Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Learning Environments Losing Ground for Gifted Advocacy.

Thanks. I did think there might be a data issue. The one I want to look at is only about $7 NZ but I have a very tight data cap (tends to be tighter and more expensive here) and slow so maybe not. I might just buy the printed version.

The situations described by KADmom and the situation described by HowlerKarma look totally different to me, despite superficial similarities.

HowlerKarma's case is analagous to McDonalds corporate headquarters dictating uniformity among its franchises.

KADmom's case is analagous to a local city official decreeing that all local restaurants have to have identical menus, and cook their food exactly the same way, and everyone has to eat the same thing at the same time.

I really don't believe that any "national trends" have anything much to do with KADmom's situation. It's very much a local situation, and I would bet that the extreme weirdness of the situation can be best understood by viewing the responsible individuals in the following terms:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_disorder
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy

LOL-- I'll go you one further and say that it is analogous to McDonald's running ordering through an automated phone system at corporate headquarters, and having no human counter staff-- just a sliding window that produces your fries in a uniform 90 seconds.




Continuing ot here, momentarily, could you use a wi-fi hotspot like a coffee shop instead of your data plan?

I do that sometimes for streaming video or something. Just hit the wifi button and make sure I'm using that and not Verizon.

Thanks. I could use the library (it has a free hotspot) but I think it would be too hard to read on my phone and the experimental browser on my kindle may not be up to it. Might be worth a try though. I would just like to know what a textbook for the NZ curriculum actually includes so i can work out how much of the next couple of year's work he knows. I think he is assessed a year or so ahead but he is not really being given work past what the other kids are getting - but i could be entirely wrong. Our national standard assessment of "above standard" only means 6 months ahead and i have only seen 3 very poor maths samples all year.

LOL!

I can corroborate that. Yesterday, I conducted a field interview with an afterschooling shop as market research, and the whole premise of the business model, modeled on Pearson, was to (in his words), "ensure that even the most mediocre teacher can deliver content". The organization had given up on paying for quality instructors because they hurt the bottom line. Eliminate the learned intermediary and districts are reliant on Pearson and other content providers to design whole curricula. Then, they'll devour whatever intellectual pablum the monopolistic content provider supplies.

It's nefarious--and surprising that ministries of education aren't foreseeing the inevitable plan by Pearson to breed dependency then jack up prices. This isn't the cost-saving panacea some administrators believe it to be. E-delivery is the ARM of the education market.

Agreed. Stating a common expectation or floor for academics is beneficial. However flexibility is needed.
1) Those students who are not at the prescribed level, who have problems with learning and/or achievement at that level, are officially behind; Districts cannot easily create other criteria and then announce that when these students are meeting modified criteria they have met the standard. They have met modified criteria. Yet this may represent a huge success for these students.
2) Parents on gifted forums have sometimes expressed disappointment with the model of mastery utilized by some afterschooling companies, when that model of mastery required the student to achieve 100% accuracy on a large body of work, with no errors. Mastery of common standards may easily take this form when success is measured by a standardized test result, facilitated by teaching to the test, and only a "floor" level standard or expectation is known.
3) Some have said that having a Common Standard provides portability, for example the ability for military families who are frequently reassigned to know with confidence and certainty which grade level their child/ren will fit academically. Yet this is only true if all districts are teaching only at the level of the "floor" of the standard, and none are teaching higher. This is also only true if all pupils in military families are learning exactly at the yoked pace of the standard, none higher or lower.

Agreed. Again there are two sides to the coin: To individuals who want to have free minds and learn in depth and breadth according to their own interests and abilities, teaching to the test may be limiting. However, to the opposition, those who would have all humans achieving the same educational outcomes at the same pace, stamping out interchangeable cookie-cutter humans with a one-size-fits-all education may be ideal. Parents may unite against this but source documents containing facts about standards assessments and student data collection have been difficult to find, have been copyrighted, and links have been broken/moved. Among several companies whose websites link to each other, as factual data disappears from the website of one inter-related company to appear in different format on a website of another, without benefit of re-directing link (readers experience a broken link)... the sense of a shell-game comes to mind. At best, the process lacks transparency.

Unfortunately this does create a scenario for losing ground for gifted advocacy, and jeopardizes the academic freedoms of all pupils and life-long learners. This does not mean parents ought to give up, however parents may first need to address issues of transparency to provide groundwork for effective advocacy.

It has been said that to the degree that Common Core is a set of standards, representing the floor or minimum of what students need to know in each grade level, it does not preclude the method by which a standard/outcome is taught/learned; To the degree which Common Core may dictate the method by which an outcome/standard is taught/learned, it may be considered a curriculum.

It is my understanding that there may be an ongoing disconnect between those in positions to sign their States on to Common Core, and those responsible for implementing it. While those signing on may have found the possibility of Race To The Top funding and waiver from NCLB to be positive incentives, it is my understanding that for many districts the Race To The Top dollars did not materialize, districts found themselves with the expense of updating systems to track more data points, some found an analysis of their current standards was deemed more rigorous therefore no change to curriculum/textbooks was deemed necessary, and others decided it may be fiscally wise to see what form the new standardized tests may take before making changes as the student performance on the new standardized tests was to be the system by which students/teachers/schools/districts would be evaluated... possibly focusing more resources on the bottom performers than even NCLB did. Combined with union rules and the expense of hiring subs to free teachers to attend CCS meetings, some have expressed that this timeframe was inadequate/rushed. With CCS standardized assessments reportedly in play in NY in Spring 2013 mis-matched to curriculum, and these new assessments now being implemented in other States, the difference between the sales/marketing and the reality/implementation may be becoming more apparent.

These possible discrepancies and lack of transparency have re-mobilized parents, teachers, and administrators to take a second look at what they are implementing and why.

Agreed!

I'm sorry this is happening, and it is becoming a common refrain. The softening of the national economy to a veritable game of musical chairs in employment in many career areas has possibly exacerbated the situation. As unpalatable as this may seem, the only known cure may be living debt-free and within one's means... from families to governments at every level, including school districts, States, and our Federal Government. Meanwhile, students may be well-served without additional cost if allowed to attend classes at their appropriate challenge level of readiness and ability in each subject, regardless of grade level or chronological age.