20-2-2113

(1) The parent may choose for the student to attend another public school within the resident school system which has available space and which has a program with the services agreed to in the student´s existing individualized education program. If the parent chooses this option, then the parent shall be responsible for transportation to such school. The student may attend such public school pursuant to this paragraph until the student completes all grades of the school, graduates, or reaches the age of 21, whichever occurs first, in accordance with federal and state requirements for disabled students; (2) The parent may choose to enroll the student in and transport the student to a public school outside of the student´s resident school system which has available space and which has a program with the services agreed to in the student´s existing individualized education program. The public school system may accept the student, and if it does, such system shall report the student for purposes of funding to the department;

By high school teacher

April 25, 2007 1:04 PM | Link to this

Ooops, I stand corrected. Test scores don’t apply - that was changed from the original proposal. In that case, voucher away!

By jim d

April 25, 2007 1:06 PM | Link to this

HST, Wrong.

Test Scores for AYP fall under NCLB wich the following paragraph excludes

20-2-2116

(c) Scholarship students shall be counted in the enrollment of their resident school system; provided, however, that this count shall only be for purposes of determining the amount of the scholarship and the scholarship students shall not be included as enrolled for purposes of state or federal accountability requirements, including, but not limited to, the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-

By jim d

April 25, 2007 1:09 PM | Link to this

I really doubt a parent that fully understands the potentials of this bill will be accepting a scholarship.

By jim d

April 25, 2007 1:12 PM | Link to this

To reitterate an earlier statement.

Personally I would think this legislation should make public school administration ecstatic.

Raise test score, improved odds of making AYP and no real loss of revenue.

Sounds pretty sweet to me.

By jim d

April 25, 2007 1:17 PM | Link to this

Just a word of caution.

Politicans being what they are won’t possibly be able to leave this alone in the future. Look for tweeks, that will totally change the complexion of this one, in every subsequent legislative session.

By Ernest

April 25, 2007 1:22 PM | Link to this

JimD, your last two posts are right on the money. It does provide ‘choice’ which many parents are asking for. Whether there will be private providers willing to provide these services is the big question.

I think we may see more uses of these between public school systems, i.e. the parent of a SPED student that works in the Perimeter Mall area may seek out a school in that vicinity. They could like in ATL, Cobb, or Gwinnett yet leverage the scholarship in a DeKalb school.

By Larry

April 25, 2007 1:23 PM | Link to this

Bridget - Yes, I saw that, but I’m not aware of any existing state test that falls outside OGCA 20-2-281, which is specifically excluded. This means the DOE would have to undertake the monumental task of developing a new assessment. Since this is not a statutory requirement, and therefore not funded, I can’t imagine anyone as much as suggesting it.

Just as NCLB was implemented with states choosing individual assessments, the DOE will accept whatever assessment the school currently uses to satisfy the reporting requirement. Also, lacking any defined use or re-qualification requirement, it would seem pointless to have a state level assessment.

It’s possible I missed a HUGE part of this, so I’d be interested how the staffer envisions the implementation of additional assessments under this law.

Jim d, you raised a fascinating point. Although this bill lists specific legal rights a voucher recipient must forego, it really does read as if there are more Title 20 rights at stake, since participation isn’t mandatory. This will be a lot of fun to watch, if it becomes in issue.

By catlady

April 25, 2007 1:33 PM | Link to this

My concerns: parents who decide to use a private school, decide after 2 weeks that it doesn’t suit (their children may be required to put forth more effort, or behavior problems might not be overlooked as in public school) and decide, mid-quarter, to transfer their children. Or the kid gets kicked out for not obeying the rules. Then the kid comes back in, all disrupted, and the public schools are left to undo the damage. I am sure there are children in some situations for whom this will work, but I doubt it is many. For example, those in rural areas with few private schools, or those who are shunted from one parent to another, or those whose parents think the grass is greener, but find out it really is not.

Why aren’t the gifted included? They are special-needs. I would have been thrilled to have private school as an option.

By Ernest

April 25, 2007 1:45 PM | Link to this

Catlady, the State Board should probably factor in considerations like yours when they write the rules. Heck, they could simply poll the GetSchooled regulars along with teachers for thoughts on that and probably would have a pretty good first pass.

It will be interesting to see if parents of gifted students approach the legislature next. That’s when it could REALLY get interesting.

By jim d

April 25, 2007 2:02 PM | Link to this

They really don’t need to Ernest. Systems like Gwinnett are already creating schools like the Gwinnett School of Mathematics, Science, and Technology

http://www.gwinnettmagazine.com/article.cfm?id=849

By erica

April 25, 2007 2:07 PM | Link to this

Catlady - a little bird told me that gifted are next for vouchers. It’s about 3 years off if we keep the current state lawmakers from what I have heard.

Can’t reveal my sources… sorry!

Now… that will be the thing that finally gets public schools into a sweat!

By decaturparent

April 25, 2007 2:12 PM | Link to this

Gifted vouchers… I gotta admit…. I wouldn’t be opposed to that one. That would make the difference between public and private for us. I love my school system… but the temptation would be too great.

I know.. I’m a selfish pig.

By V for Vendetta

April 25, 2007 2:13 PM | Link to this

True jim, I just wished people talked about it more. I am by no means railing against sped students, but it seems to be the topic of concern quite often. Meanwhile the gifted kids …

I personally think we should create more schools (like the one you pointed out) with LARGER class sizes that mimic college-level courses. Let them prepare for success in college earlier (and more realistically). I say LARGER classes with FEWER grades. Heck, when I was at UGA some of my clsses consisted of three or four grades (all written exams). Maybe that would create uber-success.

Oh yeah, I forgot, we’re talking about sped students here. My bad.

By jim d

April 25, 2007 2:37 PM | Link to this

V,

I think Gwinnett is gambling a bit here. While I tend to agree this is an innovative apprach to providing for some of the real gifted kids, I still have a few reservations.

1) pulling the kids that do keep some of the schools afloat as far as AYP may hurt in that area?

2) being as it is Gwinnett I question if it will truly be the kids that have earned the opportunity or if politics will play a larger role in determining who gets in.

By nel

April 25, 2007 2:43 PM | Link to this

jim d: I see that the Gwinnett School you liked to will have classes from 9-4 which sounds like a good plan. Gwinnett seems to be doing something that has worked for years in the performing arts high schools. I guess it all comes down to choice since the schools that parents “choose” to send their kids to tend to excel in all area.

By JustMe

April 25, 2007 2:50 PM | Link to this

As I have mentioned before, it will be ‘entertaining’ to watch private schools suddenly step up to the plate and ‘compete’ to make AYP like the public schools currently do.

I will laugh and laugh if Marist, St. Pius, etc. doesn’t make AYP due to these special ed kids and the news is splashed on the front page of the ajc. Welcome to the world of NCLB!

By jim d

April 25, 2007 2:58 PM | Link to this

Nel,

Here’s a bit more

The Gwinnett Charter School of Advanced Math, Science, and Technology will offer a problem-solving and interdisciplinary approach to learning. In addition, it will provide diverse connections to in-field mentors, universities and research centers, and business and industry leaders. Proposed programs of study encompass three fields: engineering, biosciences, and emerging technologies. Students also will have the opportunity to expand their foreign language education in specialized programs directly linked to math, science, and technology fields of study. Proposed language programs will include Chinese and Japanese studies, as well as scientific and technical concentrations in French, German, and Spanish.

By jim d

April 25, 2007 3:00 PM | Link to this

Just me,

they won’t have to. Nothing in the law changes that status. What will happen is that the SPED kids will just fall totally out of site.

By JustMe

April 25, 2007 3:25 PM | Link to this

Jim d-

Nothing in the GA law states this because it is a federal law!

Since the vouchers (proposedly) include federal money, any school accepting this money will have to “make” AYP.

You are correct that the GA law doesn’t mention this. But, it does mention the required testing. And, the federal law dictates that schools “make” a passing grade on those tests.

The Marist, St. Pius, and other private schools that have been skating under the radar of NCLB, if they accept these vouchers, will now have to step up to the plate and play the games of NCLB like the public schools.

By high school teacher

April 25, 2007 3:33 PM | Link to this

Okay, as an English teacher, after reading the description of the technology magnet school jimd provided, I’m starting to worry about job security! Pretty soon Englsih teachers will be replaced by computer programs!

By jim d

April 25, 2007 3:40 PM | Link to this

just me,

you might be correct but thats not how i read it.

20-2-2116. (a) The maximum scholarship granted a scholarship student pursuant to this article shall be an amount equivalent to the costs of the educational program that would have been provided for the student in the resident school system as calculated under Code Section 20-2-161. This shall not include any federal funds.

I wouldn’t think that ga, could give away fed. mony and since the students won’t be in a public school the public school will not recieve any federal funding for these students—looks like a wash to me, if I’m correct.

By lynn d

April 25, 2007 3:46 PM | Link to this

JustMe,

Private schools won’t be held accountable — they won’t have to make AYP — they don’t now and that doesn’t change under the voucher program.

There is no accountability for private schools in this measure — except that parents can leave. NONE!

By decaturparent

April 25, 2007 4:39 PM | Link to this

But.. isn’t parents leaving all the accountability you need? If parents could just leave their public schools if the job wasn’t getting done for their kid - we wouldn’t need NCLB in the first place.

By Lisa B.

April 25, 2007 4:45 PM | Link to this

I don’t think our lawmakers are really interested in SPED kids at all. The passing of this law simply opens the door to more voucher legislation in Georgia. This act is just the beginning.

By jim d

April 25, 2007 5:31 PM | Link to this

lisa,

I agree—this is only the opening act

By erica

April 25, 2007 5:34 PM | Link to this

Lisa B. you are right. Gifted are next and within 10 years the plan is to have full vouchers for all kids in GA.

By thomas

April 25, 2007 5:54 PM | Link to this

This whole voucher thing is the just prelude to opening up the floodgates to choke the public school system. You see, the forces of evil never come all out in a huge blitzkreig. It happens slowly. Little by little. Step by step. Inch by inch.

Plans for destruction of the public school system, as we know it, were set more than 30 years ago. The wheels were set in motion twenty five years go. What we are seeing now is just the wheels of this sinister machine really starting to roll. In a few years, if you are a teacher, you won’t be able to stand it in school. You will be reduced to a machine-like automaton, barking out orders, producing mind numbed robot-“citizens”. Don’t let the push for emphasizing “critical thinking skills and “hands-on learning” fool you. It’s all about producing good future workers. 1984— It’s coming!!!

As for the idea for gifted vouchers— sounds perfectly reasonable, using our twisted logic. Our schools/society believes in sorting people anyway. The “gifted” parents will jump at the chance to bail out the public schools and further segregate themselves. BY THE WAY- IN THE AMERICAN EDUCATION SYSTEM, “GIFTED” REFERS TO MIDDLE CLASS AND UP. It has NOTHING to do with intelligence. I know because I have worked in education and with the gifted. Remember— who decides who is “gifted”?

By catlady

April 25, 2007 7:10 PM | Link to this

I can’t dispute Thomas’ assertions about the gifted designation. At our school, I cannot think of a single lower-middle class student served by gifted. In fact, probably close to 50% of the kids are teacher’s kids. (mine were in it, too). If I was in inner-city Chicago, the same things that make me “gifted” would get me killed!

Probably one thing I do like about the new Georgia legislation is that it will become put up or shut up time for the students who are eligible. For that reason, I’d like to have vouchers more available. I think a lot of our complaining parents would find the “real world” a lot more harsh to their children than the public school is.

Of course, I don’t like to think about what would be left to the public schools to educate. We count on our more interested parents (who are often more wealthy) to balance the seemingly uncaring other parents, who are often not wealthy.

Wouldn’t it be great if all were required to be responsible—NO EXCUSES? It wouldn’t feel so much like trying to take a canoe with large holes in it up the river in a thunderstorm with no paddles.

By V for Vendetta

April 26, 2007 8:14 AM | Link to this

jim,

The points you bring up about “Gwinnett gambling” are the exact reason NCLB and AYP need to go to HELL. The idea that a school could be negatively affected by (basically) promoting its best and brightest is horrible (and yet, as you say, so very plausible). Sad state of affairs.

I also agree with your political point since NOTHING seems to happen for the benefit of education in Gwinnett without politics being involved. Of course, a gifted school like that could have a positive political impact: consider the disparity of students being sent there from the Mill Creeks, the Brookwoods, and the Parkviews, versus the “others”.

Could something like that be the wake up call the Gwinnett board (and heck, the similar Cobb Co. system) need?

BRIDGET - TOPIC ALERT -

In the Gwinnett section today on the homepage it mentions Gwinnett doing away with all technical-level classes by 2009. Maybe we should discuss the complete and total insanity of that idea.

By V for Vendetta

April 26, 2007 8:29 AM | Link to this

Thomas -

Apparently you have NOT worked very closely with any “gifted” students. People do not decide who is gifted, tests do. They are rigorous and difficult tests meant to identify only those capable of higher thinking. Admittedly, some kids can test gifted and not perform well, but those types of students are RARE.

One reason lower-class students have a smaller percentage of gifted kids walking among them is because many (not all, but many) lower class students are not as SMART as their upper/middle class contemporaries. If they were (or their parents were) they probably wouldn’t be in the lower class now would they?

By jim d

April 26, 2007 9:54 AM | Link to this

V,

here’s the problem I see with this charter.

For it to be sucessfull they will in all probability have to violate Ga. law regarding charter school admissions.

Under current Ga. Code a charter may not discriminate in any way in the admissions process. This specifically includes SPED kids. Because charter schools are public schools, open to all students, they are still responsible for addressing students with special needs. Some schools, such as the Metro Deaf Charter School1 in Minnesota, cater specifically to students with certain disabilities. Most, however, must address the same issues as traditional public schools, with less personnel and resources.

I seriously doubt Gwinnett has made any provisions to address these issues other than culling these applicants out. Should a SPED parent apply to have their child admitted and be refused I forsee a short court battle that will be settled out of court with a great deal of tax dollars. (SOP in such matters here in Gwinnett)

By fed up

April 26, 2007 10:19 AM | Link to this

Vendetta is right. Gifted is not determined by the parents’ income. Children in GA take the CogAT, the Cognitive Abilities Test, in first grade and again in third grade.

To even be considered for gifted services, a child must have a composite score greater than the 95th percentile. If they aren’t 96th or better, they aren’t even considered no matter how rich the parents are. In our district I can show you thousands of rich families who have badgered the gifted coordinator for years trying to get their “near gifted” kids into gifted programs. It just doesn’t happen.

We have a good number of lower income kids in our gifted program so I’m not sure what Thomas is talking about.

SET will explain to you that there is a correlation between IQ and income. The question is which comes first? Does a low IQ come from living in poverty or does one live in poverty because they have a low IQ.

My opinion is that it is some of each. I believe that it becomes a bit of a vicious cycle. Parents have a low IQ so they can’t perform a complex, high paying jobs. They remain in poverty so their children come along and get a double whammy. The kids inherit their parents propensity for a low IQ plus they live in a deprived environment which is not conducive to building intelligence….. and so the cycle goes.

The problem with IQ warfare (much like class warfare) is that if someone doesn’t support the kids that can actually go out there one day and lead and create jobs for those with lower IQs - there won’t be many jobs left in the US after a generation or two.

I find it strange that the low IQ folks want to cut off their noses despite their faces like that. But then again… they do have low IQs so it is probably hard for them to make the connection between smart people and their future employment prospects. Making such a connection require critical thinking skills.

By jim d

April 26, 2007 10:24 AM | Link to this

one other small item V,

non propotional spending for these kids attending the charter compared to per pupil expenditures in the regular schools could become an issue. It will be interesting watch as this unfolds.

By V for Vendetta

April 26, 2007 10:33 AM | Link to this

lol jim, standard operating procedure … how right you are.

Fed Up -

Exactly, although I think I know which one comes first. You can’t change you IQ. It is true that people are a product of their environment, but at the end of the day it doesn’t matter where you grow up, your intelligence POTENTIAL is dicated by DNA. Sure there are probably a FEW smart people living in undesirable socio-economic situations, but I’ll wager that the majority of them didn’t get there because of their 120 IQs.

When the day is done and the sun goes down, we are ALL responsible for our actions. If you are born into poverty and you do not wish to be there then you must do something to get YOURSELF out of it. It’s no one’s responsibility but your own.

People with lower IQs seem to have trouble understanding that.

By Lisa B.

April 26, 2007 10:54 AM | Link to this

Fed Up and V,

I, too agree that many people are stuck in poverty because of low IQ’s. Over the years, I’ve seen children from poverty in our school system’s gifted program. A few of them were even taken in by other families to create more opportunies for them. Those few are now in college, or graduated, and have broken out of poverty. Still, I’ve seen other gifted, but disadvantaged children fall in with drugs and/or gangs, and let opportunity slip away.

I think vouchers are promoted as a back-door method to resegregation. I also agree with Thomas that the long range goal is to dismantle public education. The government will continue to throw more and more money into education until the taxpayers totally rebel. That’s already happening somewhat.

By STAR

April 26, 2007 10:54 AM | Link to this

V for Vendetta- How much of the population is TRULY gifted? I have seen in some instances where 45%-50% of the population of a school has been classified as gifted. Now is that logical? Most of the students who are classified as gifted are really just above average or smart. In some cases “people” do decide who is gifted. The tests are taken by students, but they are graded by “people”, and people can be subjective when they are grading.
As far as your comment on lower class students not being gifted..I don’t think your statement is true. There are many successful people who came from humble beginnings. Your socio-ecomomnic status has nothing to do with it. Some people are in the “lower class” now due to layoffs and jobs being sent over seas. It does not mean they are not as smart as the upper/middle class.

By Teacher

April 26, 2007 11:00 AM | Link to this

I LOVE vouchers already! Now we have a better chance of making AYP, especially when the year (2010?) comes when the federal govt. says 100% will pass the test (sure they will). I also foresee a huge sale on modular classrooms when public schools have a decrease in enrollment and no longer have to pay ridiculous amounts of money to fill their school yards with them. I know the people living in the nice houses right across the street will be glad to not look out their windows at them.

By V for Vendetta

April 26, 2007 11:11 AM | Link to this

STAR -

I never said there weren’t gifted-level students in lower socio-economic situations, I simply said there were fewer of them and you were less likely to find them in those types of environments.

I wonder what kind of place you taught in (or saw, or read about, whatever) that had 40%-50% of kids labled “gifted”. Where I teach (which doesn’t matter because I’m pretty sure this is a state requirement) to be labled as “gifted” a student must pass the tests mentioned earlier in FedUp’s 10:19am post. I don’t see how that much subjectivity (the 50% you speak of) could work its way into the test. Sure there might be a 2%-3% margin of error when accounting for subjective grading, but the tests are designed to eliminate as much bias as possible.

Personally, I would WANT to see more minority students labled gifted because then maybe other disadvantaged people would quit their complaining.

By Parent of2

April 26, 2007 11:17 AM | Link to this

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Intelligence has nothing to do with wealth, according to a US study published Tuesday which found that people with below average smarts were just as wealthy as those with higher IQ scores.

“People don’t become rich because they are smart,” said Jay Zagorsky, research scientist at Ohio State University whose study appears in the Journal Intelligence.

The US Bureau of Labor Statistics survey included 7,403 Americans who have been interviewed repeatedly since 1979. Based on 2004 answers, people who are now in their mid-40s showed no link between brain- and earning-power.

“Your IQ has really no relationship to your wealth. And being very smart does not protect you from getting into financial difficulty,” Zagorsky said.

*There is more to this article today on Yahoo News if you want to read it. The title is “Intelligence not linked to wealth, according to US study” *

By SET

April 26, 2007 11:18 AM | Link to this

Any private school that takes vouchers from the government will be taking orders from the government on a minute to minute basis. Don’t even think of displaying the 10 Commandments.

A voucher system will turn private schools into government schools. I vote No vouchers - ever.

I’d subsidize using tax credits and deductions - never direct payment to any school.

By catlady

April 26, 2007 11:32 AM | Link to this

My point about testing and student wealth in placing in gifted programs is: we test for what we value. Since upper middle class folks design the tests, they test for things that “everyone should know/be able to do”.If we had a gifted program that tested for street smarts, a lot of our students curently labeled gifted would not score highly.

By high school teacher

April 26, 2007 11:35 AM | Link to this

V and Star,

In our school system, in the high school system anyway, parents can request for their children to take an honors class. We have college prep classes and honors classes. Gifted kids are placed in the honors classes automatically, and there are a handful of kids who are not technically gifted but are in the honors class. These are the “teacher-pleasers” and hard working kids, and they are usually the better students.

By jim d

April 26, 2007 11:44 AM | Link to this

Teach,

the date for 100% proficiency I believe is the 2013-14 school year.

Someone correct me if I’m wrong. Not that it really matters cause it will never happen unless we just kick the stupid kids out and don’t test them.

By lynn d

April 26, 2007 11:46 AM | Link to this

To a large extent, most of you all’s assumptions are wrong. There will be no need to make AYP — there is no accountability for private schools that choose to participate — (and Marist, et all won’t participate — guaranteed. If you look at both the Washington DC federally funded voucher program…

http://www.washingtonscholarshipfund.org/opportunity.asp

and the program that the Georgia program is modeled after, you will see that the vast majority of participating schools are religious — so no fears about the 10 Commandments.

The Floriday program began in 2000 and has been going strong ever since.

http://www.floridaschoolchoice.org/Information/McKay/

What worries me is that in Florida, there seem to be far more private schools and thus far more opportunity. I am afraid for many families who fought hard to get this bill passed, there are really any private school options available to them.

I am also concerned that students won’t get the services they need — but I believe that parents must be held accountable as well — and if they make a bad choice, then their children suffer.

By jim d

April 26, 2007 11:50 AM | Link to this

Well someone tell answer me this.

My rising senior has been labeled forever as gifted, taken one or two gifted classes, a couple of honors classes and mostly just regular classes.

He signed up for next years classes pretty much along the same lines, but when he got his schedule for next year they have him placed in a couple of AP classes that he wasn’t interested in, but that we’ve pursuaded him to go ahead and take.

Is it normal for a school to place kids that haven’t requested AP, in AP classes?

By jim d

April 26, 2007 11:56 AM | Link to this

Lynn

You all is a truck. LOL

Y’all is what we are. (grin)

By hs sped

April 26, 2007 11:57 AM | Link to this

Gifted placement question-I have read psych reports where students with IQs of just 120 are considered gifted and put into gifted classes. I learned in college that 85-115 was average, the next 15 points (to 130 was above average, the next 15 points (to 145) was bright and then above 145 was gifted and above 160 was genius. When did this change? What are the standards now (2007)? If they did change, why?

My thoughts on the vouchers? Give them what they want and they’ll go away (and take their lawsuits with them).

By hs sped

April 26, 2007 12:07 PM | Link to this

I ask the gifted question because my daughter did not test as gifted in 5th grade with a 138 IQ on the Slossen/Schlossen/whatever test. That was a hard IQ test, if anyone remembers giving it. It is definitely not as generous as the WISC, or the TONI (which should not be used at all in my opinion).

By hs sped

April 26, 2007 12:08 PM | Link to this

Thanks, in advance, for answering the gifted question. I’m off to gather tests for my next 3 hour long EOCT (yes…extended time)!!!!

By jim d

April 26, 2007 12:09 PM | Link to this

Don’t hold me to it HS sped,

but I believe 144 is the cut for gifted in most school systems.

By JustMe

April 26, 2007 12:18 PM | Link to this

jim d-

Yes. Schools make schedule recommendations and then usually get parents to sign off on them.

Note that it is important for your son to take the required courses to graduate, that is all that is required. However, the school counselors can make out a schedule with recommended courses - that is their job.

Reading your posts on these blogs makes it shocking for me to hear that you would be okay for your son to take general level classes. The higher level classes (usually) mean more academic challenge and also (usually) less behavior problems from students. In addition, AP makes it such that your son could earn college credit which translates into you not having to pay tuition for the college course - assumming that your son is going to college.

As a teacher, it is often a bad situation to have a smart kid in a general level class. That smart kid will inevitably become bored and then may get caught up with the poorly behaved kids.

As a parent, please think about what is really best for your son. He may want to take the easy way out with the general level classes, but is that really what’s best for him?

By jim d

April 26, 2007 12:25 PM | Link to this

The biggest problem with gifted programs is Once a child is identified as gifted, there is no reassessment. Once gifted, always gifted.

If standardized test scores go down, grades fall, behavior is unacceptable, etc. there is no mechanism in place for periodic review and assessment for a student’s continued suitability for gifted services.

By jim d

April 26, 2007 12:34 PM | Link to this

just me,

Here’s one upon which we may disgaree. We allow him to make these choices. We encourage and make sure he fully understands the gravity of the decision, but we allow him to make it.

Yes, I do know that he does better academically in the more challeging courses and mostly for the reasons you have stated. However, in my opinon, there’s a bit more to an education than book learning. I’m trying to prepare him for making life decisons long after I’m gone.

What surprised me though was that we were not contacted—the switch was made without speaking to us or to him. Sure we could have objected and gotten them changed but instead we challeneged him to go with it. I’m confident he will rise to the ocassion.

By JustMe

April 26, 2007 1:00 PM | Link to this

jim d-

You are right. We will have to disagree. I do not feel that any parent should leave the decision as to what courses to take up to a minor.

As I have said in the past, minors do not have life experiences. They likely look only short-term and do not know and/or understand the implications of their decisions - even if you tell them.

Although you may realize the benefits to him working hard in high school (better grades, better SAT scores, increase chances of getting into a good college, possible scholarships, etc.), he likely does not know, does not care, or the consequences do not fall on him (for example, without a scholarship will you be paying for his college?).

Are you saying that your parenting approach is this….. your son wants to jump off of a cliff. You discuss this with him and tell him that it is likely that he will die. But, he wants to do it anyway and so you let him? That doesn’t make sense to me at all!

Yes, there is more to an education than book learning. But doing one does not preclude the other. Many students do both and succeed in both the academic area and also other areas. For example, a girl at my high school was valadictorian (taking honors/gifted/AP classes), scored perfect on the SAT, was in all-state orchestra, ran track, and was president of her class. In addition, she was active in her church and also volunteered at a local nursing home every weekend. She got a full scholarship to Yale.

Your son may or may not make the best decisions for him. And, it will be he that pays the price for the wrong decisions. But from where I am standing, it will be your fault.

By Ernest

April 26, 2007 1:06 PM | Link to this

I know we are FAR off topic now but JimD has hit on a ‘pet peeve’ of mine, counselors building student schedules without communicating with parents. Stepping back for a second, I understand there might be some parents who are not engaged in that process thus making this easier for counselors. I still think it should be presented as a ‘recommendation’ and allow for changes based on the wishes of the parents (along with availability of certain classes).

By SET

April 26, 2007 1:38 PM | Link to this

Ernest, when schools and their staff have a low regard for the social status, education or existance in general of the parents, that staff will act in a certain way. On the other side of the coin, the school counselors can make the right decisions for all the students most of the time - that’s what they are there for - and accomodate changes when needed.

In a perfect world counseling staff would make recommendations to parents who would make timely and prudent decisions. Public Schools in urban areas are far from a perfect worlds. School staff are running a train on time and they can’t wait for the passengers to make their minds up where they want to go. In order to keep the system operating they schedule students then wait for change requests - at least this way everybody has a schedule to start with.

I can’t say which is the better way. I don’t have to operate these large and troubled schools. So I’m reluctant to say staff is doing something for no good reason.

By Ernest

April 26, 2007 2:16 PM | Link to this

SET, I agree with the premise of your post. I’m sure the number of ‘helicopter’ parents at a school will dictate how much collaboration will happen. I’m sure you know I didn’t mean to imply otherwise but I do think counselors have a tough job, factoring in the ratio of counselors to students at a typical high school. At the end of the day, they have to get the job done in a timely manner and sometimes it may mean making scheduling decisions for others.

By JustMe

April 26, 2007 2:37 PM | Link to this

At my school, the counseling staff always make out the first schedule with the input/recommendations from the teachers based on the students previous/current performance.

Students are given this initial schedule and asked to have their parent(s) sign it and return it. Involved parents will either sign it or not (and indicate desired changes). Uninvolved parents will often never return it, or maybe the students just throw it away (resulting in no change).

Schools really cannot force parents to be involved.

By jim d

April 26, 2007 2:39 PM | Link to this

Just me,

While we do disagree, let me just say that he’s almost always made the right choices in life and I have a great deal of earned respect for his ability to continue doing so.

As for his ability to get into one of his schools of choice? He’s already been contacted by two of them here in his Jr. Year. Why? I’m not real sure but along with maintaing his grades he has made some great friends and aquaintances through his volunteer work with the Key club at school as well as through NESA(National Eagle Scout Association) and BSA in general. I suspect that may have a little something to do with it. As much as people like to bad mouth scouting these days, it does have some very strong support from influential people.

To be totally honest with you though, I suspect when I was a bit younger and was raising daughters, I probably felt much like you do about raising children. Thank God I survived those years.

By JustMe

April 26, 2007 2:42 PM | Link to this

jim d-

Did your change in parenting have something to do with gender differences? In other words, did you feel the need to be more involved with your daughters and then you allowed your son to make more of his own decisions?

By jim d

April 26, 2007 2:50 PM | Link to this

perhaps that or just getting old (real old) there is 18 years difference in age of youngest daughter and son.

I’m not real sure.

By jim d

April 26, 2007 2:58 PM | Link to this

just me, perhaps it was just a feeling of needing to protect the daughters more so than the son as I have been VERY involved in his life.

He didn’t learn to make good choices overnight or all by himself. He has however shown he’s quite capable.

By thomas

April 26, 2007 5:34 PM | Link to this

This is a fascinating discussion. First the topic was SPED. But when the discussion turned to gifted, it BLEW UP!!!! Just like it always does when the discussion turns to gifted.

Here’s the deal- I know what I’m talking about when it comes to gifted. I have had as many as 8 gifted kids in my class at one time. I have also worked with the gifted coordinator at my school. I know about the “testing” required to get accepted. There are requirements, but one can be denied due to the “creativity” requirements and other things. Hairs can be split. On the other hand, eyes are winked during evaluation committee meetings when the local school gifted teacher wants to get a particular student in the program who maybe “borderline”. THIS IS NOT TO IMPLY THAT GIFTED STUDENTS ARE NOT SMART. THEY ARE. BUT EVERY SMART/GIFTED CHILD IS NOT IN GIFTED. It depends on who you know, not what you know.

By M. Edwards

May 2, 2007 8:48 AM | Link to this

I think all children should receive school vouchers. It works to imporve the schools if they compete for the dollars. The only people afraid of it are the school boards and the “bad” teachers. Good teachers will thrive in this type of environment and do better because they’ll have the means. I want my child’s money attached to him, not a school!