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?

That is a mighty good question, Bostonian. And I am disturbed to admit I can't come up with any. And I counted twice. Aquinas, help!

Education is purely provincial jurisdiction here. There is no national law, policy or even a point of contact. So reality varies considerably across provinces, as each sets their own policy, curriculum, assessment, rules for teachers, standards for hiring, etc. School Boards then implement. In our province, Board autonomy was severely reduced about ten years ago; in other provinces, Boards may have a bit more scope for decision-making.

I was so thrown by my complete blank that I had to go surfing, but still found nothing new. There is, of course, provincial law related to education, but I've never seen it referenced in all my research on educational options for my kids - so I suspect it's general enough to not have much impact at the policy level. We have a new provincial education renewal strategy to go with a new government. Lots of warm and fuzzy. No accountability. There IS oodles of policy: I generally find it detailed in the extreme on the nature of process, but scarce on content or outcomes.

For instance, with both gifted and LDs, I have found endless policy and procedure on how to ask for a child to be identified, and the process of producing an IEP, and everybody's rights and responsibilities in these processes. But then? The school/ board must provide "appropriate placement and supports" - the nature of which are entirely discretionary, and no expectations or outcomes are specified. Both my DC's (gifted/ LD) IEPs fundamentally boil down to "the teacher will provide appropriate accommodations and differentiation". Period. With provincial policy heavily invested in inclusion, tracking is anathema, and as Aquinas stated, separate GT classrooms are rapidly going the same way. And many smaller boards never had specialized classrooms for GT or LDs in the first place. (And just to add to the fun and games, while acceleration is theoretically acceptable by the province - under extreme circumstances - most boards flatly refuse under any circumstances. I've never heard of compacting or other strategies occurring around here.) Our board does have one gifted advisor (job vacant most of the last two years), but they are there to help the board and the schools; they don't return phone calls from parents.

In that quintessential Canadian way, we provide almost everybody with pretty OK education. But we don't deal with outliers well. And so deep in the DNA that no one even notices it's there is 'equality', the foundation that makes Canada so wonderful and so frustrating. Somehow, it has morphed into idea that equality means we treat everyone the same, and if we do it right, we will then achieve equality of outcomes. And we truly believe, in every sector I have ever worked in, that the best route to equality is to rein in the outliers on the right, rather than move the curve forward from the left.

Whew! Mostly, I am extraordinarily happy to be Canadian, but I confess some threads on this board just make me drool.

The federal laws mentioned by Bostonian are intended to assist those with learning difficulties reach higher, closing performance/achievement/excellence gaps. Unfortunately some find that closing gaps is more easily attained by capping growth at the top, and schools are measured by their success in closing gaps. Therefore some believe the federal law is driving the pressure to attain equal outcomes. Some believe that having local control provides more opportunity to serve the needs of the local population. The supreme law of the United States is the Constitution, in which "We, the people" specified which powers are granted to the federal government (consisting of 3 branches: Executive, Legislative (bicameral/bipartisan), and Judicial) with all other powers reserved for States and individuals. It has been noted that powers over education were not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, yet a federal Department of Education was created some 35 years ago. The point of which is to say that having or not having a federal law may or may not help gifted kids receive appropriate placement and pacing based on their ability and readiness. Unfortunately, this may be occurring on a widespread basis.

MichelleC, you're correct. The federal legislation around education in Canada is the Constitution, which devolves jurisdiction over education to the provinces.

Bostonian, if you're interested, here's a link to our Constitution Acts.
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-4.html

At the provincial level, the governing documents for education are the Education Acts, and most (probably all, I haven't verified) provinces have some form of disability protection act, which derives in combination from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the provincial Human Rights Codes. Amendments and updates to the provincial Education Acts are made through the legislation of policy memoranda. (The right to homeschooling in my province, for example, was introduced through a policy memorandum.) The required provision under the special education provisions in our province is an appropriate education, which is sufficiently vague as to be wantonly manipulated by the ideology of the day in the ministry of education.

Even more frustrating, there is no financial constraint underlying the decision. The provincial budgets have built in elevators for real per capita budgetary growth in education. The motivation behind inclusion is the premier's ideology. The normal chain of command would be: district superintendent of special ed --> managing superintendent of special ed --> district director of education --> provincial education minister --> premier. Sadly, the tone at the top is rotten, and the result is trickle-down of a misguided ideology that seeks to engineer equality of outcome, because feelings of belonging are more important than things like being educated. Short of a provincial referendum on special education practices, this is part of the package that my fellow citizens voted for.

Let me get you a taller soap box!

Ndw, thanks for your commiseration, and for sharing that link with me. My unspoken long-term goal is to build a scalable model of gifted education that can be implemented nationwide. As a pastiche of provinces (and I'm sorry if I offend any other Canadians here), it seems our grand unifying philosophy of education is the institutionalization of mediocrity and the disregard for individualism.

Sadly, same here. Some may say that "individualism" has taken on quite a negative connotation in certain education circles.

Hi all,

I don't have the heart to write a detailed response. But I'll offer a report from a purportedly top-notch public elementary school in Northern California. We have NO gifted education. Naively, I joined my school's "site council" thinking I could work on it from within. The Site Council is a team composed of principal, parents and teachers. It develops the key objectives for the school, which must be written in stone, with measurable objectives. We had several academic objectives. For each, I could summarize them as "demonstrate that we have X percent fewer students performing below grade average."

Several of the parents asked, "couldn't we add an objective that each student make one year of academic progress during the school year"? This gives the school incentive to support accelerated kids to some extent at least.

The short answer: no. That's not our mission.

Pretty black and white. Pretty bleak.

OP - You are not alone,
Sue

:
You're not alone. NZ has a lot in common with you except we only have one province. We never got gifted classes so we can't lose them but otherwise it is very familiar. And there are no alternative schools really in most places since nearly all schools receive government funding so teach the national curriculum, employ registered teachers who were trained in government approved courses and belong to the teachers union. It is like the all take the same ideological pill each day. If they don't they are careful enough not to say so.

That is my rant.

Many families report the same thing... the sham appearance of local control, while things are actually being dictated top-down. The volunteerism of gifted families is heavily leveraged, with parents being misguided by the belief that our investment of time and effort may help afford more opportunity for children to excel. In essence, unsuspecting parents become part of the machine which rubber-stamps approval on policy to further diminish opportunity to excel in public schools.

Aquinas, I think you hit a nerve!

I think so!

On a lighter note, after seeing me seethe in response to the meeting, DH had the presence of mind to ask me if I'd snidely referred to the superintendent as "Supernintendo" while excoriating her ideas.

Some may say you tapped into a commonality, one so large as to be international, and so pervasive a trend as to be creating a toxic environment in public schools for gifted kids.

Yes, you've hit a nerve and I totally agree with the above, except it's the feelings of belonging of all children except the gifted ones that are important. Our board is adjacent to yours, if I recall correctly, and DD, in second year of kindergarten, has no peers - NONE. She only recently said she found a friend at school who would listen to what she has to say. There is no one to talk with about the things she is interested in and so she spends most of her time conforming to the games other children want to play or the topics they want to talk about. Why aren't her interests as valued as the other children's? She can belong only if she goes along with what others want, otherwise she has to entertain herself. This is the antithesis of fostering a sense of belonging.

In terms of academics, again, she is a second class citizen. Her teacher told me that the stretch goal in reading for children entering grade one is level 6 and that they usually get about %40 of the class to that level. DD is at minimum level 20 and so she gets no instruction in reading. Sure, they've subscribed to Raz Kids and DD can work at her own pace but I've had to teach her all of the background info around answering comprehension questions myself.

How can her teacher focus on working with DD when she needs to get 60 percent of the class up to speed and is busy putting out fires all day? DD is constantly called on to model behaviour for other children who are having difficulties or help teach/explain a topic they are learning about in the class. Her teacher is always telling me what a big help DD is. That's nice, I want her to be helpful and kind, but it is also not DD's job to teach or help with classroom management. She's at school to learn and work on improving her weaker skills.

Of course they aren't seeing a difference in outcomes between the gifted and non gifted students. They are holding the gifted kids back and not teaching them anything and then giving them all the same test. Other kids are told they should strive to achieve new academic heights and my DD is being told, indirectly, to hold herself back and be kind, don't get too far ahead because others will feel bad.

All of this and we actually have a teacher who gets that DD is ahead and needs more but just physically can't because she's got her hands full including everyone.

Sorry for the personal rant. It just makes me so mad. We are working on getting an IEP. I do wish you the best of luck with getting your school up and running. It is sorely needed.

Yes. This. So frustrated. I knew they were not planning on providing any instruction for dd7 because she already "met the end of the year grade level expectations", and were going to focus on getting the remainder of the kids to also meet those same end of the year grade level expectations. Now I get her report card and I see that she fails to "*exceed* end of the year grade level expectations"... Wait, what? You refuse to assess her to see where she is academically, then tell me she is only "meeting grade level expectations" because you won't test her (or provide any) above grade level instruction? Infuriating!!! I am told it is a "district policy" not to test above grade level. AHHHH! Now I know how they get them to "all even out by third grade".

Yes.

If you cut down those tall poppies often enough, they WILL stop growing.

And they will learn to hate education. And they will never learn how to take on a challenge and see the success that comes from perseverance and good old hard work.

And then we are shocked when they don't turn into ambitious high flyers that rock the world.

Excuse me. I need to go change the litter in the cheetah cage.

BTDT. On the bright side, some of the new testing is helping our cause. Our school recently adopted the STAR test, which is adaptive (giving the child harder items when they get easy ones right). The math ceilings at three years above whatever grade level they enter in the child's record; the language arts test apparently does not have such a ceiling (i.e. will test right up to 12th grade level for an elementary schooler).

After three and a half years of the school refusing to test DS's actual levels of performance, we now have evidence. Supplied by them. And they are showing signs of taking it seriously.

It is hard to get schools' practices to change, but sometimes possible.

Well said.

Yes, the system learns very fast. The government school system also has a taxpayer-funded communication system in place. This may place parents at a disadvantage as parental communication systems are piece-meal at best, and largely consist of open-access forums which are as easily read by school officials and policy-makers as they are by parents.

Well said.

We bailed on our public schools before even starting. DS4 can read and write and would not be eligible for kindergarten until Fall 2016. We both work and don't have time to play Sisyphus every year with a recalcitrant bureaucracy. It's frustrating - we pay taxes and live less than a mile from a nice elementary school that we will never use.

Good luck with starting the gifted school. There is unmet demand for schools like this and I seen for myself what a huge difference a good gifted program can make for kids.

Well said.