Gifted Program-Email to VDOE- & FOIA Response from CPS-Pilot article, etc

[dpip...@cox.net]

Hello PAGE Members,


This is a recent email I sent to Dr. Poland at VDOE. I sent a copy to
the school board members, administration, the pilot, etc. There is new
information regarding the response I received from CPS regarding my
recent FOIA request. I can't fiqure out how to copy it or attached it,
but the just is that they have no documents to provide regarding the
information I requested. More details below. Hattie from the pilot
sent me an email today stating that an article regarding CPS gifted
services should be in the clipper this Sunday. The Board will be
voting Monday evening.


Dear Dr. Poland,

I appreciate you explaining the VDOE position. I do understand that
the school division and school board are the ones to make the decision
regarding what goes into the local plan. I have reviewed the technical
format and the reference guide. As a member of the local gifted
advisory committee, I have tried to fulfill my duties to the board by
attempting to review the implementation of the 2008 initiative plan,
which was approved by the board. In addition, I have made suggestions
and advocated for CPS’s plan to step beyond the state requirements and
try to incorporate NAGC best practices into the proposed plan. Upon
reviewing the new technical format, I did notice that the tables,
which outlined delivery of services options and required training for
gifted professionals seemed to have been eliminated from the format.
These tables were included in the last local plan and were very
helpful in providing specific information regarding these two
components in a quick and understandable format. I was disappointed to
see that they were removed.

There has been quite a debate regarding the intention of the 2008
initiative as being goals or gifted program policy. CPS administration
has stated that the “goals” of the 2008 initiative continue to be the
“goals” and the proposed plan incorporates them. I fail to find any
information regarding the delivery of service options or grouping
practices discussed in 2008, other than the word “cluster”. The
statement from 2008 “teachers endorsed in gifted education or working
towards endorsement will provide instruction for gifted students in
now written in the plan as “Continue to provide and promote
opportunities for graduate courses leading to endorsement in gifted
education so as to meet the goal that all teachers implementing the
gifted education curricula for students identified as gifted are
endorsed in gifted education. It is apparent that as long as the
plan meets the state regulations, what was stated in 2008 is
irrelevant whether goal, policy, or best practice.

I did make a FOIA request recently in order to try to further obtain
quantitative information pertaining to the delivery of service options
and teacher endorsement “goals” from the 2008 initiative.

1) How many elementary and middle school classroom teachers are
instructing gifted student?
2) How many middle school gifted classes are there?
3) How many middle school teams are being required for CPS’s 10 middle
schools?
4) How many middle school classes are homogenously grouped, how many
are cluster grouped, how many of the cluster classes fall below 50%
gifted?
5) How many elementary gifted classes are there?
6) How many elementary school classes are homogenously grouped, how
many are cluster grouped, how many of the cluster classes fall below
50% gifted?
7) Of the cluster groups falling below 50% , how often are specialist
making contact with those teachers? daily, weekly, monthly?

I pursued this course of action in an effort to review the extent to
which the 2008 planning “goals” have been implemented as well as
submit findings and recommendations to the superintendant and to the
school board. I received a response from CPS yesterday, which I have
attached. The fact that no documents exist regarding the number of
gifted classes CPS has or how students are grouped is extremely
disappointing and concerning to me. How can CPS evaluate the progress
they have or may make regarding these “goals” if there is not
documentation to review. How does one provide quality assurance to the
gifted program without this information? One of the school board
members asked several weeks ago, how many gifted endorsed teachers
would be needed in order for all gifted students to be taught by an
endorsed teacher? We still have no answer. Hopefully, administration
will work on making improvements in monitoring and evaluating the
status and progress regarding these program “goals” and gifted
services in general. I am certainly not paying $250.00 plus for
information that I consider to be the basic job and responsibility of
CPS gifted program to provide to the advisory committee members, the
school board, and the public for that matter, since this a public
school system paid by taxpayer dollars.

I have tried my best to fulfilled my duties as an advisory committee
member to the members of the school board and the gifted community. It
will now be up to the members of the board to make a decision
regarding the proposed plan and the future of gifted services. I have
only made suggestions that I believe would improve the plan and to
ensure the integrity of the program. I have great concerns regarding
the possible deterioration of gifted services in CPS over the coming
years. If this occurs it will not be my failure, it will be theirs. I
hope this will not be the case and the progress CPS has made will
continue into the future. Your time and consideration regarding this
matter has been greatly appreciated.

Respectfully,
Deborah Piper, M.S.W.
Gifted Advisory Committee Member