Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Parenting and Advocacy Results from the meeting...

Well, the meeting wasn't as bad as it could have been.

Basically we got the official gifted designation (important for PA). The GIEP that was developed was largely nebulous, didn't have strong present levels established and was focused on the pull out program. We expected that. Meeting with the GT teacher (who was at the meeting) we clearly communicated that we thought that the enrichment program was a good thing, that encouraging going deep in supplemental areas was great, and thought it was good for DS5 3/4 to socialize with "peers". A nice benefit is that since he's the only 1st grader, he'd actually be with the 2nd graders.

There were some tense talks surrounding the day-to-day curriculum which is really where our big issues are. We focused on the math part of it (although we could have easily made the reading an issue). We're not all on the same page yet, but we did get them to agree to do a better PLEP assessment on math so that we can address at least that subject area. Baby steps.

My impression is that the current homeroom teacher is thinking that DS will just skip the basic review of the math subject and then do the enriched math (same curriculum). What we really need, though, is subject acceleration. I am hoping that if the do follow through with the math assessment our point will be taken.

The principal seemed to change her tune a bit mid-way through the meeting. I'm not sure if she's getting it yet, but she was being more helpful by the end. Recall that she was very against DS's early entrance into 1st. At the beginning of the meeting she was acting more of a roadblock, but by the end of the meeting she was chiming in to have the math specialist help with the PLEP portion. DW went a little off at one point, so I wonder if that had something to do with it :-)

We didn't sign the NORA on the spot and we didn't give a verbal agreement. The good thing was that it was the GT teacher that suggested we have a second, follow up meeting. They were mildly pressuring us to sign/agree, but as I pointed out, we waited this long, let's meet again and make sure we get it "right." Not sure how "right" we'll get it, but we'll make it better.

So not a total disaster. Mixed results. Plenty of more work to do. We're still digesting it all.

JB

It was clear from the comments at the meeting that we are breaking a lot of new ground.

Our preparedness was largely due to this board, help from you (and others--you know who you are), Hoagies and applied gifted ed...

So thanks. And my coffee tastes pretty good right about now!

JB

JBDad - the meeting sounds like it went pretty well. Congratulations on standing your ground and not signing anything. My DH and I will be meeting with the principal and GT coordinator at our local schools in about a month. I've been watching your posts to get ideas. Thanks for sharing!

(Our DSturning5nextweek will be starting in kindergarten, and the school is hoping to accommodate him there. We'll see.)

Yes, it sounds like you and your DW did VERY well. Sometimes "going off" a bit is a good plan.

It sounds like you stuck to your guns where it mattered. If you can get the principal on board this early on and after resistance? Well, OPA! Great big hurrahs for that!

Keep up the good work!

Great Work! I've BTDT in PA and those baby steps are so critical. In my limited experience, it seems like once you get them to move on those, the bigger steps come faster and easier

Thanks for all of the well-wishing. We still have a lot of apprehension about what is going to happen (I am sure there is a lot of BTDT). But a good incremental step.

And still no snow here Dottie. (yet)

JB

That sounds really solid - way to go!
Like many, I am interested to hear more ~ stay warm

Wow. We may have made an impact already. DS came home with corrected work that he did in class today ... and it was multiplication! And multiplication past 12 x 12 so he got some of them wrong! (It's weird to think that it's great he's getting problems wrong, huh?) I think Timez Attack really honed in multiplication for him because when he ran into questions that he didn't know, it was adding groups together. For example 15 x 4 was solved by 15 + 15 + 15 + 15.

I am not sure if this is a lasting change, but I hope so. The teacher did this manually and whited out the "+" sign to be a "x" sign.

JB

Hey, JB, late to the party. I just read all the posts and am not surprised he came home with some appropriate work. I was very impressed with how your meeting went. Your word choice was excellent, you were assertive without appearing pushy or coming off as "unreasonable".

You are right to be satisfied with a good meeting and settle in to stay the course. Steady and slow and don't burn yourself out.

You are now a pro.

Please stick around, I may need to be asking for your advice in the future.

Yahoo! It is great that he's being given the opportunity to get things wrong and bizarre that it takes so much effort to make this happen. Good job and thanks for sharing the news.

I'm still a little in happy surprise/shock mode over the class room work because I thought the meeting was very mixed. But since my last post I got some one on one time with the boy. Apparently he spent time with the math specialist today and took "a very long test... um like maybe 10 pages". Now apparently this test didn't go up to multiplication, but it did include a lot of "hard math" and "complex math" (according to the boy) and time and money. As he admitted, he missed a couple "but only because I was going fast; I knew the answers."

I am wondering if after he did that if the math specialist did a wink wink nudge nudge "he really does know this stuff" to his teacher.

There were a couple of things said during the meeting that we're still mulling over and trying not to read too much into but trying to decode what they meant. For example, the GT teacher talked about getting 1st and 2nd graders that knew how to solve quadriatric equations. It was an awkward comment because on the one hand it was like she was saying "we've had other very gifted children before" but in the same breath she was trying to tell us that these kids couldn't explain the rationale behind the math (which I can believe; you can teach a gifted child an advanced algorithm). And there was an over-emphasis on having DS demonstrate his abilities.

So thanks for the kudos. The tense moments at the meeting weren't too bad. I think we came across as constructive, sane, and honest. I told the home room teacher what DS said just yesterday about the "other kids learning stuff but I already knew it" and followed that quote up by stating that we did not believe that to be a reflection of the teacher, but only the fact that the other students were receiving the appropriate level of instruction.

Of course when DW got a bit passionate during the meeting I think that helped a little too

JB

Oh, and I send a follow up email to the home room teacher and thanked her for the extra effort. I am sure that she hears a lot about when she doesn't do something right and I want her to get feedback when we like what she's doing.

JB

It never hurts to catch someone doing something "right." If DT continues on this path, do consider emailing the principal (her boss) to let him/her know that you are pleased and wish to commend DT (JB's teacher).

Sounds like we are in the same boat now JB Dad, after similar GIEP meetings. We're also "picking our battles" - for math. I wrote a letter to the district requesting a revised GIEP with more in depth PLEP assessment in math and measurable goals for math. I'd be happy to share this with you if you want. I just got a response from the special ed director stating that he wants to arrange another meeting and is sure that "all of my concerns will be addressed". We'll see...

<Mounting the soapbox>

In my experience (such as it is), when differentiated work for GT students works, it's usually as simple as a bottle of white-out and a "x" sign.

It's all but free, quick, easy, it doesn't even require great creativity, but it makes a HUGE difference to a kid.

Differentiation is still not my first choice for GT policy. It's too easy to undermine the following year because there's nothing in writing anywhere, so the child can effectively be held back a grade (or 3!), but it IS something that any teacher can do if s/he recognizes the need and commits to teaching ALL children, even the smart ones! :p

Every time someone talks about how expensive GT ed is or how GT kids must somehow compete with special ed kids for $$$, a bottle of white-out and an "x" is what I think of. This is why I say over and over that educating GT kids does not have to be expensive.

<stepping off soapbox>

Call me cynical but I just don't see, well, anyone that I've interacted with in our school district trying to help my kid learn. Caring, yes, but my kid actually learning something academic seems to be at the bottom of the priority list. At first I thought they just didn't realize how cheap and easy it could be (right on Kriston!), but I'm just beginning to penetrate the surface of a system where teachers fear for their jobs if they deviate from the curriculum. I really hope JBDad's school district is more flexible than ours... And JBDad, Kudos for keeping a positive attitude and giving the district the benefit of the doubt at first.

I agree. We had one teacher who actually said, "I think my job is to teach ALL the kids, not just the ones who are behind." She was a wonderful teacher, and she made good use of her metaphorical white-out and "x"s. But she was the only person we worked with at the school who seemed to have any interest in teaching our child anything academic.

I heard all about social goals (which he had met years earlier--yes, he can stand in line, thank you! Argh!). I heard about his developing a tolerance for boredom. (NOT why I send him to school, thank you!) I heard about the extra "fluffy" stuff that the school might try once a month or so when the GT coordinator could fit him in specially in an effort to keep his attention until the GT program started years later (with more fluff, BTW). I didn't see much effort to teach him.

Even now, thinking about it just depresses me. No wonder my poor kid was angry and depressed!

Well said and it's a Catch-22. If we can get them challenging work that allows them to learn from making mistakes, it's turned around as, "See, they're not really that smart because it's not perfect."

I'm crossing my fingers that DS will get one of these teachers next year. A friend of mine who has an academically advanced (not ID'd gifted) son in 1st grade said his teacher is giving him differentiated math that is outside of the curriculum. This teacher told my friend not to tell anyone. You'd think they were giving the kid drugs instead of harder math problems

aaaaaahhh!!! That is just scary.

Well Done! I bet you and DW did come accross well. A little 'good cop/bad cop' never hurt...in this case it's 'informed and firm daddy plus worried, possibly emotional mommy' is about the best combo possible. Of course, most states don't have laws as strong as PA, and even the best advocacy work by parents can be tossed on the wind. You do have 'Due Process' in your back pocket - DOK! It sounds like the school is aware and on the ball.

I want to say a word for the middle ground. Let's say that they put your son in 3rd grade 'honors' math. Let's say he still isn't 'challenged' but at least is 'occupied' and you just can't bear the idea of 4th grade math for whatever reason. I want to say that although being taught at one's 'readiness level' is ideal, that being taught 'just a bit below' one's readiness level is much, much, much better than being taught at with age-peers.

I figure that many of the more flexible HG+ kids can handle being a bit below readiness level without having their spirits ground away. They may not learn good work ethic, but in my mind, they are being preserved so that in the future when they are in a situation that gives them an opportunity to learn good work ethic, say at age 8 or 11, that they will be able to make use of it. I want to suggest that there is a range of 'poor fit' from what my son faced: 'mortally offended' to what kids with a couple years of subject acceleration face: 'not challenged, but not shamed.'

I think the worksheet is a very positive sign. You and DW are doing great! Go Baby Steps!

Love and More Love,
Grinity

And it did make a big difference to DS. As DW and I started talking to him explaining why we met with his teacher (to get more appropriate work for him) and that he may go to another school (he'd be bussed once every 6 days for the pull out program) to learn other things, he coined a new term. How did he put it? It was something like "is that I-don't-know-stuff or I-know-stuff?". He got very excited when he found out that he'd start getting "I-don't-know-stuff".

JB

I agree. We did a little bit of a happy dance because this appeared to be the first time that they've really tried to understand where DS is at. (It wasn't perfect either as DS didn't know that he had missed a few questions and the teacher probably didn't review them with DS.) This is a teacher that told us at our first conference that she would not give DS any multiplication problems this year at all. So the fact that we're breaking down this barrier is a start.

Our objective is to get the GIEP a little bit better and then sign off on it for this year. The Goals section was vague and nebulous but we'll leave it alone for this year (too much to tackle all at once). But when we meet late spring for next year, we're going to focus on real tangible goals like "90% proficient in 3rd grade math by mid term" and so on. So that will hopefully force a truely differentiated curriculum.

JB

Indeed. As I said, I don't like white-out--or differentiation in general--as overarching GT policy. (Usually I'm the one arguing it isn't enough to settle for that, so I'm enjoying this aspect of the conversation. ) I agree with all my heart that we need more for our kids. White-out is a stopgap measure. But it can be an important--and telling!--stopgap measure, since if a teacher or a school won't EVEN pull out the white-out, you know you're in BIIIIIIIIG trouble!

And differentiation isn't the only cheap/free way to teach GT kids. There are plenty of others: subject acceleration, grade skips, class grouping, etc. All free! (And most working better generally than differentiation.) White-out is just a nicely symbolic shorthand for those.

In the language of drugs, it's the gateway accomodation!

It reminds me of when two football teams are praying for their boys to win. LOL!

I love grouping, too. It is really such a great help. And again, NOT expensive! *sigh*

One argument I've heard for not grouping is that the kids who are academically at the bottom really benefit from being grouped with gifted kids. Sounds counter-intuitive to me. If I were struggling, I think I'd feel more comfortable with kids who were also behind and also more inclined to stick my neck out and speak up in class.

Yeah, I think most people want to be taught and interact at a level where they feel they're making progress, not falling too badly behind and yet not completely knowing everything before they even get into the classroom. (not just gt people and kids, not just folks with learning issues....)
I think Dottie's prayer is right on - appropriate challenge! (for all

What I've read about grouping says that everyone benefits from it--high, low, and in between! Interestingly to me, one of the biggest beneficiaries is supposed to be the group of kids just below the GT kids: the bright-average ones. They get to shine when not grouped with the GT kids, and their self-esteem and achievement go up quite a lot. In fact, grouping experts recommend strongly that the GT kids be the top of one class and the high-average kids be the top of a totally different class, so that both groups do better.

I'm less sure I have this part right, but I think it's also recommended that the kids struggling the most should not be with the GT kids. It is better for them to be in the class with the high-average kids.

Can't cite a source off the top of my head, though I should if I'm stating specifics like this. Sorry! But I'm pretty sure I've got it right. Does this ring a bell for anyone else? Where AM I getting my info? Remembering my sources was always my biggest failing as an academic...

Well, apparently DS took more tests today. This time he claims "50 pages"! Ha.

Well, hopefully this is going in the right direction. I'd like to think that they are giving him progressively harder tests. Maybe even CBA tests. That'd be nice.

DS tells us that the tests are "complex math that his classmates can't do" but that it's not yet multiplication. But maybe borrowing and carry over. Hard to tell when he's had a busy day and doesn't want to communicate a lot.

I'll take it as a positive sign. May be good for the next GIEP.

JB

Sorry: what's a CBA test?

CYA, I know. CBA is new to me.

Thanks, D!

I pray that they are giving him harder and harder test also. I have a hunch that they are. Welcome to the 'hopeful' part of the advocacy rollcoaster. Good news is that even the testing itself gets him out of the regular classroom and closer to his readiness level and should give him a boost.

That's what I remember also. Remember that there is heavy 'political' pressure to end grouping, but that the studies I've seen show that grouping helps everyone. I've even read that a famous anti-grouping study that gets quoted alot to show that 'grouping doesn't help' took place in a school where the highest achievers were previously removed from the experimental group, before the study began.

Now, for a source, I'm not sure, but I would try Linda E. Brody: Grouping and Acceleration Practices in Gifted Education--Various forms of grouping and acceleration are studied in this volume, along with recommendations for implementation that will ensure challenging educational opportunities for gifted students from the series: Sally Reis - Essential Readings in Gifted Education.

Smiles,
Grinity

So who gets to be at the bottom of the class in which the GT kids are at the top? Is there a serious proposal that, say, if we split kids into four groups by subject proficiency, say, A B C D from the top, it's best to have two classes, one with the As and Cs in it, the other with Bs and Ds? It's an interesting idea, but I see problems!

I think the root problem is competitiveness itself. For someone to win, someone else has to lose - and winning isn't all it's cracked up to be, either. It doesn't have to be that way, it really doesn't. I was in a primary school where there weren't marks or any other form of academic competition, and it was good. I know that if you give kids anything they can use to compete, they will, but you don't have to encourage it. Sadly all schools round here seem to :-(

I think there were more groups than 4, so the middle was divided between the two classes. But yes, I think the AY/BZ structure was what seemed to work best for both top and bottom of the class.

If memory serves...