Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Parenting and Advocacy Montgomery Erasing Gifted Label

Looks grim


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/15/AR2008121503114.html
What about the parents and gifted students?

I don't mind. As long as my child is receiving an education appropriate to his abilities, I don't care what name they use. Also, being gifted is indeed a gift, kids didn't have to work for it, it's not an achievement. Whereas "honor student" is an achievement that kids need to work to get, and anyone (in theory) can strive to be an honor student. In this sense I totally agree that honor students, but not simply being gifted, should get recognition (oh well, in the form of a sticker).

This is what it is about, right from the horse's mouth.


I don't think its about egalitarianism, though.

I rereading the article, it appears the GT program was oversold and oversubscribed.

Most school districts could just do grade skips rather than pullouts or special programs. It would save a lot of money, too.

Our school district also does not have gifted program, it does not label anyone as gifted. This is fine as long as the kids all receive the academic challenges that they deserve. It's not the case at the present moment. The school district is going to implement "individualized instructions", we will see how it goes. I'm not very optimistic, though.

The "More" Child Blog has the response from the Board of Education about the article:

http://themorechild.wordpress.com/2008/12/16/board-of-education-issues-statement-in-response-to-washington-post-story-%e2%80%98montgomery-erasing-gifted-label%e2%80%99/


If it's about eliminating labeling in favor of a services-based model, are they going to experiment with getting rid of the special needs label too? I doubt it and there would probably be a huge outcry (and rightly so) if that happened. I worry that this is a step towards eliminating and/or reducing what are already limited services for gifted.

This sounds good, in theory, and is exactly how I would run all schools if I were 'in charge' of this sort of thing. I would also provide several different 'pace options' for each subject in each level.

The next step would be to try to 'uncouple' various subjects, so that a kid who is ready for Algebra, but not developmentally ready to memorize their times tables can spend some time in Algebra 1 and some time in a 'memorization skills' class that focuses on math facts. Same with Reading/writing/handwritting and Spelling. That way everyone could be challenged on all fronts, and not only would the gifted lable wither away, but so would most of the 2E lables, except for needed accomidations.

Then I would make the whole process totally opaque, so that an interested parent could have their child do an online learning session that confirms that the child is well placed. A version of the tests that the teachers use to assess the child's level would be availible online.

Yum, Yum, Yum

Grinity

My thoughts exactly!

Labels are generally necessary in a bureacracy to get services. Do I love them? No. But they exist for a reason. Eliminate labels and you usually lose services.

I am suspicious and if I were in this school system, I would be making some noise about it.

Good to know. Thanks, MON.

I guess I just wouldn't want this to become a trend. Not yet. In a perfect world, labels wouldn't be necessary and all children would be taught what they're ready for precisely when they're ready for it.

But we don't live in anything close to a perfect world, especially not for GT children...

A similar thing is happening in our district with the junior high school, where they are doing away with separating kids for honors courses. Everybody can take the advanced courses and, from what I hear, the classes are watered down because kids are struggling with them that would learn better in a more normally-paced class. Labels are unfortunately sometimes necessary, especially in big school districts. It's hard to get anything done outside of the norm without a special ed label. If Montgomery is anti-label and pro-individual needs, why continue to label and group kids on the basis of their chronological age? Why not have kids grouped according to ability for each subject regardless of age, including gym? I doubt that Montgomery County will able to follow the one-room school model

[/quote]This sounds good, in theory, and is exactly how I would run all schools if I were 'in charge' of this sort of thing. I would also provide several different 'pace options' for each subject in each level.

The next step would be to try to 'uncouple' various subjects, so that a kid who is ready for Algebra, but not developmentally ready to memorize their times tables can spend some time in Algebra 1 and some time in a 'memorization skills' class that focuses on math facts. Same with Reading/writing/handwritting and Spelling. That way everyone could be challenged on all fronts, and not only would the gifted lable wither away, but so would most of the 2E lables, except for needed accomidations.

Then I would make the whole process totally opaque, so that an interested parent could have their child do an online learning session that confirms that the child is well placed. A version of the tests that the teachers use to assess the child's level would be availible online.

Grinity[/quote]

This sounds wonderful ideal for every child. Let me know when you're running for person 'in charge' - I'll be sure to vote for you