Bold Steps? 12/20/2011
 
By Stephen B. Martin

Recent pronouncements from the National Association for Gifted Children have caused quite a kerfuffle in the gifted education community. In her inaugural address last November, NAGC President Paula Olszewski-Kubilius stated,  “I suggest that we take a bold step and consider making talent development, rather than giftedness, the major unifying concept of our field and most importantly, the basis for our practice.”* This is a bold step indeed, if it means a radical change of course from the traditional focus on giftedness to a quite different emphasis on talent development.

However, it may be seen as neither a completely unexpected, nor a necessarily unwelcome, development. For some years now, NAGC has had as its motto “Supporting the needs of high potential learners”, which can be seen as a broadening of the NAGC mission to serve both high-performing and high-potential students. If it is indeed the intention of the bold new step to direct more attention to an underserved population of bright children, most thoughtful people will applaud. If it is rather a turning away from one community in favor of another, a continuing kerfuffle is guaranteed.

My own work in gifted education has until recently been focused on traditionally identified, high performing students. I understand this population and have always enjoyed working with these enthusiastic, engaged, capable students and their parents. But last year I had the opportunity to take a bold step of my own, accepting a position with the Seattle Public Schools with the focus of identifying high-potential students from underserved populations. Talent development is key to this effort. I now more fully appreciate both sides of the issue.
 
The creative tension caused by the NAGC decision to rethink giftedness brings with it energetic debate, examination of core beliefs, and re-assessment of where we stand as a profession. I hope that our bold steps never cause us to neglect traditionally gifted students. An intentional broadening of focus to include talent development, however, would be a welcome enhancement.
 
* http://parentingforhighpotential.com/2011/11/18/from-the-nagc-president-paula-olszewski-kubilius/
Add Comment
 
 

by Kari DeMarco
Wenatchee Area Representative

         As alluded to in my title, education has long been noted for its alphabet soup.  The bottom line is we want all kids to learn the three R’s to the best of their ability.  We want all kids to reach their individual potential.
         RTI (Response to Intervention) came about as a way of saying that all kids can learn, even those with IEPs.  Even those without IEPs, but with 504s (if we want to start adding numbers to our soup).  I like this attempt at addressing the learning needs of kids along a continuum from average down to the most struggling.
         But what say we educate ALL students according to their need, even those starting from average and moving up the continuum to the most highly capable? 
         That is the goal of a growing movement to view RTI as part of the gifted model, not just special education.  (Incidentally, there is a corollary movement to apply the concepts to behavioral interventions, too.)
         Tamara Fisher, a K-12 Gifted Education Specialist in Montana, said that gifted kids’ “learning needs are often not met by typical curricula because they have already mastered all or most of it before it’s even taught.”  She therefore advocates use of an RTI model to address highly capable students’ needs, just as it does for struggling learners.  “After all, they come to school to learn, not to make us look good by providing the same excellent test score in April that they could’ve just as easily achieved in October.”  She concludes by saying, “RTI has the potential to help us make sure every child gets to grow academically as much as they are able.”
         RTI is also known as PRTI (Pyramid Response to Intervention).  The visual image is of a pyramid, with the lower third being Tier One (grade level core curriculum, 80% of students), the middle third being Tier Two (strategic interventions, perhaps for small groups of kids needing re-teaching), and Tier Three at the pointy top (being for just the 1-5% of students needing individually focused, intensive assistance). 
         What seems obvious to many who care about highly capable learners is that the mirror image can apply to gifted kids.  All kids should be allowed some level of differentiation at Tier One, but some will need more small group or individualized curriculum to meet their advanced learning objectives (Tier Two), and some will need intense changes in pace, depth, or complexity, perhaps even at a full-time school for gifted learners.  The level of differentiation should meet the level of need.
         Hey, turn this pyramid and its mirror image on its side and what do you get?  A diamond, or flatten the bottom and you see something similar to the normal curve.  Something that implies one size does not fit all.  One curriculum, one pace does not fit all of these very different learners we’ve grouped by accident of age. 
         As Susan Winebrenner said in 2001, “Learning is forward progress from point of entry.”  And we want all students to learn, to maximize their potential, from where they are.  RTI is a service delivery model that can tap into the current trend of progress monitoring and intervention based on data, and serve all kids according to their learning needs.
         Not only do those of you reading this far want learning for all, but it is now legally required.  Section 708 of HB 2261 states in no uncertain terms, “The legislature finds that, for highly capable students, access to accelerated learning and enhanced instruction is access to a basic education.”

         You might choose to bring this up when your own PLC is discussing RTIs in light teaching of ABCs and the three R’s to kids with LDs, IEPs, and even SLPs.  And do it ASAP!



Add Comment
 
Happy Testing! 08/14/2011
 
In early 2003 I represented Washington State at the NAGC Affiliates Conference in Washington DC. We attended information sessions to prepare us for visiting our congressional delegations to advocate for gifted children. One session stands out in my memory with particular vividness. Its subject was the new No Child Left Behind legislation.

NCLB was the reauthorization of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), but included some sweeping new requirements. Under the 2002 law, states were required to test students in reading and math in grades 3–8 and once in high school. Reasonable, we thought. But the provision that really caught our attention was this one:

All students are expected to meet or exceed state standards in reading and math by 2014.

There was laughter. In what real world is everyone proficient? And yet, this delusional goal has been driving education policy and practice ever since, and the “failure” to reach artificial Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) benchmarks has eroded confidence in public education.

Those of us in gifted ed and special ed are well acquainted with the value of standardized tests to guide eligibility and instructional decisions. Regular assessment of individual student progress over time also provides useful information. But the practice of employing standardized test scores as the primary measure of a school’s success or failure is not supported by logic.

As we launch the new school year, testing will be part of what we do. But we must be vigilant. What gets tested gets taught. Complex thinking skills -- skills essential to survival -- aren’t tested, so they tend not to get taught. Likewise music, art, and civics. Let’s remember, as parents and teachers, to make sure our children learn what they most need to know.

                                   "Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts."
                                                              (Sign hanging in Einstein's office at Princeton)

Add Comment
 
Good News! 06/08/2011
 
Tuesday, June 7, 2011, was a significant day for Highly Capable Programs in the state of Washington. Governor Gregoire signed SB 5919 that implements the new definition of basic education, effective September 1, 2011.

This bill places Highly Capable Programs within the definition of basic education, which gives it the constitutional protections that accompany basic ed (the "paramount duty" of the state). It mandates all districts must provide appropriate programs and services to identified highly capable students. Currently, these programs are voluntary for the districts and in the most recent report only 206 of the 295 districts in the state provided programs using state funding. It does not constitute a right to such services for any individual student but only for these students as a class.

5919 also calls for supplemental enhanced funding for Highly Capable Programs (to be authorized in the budget, scheduled for the Governor's signature June 15).

Local parent organizations will now assume more responsibility for seeing that services are provided by the districts.

Thank you to everyone, especially the Washington Coalition for Gifted Education, who worked so hard over the past several years to bring about this important change.
Add Comment
 
UPDATE! 05/19/2011
 
Dear Colleagues,

The outlook for Highly Capable Programs in Washington has changed dramatically over the past few months, and there is cause for cautious optimism. Thanks to the truly heroic actions of parents, legislators, and other advocates, the budget that passed both the House and Senate in April includes adequate funding for HCP. Further, the implementation of education reforms that mandate the inclusion of gifted education as part of basic education is now scheduled to take place in September of 2011 as originally proposed, rather than being postponed into the indefinite future. There is still a chance for shenanigans during the reconciliation process, but I believe we are in a much better place now than we were in January.

I am grateful to the WAETAG stalwarts who wrote letters and contacted legislators during these eventful months. And I want to acknowledge the amazing energy and effectiveness of our sister organizations, the Northwest Gifted Child Association and the Washington Coalition for Gifted Education. Together we prevailed on behalf of high-potential and high-performing students throughout Washington.

As part of our ongoing commitment to students, WAETAG has awarded five $300 scholarships to help students attend summer programs for gifted youth this year. In addition, the first annual WAETAG Distinguished Student Awards are now being processed. Check the Fall Newsletter for profiles of our young scholars.

The WAETAG Board is always on the lookout for talented educators willing to take on a leadership role in the organization. Our goal of having Board representation from all nine regional ESD areas has finally been realized. If you would like to network with gifted educators in your area, please contact your Regional Representative on the Board page of our redesigned website www.waetag.net.

The 2011 SENG (Supporting Emotional Needs of the Gifted) Conference will be in Seattle on July 15-17. The program is rich, with keynote speakers including James Webb, Nancy Robinson, and Phil Gordon, plus breakout sessions covering the spectrum of emotional issues among gifted students. For more information, visit http://sengifted.org/2011_conference/programs.shtml. I hope to meet you there!

Add Comment
 
 
Picture
According to Coalition stalwart Barbara Poyneer, GED was a BIG success. The weather cooperated, the legislature was not facing any cut off deadlines and no floor sessions were scheduled to interfere with legislator appointments. There were more than 42 appointments scheduled, and many informal meetings took place. By rough guess, attendance was about 475. It was hard to gauge since not everyone was present at the same time and not everyone signed in. In all, our best Gifted Education Day ever.

The Columbia Room has already been booked for January 27, 2012, a bit earlier than our usual February GED date. Next session is the short one and we don't want to run into any cut off dates or long floor sessions as we did in 2010.

We also had a leadership meeting to discuss where we stood in the legislature and to plan our path for the remainder of the session. Rep. Sullivan told us there is "room for optimism" on inclusion into basic ed and the budget if only we keep up the pressure.

To contact the Coalition during the next few weeks, use the social media web sites. Please check them regularly for the latest information and calls for action. Emails will resume about March 1.

Visit the Washington Coalition for Gifted Education on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/wagifted
or at their blog http://wcge.wordpress.com
SEE PICTURES HERE (PDF document Thanks to Bob Poyneer!)

Add Comment
 
 
Dear Colleagues,

As of this writing, funding for gifted education has been entirely eliminated from the Washington state budget. Not reduced. Eliminated. While programs can perhaps survive a temporary reduction in funding during an economic crisis, recovering from complete defunding is usually not possible. Gifted education in many districts would inevitably be phased out. Identification of students and professional development for teachers would be unsustainable, and leadership would disperse.

The Washington Coalition for Gifted Education advises us that the budget situation this year is especially complex. There has already been one supplemental budget adopted during the recent special session.  There are negotiations underway in preparation for a likely second supplemental budget in early January to make additional cuts to balance the 2010 budget.  There is a separate discussion now beginning for the regular budget covering the 2011 - 2013 biennium. Stay apprised of developments by joining the Washington Coalition for Gifted Education email list (contact wagifted@earthlink.net to subscribe), becoming a fan of WCGE on Facebook, and joining email lists of parent organizations concerned about these issues.

I have attended meetings recently where corporate partnerships, foundation grants, and private contributions are suggested as replacements for lost state funding. This is not a solution. The education of all children is a primary function of local and state government. This requires reliable funding, not an annual gamble. Competitive grants and bake sale proceeds are not acceptable foundations for either educational quality or educational equality. The negative consequences for students of relying on such “solutions” are unambiguous.

I grew up in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, one of four states (Virginia, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania are the others) so designated. The idea of providing for the common good from the common wealth is strong in me. I urge you to become extremely well informed and tirelessly proactive in support of the highly capable children we serve. They are in a sense the wealth we all have in common – let’s invest unstintingly in their success!

Stephen B. Martin
President, WAETAG

Add Comment
 
 
Welcome to WAETAG 2011 from all of us here at WAETAG, the board, staff, volunteers, and associates. These blog entries will be of a more informal and day-to-day nature, your up-to-the-minute online WAETAG newsletter. Your comments and ideas concerning our new website will be appreciated. In the coming days, this blog will primarily be the voice your WAETAG president, Stephen Martin.
Sincerely,
K. D. Kragen, Interim Webhacker
Add Comment