Issues with draft of new plan for gifted services-IMPORTANT INFORMATION

[dpip...@cox.net]

Hello Chesapeake PAGE Members,

As stated in my previous post the Board will be reviewing and possibly
approving a new 5 year plan for gifted services next Monday, March
26th at 7:00 at the school administration bldg on Cedar Road. I had
asked administration in writing twice in the past two months when the
plan was due but never received a response. As a member of the gifted
advisory committee, I just received an email on March 14th of the
draft of the plan and a request for feedback from the new director of
gifted, Sarah Rhodes. The advisory committee as a whole has not even
had a meeting to discuss the plan as a whole, which I thought would
occur at the next committee meeting on April 19th. I have expressed
concerns regarding student grouping practices and endorsement
requirements several times over the past couple of months both in
writing and in person prior to receiving the plan draft. I feel my
concerns and requests for information have been dismissed or
inadequately addressed. The draft of the new plan has only increased
my concerns. The plan does have a considerable amount of positive
development in the area of curriculum which is great; however it seems
to be moving backwards in regarding to ability grouping practices and
teacher endorsement since the 2008 initiative was approved to
strengthen gifted services. These are my two major concerns I have
with the draft of the new plan:

1) The gifted teachers have no specific REQUIREMENTS listed regarding
training. The plan does state that “trained” (not endorsed) teachers
will provide instruction. The school system will provide and promote
training opportunities. This differs from the previous 5 year plan,
which had endorsement requirements for the old Lab school teachers
(full-time). Elementary cluster teachers were require to attend gifted
staff development with no timeline listed. Middle school honors
teachers (cluster model) were required to have annual training in
gifted. In addition, the 2008 initiative approved by the board stated
that "teachers endorsed in gifted education or working towards
endorsement will provide instruction for gifted students". Also, other
school districts similar to ours have specific requirements regarding
training for gifted teachers. Generally, their full-time teachers need
to be endorsed within 5 years.

2) The new plan draft states that gifted students will be grouped in
CLUSTER CLASSES for both MIDDLE and ELEMENTARY levels. There is no
mention as to what size the clusters will be and there is no mention
of a HOMOGENEOUS (all gifted) option. The 2008 initiative stated
"homogenous, clusters, and flexible grouping would be utilized" and
the discussion was that some schools may have low numbers so
flexibility needed to be provided. I also recall that there was a goal
of 50% in cluster classes, if possible due to numbers. However that
was not put in writing. I remember this distinctly because I used this
statement with my elementary school principal at that time to argue
for larger clusters than the year before the initiative. In 2010, when
services were initiated in the middle school parents were told that
middle school students would have a completely separate program from
honors and be placed in a homogenous gifted classroom. Back in 2006,
I advocated for local gifted centers to administration and the school
board, but administration proposed the 2008 initiative instead. In the
2006-2011 plan there was a goal to research the feasibility of
elementary centers for the gifted and this goal continues to be in the
plan with an end date of 2017, but I do not believe that this will
every happen.
I have spent the past few days reviewing and comparing other district
plans in Virginia with ours (Fairfax, Virginia Beach, Chesterfield,
Henrico, and Newport News) along with gifted regulation from VDOE.
Most of the local plans are accessible online through their gifted
page, which we need to do along with Norfolk as required in the state
regulations. Newport News has about 10,000 less students and about
$100 million less in their budget yet they have full-time local zone
gifted centers for elementary and middle school. For example, NNPS
2006-2011 plan states that they have 54 full-time gifted endorsed
teachers at 3 middle school centers and 39 full-time gifted endorsed
teachers at 9 elementary school centers. Gifted student are 8.2% of
their school population. The other school systems appear to offer a
combination model: a home-school cluster option and a full-time zone
centers/gifted school option for their gifted students in both
elementary and middle. Having both options allow for the mildly
gifted and the highly gifted to have their needs met. “ Research from
Rogers and Shields supports homogeneous grouping and Tomlinson
suggests that even though regular classrooms that employ
differentiated instruction can accommodate many needs of gifted
students, most schools will need to provide a variety of services and
learning options for the full range of learners”. (Education
Leadership Article “Grouping Gifted Students” by John Holloway,
October 2003, Issue 2)

Basically my opinion is the new plan takes us back to the same old
model and services we had back in 2006, with the exception of losing
the lab school and gaining the advance curriculum development. I
believe that more teachers have been endorsed, but with the lack of a
requirement I am concern that growth in this area will slow
significantly. I strongly feel that teachers working with homogeneous
groups provide more opportunities for acceleration and enrichment
activities than the cluster model and my son feels the same way. How
do you feel? What do your kids think? What do your kids’ teachers
think?

The concern for me with this plan is that all gifted students will or
could be placed in small cluster classes (which will not be considered
full-time) and there will be no requirements for endorsement. I read
in an article recently that if a 1/4 of the students are gifted in a
cluster classroom then the teacher is suppose to spend a quarter of
the time teaching those students. Therefore, they would not be
considered full time teachers of the gifted, which is supported by the
fact that the old plan states that cluster teachers are considered
part-time teachers of gifted. Cluster classes are not considered full-
time gifted programs and I believe have difficulty meeting the needs
of the highly gifted or even the mild to moderately gifted, depending
on the teacher and size of the cluster.

There could be opposition regarding money due to the financial crisis.
Of course in 2006, they used finances as an excuse as well. In 2008,
the gifted program gave up the lab school, which only served 4th and
5th graders one day per week, which I believe allowed the alternative
education classes to move into the building, because their building
was being condemned. In return these promises were made to the gifted
program regarding grouping, curriculum, and endorsement. If they want
to save money they should group the students as tightly as possible so
that the least amount of endorsement funding is spent. I wish that I
could tell you how many teachers have been endorsed or need to be
endorsed or provide some summary of how the students have been
grouped, but administration has not seemed willing to provide this
information. It is very disappointing to see how our school division
ranks to other districts regarding gifted services and very
frustrating to see the possibility of a retreatment from the progress
that has been made over the past four years. In addition, we should
not base gifted programming or policy to accommodate students who do
not require/need this type of learning environment. Teachers who have
high ability learners who may also benefit from enrichment can attend
professional development training and utilize differentiated
curriculum in their classrooms.

VDOE regulations state that “the development process for the school
divisions local plan for the education of the gifted shall included
opportunities for public review of the schools divisions plan”. If
you have concerns or want to share your thoughts feel free to comment
on the Chesapeake PAGE website. I would also encourage you to attend
the school board meeting. If you want to express concerns to the board
or would like to ask for the vote to be postponed to allow you more
time to review the plan you can call to sign up at 547-1047 to speak
or sign up prior to the meeting. If you cannot make the meeting you
can also email the Board members (emails are list on CPS’s Website
under School Board. The gifted children in our community need you now!
I thank you for your time and consideration in these matters.
Deborah Piper,
Gifted Advisory Committee Member

[hayes...@yahoo.com]

Ms. Piper,
After reading your email, I am a bit confused as to what the new proposal involves.  Perhaps I missed an attachment to an earlier email.  Does the new proposal look to get rid of any sort of clustering?  If so, I would say that I am disappointed.  I have a very gifted 7th grader at Jolliff who is now in a solely gifted grouping.  Are you of the opinion that there are no purely gifted classes at the middle school level?

Next, it seems that you oppose any clustering for highly functioning children?  When my son was at Chittum and clustered, he was challenged and it was impossible to tell which students were the clustered vs gifted.  They had a wonderful experience and I would hate to see that change.

My middle son is in 3rd grade at Chittum and his teacher has said that she thought he would get in the program this year, but apparently he doesn't take the test very well and is still just clustered.  He has done so well in this class this year and it sickens me to think that he might not have that opportunity next year.  Other teachers who are gifted certified that do an afterschool program also indicated that he seems qualified and that he is a good contributor to their projects.  I think taking that away from children who clearly benefit would be criminal and I do have children who fall on both side of that line in the sand so I feel very qualified to voice my opinion.  I am not sure how the clustered children held your kids back, but didn't see that at Chittum and have never heard of anyone else with that complaint. 

Just an experienced parent;s two cents worth.

Julie Hayes

Connected by DROID on Verizon Wireless

-----Original message-----

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chesapeake PAGE" group.
To post to this group, send email to chesape...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to chesapeake-pa...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/chesapeake-page?hl=en.

[myty...@aol.com]

WOW!!!  Was in Richmond all day and am just reading this now.  Very nice!  Am ready to meet with Sarah tomorrow.  THANKS!

 

Have you heard from anyone?

 

Kym

-----Original Message-----
From: dpiper007 <dpip...@cox.net>
To: Chesapeake PAGE <chesape...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tue, Mar 20, 2012 2:17 am
Subject: Issues with draft of new plan for gifted services-IMPORTANT INFORMATION

Hello Chesapeake PAGE Members,

As stated in my previous post the Board will be reviewing and possibly
approving a new 5 year plan for gifted services next Monday, March
26th at 7:00 at the school administration bldg on Cedar Road. I had
asked administration in writing twice in the past two months when the
plan was due but never received a response. As a member of the gifted
advisory committee, I just received an email on March 14th of the
draft of the plan and a request for feedback from the new director of
gifted, Sarah Rhodes. The advisory committee as a whole has not even
had a meeting to discuss the plan as a whole, which I thought would
occur at the next committee meeting on April 19th. I have expressed
concerns regarding student grouping practices and endorsement
requirements several times over the past couple of months both in
writing and in person prior to receiving the plan draft.   I feel my
concerns and requests for information have been dismissed or
inadequately addressed.  The draft of the new plan has only increased
my concerns. The plan does have a considerable amount of positive
development in the area of curriculum which is great; however it seems
to be moving backwards in regarding to ability grouping practices and
teacher endorsement since the 2008 initiative was approved to
strengthen gifted services. These are my two major concerns I have
with the draft of the new plan:

1) The gifted teachers have no specific REQUIREMENTS listed regarding
training. The plan does state that  “trained” (not endorsed) teachers
will provide instruction. The school system will provide and promote
training opportunities.  This differs from the previous 5 year plan,
which had endorsement requirements for the old Lab school teachers
(full-time). Elementary cluster teachers were require to attend gifted
staff development with no timeline listed. Middle school honors
teachers (cluster model) were required to have annual training in
gifted. In addition, the 2008 initiative approved by the board stated
that "teachers endorsed in gifted education or working towards
endorsement will provide instruction for gifted students". Also, other
school districts similar to ours have specific requirements regarding
training for gifted teachers. Generally, their full-time teachers need
to be endorsed within 5 years.

2) The new plan draft states that gifted students will be grouped in
CLUSTER CLASSES for both MIDDLE and ELEMENTARY levels. There is no
mention as to what size the clusters will be and there is no mention
of a HOMOGENEOUS (all gifted) option. The 2008 initiative stated
"homogenous, clusters, and flexible grouping would be utilized" and
the discussion was that some schools may have low numbers so
flexibility needed to be provided. I also recall that there was a goal
of 50% in cluster classes, if possible due to numbers.  However that
was not put in writing. I remember this distinctly because I used this
statement with my elementary school principal at that time to argue
for larger clusters than the year before the initiative. In 2010, when
services were initiated in the middle school parents were told that
middle school students would have a completely separate program from
honors and be placed in a homogenous gifted classroom.  Back in 2006,
I advocated for local gifted centers to administration and the school
board, but administration proposed the 2008 initiative instead. In the
2006-2011 plan there was a goal to research the feasibility of
elementary centers for the gifted and this goal continues to be in the
plan with an end date of 2017, but I do not believe that this will
every happen.
I have spent the past few days reviewing and comparing other district
plans in Virginia with ours (Fairfax, Virginia Beach, Chesterfield,
Henrico, and Newport News) along with gifted regulation from VDOE.
Most of the local plans are accessible online through their gifted
page, which we need to do along with Norfolk as required in the state
regulations. Newport News has about 10,000 less students and about
$100 million less in their budget yet they have full-time local zone
gifted centers for elementary and middle school. For example, NNPS
2006-2011 plan states that they have 54 full-time gifted endorsed
teachers at 3 middle school centers and 39 full-time gifted endorsed
teachers at 9 elementary school centers. Gifted student are 8.2% of
their school population. The other school systems appear to offer a
combination model:  a home-school cluster option and a full-time zone
centers/gifted school option for their gifted students in both
elementary and middle.  Having both options allow for the mildly
gifted and the highly gifted to have their needs met. “ Research from
Rogers and Shields supports homogeneous grouping and Tomlinson
suggests that even though regular classrooms that employ
differentiated instruction can accommodate many needs of gifted
students, most schools will need to provide a variety of services and
learning options for the full range of learners”. (Education
Leadership Article “Grouping Gifted Students” by John Holloway,
October 2003, Issue 2)

Basically my opinion is the new plan takes us back to the same old
model and services we had back in 2006, with the exception of losing
the lab school and gaining the advance curriculum development. I
believe that more teachers have been endorsed, but with the lack of a
requirement I am concern that growth in this area will slow
significantly.  I strongly feel that teachers working with homogeneous
groups provide more opportunities for acceleration and enrichment
activities than the cluster model and my son feels the same way. How
do you feel? What do your kids think?  What do your kids’ teachers
think?

The concern for me with this plan is that all gifted students will or
could be placed in small cluster classes (which will not be considered
full-time) and there will be no requirements for endorsement. I read
in an article recently that if a 1/4 of the students are gifted in a
cluster classroom then the teacher is suppose to spend a quarter of
the time teaching  those students. Therefore, they would not be
considered full time teachers of the gifted, which is supported by the
fact that the old plan states that cluster teachers are considered
part-time teachers of gifted. Cluster classes are not considered full-
time gifted programs and I believe have difficulty meeting the needs
of the highly gifted or even the mild to moderately gifted, depending
on the teacher and size of the cluster.

There could be opposition regarding money due to the financial crisis.
Of course in 2006, they used finances as an excuse as well. In 2008,
the gifted program gave up the lab school, which only served 4th and
5th graders one day per week, which I believe allowed the alternative
education classes to move into the building, because their building
was being condemned. In return these promises were made to the gifted
program regarding grouping, curriculum, and endorsement. If they want
to save money they should group the students as tightly as possible so
that the least amount of endorsement funding is spent.  I wish that I
could tell you how many teachers have been endorsed or need to be
endorsed or provide some summary of how the students have been
grouped, but administration has not seemed willing to provide this
information. It is very disappointing to see how our school division
ranks to other districts regarding gifted services and very
frustrating to see the possibility of a retreatment from the progress
that has been made over the past four years.  In addition, we should
not base gifted programming or policy to accommodate students who do
not require/need this type of learning environment.  Teachers who have
high ability learners who may also benefit from enrichment can attend
professional development training and utilize differentiated
curriculum in their classrooms.

VDOE regulations state that “the development process for the school
divisions local plan for the education of the gifted shall included
opportunities for public review of the schools divisions plan”.  If
you have concerns or want to share your thoughts feel free to comment
on the Chesapeake PAGE website. I would also encourage you to attend
the school board meeting. If you want to express concerns to the board
or would like to ask for the vote to be postponed to allow you more
time to review the plan you can call to sign up at 547-1047 to speak
or sign up prior to the meeting. If you cannot make the meeting you
can also email the Board members (emails are list on CPS’s Website
under School Board. The gifted children in our community need you now!
I thank you for your time and consideration in these matters.
Deborah Piper,
Gifted Advisory Committee Member

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Chesapeake PAGE" group.
To post to this group, send email to chesape...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to chesapeake-pa...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/chesapeake-page?hl=en.

[myty...@aol.com]

Actually, I am very curious about who is on here now.....could anyone receiving this email please just email me directly at myty...@aol.com to let me know?  My worst fear is that this group is no longer active=(

 

Thanks!

 

Kym

Chair

Gifted Advisory Committee

[Deborah]

Hello Julie,

 

My recent post is discussing the upcoming 5 year plan for gifted services. My 6^th grade son is in a solely gifted (homogeneous) group as well at his middle school and it has been great. He stated to me that he feels he has gotten much more acceleration and enrichment at the middle school than he did in the clusters in 4^th and 5^th.   My 3^rd grade daughter also shows potential, but did not make the talent pool for screening even though she scored 135 or 99^th percentile on their Naglieri ability screening test. I was told that last year they needed 90^th percentile above on both the Naglieri and one composite area of Reading or Math on the Stanford. She only got 87^th percentile on her math composite score so she missed the cutoff, probably due to her missing like one or two question. Her math problem solving was in the 94^th percentile, but I guess that didn’t matter.   Henrico requires 96^th and Newport News 88^th on just the abilities test to make it into the talent pool for screening for possible eligibility for gifted. If we lived in Henrico or Newport News she would have at least been screened. The problem with requiring both for screening is students who are twice exceptional (also have a disability, yes you can be gifted and have a disability like (dyslexia, ADHD) or other factors that may hinder their performance to met up with their ability. I do believe the plan may be trying to address some of these issue. This will be something I will follow into the future. So, I have a very similar situation as you do. Also our district does not offer services for Specific Academic Apptitude (SAA) from K-5 (like math only)  just General Intellectual Ability.

 

The gifted child learns, thinks, and  expresses themselves in a different way than high abilities learners. Not all gifted children are the same, they can be very different. I think if you have a very well trained and experienced teacher in a cluster classroom instruction will be better than a  poorly trained  and inexperienced teacher in a homogeneous classroom.  If you read my post clearly you would see that the proposal calls for clustering only and there are no option listed for homogeneous grouping. Which means we only have one option instead of two options. This is an issue for me especially at the middle school level, since honors is available for the high ability learners. Also, there is no requirement for extensive training or endorsement. Which means that the possibility of having cluster classes with untrained teachers increases. The issue is these grouping options and endorsement requirements were promised and approved and now are absent in the new plan. The issue is that most other school divisions similar to ours offer many more options and more teacher training than we have and for good reason. I had a principal who wanted to have half of the fourth grade (4 out of 8 classes) in a gifted cluster classroom. I am sorry but half the school is not gifted nor needs gifted services.  The National Association of Gifted states that about 6% of the student population is gifted and certainly some schools will have a higher percent if their parents are neurosurgeons or nuclear physicist. Some indicate that the population could be between 5% to 20%. Even if we take the top 25% that is still a far cry from 50%. Currently, my son’s school has about 25% of the students in the gifted program, which I feel is a very broad range from mildly gifted, moderately gifted, to highly gifted. If there are any profoundly gifted students in Chesapeake, I hope they have been grade skipped or receiving their education by other means than our public schools. This is why other school divisions (VB, Henrico, Chesterfield) have mixed clusters for the mildly gifted at the home based schools and separate schools/centers for the moderate to highly gifted. Our division is no way near or willing to provide these services at this time so we have to work with what we have. We have to try to serve the mild to the highly gifted with one option. In my opinion having half the school in cluster classrooms will pull instruction to the mean and the moderately to highly gifted will not be served appropriately.  If a child is mildly gifted than the cluster option with high ability learners and a well-trained teacher will probably work well. But due to the lack of options given to us, I can’t justify serving high ability learners in place of moderately to highly gifted students, since we are talking about “GIFTED SERVICES”! We need to refocus our attention and ensure that the regular mixed ability classes in the elementary school differentiate for high ability learners so there needs continue to be met as well.  That’s why the honors classes are provided in the middle and high schools for high ability learners. I do believe that staff development training is available to all teachers regarding differentiation, so this should be strongly encouraged.

 

My suggestion regarding your 3^rd grade son is to appeal the decision and try to get information and an understanding as to why the committee found him ineligible. If you feel that testing is a problem than see if you can have him independently testing with an individual IQ test like the WISC. I believe these test are much more accurate that the group screening ability tests, but they are more costly and that is why the school systems don’t use them for gifted. But they do for special education decision. I know this because I have a Master’s degree in School Social Work and used to be a member of the eligibility committee for special education. Perhaps, I will do some follow up with my daughter as well. If I do and the results indicated that she is not in need of gifted services, then I will be fine with her not being in a cluster class. I might ask the teacher to differentiate in math since that is a strength for her and provide her more opportunities to do her artwork. My daughter wasn’t cluster this year or in 2^nd or 1^st grade and has been doing well and is happy.  If honors seems appropriate for her in middle school than that is where she will be placed, maybe just math, who knows. I am blessed to have a bright, happy, daughter. I do not feel that my child not being placed in a gifted cluster class is criminal. What is criminal is that the school system has focused the regular classroom environment towards the average and below average students!!! What is legally criminal is for the school system not to provide appropriate gifted services for all gifted students as required by the state regulations for gifted education.

 

I truly appreciate you reading my post and becoming active in the discussion, whether we agree or disagree.

 

Thanks,

Deborah Piper

[Amy Brand]

I am receiving these emails - my son is in the gifted classes at Cedar Road Elementary and will be moving on to Great Bridge Middle School next year.  I have never received emails from this group until this week and have not been particularly involved, although I'm thinking I may become more so now!

- Amy Brand

[myty...@aol.com]

Hi!  Thanks for responding!  This is the time to get more involved.  What is happening over there?  Are you hearing anything about what your child's program will be like over at the middle school?

 

Kym

-----Original Message-----
From: Amy Brand <abr...@cox.net>
To: chesapeake-page <chesape...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wed, Mar 21, 2012 7:44 am
Subject: Re: Issues with draft of new plan for gifted services-IMPORTANT INFORMATION

[Deborah]

Amy,

 

My son attends GBMS and we both have been very pleased with his teachers and the program there. Mr. Mills has been very supportive of gifted services.  I have a friend whose daughter attended Cedar and really liked the program there. Have you been pleased there? I heard they cluster pretty tightly and have a particularly fabulous 4^th grade teacher there.  Please stay involved.

 

Deb

 

 

From: chesape...@googlegroups.com [mailto:chesape...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Amy Brand
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 7:10 AM
To: chesape...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Issues with draft of new plan for gifted services-IMPORTANT INFORMATION

 

I am receiving these emails - my son is in the gifted classes at Cedar Road Elementary and will be moving on to Great Bridge Middle School next year.  I have never received emails from this group until this week and have not been particularly involved, although I'm thinking I may become more so now!

 

- Amy Brand

--

[Brian & Jean Melvin]

I have a seventh grader in the GT program.  We moved here last year, so his early gifted experience was in Fairfax County.  We have found a big difference between the two programs.  Their Advanced Academic page is  http://www.fcps.edu/is/aap/index.shtml  I can fill a book, really, but the main issue is levels of giftedness and how you accommodate them.

 

The program in Fairfax allows for different levels of service for giftedness.  Only the highest ability learners were placed in the homogeneous Level IV centers, and they did amazing work there.  But ALL the kids met very strict criteria in order to be in that group, which meant there was no problems with kids doing poorly in one area, “since that isn’t what they’re gifted in.”  All gifted kids need services, but they don’t all need the same type of service.  For reference, my son has 30+ students in his gifted class at WBMS.  His gifted center in Fairfax pulled from 6 elementary schools but only had 2 homerooms of less than 25 kids per grade.  If you didn’t fit the criteria of the gifted center you received services at your home school.  In my opinion, the gifted groupings here in Chesapeake need to be looked at again. 

 

Specific to his class right now, I have other concerns as well.   

·         Since his administration opted to have only one gifted class at his grade level, he has more than 30 students in his class at WBMS.  Large class size makes for a poor gifted experience.  That decision, which I think impacts his education enormously, was made at the school level due to staffing and scheduling concerns. 

·         Kids in my son’s class are failing; they don’t turn in work and they disrupt class.  This was the case last year as well.  When I brought it up at the gifted meetings, I was told that once the child has a gifted designation they cannot be taken out of the program.  I think that the kids need to be reevaluated before 6^th grade to see if they should remain in the program, and I also believe that poor performers and unruly students should be put on probation and removed from the program if they persist with poor choices.  I’m not talking about the child trying hard and getting a D, but the ones not trying and not caring about the failures. 

·         Many of the parents (probably none that are in this loop) are complaining about the work load from the program.  I worry that those complaints will gain traction and water down the program even more.

 

While my son has in 6^th grade I drove down to Greenbrier for all the gifted meetings, but I came to feel it wasn’t a good use of my time.  When I expressed my concerns about class size, they told me it wasn’t their call, and that class size didn’t impact my son’s education (that was said with a straight face…)  We will leave Chesapeake after next year, so I decided to stop banging my head against the wall and just deal with what I could on a class by class basis.  I sincerely hope that the budget constraints let up at some point, and the program can evolve in a positive way.

 

Jean Melvin       

[curl...@cox.net]

Hi Kym!

I, too, receive the emails from this group. My boys are the same ages/grades/schools at Deborah's son & daughter. My elder son is at GBMS & is thriving in the gifted program there (although we were also pleased with his teachers/classes at GBI). My younger son is 3rd grade at GBI & missed the gifted talent pool due to his math score (87th percentile) on the testing in 2nd grade. We've worked on his math at home (he struggled with subtraction facts), and I've requested re-testing this spring. It's difficult for me to comment too much regarding the current gifted program at GBI since I don't have a child currently in the program. Many of the overall enrichment programs at the school have gone away since the new principal started this year, and I'm not happy about that. I have noticed that the level of work in his class is very easy for him & I do worry that he is not being challenged in his current placement.

Regards,
Amy Curling

---- "myty...@aol.com" <myty...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Actually, I am very curious about who is on here now.....could anyone receiving this email please just email me directly at myty...@aol.com to let me know? My worst fear is that this group is no longer active=(
>
> Thanks!
>
> Kym
> Chair
> Gifted Advisory Committee
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dpiper007 <dpip...@cox.net>
> To: Chesapeake PAGE <chesape...@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Tue, Mar 20, 2012 2:17 am
> Subject: Issues with draft of new plan for gifted services-IMPORTANT INFORMATION
>
>
> Hello Chesapeake PAGE Members,
> As stated in my previous post the Board will be reviewing and possibly

> pproving a new 5 year plan for gifted services next Monday, March

> 6th at 7:00 at the school administration bldg on Cedar Road. I had

> sked administration in writing twice in the past two months when the

> lan was due but never received a response. As a member of the gifted

> dvisory committee, I just received an email on March 14th of the

> raft of the plan and a request for feedback from the new director of

> ifted, Sarah Rhodes. The advisory committee as a whole has not even

> ad a meeting to discuss the plan as a whole, which I thought would

> ccur at the next committee meeting on April 19th. I have expressed

> oncerns regarding student grouping practices and endorsement

> equirements several times over the past couple of months both in

> riting and in person prior to receiving the plan draft. I feel my

> oncerns and requests for information have been dismissed or

> nadequately addressed. The draft of the new plan has only increased

> y concerns. The plan does have a considerable amount of positive

> evelopment in the area of curriculum which is great; however it seems

> o be moving backwards in regarding to ability grouping practices and

> eacher endorsement since the 2008 initiative was approved to

> trengthen gifted services. These are my two major concerns I have

> ith the draft of the new plan:
> 1) The gifted teachers have no specific REQUIREMENTS listed regarding

> raining. The plan does state that “trained” (not endorsed) teachers

> ill provide instruction. The school system will provide and promote

> raining opportunities. This differs from the previous 5 year plan,

> hich had endorsement requirements for the old Lab school teachers

> full-time). Elementary cluster teachers were require to attend gifted

> taff development with no timeline listed. Middle school honors

> eachers (cluster model) were required to have annual training in

> ifted. In addition, the 2008 initiative approved by the board stated

> hat "teachers endorsed in gifted education or working towards

> ndorsement will provide instruction for gifted students". Also, other

> chool districts similar to ours have specific requirements regarding

> raining for gifted teachers. Generally, their full-time teachers need

> o be endorsed within 5 years.
> 2) The new plan draft states that gifted students will be grouped in

> LUSTER CLASSES for both MIDDLE and ELEMENTARY levels. There is no

> ention as to what size the clusters will be and there is no mention

> f a HOMOGENEOUS (all gifted) option. The 2008 initiative stated
> homogenous, clusters, and flexible grouping would be utilized" and

> he discussion was that some schools may have low numbers so

> lexibility needed to be provided. I also recall that there was a goal

> f 50% in cluster classes, if possible due to numbers. However that

> as not put in writing. I remember this distinctly because I used this

> tatement with my elementary school principal at that time to argue

> or larger clusters than the year before the initiative. In 2010, when

> ervices were initiated in the middle school parents were told that

> iddle school students would have a completely separate program from

> onors and be placed in a homogenous gifted classroom. Back in 2006,

> advocated for local gifted centers to administration and the school

> oard, but administration proposed the 2008 initiative instead. In the

> 006-2011 plan there was a goal to research the feasibility of

> lementary centers for the gifted and this goal continues to be in the

> lan with an end date of 2017, but I do not believe that this will

> very happen.

> have spent the past few days reviewing and comparing other district

> lans in Virginia with ours (Fairfax, Virginia Beach, Chesterfield,

> enrico, and Newport News) along with gifted regulation from VDOE.

> ost of the local plans are accessible online through their gifted

> age, which we need to do along with Norfolk as required in the state

> egulations. Newport News has about 10,000 less students and about

> 100 million less in their budget yet they have full-time local zone

> ifted centers for elementary and middle school. For example, NNPS

> 006-2011 plan states that they have 54 full-time gifted endorsed

> eachers at 3 middle school centers and 39 full-time gifted endorsed

> eachers at 9 elementary school centers. Gifted student are 8.2% of

> heir school population. The other school systems appear to offer a

> ombination model: a home-school cluster option and a full-time zone

> enters/gifted school option for their gifted students in both

> lementary and middle. Having both options allow for the mildly

> ifted and the highly gifted to have their needs met. “ Research from

> ogers and Shields supports homogeneous grouping and Tomlinson

> uggests that even though regular classrooms that employ

> ifferentiated instruction can accommodate many needs of gifted

> tudents, most schools will need to provide a variety of services and

> earning options for the full range of learners”. (Education

> eadership Article “Grouping Gifted Students” by John Holloway,

> ctober 2003, Issue 2)
> Basically my opinion is the new plan takes us back to the same old

> odel and services we had back in 2006, with the exception of losing

> he lab school and gaining the advance curriculum development. I

> elieve that more teachers have been endorsed, but with the lack of a

> equirement I am concern that growth in this area will slow

> ignificantly. I strongly feel that teachers working with homogeneous

> roups provide more opportunities for acceleration and enrichment

> ctivities than the cluster model and my son feels the same way. How

> o you feel? What do your kids think? What do your kids’ teachers

> hink?
> The concern for me with this plan is that all gifted students will or

> ould be placed in small cluster classes (which will not be considered

> ull-time) and there will be no requirements for endorsement. I read

> n an article recently that if a 1/4 of the students are gifted in a

> luster classroom then the teacher is suppose to spend a quarter of

> he time teaching those students. Therefore, they would not be

> onsidered full time teachers of the gifted, which is supported by the

> act that the old plan states that cluster teachers are considered

> art-time teachers of gifted. Cluster classes are not considered full-

> ime gifted programs and I believe have difficulty meeting the needs

> f the highly gifted or even the mild to moderately gifted, depending

> n the teacher and size of the cluster.
> There could be opposition regarding money due to the financial crisis.

> f course in 2006, they used finances as an excuse as well. In 2008,

> he gifted program gave up the lab school, which only served 4th and

> th graders one day per week, which I believe allowed the alternative

> ducation classes to move into the building, because their building

> as being condemned. In return these promises were made to the gifted

> rogram regarding grouping, curriculum, and endorsement. If they want

> o save money they should group the students as tightly as possible so

> hat the least amount of endorsement funding is spent. I wish that I

> ould tell you how many teachers have been endorsed or need to be

> ndorsed or provide some summary of how the students have been

> rouped, but administration has not seemed willing to provide this

> nformation. It is very disappointing to see how our school division

> anks to other districts regarding gifted services and very

> rustrating to see the possibility of a retreatment from the progress

> hat has been made over the past four years. In addition, we should

> ot base gifted programming or policy to accommodate students who do

> ot require/need this type of learning environment. Teachers who have

> igh ability learners who may also benefit from enrichment can attend

> rofessional development training and utilize differentiated

> urriculum in their classrooms.
> VDOE regulations state that “the development process for the school

> ivisions local plan for the education of the gifted shall included

> pportunities for public review of the schools divisions plan”. If

> ou have concerns or want to share your thoughts feel free to comment

> n the Chesapeake PAGE website. I would also encourage you to attend

> he school board meeting. If you want to express concerns to the board

> r would like to ask for the vote to be postponed to allow you more

> ime to review the plan you can call to sign up at 547-1047 to speak

> r sign up prior to the meeting. If you cannot make the meeting you

> an also email the Board members (emails are list on CPS’s Website

> nder School Board. The gifted children in our community need you now!

> thank you for your time and consideration in these matters.

> eborah Piper,
> ifted Advisory Committee Member
> --

> ou received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> Chesapeake PAGE" group.

> o post to this group, send email to chesape...@googlegroups.com.

> o unsubscribe from this group, send email to chesapeake-pa...@googlegroups.com.

[Amy Brand]

Hi Deb - I'm VERY glad to hear that you've been happy with the program at GBMS - I've heard that they may not be able to put all the GATE kids on one team next year for the incoming 6th grade students, so I am just starting to really pay attention to how this works. I don't know all the lingo or even whether my son is mildly gifted or what - I never asked for his test scores, etc.! I have been happy with the GATE program at CRE, especially the 4th grade, as you've heard.  While I like his 5th grade teacher very much, he doesn't work nearly as hard as he learned to in 4th grade - I'm concerned that he has lost some of the good habits he learned in 4th grade.

I am new to getting involved, but will certainly start paying more attention...

- Amy

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Deborah wrote:

 Amy,

 

My son attends GBMS and we both have been very pleased with his teachers and the program there. Mr. Mills has been very supportive of gifted services.  I have a friend whose daughter attended Cedar and really liked the program there. Have you been pleased there? I heard they cluster pretty tightly and have a particularly fabulous 4 th grade teacher there.  Please stay involved.

 

Deb

 

 

From: chesape...@googlegroups.com [mailto:chesape...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Amy Brand

Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 7:10 AM

To: chesape...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: Issues with draft of new plan for gifted services-IMPORTANT INFORMATION

 

I am receiving these emails - my son is in the gifted classes at Cedar Road Elementary and will be moving on to Great Bridge Middle School next year.  I have never received emails from this group until this week and have not been particularly involved, although I'm thinking I may become more so now!

 

- Amy Brand

[Deborah]

Amy,

 

Oh believe me, I am well informed regarding the request from admin for the team to be split into two team as they had the previous year. I have even had a meeting with several members of administration regarding this issue. The official policy is the decision on grouping is up to the principal (which can potentially be a problem depending on the philosophy of the principal). I believe that the primary decision making factor is suppose to be based on numbers. However, the principal was specifically told by administration not to have a “superteam” ,which is someone else’s phrase not one that I have used.  I was told the school board does not want a “superteam”.  I have argued that this is no different than programs such as IB, academies, or gifted centers/schools, which they have all over the state. In addition, we were suppose to have all teachers endorsed, so it would cost additional funds to train 12 additional teachers since it will be three grade levels and I have been told that interest in getting endorsed is decreasing. Umm, now they drop the endorsement requirement in the new plan. The response was that with two teams there were more choices to match learning styles with teacher styles. It is a decent point, but does it take priority over reasons to have one team when you can. My opinion is no. In addition there are several schools that have only one, two, and three gifted classes, which are all on one team, so I guess they don’t get that option. I have advocated that an actual specific philosophy regarding grouping practices be decided and  best practice guidelines be written and given to principals to assist them in making decisions. This  lack of transparency is one of my major concerns.

 

I organized many parents in 2006 and we all spoke before the school board and begged them to improve the gifted program. Two additional specialist were added to the plan that were not in the budget, so we did have an immediate impact. They came up with the initiative in 2008 and now it looks like they want to change the plan again and I believe in the wrong direction in many areas. We need people to become actively involved ASAP. The more parents who show up and speak at the school board the more influence we can have on the plan. If we become uninformed or complacent they will do what they wish. If all you say is I would like more time to review the plan, it can make a big difference. All the parents, teachers, principals, should have some time to review the plan before a final approval is made. The actual advisory committee on gifted education has not met all together to review the plan as a whole and just received the rough draft a week ago by email.

 

Thanks,

Deborah

 

 

 

From: chesape...@googlegroups.com [mailto:chesape...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Amy Brand

Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 10:19 AM
To: chesape...@googlegroups.com

[Jen Sowers]

Hi-

I'm new to this group- today is my first day. I plan on being more involved. Both of my children are in the gifted classes at GBMS and GBI.(6th and 3rd) 

The GBMS gifted classes are very challenging for my child. He is working harder than he ever had to in the past to maintain honor roll grades. I have been pleased with the program! 

The GBI gifted classes are clustered.  In my son's class there are 5 identified gifted and I'm guessing there are 4 who missed the cut-off scores; there are 23 students in his class. I have been volunteering in this class for 3 hours each week since September and, in my opinion, the gifted students aren't being challenged as they were in previous years. (My older son attended GBI GATE classes for 2.5 years.) I think the class work is too easy since my son has a lot of spare time to spend reading, and he maintains a 98 average. A lot of his teacher's time is being spent on the other students and trying to get them SOL ready. 

I plan to attend the meeting to voice my concerns about this restructuring plan! 

Jen Sowers

Sent from my iPhone

[Deborah]

Jean,

 

Thank you so much for sharing your experience. I spoke with the gifted director with Fairfax last week and was amazed and envious of all the program options they have available there (VB, Chesterfield, Henrico and I think Norfolk have similar options). If we were only so lucky. I certainly understand your feelings regarding hitting your head against the wall when it comes to the advisory committee!! I have been fighting this fight for six years!! I have advocated numerous times to have tiered services, etc, but very little movement has happened.  It appears that CPS wants to provide as little funding for the gifted program as possible, not just in the last four years , but the last 20. That’s why other school districts are so far ahead of us.

 

Deb

[Deborah]

Jen,

 

Thanks so much for sharing your experience. The experience your youngest is having is my greatest concern. Poor grouping practices at work again. Glad you are getting involved!! If you know of any other parents who may be interested spread the word. If they would like to be a PAGE member give them the google group address and they can request to be members. That goes for everyone!!

 

Deb

[kari lomanno]

I am so excited to finally see this group become active! My daughter is in the gifted program at GBI. She is in 4th grade. My son was just tested in his 2nd grade class, and we haven't gotten the results back yet. 

As far as the quality of the gifted program at GBI, I would say it all depends on the teacher. Last year, my daughter's class did a tedious, in-depth research project that none of them enjoyed. But this year her teacher is doing a lot of fun, hands-on activities and even Socratic seminars to encourage higher-level thinking. This is what I had in mind when I learned my daughter was in the gifted program.

I know the gifted program is in a transitional period right now, and this is a great opportunity for us parents to share our thoughts and concerns and perhaps help shape the future of the program. My main concern at this point has to do with the overall mission of the gifted program and the definition of giftedness. So many people seem to think "gifted" simply means "smart," so gifted kids get stuck with more work. Gifted classes need to be distinguished from honors classes. There needs to be a clear, concise definition of giftedness that will guide both the testing practices and the implementation of the program. 

 

[Deborah]

I completely agree with all your statements.  You know that each child is different some are more right-brained and some more left.  Some will enjoy research projects,  some will want to build a model, some will want to discuss and debate. Teaching style and classroom dynamics play a role too. The gifted class should have all types of options, in fact most classrooms should. Glad to hear your daughter is having a good experience in 4^th. A great teacher and good grouping practices can go a really long way. Sounds like the 3^rd great teacher needs more training and support and perhaps better grouping.

 

I think a lot of people do not understand what gifted really means and gifted children can present very differently. You are so right that developing the program around a core philosophy is at the heart of it all.

 

From: chesape...@googlegroups.com [mailto:chesape...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of kari lomanno
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 4:20 PM
To: chesape...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Issues with draft of new plan for gifted services-IMPORTANT INFORMATION

 

I am so excited to finally see this group become active! My daughter is in the gifted program at GBI. She is in 4th grade. My son was just tested in his 2nd grade class, and we haven't gotten the results back yet. 

 

As far as the quality of the gifted program at GBI, I would say it all depends on the teacher. Last year, my daughter's class did a tedious, in-depth research project that none of them enjoyed. But this year her teacher is doing a lot of fun, hands-on activities and even Socratic seminars to encourage higher-level thinking. This is what I had in mind when I learned my daughter was in the gifted program.

 

I know the gifted program is in a transitional period right now, and this is a great opportunity for us parents to share our thoughts and concerns and perhaps help shape the future of the program. My main concern at this point has to do with the overall mission of the gifted program and the definition of giftedness. So many people seem to think "gifted" simply means "smart," so gifted kids get stuck with more work. Gifted classes need to be distinguished from honors classes. There needs to be a clear, concise definition of giftedness that will guide both the testing practices and the implementation of the program. 

 

--

[myty...@aol.com]

 I really like and agree with what you have said!  Thanks for your comments.  I almost feel like I could have written what you wrote, we are very much in tune.  Please stay connected!

 

kym

-----Original Message-----
From: kari lomanno <lom...@gmail.com>
To: chesapeake-page <chesape...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Wed, Mar 21, 2012 5:58 pm
Subject: Re: Issues with draft of new plan for gifted services-IMPORTANT INFORMATION

[myty...@aol.com]

THANKS to the 15 people I heard from just today and for all of the great comments.  All I can say at the moment is that if you want to know what is going on with gifted education, come to or watch the school board meeting on Monday.  This is the most I have heard the program discussed since 2008.  This is a critical time to be involved on the advisory committee because I have more hope than ever that it will become what I had always hoped it would be.....see this document on the role of the advisory committee on gifted education. 

http://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/gifted_ed/ed_services_plans/local_gifted_advisory_committees.pdf

 

Come out on Monday night.

 

Come to the next and final meeting of the advisory committee on April 19th.

 

Get a copy of the plan as soon as it is finalized, whether it is next week or next month, and review it!!!

 

Continue to present issues and ask questions on this googlegroup AND spread the word about this site to other parents of gifted students.  To join, their email address just needs to be sent to Deb Piper at dpip...@cox.net. 

 

Let's stay with this....we may have different opinions and circumstances, but we all just want what is best for our students, so let's keep the conversation going!

 

Kym

 

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Deborah <DPip...@cox.net>
To: chesapeake-page <chesape...@googlegroups.com>

[myty...@aol.com]

Hi All - Just wanted to let you know that I was informed by a member of the CPS administration that the first reading of the plan will occur tomorrow night at the school board meeting at 7 pm and it will be voted upon during the meeting following our next advisory committee meeting - April 19th at Greenbrier Middle School at 7 pm.  Therefore, the draft plan will be summarized at the committee meeting on the 19th.  In addition, the roles and responsibilities of committee members will also be discussed in preparation for next year's activities.

 

Also, I will be traveling from Western Branch to attend the school board meeting tomorrow and wondered if anyone wanted to catch a ride with me.

Please call to make arrangements....484-3494 (h) or 621-8744 (c).

 

Hope to see some parents of gifted students at the board meeting tomorrow evening.  It is nice to see gifted services on the school board agenda.  It has been a while.

 

Take Care!

 

Kym Pool

Chair

CPS Gifted Advisory Committee

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Amy Brand]

Hi Kym - I am new to being involved with this, and will not be able to make it to tomorrow night's reading, but I'm glad to hear that they won't be voting on it until after the advisory committee meeting.

- Amy Brand

---- "myty...@aol.com" <myty...@aol.com> wrote:

=============

Take Care!