Gifted Bulletin Board

Welcome to the Gifted Issues Discussion Forum.

We invite you to share your experiences and to post information about advocacy, research and other gifted education issues on this free public discussion forum.
CLICK HERE to Log In. Click here for the Board Rules.

Links


Learn about Davidson Academy Online - for profoundly gifted students living anywhere in the U.S. & Canada.

The Davidson Institute is a national nonprofit dedicated to supporting profoundly gifted students through the following programs:

  • Fellows Scholarship
  • Young Scholars
  • Davidson Academy
  • THINK Summer Institute

  • Subscribe to the Davidson Institute's eNews-Update Newsletter >

    Free Gifted Resources & Guides >

    Who's Online Now
    0 members (), 167 guests, and 10 robots.
    Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
    Newest Members
    parentologyco, Smartlady60, petercgeelan, eterpstra, Valib90
    11,410 Registered Users
    March
    S M T W T F S
    1 2
    3 4 5 6 7 8 9
    10 11 12 13 14 15 16
    17 18 19 20 21 22 23
    24 25 26 27 28 29 30
    31
    Previous Thread
    Next Thread
    Print Thread
    Page 1 of 3 1 2 3
    Joined: Apr 2013
    Posts: 5,244
    Likes: 1
    I
    indigo Offline OP
    Member
    OP Offline
    Member
    I
    Joined: Apr 2013
    Posts: 5,244
    Likes: 1
    Released August 16, 2016 by Johns Hopkins School of Education, Institute for Education Policy:
    "How can so many students be invisible? Large numbers of American Students Perform Above Grade Level."
    1) Link
    2) 16-page PDF

    This bit of research is a must-read for all parents and teachers having experience with one or more students who are performing at least one year above grade level.

    Originally Posted by Final Thoughts
    Currently, the evidence suggests that between 15% and 45% of students enter the late elementary classroom each fall already performing at least one year ahead of expectations
    ...
    Knowing this, one day we will likely look back and wonder why we kept using age based grade levels to organize K-12 education for so long.
    In beginning to acknowledge the 15-45% of students who are performing one or more grade levels ahead, possibly the 10% reported as 4 years ahead in Reading and the 2% reported as 4 years ahead in Mathematics may also have their academic/intellectual needs recognized and met.

    Originally Posted by Implication 1
    This begs the question of just what these students are learning from grade-level content in classes organized by age. The U.S. likely wastes tens of billions of dollars each year in efforts to teach students content they already know.
    Hopefully this may begin to open doors to widely accepting a policy and practice of aggregating children using flexible cluster grouping by readiness and ability in each subject area, without regard to chronological age so that each child is presented with appropriate curriculum and pacing in their zone of proximal development.

    This would better emulate the larger world beyond the school environment as workplaces, hobby clubs, sports teams, etc include a mix of ages.

    Joined: Mar 2013
    Posts: 1,453
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Mar 2013
    Posts: 1,453
    Thanks for posting this.


    Become what you are
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 647
    K
    Kai Offline
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    K
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 647
    They seem to be confusing (at least when talking about the MAP) average performance for a particular grade level with mastery of grade level content and skills.

    Joined: Apr 2013
    Posts: 5,244
    Likes: 1
    I
    indigo Offline OP
    Member
    OP Offline
    Member
    I
    Joined: Apr 2013
    Posts: 5,244
    Likes: 1
    Originally Posted by Kai
    They seem to be confusing (at least when talking about the MAP) average performance for a particular grade level with mastery of grade level content and skills.
    Would you quote the part which gave you that impression? I'm not disagreeing, but if that's there I missed it (possibly skimmed too fast) and don't find it when I go back to specifically read the section about MAP.

    I quickly noticed that the report is consistently speaking in terms of "proficiency"... which means average or meets grade level expectations; it does not mean advanced. However they compared standardized test results (MAP and others) of various grade levels.

    Joined: Apr 2016
    Posts: 70
    M
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    M
    Joined: Apr 2016
    Posts: 70
    JMO, but I think the US education is behind many other developed countries. The curriculum especially at the elementary to middle school levels, are too shallow and too slow for many kids. The reason why there are a lot of kids performing above grade level is because the material is too easy. Kids that are struggling to keep up should be placed in a different track or slower paced education. The rest of the kids should not have to suffer through tedious repetitions or explaining their work when they already clearly know the answers.

    Joined: Jul 2016
    Posts: 18
    L
    Junior Member
    Offline
    Junior Member
    L
    Joined: Jul 2016
    Posts: 18
    Thanks for sharing the link. Good report.

    This report confirms that many kids would benefit from grade skips. Most of the kids who are in the 98th/99th percentile in their grade level would benefit from a 1 to 2 year (or more) grade skip. Many who oppose grade skipping are concerned about social adjustment, but if you grade skip an entire cohort of kids together(or even just two kids together), that problem goes away as these kids now also get a cohort of age peers in addition to getting the proper level of education. Think of what this would mean too for the schools, how much money we could save by moving these kids through K-12 quicker, 11 years of education vs. 13. Many kids can enter college by 16. It's a win-win-win for all.

    Joined: Apr 2014
    Posts: 52
    HID Offline
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Apr 2014
    Posts: 52
    Originally Posted by LoveSunnyDays
    Think of what this would mean too for the schools, how much money we could save by moving these kids through K-12 quicker, 11 years of education vs. 13. Many kids can enter college by 16. It's a win-win-win for all.

    I wonder if this is actually true. The schools will be left with a higher percentage of students who cost more to educate (ie special ed, ELL, etc.) With less students the schools will get less money through ADA but have more expensive students.

    Joined: Dec 2012
    Posts: 2,035
    P
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    P
    Joined: Dec 2012
    Posts: 2,035
    Originally Posted by LoveSunnyDays
    Thanks for sharing the link. Good report.

    This report confirms that many kids would benefit from grade skips. Most of the kids who are in the 98th/99th percentile in their grade level would benefit from a 1 to 2 year (or more) grade skip. Many who oppose grade skipping are concerned about social adjustment, but if you grade skip an entire cohort of kids together(or even just two kids together), that problem goes away as these kids now also get a cohort of age peers in addition to getting the proper level of education. Think of what this would mean too for the schools, how much money we could save by moving these kids through K-12 quicker, 11 years of education vs. 13. Many kids can enter college by 16. It's a win-win-win for all.

    I have been looking at testing etc in NZ this week. As far as I can tell he is testing at about the 94th percentile in maths which seems low for a PG kid. But it is between 3 and 4 years ahead of standard. I haven't worked out whether they used the adaptive version of the test yet so it may just be he did year 5 maths as well as a year 8 or it may be he got the hardest question right etc but it does show that the number who would benefit from at least SSA.

    Joined: Apr 2013
    Posts: 5,244
    Likes: 1
    I
    indigo Offline OP
    Member
    OP Offline
    Member
    I
    Joined: Apr 2013
    Posts: 5,244
    Likes: 1
    Originally Posted by HID
    Originally Posted by LoveSunnyDays
    Think of what this would mean too for the schools, how much money we could save by moving these kids through K-12 quicker, 11 years of education vs. 13. Many kids can enter college by 16. It's a win-win-win for all.

    I wonder if this is actually true.
    I'd say its true, from this perspective:

    - "How much money we could save", where "we" is the American Taxpayer.

    - "It's a win-win-win for all", where:
    --- one win is for the kids who do not need to be bored in school by repeating curriculum which they've demonstrated prior knowledge of, on standardized tests, but rather can move on to a challenge worthy of their potential and learn something new.
    --- A second win is for the American Taxpayer; This NPR webpage from 2012 shows an "average" of $10,615 per public school pupil per school year.
    --- A third win may be for the teachers who do not need to teach to as broad a span of readiness and ability in each classroom.
    --- A fourth win may be for the students studying at grade level, as research indicates these children may stretch more and perform at their best when taught among academic peers:
    1) http://www.casenex.com/casenet/pages/virtualLibrary/gridlock/groupmyths.html
    2) http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/nrcgt/reports/rbdm9204/rbdm9204.pdf

    Originally Posted by HID
    The schools will be left with a higher percentage of students who cost more to educate (ie special ed, ELL, etc.) With less students the schools will get less money through ADA but have more expensive students.
    I see this as an admission or belief that public schools are spending less than a fair share to educate gifted students or those who've demonstrated prior knowledge of the upcoming year's curriculum; This would tend to make teaching the Common Core Standards a ceiling, not a floor.

    I also see this as a belief that the role of gifted students or those who've demonstrated prior knowledge of the upcoming year's curriculum is to function as cash cows being milked for their government funding allocation so that these funds may be spent on others while ignoring their own educational needs. I find this demeaning and dehumanizing to the gifted population and those who've demonstrated prior knowledge of the upcoming year's curriculum.

    I also wonder whether part of the quoted statement's premise is true: that ELL students would not be among the 15-45% performing above grade level? The research study does not provide results by demographic... possibly further research could look into that. Some special ed students are also functioning above grade level, especially 2e kids... as mentioned by parents on this forum.

    Joined: Apr 2014
    Posts: 52
    HID Offline
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Apr 2014
    Posts: 52
    I don't know if what I suggested is true, but if I'm going to advocate to my district that they should accelerate students because it will save money then I'd better have the numbers to back it up.

    Joined: Apr 2016
    Posts: 57
    A
    AAC Offline
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    A
    Joined: Apr 2016
    Posts: 57
    "I also see this as a belief that the role of gifted students or those who've demonstrated prior knowledge of the upcoming year's curriculum is to function as cash cows being milked for their government funding allocation so that these funds may be spent on others while ignoring their own educational needs. I find this demeaning and dehumanizing to the gifted population and those who've demonstrated prior knowledge of the upcoming year's curriculum."

    ^this.

    A gifted student that NEEDS no instruction on a subject, is one that shouldn't be "paying" to occupy a seat. If the funds are reduced to special needs kids, because the amount of kids the were there, are no longer... it means that a group was disproportionately using funds, and a population that SHOULD also have resources at it's disposal is not receiving them.

    I do not believe any kid should not get what they need. But I think it's disingenuous to argue for gifted kids' butts in seats (asking them to pay double, sometimes triple+) simply to get the money.

    Joined: Dec 2012
    Posts: 2,035
    P
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    P
    Joined: Dec 2012
    Posts: 2,035
    I think she was saying what would be said not necessarily what she believed.

    I have had it claimed that gifted children should be 'shared' among the teachers as tbey make it easier for the teacher by providing someone for the teacher to 'spark' off so I find it easy to imagine an objection for them spending fewer years at school.

    The used bright not gifted - after all there is no such thing as gifted.

    Joined: Apr 2013
    Posts: 5,244
    Likes: 1
    I
    indigo Offline OP
    Member
    OP Offline
    Member
    I
    Joined: Apr 2013
    Posts: 5,244
    Likes: 1
    Originally Posted by HID
    I don't know if what I suggested is true, but if I'm going to advocate to my district that they should accelerate students because it will save money then I'd better have the numbers to back it up.
    Parents are advised to always advocate based on student need.
    - Advocacy roundup here.
    - Roundup of acceleration-specific threads here.

    The policy think-tanks are the ones who can wrangle about issues such as costs.

    That being said, this article mentions that acceleration may save costs. IMO, not a point for advocacy, but interesting nonetheless. I suppose one could track down the individual quoted and inquire of the source of the cost information.
    Originally Posted by post linking to article
    Acceleration is common in SMPY's elite 1-in-10,000 cohort, whose intellectual diversity and rapid pace of learning make them among the most challenging to educate. Advancing these students costs little or nothing, and in some cases may save schools money, says Lubinski. “These kids often don't need anything innovative or novel,” he says, “they just need earlier access to what's already available to older kids.”

    Joined: Apr 2014
    Posts: 52
    HID Offline
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Apr 2014
    Posts: 52
    Originally Posted by puffin
    I think she was saying what would be said not necessarily what she believed.

    Yes.

    I whole heartedly believe that school districts should do what's best for the kids regardless of cost, unfortunately they only have so much money to work with. I would never want to put saving money at the top of my list of why advanced learners should be accelerated, but if I were to use that as one of many reasons, I would have to know that it is true. I don't know the answer, but one thing I've learned working with school districts is that there is a lot I don't know.

    I genuinely want to know the answer.

    Joined: Apr 2013
    Posts: 5,244
    Likes: 1
    I
    indigo Offline OP
    Member
    OP Offline
    Member
    I
    Joined: Apr 2013
    Posts: 5,244
    Likes: 1
    Originally Posted by HID
    I whole heartedly believe that school districts should do what's best for the kids regardless of cost, unfortunately they only have so much money to work with. I would never want to put saving money at the top of my list of why advanced learners should be accelerated, but if I were to use that as one of many reasons, I would have to know that it is true. I don't know the answer, but one thing I've learned working with school districts is that there is a lot I don't know.
    Parents are advised to always advocate based on student need.

    Additionally, you may be confused about "who" would be saving money; It may not be the public school district (as your posts seem to be concerned with)... It may be the American Taxpayer who is saving money by not footing the average bill of $10K+ per pupil per school year.

    Quote
    I genuinely want to know the answer.
    Your State Department of Education would have information available (often found online) regarding cost-per-pupil expenditures per public school district. Your local public school district budget would also have this information available.

    Joined: Jul 2016
    Posts: 18
    L
    Junior Member
    Offline
    Junior Member
    L
    Joined: Jul 2016
    Posts: 18
    Just think of it from an aggregate standpoint. If it costs the state an average of $10,000 to educate a child per year, it would cost the state a total of $130,000 per child for his entire K-12 education. If a child graduates in 11 years, that same child would only cost the taxpayers $110,000. That's a $20,000 saving for the state per child.

    And actually what you pointed out may be one incentive why schools want to hold back these kids, because they get to keep the extra $10,000 per year by keeping them in the system for all 13 years, which to me is just unconscionable.

    Last edited by LoveSunnyDays; 08/17/16 05:04 PM.
    Joined: Sep 2013
    Posts: 848
    C
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    C
    Joined: Sep 2013
    Posts: 848
    Originally Posted by HID
    Originally Posted by LoveSunnyDays
    Think of what this would mean too for the schools, how much money we could save by moving these kids through K-12 quicker, 11 years of education vs. 13. Many kids can enter college by 16. It's a win-win-win for all.

    I wonder if this is actually true. The schools will be left with a higher percentage of students who cost more to educate (ie special ed, ELL, etc.) With less students the schools will get less money through ADA but have more expensive students.

    I'm thinking about this... wouldn't the "more expensive to educate" students be there either way and wouldn't there perhaps be the same total number any given year, just at different age distributions? (Maybe even more, if fewer parents felt they had to go to private schools or homeschool for the right educational pace.) I may be missing something as it is late. wink

    I don't know that the solutions all involve oodles of kids graduating early. I suspect that there may be many who could easily be ahead in some subjects but not others. There has to be a model that work around all of this, though, if as a system, education let go of this fixation on age-based averages.

    Joined: Apr 2013
    Posts: 5,244
    Likes: 1
    I
    indigo Offline OP
    Member
    OP Offline
    Member
    I
    Joined: Apr 2013
    Posts: 5,244
    Likes: 1
    Originally Posted by ConnectingDots
    I don't know that the solutions all involve oodles of kids graduating early. I suspect that there may be many who could easily be ahead in some subjects but not others. There has to be a model that work around all of this, though, if as a system, education let go of this fixation on age-based averages.
    Exactly. Ideas on this discussion thread have included:
    - single subject acceleration (SSA),
    - cluster grouping by readiness and ability without regard to chronological age,
    - one or more grade skips.
    Any of these may be facilitated by research showing 15-45% of students may be performing at least one grade level above.

    In any of these occurrences, the money may be considered to be more efficiently used than it is today: This may include spending the money on curriculum and pacing appropriate to the child... or not allocating/spending the tax dollars if a child has moved through the system more quickly.

    There are a number of kids who already graduate early... some through alternative schools... some after much advocacy. Wouldn't it be lovely if their paths to high school graduation were treated as "normal", mainstream, accepted... and were not so fraught with being marked as an outlier or outsider? With test results showing 15-45% of kids performing one or more grade levels ahead, this type of flexibility and affirmation seems within reach. smile

    Originally Posted by LoveSunnyDays
    And actually what you pointed out may be one incentive why schools want to hold back these kids, because they get to keep the extra $10,000 per year by keeping them in the system for all 13 years, which to me is just unconscionable.
    Yes, unfortunately there may be several reasons (including financial) why teachers/schools/districts may not want to accelerate a child... as discussed in this old post.

    Joined: Mar 2014
    Posts: 146
    _
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    _
    Joined: Mar 2014
    Posts: 146
    In our school they told us the teachers are not allowed to teach above grade level. So even if they can cluster group the kids they can only do extensions on the current material.

    Someone actually codified that rule into the district's rules. Why?

    It seems even where things would be fairly cheap (give kids that are ready some advanced worksheets on the side, etc) there are rules to prevent it. Very frustrating.

    Joined: Feb 2014
    Posts: 52
    E
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    E
    Joined: Feb 2014
    Posts: 52
    Kids are far smarter than we give them credit for. Even those considered average. Thats all I have to say.

    Joined: Apr 2013
    Posts: 5,244
    Likes: 1
    I
    indigo Offline OP
    Member
    OP Offline
    Member
    I
    Joined: Apr 2013
    Posts: 5,244
    Likes: 1
    Originally Posted by spaghetti
    I don't know how to remedy the situation.
    Some do.
    That is to say, Total School Cluster Grouping has been found to be effective:
    Originally Posted by NRC G/T Spring 1996 Newsletter
    During the 3 years that students were involved in the cluster grouping program, their achievement increased significantly when compared to similar students from a school that did not use cluster grouping. Additionally, during each of the 3 years of the program, more students were identified by teachers as high achieving, indicating that not only were achievement scores increasing, but that teachers were identifying students who were not initially recognized as high achieving. This may be due to the fact that high achieving students were clustered in one classroom, thereby allowing students in other classrooms to be recognized as high achieving. It is encouraging that not only did the identification categories of many students increase during the 3 program years, but that this was followed by an overall increase in achievement as measured by the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills.

    The implications are that when a cluster grouping model is implemented, there may be a positive effect on the achievement and identification of all students, not just those identified and placed in the cluster for high ability students.
    These are not new ideas... this was published in 1996, twenty years ago.

    Originally Posted by spaghetti
    But so far, nobody has found a way to set appropriate expectations that don't have associated bias.
    1- In the context of this discussion thread, the expectation that 15%-45% of students need or would benefit from advanced curriculum is based upon test results.
    2- What source(s) inform your belief that "nobody has found a way to set appropriate expectations that don't have associated bias"?

    Originally Posted by _Angie_
    In our school they told us the teachers are not allowed to teach above grade level. So even if they can cluster group the kids they can only do extensions on the current material.

    Someone actually codified that rule into the district's rules. Why?
    To close the achievement gap, and give the appearance of equal outcomes for all students, regardless of readiness or ability.

    Page 1 of 3 1 2 3

    Moderated by  M-Moderator 

    Link Copied to Clipboard
    Recent Posts
    Testing with accommodations
    by aeh - 03/27/24 01:58 PM
    Quotations that resonate with gifted people
    by indigo - 03/27/24 12:38 PM
    For those interested in astronomy, eclipses...
    by indigo - 03/23/24 06:11 PM
    California Tries to Close the Gap in Math
    by thx1138 - 03/22/24 03:43 AM
    Gifted kids in Illinois. Recommendations?
    by indigo - 03/20/24 05:41 AM
    Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5