Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Parenting and Advocacy Questions for the Obama administration

I guess this qualifies as advocacy...

This came across one of my lists, so I thought I would pass it on. Apparently the Obama administration is asking for input through questions and votes/comments on the questions of others. I have no idea how they will use this material--if at all!--but it is another way to put the needs of the GT in the public eye, at least. No loss but a few minutes of my time, I figure. And maybe it will do some good. (She said optimistically...)

http://change.gov/page/content/openforquestions20081229/

K-

I'm waiting to see Obama's direction for education. He was chairman of the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 95-99. A lot of money was used in the Annenberg Challenge , and unfortunately the outcome showed it made no statistical difference. There is always something of value to be learned from a project like that, even if it's just to learn what doesn't work.

I don't know anything about this. Thanks for the link. I'm looking at the reports...

I do wish more people took the time to analyze the dismal flops in life and learn from them. I always tell DS7 and DS4 that you learn nothing by getting things right; it's only from mistakes that you learn.

I think that NCLB taught us that sometimes doing something is worse than doing nothing...IMHO.

It looks to me from reading the reports as if it's more complicated than a simple "didn't have an effect." Some of the supports that were assumed at the start of the program were removed by reforms in the middle of the trial. That's bound to screw things up a bit. It also sounds like the goals they set were acknowledged from the start to be pie-in-the-sky impossible. (Of course, I would argue that those are then NOT in fact goals! Goals should be achievable, measurable and desirable. So that's just kind of dumb, I'd say.)

Still, clearly not a raging success!

I do appreciate the fact that they are really analyzing what worked and what didn't. They did not brush this under the rug. The reports are there to be read by anyone, so that's good. The question now is what will we learn from this, from NCLB, from other failed educational reforms. And what will we do with that understanding?

I'd like to see someone clearly define how NCLB has failed.

Well, I guess that's a good question. I'm working from personal knowledge and experience, not from scores or data. (I realize that's flawed, but that's what I'm doing anyway. )

I guess I'd argue that the focus of NCLB on raising the scores at the bottom of the class is not good for kids near the top--not even just GT kids, but anyone achieving above 50%.

I think it encourages mediocrity to base monetary rewards for teachers on scores in the bottom half of the class, especially when raising scores in that half is not always possible or teacher-dependent. You reward people for what they can control. Assuming that teachers have complete control over their students' test scores is patently ridiculous.

I think it's also pretty clear that basing so much on one test places too much emphasis on one day's (or one week's) performance. We know from IQ testing how dangerous that can be. Not to mention how much it leads to teaching to the test and effectively rewarding teachers for taking creativity and problem solving out of the classroom in favor of the "fill them with knowledge" model that just isn't what real learning--real thinking!--is.

I'd prefer that we use a system that rewards teachers for advancing students--all students, those at the top as well as those at the bottom!--for at least a year's worth of progress for every year's worth of school. And I'd like to see other methods for evaluating that progress beyond standardized testing, which is far too simplistic and superficial.

FWIW...

Oh, I so agree, Dottie! That's why I like the "at least one year for one year" model. At the minimum, it begins with the assumption that not all kids are at the same place--nor that they need to be!

Yeah, but see, that's the point--that's NOT supposed to happen in this model. It requires above-level testing (or whatever else) to find where a child is starting the year. They must go up *from there*! Not from grade level, but from where they started the year!

I realize it's kind of pie-in-the sky. But I have heard through the GT grapevine that this system is being experimented with as a corrective to NCLB. I think it shows lots of promise.

I suspect the biggest problem would be what to do with a kid in elementary school who is already at the 12th grade level. Do you require college level work? And once they get past that, do you give them graduate level work? I'd say yes--either that or go broader and introduce new subjects that are off the beaten path to the kids who are so advanced. It might get kind of challenging to provide the challenge; still, it's a problem I'd LOVE to have in our schools!

Encouraging asking questions seems to be a good start.

As far as NCLB, my anecdotal evidence is similar to Kriston and Dottie's. I take comfort in the words of Martin Smith:



Hopefully the misdirected action of NCLB can be converted to good.

I've never actually seen clearly stated goals of NCLB, at least not in recent memory. But with the name of No Child Left Behind, I'm thinking the goal was probably focused on the low achievers. If it has actually helped those children, then NCLB has not failed. But if it has not helped gifted children get even farther ahead, I'm not sure we can say it failed to meet it's goal. We can say the goals failed to address our children's needs, and ask for change. I think I'm a real stickler for defining the goal, seeing if it's met, and verifying the goal is a good one.

I am, too.

The way I remember NCLB being billed back in the early days was with the goal of improving the education system overall and increasing teacher and school accountability. If my memory is correct, then I think it has failed miserably.

Honestly, I'm not convinced it has even helped the kids at the back of the pack. For that, I would need to see some hard evidence. I don't see the anecdotal evidence in our system.

BTW, I also distinctly remember disliking the goals of NCLB from the start. That hasn't changed for me. As you say, the goal should be a good one if you're going to try to achieve it...

You can search for "gifted" under the education tab and vote for the gifted ones, if interested ... or NCLB. I submitted mine!

I do not see how a handful of people in a Washington building are smarter than tens of thousands of educators who work with the kids every day.

Well, I agree to a point. But I have problems with that notion, too, since we all know that teachers and principals are not perfect!

I do think there should be some attempt to get basic minimum standards in place on some sort of larger scale. (Though I'm absolutely open to discussion about what "larger scale" constitutes.) The problems as I see with making this work (off the top of my head) are:

1) What standards?
2) Who should meet the standards?
3) How do we determine if the standards are being met?
4) What happens if the standards are not met?
5) Who oversees the process and has authority?

These are just the start, but they're the heart of the matter.

So I guess I'm not clear: are you arguing against all national/state standards, Austin? Should every school be answerable only to itself? Or are you suggesting there is some other body besides elected officials to whom schools should be answerable?

Its better to fail small than fail big.


We already have accreditation bodies for different levels of schooling. These are overseen by experts, as determined by their peers, in education, just like any other field.

Teachers' colleges, schools, and curriculum are all vetted at some level and were vetted long before we had national involvement.

We have SAT, AP, ACT, and IB all without some Federal statute.

As for accountability, the local school boards are accountable to the local voters and levy and spend tax money accordingly. This makes them flexible and responsive and the politics stays out of most decision making.

Between the accreditors, test standing, and voters - that is how we know if the school is doing their job.

Where can the Feds help?

By requiring important information to be transparent across all schools - testing done at the same time in the same way with the results and supporting demographic data archived publicly - that way schools can be measured. I am not saying its perfect, but until you can measure, you won't know anything.

Here's some evidence: http://www.educationsector.org/research/research_show.htm?doc_id=373044

And some more evidence, at least for the children of parents on this board...
http://www.edexcellence.net/doc/20080618_high_achievers.pdf

Here is how NCLB has failed my son. When he was 2 we started looking for a house to buy. We looked at all the school districts in our area that had houses that we could afford. There was only one district in our area that had a comprehensive gifted program. We looked for houses in that district and found one. Then he started school, and because the district has a lot of children that are failing behind, they had to cut all the extras to get the worst schools up to par.

The first things on the chopping block... art, music, PE, and the gifted and talented program.

I totally agree that the school that are failing need to be held accountable, but at this point once kids hit third grade there classes become teaching for "the test". There are pumped full of sound bites and work sheet. There are some good teachers still, that actually teach, but the drive for the school to do well on the almighty test is what drives the schools. And good programs that help kids have different avenues of learning are the victim.

My sons principal wanted him to be diagnosed with something so he would be special ed and would therefore bring the school extra money, and then they would be able to afford the extra programs.... our story is not unique.

Does it really put that much of a financial or staffing burden on a district to educate the high academic ability kids?! According to Teaching Gifted Children in the Regular Classroom, it doesn't. I can tell you that our district is spending more time and resources on meetings, letters, phone calls, etc. dealing with my advocating for DS than if they would just let him do an online math course in place of the regular math a few times a week... Plus, you'd think a district would be motivated to keep kids like DS in the district who are a shoe-in for getting "advanced" on the standardized tests, thus more $$.

If it fails my child (not to mention other kids, too), then frankly, I don't much care if it's failing big or small. Failure is failure. And something different needs to happen.

I'm not necessarily pro-big government in the schools. (And I think NCLB is a PRIME example of big government in the schools, BTW.) But I don't rule out big government on principle either. I want something that works. Period.

How do the hourly lawyer fees compare to the psychologist's $160/hour I'm looking at paying to have my daughters assessed?
Doing the right thing in the first place sounds cheaper for everyone involved.

This is what always grinds my gears! It is NOT expensive to subject accelerate. It IS expensive--in ways more than $$$, even--to refuse to educate kids.

<shaking head>

This is the part that just makes me want to scream! Use a wee bit of creativity, schools. Show a wee bit of interest in making it work. Sometimes (though certainly not always) I see a real lack of good faith effort on the part of schools/adminstrators/teachers. If they hold the "What's wrong with being bored for 3 years?" attitude, then there IS a lack of good faith effort. And I fear that too many educators have that attitude.

Heck, ONE educator having that attitude is too many...

Our district can't afford to hire another school psych. so the one at my son's school is responsible for 4 different elementary schools. That's over 1000 kids. My son, they say, needs to socialize with children his own age, they don't have the staff or time to make it happen.

My son needs to have pull out to go with older children for math and reading, but with so many kids failing, the remedial teacher can't add another kid. So he loses out. My son qualified for on-line classes, if there is not enough staff, they will not be able to provide him a computer to take those classes.

When you say it doesn't cost more money.... I am not sure what you mean? If they can't provide him a specialized program because they have to spend all of there extra time and resources on kids that are going to fail the test..... They don't have the extra staff, nor do they have the money to hire the extra staff.

Our districts budget just got cut by $3,000,000.... guess where they care going to cut back? I heard it from the horses mouth, any special program, like the gifted program the high school has managed to hang on to, and a head start program for kids that are in high risk groups, will be gone.So the cycle of failing kids will continue for a few years. Until there is money to hire more staff.

In a large urban district, where most of the students come from poverty or just above poverty.... money or the lack of makes a difference.

Why not just have an acceleration policy and be done with it?

High grades, supporting test scores, and assent from the parents and children.

That's how it was done in my case 20+ years ago. On the FIRST day I arrived in the district.

Why do things have to be so difficult?

Oh, of course, Dottie! I know I was intending minimum standards in this discussion. You KNOW I want individualized education!

Honestly, I'm not sure I'm pro having big-picture standards, given that most people aim to do the minimum that's required and no more. I think it ultimately sets the bar too low. But I suspect it's unavoidable to have them in some form. I mean, we have them now and have had them for as long as I know. Certainly since we saw the end of the 1-room schoolhouse...

But one way or another, I do think that some minimum level of education must be granted to all. So how do you communicate that level without big-picture standards? It's what state licensure is about. It's what NCLB is about. It's what state laws about education are about. It's already there in the system.