Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums THINKING BIG About Gifted Education Seattle Public Schools to end "tracking"

The Seattle Public School District used to have an excellent gifted program that was designed by Dr. Nancy Robinson of the Robinson Center for Young Scholars of the University of WA. Robinson Center for Young Scholars

The way it was originally designed by Dr. Robinson, SPSD offered a 3 tier gifted program:
1) Academically Highly Gifted: Grades 1-12, 98th+ percentile in cogAT, 95th+ percentile in Achievement test ELA & Math. Full time, self-contained classrooms. Math is taught at 2 grade levels above current level.
2) Academically Gifted (Spectrum): Grades 1-8, 87th percentile cogAT, 87th percentile ELA & Math. Full time, self-contained classrooms. Math is taught at 1 grade level above.
3) Advanced Learning Opportunities: Grades 1-8, part time, in class enrichment.

At some point in the last 3 years, option #2 and #3 were combined into a 2 tier system:
1) Highly Capable: K-8, 98th+ cogAT, 95th+ achievement test, now offer "significantly accelerated curriculum" based on need
2) Advanced Learners(Spectrum): K-8, 87th+ percentile cogAT and achievement, in class enrichment only.

In the interest of equity, SPSD is now going through a district wide push to end the Advanced Learner/Spectrum program altogether, starting in elementary schools. One middle school is already moving ahead with the detracking starting in middle school:
Seattle Schools End Tracking.

Is this the beginning of a new nationwide trend or is this just for Seattle? How effective is in class differentiation anyway? Perhaps someone who has gone through such a gifted program or has a child who went through such a program can comment on its effectiveness so we can assess how much of a loss this is to the gifted children in SPSD.

It's happening in Maryland as well. Our school system is concerned because the magnet programs do not proportionally represent low-income students and some minority groups. While there has been talk about better publicizing these programs in neighborhoods typically under-represented, there is also lots of talk about eliminating them or drastically lowering the standards to be admitted. Some parents have written that the magnet programs are too expensive (due to an increased need for transportation) and that gifted students are already ahead and don't need any special treatment. We are concerned that the gifted programs may be eliminated in our area.

The de-tracking movement ignores the elephant in the room, which is that not all kids have the same cognitive ability. Poverty and stress make the problem worse, but dragging down the high-ability kids won't help the other ones. But I suppose that pretending it works serves a certain ideology.

I think the statistics on these changes would need to be carefully reviewed to determine how kids who were taken out of tracked gifted classes compare to kids who stayed in tracked gifted classes.

To say the overall achievement of a general education classroom improves when you add gifted kids isn't a huge shock. I want to know how the gifted population fares.

Honestly no-one cares about the gifted kids. The assumption that having someone beside them who finds the maths absurdly easy will make a struggling student perform better is somewhat silly to my mind but it is taken as fact here.

We are not in Seattle, or anywhere close, but our district is obsessed with "equity" and throws around terms like "white privilege". They are closing down very high performing schools and busing kids long distances simply because having those schools in existence is not "equitable" (i.e. they are "too white" I guess). Meanwhile they are continually cutting special ed, nurses, support staff like psychologists, etc and giving themselves in administration very large raises. Superintendent is paid over $200k per year. How is that for equity?

My kids have been in schools that do not track, and the whole class did the same work, and it's not a pretty picture. The district claims that everyone is working 1 year ahead in math and I'm sure it improves their overall scores, getting more kids into the "proficient" range, but that is still too simple for highly gifted students who are not going to show much progress from year to year if they start out high. In-class differentiation was an absolute joke. Teachers wanted so badly to believe that they were differentiating and make me believe it that they actually lied to me or withheld information about what my kids were doing. They seemed to resent the fact that I was asking for work for them at the correct level. One teacher even insisted that it wouldn't be fair to the other kids. Probably brainwashed by the administration about "equity". The simplest way for them to close the achievement gap is to bring the top kids down a few notches, especially White or Asian kids.


Anyway, this report was done by the Fordham Institute about high achievers and whether they stay high achievers. It looks at NWEA MAP data. I am not sure how unbiased this group is (politically very conservative) but some of the data is interesting.
https://www.nwea.org/research/innov...galleries/high-flyers-maintain-altitude/

If we are talking about ignored elephants ...

If scores on IQ tests had the same distribution for various income groups and races, there would be less resistance to using IQ scores or proxies to select students for gifted programs or selective colleges. But there are substantial differences, as documented by scholars such as Charles Murray and Arthur Jensen.

It will be difficult to preserve meaningful gifted programs or honors classes as long as it is assumed that they must be demographically representative of the general student population.

From the cited article:

Burris is the author of the book "On the Same Track: How Schools Can Join the Twenty-First-Century Struggle against Resegregation" (2015).

In fact, the research suggests this oft-repeated truism simply ain't true. Studies of tracking, streaming and grouping tend overall to suggest - shock - that kids learn best when grouped with learners at a similar level and need. When you remove a layer of higher-performing kids from a class, the next level tends to improve their results noticeably.

Sitting next to people for whom the task is notably easier does not inspire and motivate, it just depresses.

If you've ever watched the escalating anxiety level of a 2E kid in a classroom where all the other kids are finding a skill increasingly automatic and easy, but your kid is still working just as hard as ever, and so increasingly struggling to keep up as the class moves on.... well, same effect, I would imagine.

Teaching differently and using appropriate curricula to meet the specific needs of the learners is what ultimately seems to matter, in almost every study. In theory, you don't need to stream to do that: it's the content that matters, not the delivery mechanism. In practice, though, differentiating within a mixed class is rare, and has yet to be documented as happening in a substantial form that meets the requirements of differentiation's own proponents. Grouping of some form is the only practical way to put kids together with similar needs, so the teacher can spend their time addressing those needs.

Doesn't seem like rocket science, does it?

Since "differentiated instruction" can bridge any gap in ability or preparation within a class, we should abolish age discrimination in our schools and put children in grades 1 to 5 together in classes, at random.

I guess given this trend at pretty much all schools have folks had luck working with the schools to create differentiated environment for their DD/DS? If so how?

Please note the trend is just not in public schools. I have seen highly rated private school shy away from differentiation in the guise of "applying too much pressure", "Test teaching" etc. Part of this trend is getting rid of APs in private high schools.

Thank you, Bostonian, for posting this excerpt. It piqued my curiosity to consider that the influence of a teacher in NY has determined policy and practice on the opposite coast... a national influence. Being the author of several books extends her reach. I did a web search on Carol Burris. She has written two books sharing her viewpoint against grouping students by ability:
1) Detracking for Excellence and Equity (2008)
2) On the Same Track (2015)

To her credit, she currently does NOT support Common Core. Two thoughts on this:
1) Ironically, before flip-flopping her viewpoint, she made money by publishing a book on how to implement core (2012).
2) Some of us were aware of the development of these tests from early on, and the roles which they would play, even as common core "standards" were being crafted to usher these tests and data collection methods in: What other views does she hold? Many people oppose common core, including some who once supported it. Many people also oppose excessive standardized testing, and data collection. Often these viewpoints are found to be philosophically consistent with respecting each student as an individual with unique talents, challenges, and learning needs... therefore not philosophically compatible with promoting a one-size-fits-all classroom.

Who is Diane Ravitch, author of the articles on Carol Burris & Common Core, quoted earlier in this post? How might she feel if "the wonderful public school in Brooklyn" which two of her grandsons attend were to announce discontinuation of any selection criteria and advanced academics? Yet these may be the ideas foisted on other families, partly by influence of Network for Public Education (NPE), of which Diane Ravitch is president and to which she recently appointed Carol Burris as executive director of the NPE fund.

Here I see two ladies "playing" with education policy, as long as it affects someone else's kids.

What about NPE? According to statements on its webste, it was co-founded in 2013 by Diane Ravitch and Anthony Cody.

Here's the list of ideas which NPE supports. I do not see a statement against grouping students by ability.

The NPE website states that (emphasis added)

In supporting Carol Burris' anti-tracking message (and furthering a policy and practice of teaching students in classrooms which encompass all ability levels) possibly Diane Ravitch, was unaware of, overlooked, or discounted this important data and research, which indicates that students learn more when grouped with others of similar ability:
1) http://www.casenex.com/casenet/pages/virtualLibrary/gridlock/groupmyths.html
2) http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/nrcgt/reports/rbdm9204/rbdm9204.pdf

KJP and puffin,

I believe the research shows that kids learn better when grouped by ability -
1) http://www.casenex.com/casenet/pages/virtualLibrary/gridlock/groupmyths.html
2) http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/nrcgt/reports/rbdm9204/rbdm9204.pdf

Addressing a different aspect of this discussion thread: Because the OP's article mentions "tracking", this may be a good time to re-iterate some definitions:

Tracking. A rather permanent group consisting of age-peers moving together through the grade levels. Pupils are generally advanced in all subjects. Commonly receiving curriculum instruction one grade level ahead of gen-ed age-peers. For many HG+ pupils, this is not enough curriculum advancement for them to learn something new each day, remain challenged, and engaged/achieving. When kids get on the "track" they typically do not leave; Similarly, new kids may have a difficult time getting on the track, as a "track" is generally considered closed. A magnet-school-within-a-school may be a form of tracking: a student is either in it, or not.

Cluster grouping. Originally called flexible cluster grouping to distinguish it from tracking. May include pupils from different grade-levels. Pupils may be advanced in one or more subjects. Students may have single-subject acceleration (SSA) of one or more years. The ideal may be flexible cluster grouping by readiness and ability, regardless of age or grade level, therefore combining children of various ages, classrooms, and grade levels.
These links provide more information on flexible cluster grouping by readiness and ability:
http://www.casenex.com/casenet/pages/virtualLibrary/gridlock/groupmyths.html,
http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/nrcgt/reports/rbdm9204/rbdm9204.pdf
Unfortunately, the buzzword "cluster grouping" may be used (mis-used) to mean one or more gifted kids within a particular classroom, not necessarily being taught at a higher level but rather being treated as somewhat auto-didactic (often due to schools buying into the myth that because they are gifted, they will be fine on their own).

Thanks for those definitions, Indigo.

My son's former middle school is moving away from tracking to supposed in-class differentiation. This school has top math scores in our state-- but they're falling victim to the common core notion that "deep" will satisfy advanced students.

I feel really strongly-- based on my own kids' deep frustration with being unable to advanced at a reasonable pace-- that this single track is the wrong approach and puts the best math students at a disadvantage they might not be able to overcome.

Last March, the Atlantic magazine had a really good article about the problem. Some excerpts:

' “If you wait until high school to attempt to produce accelerated math learners...the latecomers will find themselves missing too much foundational thinking and will struggle, with only four short years before college, to catch up,' [according to Po-Shen Loh, the head of the US math team]. These days, it is a rare student who can move from being “good at math” in a regular public high school to finding a place in the advanced-math community."

"The cumulative effect of these actions, [not addressing advanced math needs in public school] perversely, has been to push accelerated learning outside public schools—to privatize it, focusing it even more tightly on children whose parents have the money and wherewithal to take advantage. In no subject is that clearer today than in math. "

"The ratio of rich math whizzes to poor ones is 3 to 1 in South Korea and 3.7 to 1 in Canada... In the U.S., it is 8 to 1. And while the proportion of American students scoring at advanced levels in math is rising, those gains are almost entirely limited to the children of the highly educated, and largely exclude the children of the poor. By the end of high school, the percentage of low-income advanced-math learners rounds to zero."

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/03/the-math-revolution/426855/

Whether you agree with them or not, both Diane Ravitch and Carol Burris have had long careers in education. Exactly what experience is required of a woman before she is taken seriously as an advocate versus 'two ladies "playing" with education policy,'. Is educator of the year or assistant Secretary of Education not enough?

Rather than concern myself solely with how highly credentialed these individuals are, in making the statement that "Here I see two ladies "playing" with education policy, as long as it affects someone else's kids.", I focused on the totality of the circumstances, as found on the internet:
- the apparent flip-flopping of viewpoints on educational trends/issues,
- their ability to ride the surf of any given educational trend in vogue over the years,
- willingness to experiment with its application on our children in public schools,
- market books about it,
- while their progeny were educated in PRIVATE schools, RELIGIOUS schools, and High-Performing Public schools,
- and credible research on cluster grouping appears to have been ignored:
1) http://www.casenex.com/casenet/pages/virtualLibrary/gridlock/groupmyths.html
2) http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/nrcgt/reports/rbdm9204/rbdm9204.pdf

Please don't overlook or trivialize the information in my post (with carefully researched links to sources), and attempt to side-step the discussion into a supposed gender war.

Thanks for excerpts from the article in the Atlantic, syloblrig.

As for differentiation, too often children do not receive differentiated instruction, but differentiated task demands.

Agreed. There are multiple parts to this:
1) In a one-track approach, the best math students may not gain a year's worth of knowledge in a year of school. This may help close the achievement gap or excellence gap, which benefits teachers and schools which are rated on this basis.
2) These benefits to teachers/schools for closing the gap comes at a cost to these students (the former "best math students"): They may learn to underachieve, their brains may undergo changes, they may find it difficult to take on a challenge and begin learning again.

Agreed. And while your choice of words above was poor, I agree with your sentiments about Burris and Ravitch. BenjaminL, the problem, I think, isn't that people AREN'T taking Ravitch and Burris seriously so much as that they ARE.

I've done a lot of education grant review and have attended education conferences. I've met people who, when talking about good students, really believe that "they're already proficient!" and therefore don't need anything else.

My best guess is that these individuals have a well-founded concern about poor-performing students who are at great risk of failure, and really want to help them. From their perspective, someone who's already proficient doesn't need anything extra, especially because the needs of the other students seem to be more urgent in their eyes. The good students have so much. Why give them more? They seem to see the situation as either/or: either we help the poor performing students or we take away what little they have by letting them languish in demeaning tracked classes. They really believe this. They're also not seeing that top students can fail, too. They may not fail in the same way as the poor students, but failing is still failing.

These educators strike me as defining the task as imparting knowledge X in year Y. If a student has this knowledge by December, that's great. Full stop. There's no need to provide more knowledge, because the next chunk comes in year Z and it's not Y's job to impart Z's knowledge.

(TBH, I've always wondered if there's some begrudgery going on, too.)

Either way, I fail to see why teaching more to the poor performers is incompatible with teaching more to the best students.

I have read a couple of books from Diane Ravitch, including "The Death & Life of the Great American School System - how Testing and Choice are undermining Education". My conclusion is she is losing her marbles. She is against everything and for nothing - against NCLB(even though she helped create it), against Common Core, against Charters, against Vouchers, both for and against teachers' union, and her solution to all our education problem is...wait for it...fix poverty.

This current progressive trend of seeking equity over excellence is what's really killing our education system. People are born with different aptitude and drive. Closing the achievement gap just means holding down the ceiling while (failing to) raise the floor. My favorite books on education these days are:
1) The Feel Good Curriculum - the dumbing down of America's kids in the name of self-esteem by Maureen Stout
2) Bad Students Not Bad Schools by Robert Weissberg
3) Real Education: Four simple truths for bringing America's schools back to reality by Charles Murray

With respect to the effectiveness of in-class differentiation, from my son's experience, it is ineffective the way it is usually implemented. What usually ends up happening is the teacher gives the advance kid (after the parents asked for it) some advanced math worksheets to work on in class -- alone, with little to no help or checking from the teacher. Eventually the child loses interest and stops doing it and the teacher just tells the parents well your child isn't interested what can I do.

My son also experienced the pull out group in the lower grades. It was equally ineffective. They tried to group too many kids of varying abilities in one group, and worked on stuff that primarily aimed at the lowest level kid in the group. The worksheets are mostly again enrichment (more problem solving) rather than teaching new material. Plus it was only 2x/wk for 40 minutes each time. The rest of the time they remained bored to tears.

Our district's full time self-contained gifted program only goes from 3rd-5th grade. The math was supposed to be a 3rd/4th grade combination class, the top third of the class remained bored and unchallenged, while the bottom third struggled to catch up. Most of these classes are again all about enrichment (i.e. busywork) rather than acceleration.

I have heard from parents that the full time gifted class made no difference, that when their children got to HS, they are taking the same classes and getting the same grades as those who didn't get into the gifted class. In our district by middle school the self-contained gifted class goes away and all kids are allowed to self select into advanced math and science track, though they are limited to advancing only 1 grade level ahead in math and science. My one child who didn't get into the gifted program ends up taking the same advanced classes and grades as the kids who were in the gifted program. I think what this means is the gifted class was ineffective in advancing the gifted kids. Too much enrichment aka busywork not enough acceleration.

Most schools, like our district, just put in a half-hearted gifted program so they can check off a box. The kids who are outliers in the gifted continuum will remain bored and unchallenged. They are better off letting these kids skip grades as mine ended up doing. It's hard for the kids when they skip alone. But if there is a small group of kids who skip 1 or 2 grades together, it won't be so bad. They will have a peer group to socialize with.

LoveSunnyDays, I theorize that the flip-flopping and various viewpoints on issues seems to coincide with an ability to monetize it: Profit motive?

I'm not sure what profit motive that would be. I think it is more a question of ideology. The liberal/progressive ideology of the day favors equity over excellence, and by equity of course they meant equal outcome not equal opportunities.

This is the same experience we had when DS7 was in 1st grade. He was given math packet from the math specialist and was only able to check in with her once a week at the most. He became uninterested of doing the packet after only a few weeks. I don't think in-class differentiation is effective, especially in lower grades. Kids may see this as extra work if they are also doing regular class work (as my son did in the beginning until I asked he only should do the math packet). Also even with high ability kids, without any instructions to self study is not an easy task sometimes.

Our district has the gifted program from grade 3-8. The school may have a pull-out of advanced 2nd graders this year, but not sure how that works yet. In order to keep DS7 challenged and interested in learning, we are hiring a private tutor. Expensive but this is the only way we can do right now so he doesn't think everything is so easy and he doesn't need to work hard.

If those years in the gifted programme were nourishing to the child that is a good programme irrespective of high school success. Many of us didn't get to high school intact enough to do anything. On the other hand if the child was equally unhappy in the gifted programme it truly made no difference.

In respect to the rich/poor divide the current system in NZ is making it worse because the only kids getting focused instruction are the ones who can pay for it out of school.

I agree there is the ideology aspect.

Additionally, individuals are earning a living through promoting this ideology. This includes:
- authoring books (several links provided in earlier posts upthread),
- speaker fees (for example, the link here).
- While this statement from 2013 mentions that she will donate most of her speaking fees to Network for Public Education, she co-founded this as a 510(c)(3); Donating monies here may serve as a tax shelter. NPE also seeks donations. The "What We Do" page of the NPE website indicates that the work products are Press Releases - Newsletters - Reports - and an attempt to build a Grassroots Education Network.

I agree with each item in your post. Parents who've not yet encountered this may want to prepare or brace themselves... as HG+ kiddos seem to be experiencing these negatives more frequently now that teachers and schools are rated/ranked on "closing the gap".

I agree about "differentiation". It is a buzzword. In attempting to understand what a child would experience in a gifted program, parents may wish to learn the 5Ws: Who What Where When Why and How.

I accept your critique. I considered saying "experimenting" (as their NPE newsletter uses this word to describe efforts undertaken by Gates). However "experimenting" may bring to mind legitimate research studies conducted with informed consent of participants, IRBs, etc. Therefore I described their activity as "playing" with education policy...

Agreed!

Interesting observations and insights, as usual!

It seems to me that the main problem with tracking is this:

So the problem is that it's permanent. If it wasn't, kids who underperformed/slacked off/etc and improved would be able to move up, and kids who started in it and didn't deserve it/work hard could be removed. This also creates motivation to try to improve. There's mobility. Furthermore, students could choose advanced classes in, say, math, but not in English.
However, if the classes were a year ahead, versus just being more in depth and challenging, that would cause some problems.

...I'm confused. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but that's what our HS's honors classes look like. Sure, they're not representative of the student body; sure, they're lacking for HG kids. But still -- kids can pick and choose honors classes, move in and out, etc. as long as the teachers/parents approve.

Or are they keeping a similar system and eliminating tracking for, like, elementary / MS?

Exactly! Once most people understood this, saw the permanence as a flaw, and backed the cessation of "tracking", some reformers began to use this tainted word, "tracking", to describe any type of sorting students by readiness and ability.

The word "tracking" can be used to smear various considerations for appropriate placement of a student, and makes it difficult to have meaningful discussion of cluster grouping, Single Subject Acceleration (SSA), prerequisite courses, and other means of sorting students by readiness and ability.

At one point, students needed to have done well in certain prerequisite classes in order to have the foundational knowledge and skills to take (and succeed in) Honors and AP courses. In recent years, the practice of prerequisites and GPA as qualifying criteria for eligibility to enroll in these advanced academics has changed to a practice of student self-selection for enrollment in these courses.

There was lengthy discussion of the pros and cons of this, in response to an article posted on the forum some time ago. I believe it was titled something akin to "Honors Classes for All". If I recall, the number of seats for these courses was not expanded to meet the increased demand, therefore some highly qualified students were not allowed to take these courses. Meanwhile some less qualified students were failing and/or dropping advanced courses, even with school-provided study and support groups. It seemed costly, ineffective, and inefficient. Few seemed to benefit, while many suffered setbacks. I'll try to find the discussion thread and post a link to it here. For now, I'll go with Tracking in the Era of College Prep for All, although I recalled a much longer discussion thread.

The dirty little secret about differentiation being, of course, that it is really impossible to do while actually *teaching*, ie engaging in direct instruction, such as telling kids something they dont yet know or showing them something they cant do, with the aim of having them know or be able to do it themselves. A teacher has exactly one mouth to speak with, one set of hands to show stuff with. As long as they are actually imparting instruction at one level, teaching at another level cant concurrently happen, because its physically impossible.
Unlike differentiated tasks, when students can actually each work at their level at the same time. So, that is what tends to happen. But what if you want actual *teaching* at the individual students levels?
If you look at the PISA results of a country such as Finland, widely lauded for managing to keep the achievement gap as small as possible while still getting high results, two things stand out:
One, by the time Finnish kids get to high school where course selection (vulgo: voluntary tracking) begins, fully half of them have at one time been considered special ed students, meaning their instruction was the responsibility of an extra special ed teacher, within or without the regular class room, where the regular teacher continues to teach at above average level. Not enough for gifted kids, sure, but much better than teaching to the middle or to the lowest common denominator because you need to "catch kids up" dring regular class room instruction.
And two, even within that country, with low levels of immigration and barely any child poverty, the achievement gap between the 5th and the 95th percentile students is *still * the equivalent of SEVEN academic years. Add high levels of second language learners and high levels of disadvantage, add the top and bottom 5 % into the mix and have one classroom teacher try to impart instruction at every level found in the classroom. 10? 12? 15? One after the other, within one school day, or worse, one period? Granted, the kids tested for PISA are 15, but I'm sure you would end up with at least seven levels in an elementary classroom as well. In every single subject. How many teachers do we want to put in a classroom? Talking at the same time or one after the other? And how exactly would everyone who is not currently being instructed focus on their work?

Of *course* if you have but the one teacher in the classroom as usual, every bit of time spent on a high level students will come at the expense of low level students. And there you are.

Are there any solutions?
The Montessori solution is putting three teachers in a classroom of thirty, but boiling down direct instruction to a minimum, keeping the classroom as quiet as possible and have every student work individually with the Montessori materials at their own pace in the prescribed fashion and in the prescribed sequence, often at the expense of flexibility, creativity and the stimulation that personal interaction with teachers and peers can bring.
It does work, but is not ideal for everyone.

I still think if people were honest just about how wide the spread of ability actually is even if you could factor out poverty, immigration, mainstreaming, gifted ed, all that jazz, and honest about the fact that differentiated instruction, with actual differentiation in level and content, isn't possible without grouping and temporal segregating and not affordable without clustering (after all, statistically, a gifted kid in a regular classroom would always be in a group of 0.5, similarly for kids with learning disabilities), one could take the Montessori classroom as an inspiration. There could be a home room in which you could do all the social engineering you wanted, age segregated or not, where kids would do their individual work, where projects would happen, where one could do music, drama, arts and crafts. And all academic instruction would happen in pull outs, grouped and clustered strictly for academic readiness, no ceilings, regardless of age, sex, race, SES, whatever, with constant assessment ensuring fluidity between groups (something you could put all that data collecting to a good use for).

It might reduce voluntary SES segregation and racial segregation by school. It might even reduce segregation by neighbourhood. But it's probably asking for too much honesty in the system.

Tigerle, I want a like button. Very well said.

Most contemporary curricula are written for three levels of differentiation within the classroom, designed to capture roughly +/- 1 SD. Below that, RTI tier 2 programs (typically small group pull-out) should be capturing an additional 10-15%, and tier 3 and special education the remaining 5-10% (with overlap at each of these levels of intervention). Sadly, the other end of the double-ended RTI triangle rarely exists, especially prior to high school.

The plan Tigerle describes is essentially (plus some whole grade skips) how most members of my sib group went through much of elementary and secondary school, after extensive parental advocacy, and some media attention. On a note of optimism, one of the schools continues, decades later, to allow a fair amount of cross-grading (both directions) on the grade 6-12 campus.

Tigerle, very well put. It would take a serious societal mindshift, but it is what, imo, all students deserve and what we as a country need if we really wanted everyone to achieve.

I just finished a book called "The End of Average (How We Succeed in a World that Values Sameness." It addressed many of the same issues re: learning speeds and variability within individual students we discuss here, with much the same conclusion as you drew. (It was a bit more fond of technology as the solution than I am, personally.)

Very well said, Tigerle!

I agree with much of what was already been said, but there are still issues with Seattle's gifted program. My child attends a gifted-only elementary school that contains 700+ kids, but only two African-American students. His classes are full of kids with affluent and well-educated parents. Other areas of Seattle have elementary schools with few Caucasian or Asian students and almost every kid qualifying for free and reduced price lunch. So, when people look at our program, they become angry because it siphons out the kids from general education classrooms. Gen ed families aren't happy with being left behind because many of the high achievers and affluent students with involved parents leave to join HCC.

Are the needs of the gifted children not being met?

Are you suggesting that identification is an issue? For example, does admission criteria not match the program and services offered (advanced curriculum and pacing, etc)? If ethnicity or affluence are any part of admissions criteria,this would be a legal issue, therefore I presume these are not criteria. Would you prefer an "equity"-based admissions system with selection criteria based on racial and SES quotas, set to match the general population at large? Would this tend to serve the needs of the enrolled children as well as the present system?

Would these children qualify for the gifted program? If so, what are the specific reasons why they are not in it?

Making other people happy would not tend to be the stated mission of a gifted program. It's mission would more likely be to provide the education which best meets the needs, readiness, and ability of the students who have enrolled.

"Left behind" in a program which offers a better academic fit???

If these parents believe that their children would become higher achievers by being 2nd chair to the current high achievers (if they had not left for the gifted program), they may wish to read research which indicates these kids may excel only when the already-high-achievers have moved on, providing these kids opportunity to compete to be 1st chair.

If these parents are concerned that affluent parents have left, possibly they could instead breathe a sigh of relief that their child no longer has to hear about the wealthier kids' vacations, extravagant birthday parties, etc.

If these parents are concerned that "involved" parents have left, possibly they can step up to become more involved.

It takes many families generations of sacrifice to become financially stable and upwardly mobile. Looking around at what others have achieved, not to be positive and learn from them as role models and emulate them, but to complain and be negative may not serve the children well.

As the Olympics are currently underway in Rio de Janeiro, I can't help but make the comparison between the talent development of "gifted" kids and "elite" athletes.

I don't get how "siphoning off" the percentage of the student population that scores in both the 98th percentile on the cogat and the 95th percentile in achievement can in any noticeable way affect the rest of the student population, or how distributing them across the district could in any way make a noticeable difference in classroom diversity.

I disagree with this simply because it is not the job of the gifted kids to create balance in a classroom environment, any more than it would be an obligation on the part of a special needs child to provide the same.

These are kids that deserve an appropriate education, and the augmentation that they would provide other children should not be a factor in whether or not they receive it.

That's basically asking children to subsidize their own intelligence to benefit everyone else, regardless of whether or not it actually benefits the student.

No one is stopping those gen ed families from trying to get their kids into the same HCP. It's an equal opportunity program. The social engineers just want equal outcome, which isn't possible as long as we all still have different parents.

Agreed. Until recently, even distribution of students in public school classrooms was said to be fair to the public school teachers who were rated/evaluated in part on a comparison with other teachers, of overall classroom achievement test scores.

Therefore to be "fair to teachers", if 20 students were to be distributed among 4 teachers, one might anticipate the pupils to be distributed this way (by inbound ranking of the pupils' achievement test scores):
Teacher W is assigned pupils 1 & 20, 5 & 16, 9
Teacher X is assigned pupils 2 & 19, 6 & 15, 10
Teacher Y is assigned pupils 3 & 18, 7 & 14, 11
Teacher Z is assigned pupils 4 & 17, 8 & 13, 12
working through the highest and lowest student rankings toward the middle.

More recently, public school teachers are not only rated/ranked/evaluated on overall classroom scores, but by scores by demographic... specifically by closing the achievement gap and/or excellence gap. This entails stagnating the top students so that the lower students are making comparatively greater gains.

I find this practice to be unconscionable. Again, I'll contrast the current "equal outcomes" educational goals of American public schools with the acknowledgement of exceptional athletic talent... and the need to nurture it... which we see at the Olympics.

And an additional twist is teacher evaluations that are based on student growth percentiles, which encourage teachers to minimize both high achievers--who have no headroom in the assessments left for growth, and low achievers--who often struggle to make gains, and focus instead on marginally low achievers, who have the most potential for ordinal advancement.

Well said Tigerle and Indigo. I've always said if I had a choice, I would rather have a kid who is gifted in athletics but with average intelligence than the other way around, my life would be soooo much easier then! I think this societal preference for brawn over brain comes from the top down, starting with our elite colleges that give athletes a 5 to 1 preference over a regular high IQ admit.

I would agree that, assuming the population is not 99.9(or more) white, it would seem likely that some gifted children of color are being missed in the selection process or that parents for some reason are choosing not to send them there. I'd be looking at what could be done re: those factors before I shut down a program that was otherwise successful. If teacher recommendations are part of the criteria, for example, then racial bias might be at play in who the teachers think is likely to be gifted.

Another school district ended "gifted and talented" program

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-bcps-gifted-20160810-story.html

Depressing. I think the end result here is more and more parents of gifted children will opt out and homeschool, especially at the K-8 level. Homeschoolers have so many more tools at their disposal now with the advent of the internet. We homeschooled for a couple of years and I could not believe the number of families in our area who homeschool, in a district that constantly touts its "award winning" schools. Many are children of highly educated professionals in the STEM field. Public schools will increasingly become the domain of the average and below average.

I agree. People who know there are vast differences in how individual children learn and what can happen when learning is then matched to those specific children, who have the means (and family setup) to homeschool are doing so. I see that building into a group of highly capable children, later adults, who have every advantage vs. those who got the vanilla version of education.

It's not good from a societal standpoint, imo.

We still have the gifted program in our school district. I heard good things about it but not sure if it is even accelerated enough for my DYS7. Since the gifted program won't start until 3rd grade and I have not been able to successfully advocating for subject acceleration with the district (in-class differentiation did not work for 1st grade), we are hiring a tutor and going to weekend gifted programs at NU CTD. We cannot afford homeschool so this is our current solution. We are fortunate that we are able to do these extra things but think about the families who cannot afford to pay for outside help

Homeschooling is not a status symbol of wealth. Some people make huge sacrifices to homeschool, in some cases this may include schooling during evening hours and on weekends, cooperatively "babysitting" other families' children, etc.

Meanwhile these people continue to fund the "vanilla version of education" which is provided free, from kindergarten through high school graduation (12th grade), through public schools in the USA.

Families with children attending private, independent, or parochial schools also continue to pay for public schools.

If you mean that allowing people to leave public schools in order to homeschool is not good for society, I strongly disagree. Keeping homeschooling as a legal option in the USA is key. Homeschooling demonstrates that children can learn well and be successful, often without having their lessons orchestrated by a highly credentialed professional. Homeschooling often raises the bar, as do private, independent, and parochial schools. If government had the monopoly on education, by eliminating other alternatives to public schools, this would considerably restrict freedom, strike at the the role of the family as the key building block of society, challenge the authority of parents, and restrain intellectual curiosity (by making "plain vanilla" the only educational option).

Many without financial wealth may still possess an indomitable spirit. There is always the public library, free local in-person events and workshops, and many free or reasonably priced online options which can be cobbled together for great educational experiences.

This somewhat old data from the NHES:1999 indicates that the average household income of homeschooling families at that time was not substantially different from that of nonhomeschooling families. The main differences appeared to be in single-income/two-parent households (for obvious reasons), higher parental educational attainment, higher number of children in the home, and ethnicity (more white), although the trends for ethnicity (in comparison to previous work) appeared to be shifting to reflect the general population more.

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/homeschool/chara.asp

One might speculate, though income per se does not appear to be that different, that the average homeschooling family might feel fewer effects from income insecurity, as there is still a backup plan of sending the schooling parent (who may be better educated than the average person, possibly with more marketable skills) to work, if need be.

Elsewhere on this forum, we have previously discussed free or extremely low-cost options for homeschooling (strictly from a curricular or educational experience perspective, leaving aside the important issue of impact on parental employment or earning potential).

I completely agree with this sentiment which is why I find removing tracking from public education so offensive and absurdly unfair.

It is precisely those of lower income/resources who will bear the brunt of this. While over time high intelligence may tend to be more often found in the children of upper middle class parents the minority of high IQ children whose parents lack the means, e.g. the children of first generation immigrants, will suffer the most from this policy for obvious reasons.

These are the very children that education should be targeting as education and hard work combined can help lift a family out of poverty and dependence on welfare programs. Assuming that the children are highly educable, of course.

I think that this policy is based on the unsound belief that all children are equally educable. So, the reasoning goes, to track means that the gifted children (who, the myth insists are only so because of parental income) are getting resources from the district that should be shared more equally. So the gifted kids are in truth getting nothing that NT kids could use.

The people implementing these policies are apparently ignorant, blind or both to the fact that the <98% percentile kids (allowing a bit less due to margin of error) will not thrive in a class aimed at >=98th percentile kids. Either that or they are very aware and seek to prevent lower income families' children from competing with their own in the future.

It just makes me sad but also not a little grateful that I have been lucky enough to (so far) provide my daughter growth opportunities outside of school.

That is what we do, but:

1/ I speak the language of my country fluently.
2/ I am well educated.
3/ I work hours that allow me to access the programmes which are all in the 3.30 to 5.30 Mon to Fri timeslot.
4/ I have 2 children 2 years apart.

If I was an immigrant,worked longer hours or erratic hours, was poorly educated myself or had more children it would be very difficult. If you are on the poverty line even getting to stuff is hard and even $2 per child adds up. And there are children whose parents are too wrapped up in tbeir own problems to care. We cannot and should not aim for equal outcomes but we should strive for equal access. If all children must go to school then all children should get to learn at school.

I believe my points must not have come across clearly. Or perhaps my data sample is skewed. In our area, there is a mix, but it tends to be a lot of families with gifted and or asynchronous kids.

First, I in no way am against homeschooling. We have considered it multiple times. (Funding a high performing district, sending our kids to a parochial school instead.) What I was trying to convey is a sense that it is becoming what a growing number of parents feel they must do to give their children an education at each child's speed.

Eventually, those children will be the adults with a better foundation for managing life in times of high-speed change (along with some of those who have been at private schools). Meanwhile, pretending to differentiate (difficult if not impossible in most systems as aeh described) instead of clustering, tracking or whatever term one uses to put together those at the same level doesn't deliver a fitting education for those in the public school.

We are well aware here of common negative effects of bad educational fit. I'm saying that those who will experience it as these programs disappear won't be those whose parents who can manage homeschooling or private school. Thus, a worsening situation for the children who deserve education at their levels and for society...

There's a consulting group, the DMC, that is infiltrating hundreds of school districts across the US offering expensive consulting services. It's all about academic return on investment, which is defined as how many students pass the state tests. Gifted students are already proficient so according to them, it's a waste of money to spend money on special programming. Here's what one of the leaders of this group says about g/t programs.

"Budget debates sometimes include the all-too-common refrain, “Mr. Smith strongly supports this program, so we can’t get rid of it” or “The teachers really like this program.” These considerations are not irrelevant to decision-making — especially since teachers might like certain programs because
they feel they help students. But, relying solely on such arguments does not serve students or the budget well.
Anecdotal evidence can be far off the mark, as it often confuses correlation and causation. Some programs, like Gifted and Talented, seem very successful because so many students in these
programs have high grades and test scores and matriculate to college at high rates. But many gifted students are likely to succeed regardless of such programs. The key is to figure out which programs contribute to student success; instinct
is usually not enough. In a world of tight resources, persistent achievement gaps, and rising expectations, a rigorous
system of academic return on investment (A-ROI) is a powerful lever to make the wisest use of limited funds."


https://secure.ccsd.net/internal/cm...mnt-council-calculating-academic-roi.pdf

Its all in the definition of "succeed , isn't it? If you measure against a arbitrary Definition of grade level proficiency, oh well, they all succeed, gt program or not.
Which is where we come back to the need fir actually teaching higher lwvel content.

You are right. If the system results in anyone who can get out getting out then those who can't will suffer. That does not mean you should leave your child to suffer it is just a fact of life.

Yep, they are already "successful" so no need to spend any money on them. I guess our kids are warm bodies in the classroom collecting tax revenue. We define success as learning and working to one's potential, they define it as passing the test. Our district admin actually referred to the students as "products".

This newly released research may be of some help to parents in attempting to change policy and practice to serve the needs of advanced learners: How can so many students be invisible?