Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Parenting and Advocacy District: "Don't confuse us with the facts"

This is an advocacy vent.

Last week, our local gifted advocacy chapter hosted a Q&A session with the district coordinating superintendent of special education. The district is implementing a 4-year plan of "inclusion" that will see a 50% reduction in congregated special education programming. The capstone report released by the district has specifically identified congregated gifted programming as being the easiest to mainstream into the general education population. The dual goals of my advocacy chapter were to:

- Ascertain the extent to which congregated gifted would be affected, and the time frame over which changes would be made.

- To advocate in favour of congregated gifted programming.

To put it bluntly, the superintendent doesn't understand the gifted indication--much less the spectrum of needs and attendant exceptionalities therein--and is willfully ignoring any evidence presented by external parties that is inconsistent with the district's internal research that inclusion is optimal for all students.

As an indicator of the tone deafness of the superintendent, she kicked off her presentation to an audience comprised solely of parents of gifted students by describing the extent to which underachieving students feel a lack of belonging and self-esteem in the general education stream.

I will include a paraphrased transcript of replies I made to her points in italics below.

(Another parent's response: "You mean children who are different feel different? Hardly surprising.")

My response: I'm sorry, are we all operating from the premise that the first objective of school is to EDUCATE children? Has the district studied the cognitive and psychosocial effect of providing congregated gifted services to gifted students?

Answer: No.

Is the district aware of the work of Miraca Gross ("Exceptionally Gifted Children"), among others, who have found that a lack of access to accelerated curriculum results in significantly detrimental psychosocial effects for gifted students?

Answer: When we look at achievement scores of gifted and non-gifted students at high school graduation, we don't see a difference in achievement. (After confusing ability and achievement in a previous statement, she then incorrectly goes on to identify gifted students (defined locally as the top 2% on a WISC) as being in the third quartile of ability.)

My response: I'm aware of the testing the district uses. Is the district aware of the phenomenon of ceiling effects and the need for out-of-level testing of gifted students, both in identification and placement? You are not seeing a difference in achievement levels at university matriculation because the district is failing to measure the baseline achievement of gifted students at intake and failing to appropriately place gifted students through their academic careers.

(Another parent speaks up about the difference in rigor of various universities, and of an undergraduate degree not being a terminal destination for most gifted students.)

I could go on, but I will spare you the boredom and fury. The main points she made were:

- Gifted services will likely be cut at the earliest ages first, because of difficulty identifying students. (No response to my question about whether the district will be doing away with Early Intervention for other indications, too.)

- The district is unfriendly to congregated gifted because they don't like to segregate the gifted students from the general ed population. They prefer to have the low-achieving students strive by being with the gifted students. (To my question of whether gifted students are second-class citizens who are not entitled to a year of educational gains or striving, the superintendent cringed and dodged the question.)

- No external consultants are being hired for this decision process to vet the district's internal research. I am submitting a list of recommended universities/institutions from which a consulting pool could be drawn to the district.

Bottom line
- I am now definitely homeschooling DS until I can get a private school off the ground
- Anyone with contacts in Canada interested in a private gifted elementary school modeled on the Davidson Academy, please reach out to me by PM. I'm considering a multi-city approach in the medium term.

How FRUSTRATING. Two things seem clear: 1) The decisions are being motivated by financial considerations, not pedagogical ones. Any "facts" presented to support their decisions are just window-dressing. 2) The meeting was for show. They never had any intention of taking feedback seriously or straying from their script.

Sounds like they have been talking to the same experts as NZ schools. I'm glad homeschooling is an option for you.

The third takeaway is that this district is only concerned about low performers, and is willing to use gifted kids as pawns to boost them.

Which makes them (drumroll please) not much different from anyone else in N. American public education, at the moment.

I'm sorry, Aquinas.

Aquinas, you have my deep, fellow Canuck sympathy, from a region that has already severely cut its congregated classrooms, and continues to claim there is neither need nor demand (but has waiting lists. long waiting lists. Which we are told don't exist. Unless you're on one - but then you are never actually told that you are, since they don't exist.)

MegMeg, I wish it was only about money. You can work with financial facts. And frankly, there's no reason for congregated classes to be much more expensive than the regular kinds, at least the way they are delivered around here.

But we are dealing with ideology. Inclusion at all costs. Nothing else is equitable. And of course, inclusion is the perfect solution, since there are no costs, for anybody. Internal board "research" says so. Everything is awesome... (Sure they only site one source, and it's a consultant paid by the board. What's your point?)

Frankly, it feels a little Orwellian at times: if we say it often enough, it will become true. Because we want it to be.

The inclusion philosophy hurts lots of kids - we have huge waiting lists for LD classrooms too, and I was laughed at when I asked if this was an option for DD. But there is an additional, and occasionally rather vicious anti-gifted streak that runs through the mountains of disturbing papers I have managed to unearth from our Board on the discussions about spec ed in our region (gifted is spec ed in Canada). The focus of *all* Board analysis is about out-of-control lobbying parents who are hothousing their kids and demanding special privileges. Privileges that directly take away from deserving, good kids with *real* needs. Gifted is elitist, unnecessary, undeserved, and serves only to feed the egos of parents who already have too much money and privilege.

It's not a pretty dynamic. There's very little you can do to promote rational discourse in this environment.

Oh dear. That was a bit of a rant. Apparently that sore spot is still a wee bit raw. Apologies for the soap box!

Kudos to you for helping to raise awareness. I hope you'll keep repeating your statements (both the research/facts and the questions regarding the district's due diligence in research), put them in writing, and encourage your team to do likewise.

Some may say this is a display of callous indifference to the needs and concerns of the audience. Being dismissive to the concerned parents of gifted children reminds me of the thread about getting bullied because of gifts, especially this post.

Some may understand this to mean they have been able to successfully manage the achievement of the gifted students downward, and to ignore any remaining differences by refusing to measure above a pre-determined ceiling. Sadly, the superintendent seems to consider this a success: cutting down tall poppies, social engineering. There is a broad and widespread effort to force equal outcomes for all.

Some have absorbed decades of information on how to best educate and support the gifted and have utilized a strategy to apply the opposite techniques in attempt to stymy the development of the gifted, with a goal of creating uniformity in achievement.

To commiserate, you may enjoy reading the story of the "Animal School", especially the ending: starting a successful private school.

So glad that home schooling is an option, in the interim.

Well said.
A little Orwellian at times

Neither a conspiracy theorist nor in denial, I concur, this is Orwellian.

Hi Aquinas. I feel awful for you as the way you, and the other parents, were treated was beyond disrespectful. I wish you every success in starting a school as it becomes increasingly apparent that, all over the world, we have not made huge inroads into achieving acceptance of the issues gifted children face.

Recently, on another thread the whole debate on what constitutes giftedness highlights the challenges of defining who is in need. It still comes down to, "you know it when you see it" given the complexities of testing that can miss 2E individuals and those that express giftedness in less measurable ways.

Even though we have been 'fortunate' to receive accommodations and grade skips etc, they have only come with hard work, persistence and tears. There is no clear pathway for our children and we each seem to be forging a path in the jungle, cutting through the undergrowth ourselves. It is exhausting. Sometimes a few others can jump on the path behind us before the undergrowth takes over again and the path disappears.

Facilities like the Davidson Academy seem dream like to most of us. Maybe you can make the dream come true for some lucky families in Canada. Good luck.

Have you seen this article on establishing a school in Canada? I don't know how old it is or anything about its provenance but it seemed like a reasonable starting point for gathering ideas.

http://www.societyforqualityeducation.org/school_choice/privateschool.pdf

In the U.S., some Federal laws which shape educational policy are No Child Left Behind (2001) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (earliest version passed in 1975, since updated).

What are the major laws in Canada that shape educational policy?