<p>From the Sunday Times magazine, a cover story by Ann Hulbert, Can Genius Really Be Cultivated?</p>
<p>The article focuses on the Davidson Institute and also mentions CTY’s SET.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/20/magazine/20prodigies.html?pagewanted=1[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/20/magazine/20prodigies.html?pagewanted=1</a></p>
<p>This should help some people find this article. We need to help promising students to achieve their potential and not to settle for acquiring the content standards we offer in public school.</p>
<p>The other side of the NCLB equation…</p>
<p>I wish more money and whatnot was taken into those kids who haven’t had the opportunities to learn more and become great…</p>
<p>I wish that states and district found it more worthwhile to actually serve the students that qualify for federal funding under IDEA rather than give lipservice to their education and pay off the ones that have enough resources to sue</p>
<p>I wish being smart got as much support as being incapable. Seems that many schools support the low end and couldn’t care less about the high end.</p>
<p>I think if schools actually gave support to the low end that our national graduation rate would be much higher</p>
<p>Our district/state only counts as high school dropout who were enrolled in 9th gd- no tracking of those who have stopped attending school earlier.
Additionally- the district only counts as dropouts only those students who have notified the district that they are dropping out :(</p>
<p>Some states only have a 41% graduation rate for certain populations
Obviously we are failing these kids</p>
<p>on the otherhand the young woman from teh university of washington who just named a Rhodes scholar is only 18- she was enrolled in the early entrance program-
I don’t know how many states have these opportunties for truly gifted students- but we should support more of them</p>
<p>I’m a big fan of gifted education. In the absence of special programs, some high-potential kids will find their own enrichment activities. Others, though, may simply become bored with school and become underachievers.</p>
<p>In many places white=gifted; black=■■■■■■■■.</p>
<p>Actually, tsdad, you should read the thread about whites leaving schools with high Asian populations. White flight, 1970s: other students not good enough. White flight, 2005: other students too good.</p>
<p>I did read the thread. I stand by my statement.</p>
<p>tsdad, I’d be really interested in hearing you expand on your statement with your experiences. We had very positive experiences with ‘gifted education’ for our children, not perfect but better than what I’ve heard of in many areas. In an ideal world, every child should have their educational needs met, including those children who are identified as gifted, but unfortunately that rarely happens.</p>
<p>tsdad:</p>
<p>I’d be more comfortable with the equation of middle class and (possibly) gifted than a strict racial equation. Last year, our high school sent at least 3 African-Americans to HYP. These are not Affirmative Action cases: they were all NMSF; they were also all middle class, with parents who cared deeply about academics. I’m pretty sure this will be repeated this year.</p>
<p>Our district doesn’t do so good of a job with gifted.
For one- identification is through a group administered test- student must excel in all areas to qualify.
The results can be contested- however when my 160 iq daughter didn’t qualify- I decided that I wasn’t going to jump through their hoops and contest results- particulary when I observed the program and didn’t think it was anything special.
There are great programs in our district- but often times it is because of the teachers- not necessarily because of the classification.
I have also seen teachers making assumptions about students based on race- not income- not intellect- but race.
I was in the building everyday- for part of a semester I even taught a class- and I saw black students met with lower expectations ( and this was from teachers who prided themselves on their focus on disproportionality). These kids aren’t stupid- if they didnt’ have parents who demanded that they be placed in the more rigourous classes, they were allowed to slide by but still get good grades.
Students lose respect for the educational system, and themselves when they are not challenged. School isn’t meaningful, it is just a place to go everyday.</p>
<p>( Which is why we changed schools- at her new school- many opportunities to excel and participate- involved parents- and generally teachers who challenge the students)</p>
<p>Below are excerpts from the Annual Reports to Congress filed by the US Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. The last one is from fiscal year 2003 (9/30/2002-10/1/2003). Ive selected some complaints and compliance reviews which speak to the overrepresentation of minorities in special education and their underrepresentation in gifted and talented programs. These are only examples. They were not the only cases. The reports can be found at: <a href=“http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/publications.html[/url]”>http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/publications.html</a> under the General heading.</p>
<p>Based on my experience it’s clear that we have more of a problem with minority parents and children loosing faith in the educational process than we do with white parents and children. I believe that the concerns with gifted children are grossly overdone especially since in many school districts it would seem that almost all the white kids are gifted.</p>
<p>FY 2003 OCR Report</p>
<p>In April 2003, OCR launched nationwide compliance reviews in 37 school districts around the country on the issue of the misidentification of minority students in special education. The reviews focus on school districts’ possible misidentification of minority students and language minority students as disabled and their placement in special education programs. Where OCR identifies civil rights violations, it will work with districts to determine whether existing reading programs are effective or are contributing to the inappropriate referral of minorities. As necessary, OCR provides technical assistance to school districts in identifying effective, research-based reading programs.</p>
<p>FY 2002 Report</p>
<p>A school district has reduced the mislabeling of minority students in special education classes as a result of more consistent use of intervention strategies to help students remain in the regular classroom. The district’s agreement with OCR resulted in all elementary schools adopting a reading program, a pre-kindergarten program to address deficiencies in language development, cognitive and psychomotor skills, and a program to help parents prepare children under age three for school success. Children who completed the program were less likely to be referred for special education evaluation. </p>
<p>OCR also provides technical assistance to state departments of education and local school districts on reducing referrals to special education by implementing research-based reading programs. For example, in the spring of 2002, OCR sponsored a regional conference of the state directors of special education for eight states to discuss approaches to reduce the mislabeling of minority students referred for special education evaluation. </p>
<p>FY 2002 Report</p>
<p>A state department of education entered into a resolution agreement after OCR completed a compliance review on minority students in programs for the educable mentally handicapped (EMH). The agreement addresses racial disparities in the EMH program. The state will establish a process for all school districts to monitor referral rates based on race for special education evaluation and target technical assistance to school districts that show a significant overrepresentation of minority students in EMH classes. The state will issue a memorandum to school districts recommending that nonverbal supplemental tests be used in assessing the intellectual functioning of students with language deficiencies. The EMH evaluation procedures also will be revised to include parental input in assessing a student’s adaptive behavior. These initiatives will have an impact on 28,500 students in the state. </p>
<p>In another compliance review, OCR found that African American students who were referred for problems were more likely to be classified as mentally ■■■■■■■■, while white students were more likely to be classified as learning disabled. OCR also found that African American students spent more time in self-contained classes for the mentally ■■■■■■■■ than white students. OCR identified many African American and white students who should not have been placed in special education classes. The district is now addressing these issues in its compliance agreement. </p>
<p>A complaint also was resolved alleging that African American students are inappropriately placed in emotionally handicapped classes and retained when services are no longer required. The district entered into an agreement with OCR to review the screening and evaluation process used in placing students in classes for the emotionally handicapped. The district will collaborate with universities and other urban districts to identify best practices and strategies that can be used. The agreement affects the 3,682 students currently in the district’s emotionally handicapped program.</p>
<p>FY 1999 Report</p>
<p>In a southwestern state, OCR staff noted that a low proportion of Native American and Hispanic elementary and high school students were in programs for gifted and talented students. In one particular school district with a predominantly Hispanic student body, the school demonstrated that minority students could qualify for gifted programs when teachers use a variety of methods in addition to standardized I.Q. tests as the criteria for eligibility. OCR collaborated with the school district to broaden its admissions criteria from only using a standardized IQ score to using multiple criteria. As a result, the proportion of Hispanic students in gifted and talented programs doubled.</p>
<p>FY 1998 Report</p>
<p>In many school districts, minority students are under-represented in programs for gifted and talented students. The issue in five school districts was whether the pipeline to programs for gifted students had been narrowed, illegally denying access to minority students. In all the districts, a resolution agreement specified that students would have equal access to these programs through improved policies and practices that include better notice, broader screening strategies designed to locate non-traditional gifted students, and the use of a broader variety of evaluation and eligibility criteria. In addition, one of these districts - with only two percent of its gifted students being minority students -started up a pilot program to identify gifted students. The pilot was a success from all perspectives: the district was pleased at the additional number of minority students it expects to identify for gifted programs, and the youngsters were excited by being given challenges they had not been given in the past to show their writing skills, carry out research and perform laboratory experiments.</p>
<p>The public school system where we lived when my D was elementary age has NO gifted programs. The rather well-to-do system takes the stance that “every kid is gifted”. Hogwash. Yes, every kid has gifts, but not every kid is gifted. When we moved to the area, we met with the principal of our local elementary school and brought along a notebook of the work that my then 6 year old D was currently doing at her Montessori school in another state. The principal told us that the only way that she could continue at that level of work was to advance her to the 4th grade class in the public school. Right. Like we would put a 6 year old in a room of all 10 years olds. We elected to enroll her in another Montessori school in our new state with the typical approach of “meet every child where he/she is and take them where they wish to go”. My D was encouraged to pursue all sorts of her interests and to advance as fast as she desired and was able. All worked well until middle school when there was no more Montessori available and we moved her to the “gifted” private middle school…where she was “held back” to the level of her classmates again. </p>
<p>I am aghast at the ignorant attitude of educators about known scientific research on these gifted kids. Holding them back is the WORST thing that can be done. In our teacher’s meetings this fall I commented to my D’s AP BC Calc teacher that this was the very first year since Montessori school that my D was challenged and thrilled by Math and that it was a shame that she had not been permitted by the school to move forward to this earlier…she had been bored with math since 6th grade. She went ballistic about parents “pushing” their kids in math and how she was against allowing kids to move beyond what the school determines to the be the age-appropriate grade level. I just shut up and shook my head. I fully support this philanthropist’s program for very gifted kids. These kids get held back too often by teachers.</p>
<p>Consider if gifted programs, and non-federally funded magnet schools, results in within school segregation. A school is nominally integrated but whites and blacks are not in the same programs and infrequently meet in the classrooms. I suspect that’s the intent in some districts.</p>
<p>She went ballistic about parents “pushing” their kids in math and how she was against allowing kids to move beyond what the school determines to the be the age-appropriate grade level.</p>
<p>My impression is- that some teachers and other adults are really threatened by students who are quick to learn.
I loved the Waldorf schools for my D1- however if I mentioned that she was reading- ( she was 4) the response was like if I had said that I was grooming her to take Paris Hiltons place in the cosmos.
She attended a Montessori school for about a month- I had registered her for a 5’s class- ( this after the local public school said she wouldn’t fit in their K), but the school switched her to a 3-6 class after the 5s class was all boys ( against my wishes)- parents made comments when they overheard me say that she was reading-" you mean she can read stop signs right?" ( the first time I knew she could read was when she said that there was a Toyota like her dads down the street when she was 3- her dad had a Toyota but a sedan not a truck)
We switched to another 5s program- not for “gifted” but very experiential in curriculum.- it was great- but since it was only for one year- meant we had to look again the very next year.</p>
<p>We left the public school system after my son’s fourth grade teacher thought it was perfectly acceptable for him to just bring in a book to class and read all day since there was nothing she could teach him. We found a private school for the gifted which cost us an arm and a leg but brought him to life. Suddenly he was learning and enthusiastic and passionate about school. He discovered a love of Latin and Ancient Roman history which has now filled his life for the past six years. At our old school, he was convinced that the kids were pretending not to understand things to keep him from getting to learn. When he got to the new school, he realized that not all kids learn at the same rate. While it’s acceptable to say that some kids are better than others in sports or music, it’s frowned upon to say some kids are smarter than others. It was nice to be in an environment where academic prowess was esteemed. I don’t even want to imagine where my son would be had we not found an appropriate educational environment for him. No matter where he ends up in college, he’ll never have a better – more life changing – experience than his time at the gifted school!</p>