"FUTURA is a pull out program where identified students in grades 4 and 5 receive enrichment and challenge one day a week in a center at another school."

Um, welcome to my school district (or its twin at any rate). Sigh.

What? Not till 4 or 5 th grade? Is that to account for all the kids that level out (sarcasm intended!)?

Yup.

Welcome to Gifted Education in the state of Oregon. That's in a GOOD district, by the way.


Oh, but there are LOADS of AP options to choose from. When you're a senior. Some "highly qualified" juniors may want to discuss those options with a high school counselor, too. (Of course, they shove almost all college-bound kids into those classes, so watering them down a bit is rather a given... but anyway).

You can always sit in the back of the room and work on your own out of a book (provided by your parents). Just don't expect any instruction at your level. (No, really-- this has actually happened to several students I know personally during middle school, and they were NOTHING like PG... they just needed geometry in 8th grade... )

Whoops. I guess my bitterness is showing. I wonder sometimes why my state even bothers mandated identification. Is it to gather data? Because it sure isn't to offer those kids real differentiation as needed.

I don't have first hand experience with my school's programs yet (my oldest is 3.5) but I am worried that often times these programs are effective only at placating most parents and momentarily occupying the minds of bright students. Without compacting curricula, the pace of learning is ultimately unaffected, and gifted students are destined for copious amounts of boredom. I see references to acceleration, but not to compacting, nor to the standards they might apply when considering a grade skip. I am contemplating writing a letter to request clarification about these things.

I would have the same concerns, DAD22. You may find that the school teachers and admins wax bubbly about "horizontal acceleration", a term they use locally here to mean time-filling sorts of enrichment designed to slow down progress, i.e. an anti-acceleration strategy.

I would read it that way... with the additional observation that neither enrichment nor challenge are available at the child's own school. The school is basically running up the white flag.

Presuming I stumbled upon the right school... all students K-3 are given "enrichment" and critical thinking lessons. The district gifted plan claims to use in class coordinators to provide more accelerated work.

I think the big question I would ask is how many of their teachers are gifted certified in K-3.

Yes, the plan makes many such claims. However I thought it was funny, as the sentence I pulled out could (should) have been stated:

"FUTURA is a pull out program where identified students in grades 4 and 5 receive additional enrichment and challenge one day a week in a center at another school."

Since the entire program description lacks a discussion about grade skipping, I am certainly concerned that the pull-outs and in-class acceleration don't amount to much. If you've been accelerated year after year shouldn't your abilities eventually align better with students in the class above yours? Or were you exposed to a little bit of 2nd grade work as a 1st grader... only to study those same lessons in regular class the next year, while having limited exposure to 3rd grade work... only to study those same lessons in regular class the next year, while having limited exposure to 4th grade work...

This is only of partial use. The most woefully inept teachers we've had the misfortune to encounter were three gifted-certified teachers at our local middle school magnet program. They had the certifications, but that didn't mean they had internalized the information, especially when dealing with Miss PG-and-2E.
Conversely, the teacher who was most adept at handling bright kids was an elementary teacher with no particular certifications-- but 37 years' experience. She was pretty hard to rattle.

Didn't mean it as a way to judge teachers, but as a way of judging the intention of the school. If the school really is trying to accomodate gifted students, then they'd have their teachers get certifications.

Then again, I've seen plenty of schools who hire GT teachers with certifications, however, administration having no understanding of GT education completely mandates the program and ties the hands of those teachers who are certified to do their job in a fitting manner. It takes both teachers with knowledge to serve GT well and an administration that lets them do so.

We've been seeing this a lot this year. It's discouraging when the GT teacher dubs the mandated curriculum "an inch deep and a mile wide" and complains that the pacing guide makes it difficult to meet the needs of her students. She said it is an issue both when they need to go faster AND when they need to take some extra time on a topic. Grr!

My DD's school district hires GT educators, then doesn't listen to a word they say when it comes to GT instruction. All the real decisions are made by administrators who know nothing about giftedness.

So basically, they hire some teachers, give them some instructional time with some kids, and then say, "we cn haz gifted porgram!"

Does the local PTA run the enrichment program like an old boys club?

Wow. Moomin, I had no idea that you and I lived in the same area.

Well, probably not since we just have the one uni and our 'enrichment' starts at grade 4, but the numbers two and three employers are a fortune 25 high tech company and a regional medical center, and I think that our terminal degree rate is something close to 30%, which explains why the number of children "identified" as G&T is also about 30%.

I get the chipper "all of our instruction is enriched" line a lot around here. Now, they do produce a fair number of national merit scholars and the like, so are the numbers of MG kids probably pretty high? Absolutely.

PG, though, evidently stands for Persona non Grata. Go figure.