2008.09.24
Locals say state gifted regs could hurt programs offered
One person, Radford High School gifted coordinator Lisa Swope, spoke during the Department of Education's public hearing on proposed changes to gifted education regulations.
In her three-minute remarks, Swope said her biggest concern in the proposed regulation changes for gifted education is the mandate that students be screened using an ability test, such as an IQ exam.
Right now, students are tested using ability exams and achievement exams, such as the Stanford 9 or other norm-referenced tests.
"We serve students identified in only one academic area -- such as English -- who do not qualify for services in the other three subject areas. Currently, these students receive services from us to nurture their giftedness in English," she said. "As I understand the wording of the revision, we sill be required to serve students in all four academic areas -- math, science, English and social sciences -- which, to me, seems to preclude serving students who will no longer qualifty for services at all if they qualify in one subject area only."
Three gifted educators from Montgomery County attended the meeting and spoke to state board member Thomas Brewster and others from the department, but would not formally sign up to speak. Brewster said he would take their concerns, which included fears that smaller districts, such as those in Southwest Virginia, would not see gifted education as essential because the regulations do not require funding for such programs.
Brewster, who works as an assistant superintendent in Pulaski County, said the concerns in this region echo a theme of others' across the state.
The state board is scheduled to meet on Thursday, with another public hearing in Richmond following the meeting. The comment period for the regulations closes Friday.
The regulations, and their comments, could be taken up at the board's next meeting in October. But it could be another month until changes are enacted, Brewster said.
Gifted programs cause more harm then good, in my opinion. From the gifted program I belonged to in elementary and middle school in South Florida, at least half of my classmates that I grew up with ended up without an undergraduate degree, with criminal records, drug problems, and worse. That may have had something to do with the environment, but it partly stems from a sense of entitlement that is put upon so-called gifted children, and the fact that many of them, in spite of being "gifted" (whatever that is supposed to mean), still had criminals for parents. It is a combination of the parents' desire to encourage learning in their child, the innate desire of the child to learn, and the effort of teachers to really teach that determines how ambitious and learned students become, not these ridiculous, expensive programs, invented by administrators who are completely out of touch with the schools they manage. Having or not having a gifted program won't encourage or stifle a student who wants to learn (in fact it will probably do the opposite), and these programs are usually just created so that schools can claim they have a special program with X number of children enrolled so that they can get more money for their school, and ultimately a higher salary for themselves. At the root of it, it has little to do with students or learning.
Comment by John — September 24, 2008 @ 9:19 am
John, you address an important point: the need for a meaningful gifted program: one that challenges the students it enrolls. Currently our education system, which in some states sets proficient (or at grade level) in the 12th percentile, which results in underqualified (often illiterate graduates). By increasing the rigor of our public school system, and also the rigor of the gifted education program, schools can provide the appropriate challenge to each student. (If you don't believe that all challenge is equal, please note the TIME magazine article where it states that putting a student with an IQ of 160, which occurs every 1 in 1000 students, in a classroom with an average IQ of 100, is like putting someone with an IQ of 100 in a classroom with an IQ of 70. Would we believe that someone with an IQ of 100 is challenged by the same material as that which challenges someone with an IQ of 70? Never.)
What students need is a challenge and an education that is appropriate for their needs and abilities, not a special privledge.
Comment by Cooper — September 25, 2008 @ 3:01 pm