Advanced Learning Policy

The District last adopted a policy about Advanced Learning in September of 1993. That policy, D12.00, Highly Capable Student Programs, is not in force. It is still the Board policy, but it was suspended on January 29, 2009. In the same motion in which the Board voted to suspend the policy they also voted to direct the superintendent to review it and recommend revisions. She did not do that. This failure to follow a direction given to her with by a majority vote of the board was, by itself, grounds for dismissal. The Board was aware of the situation and refused to act. The interim superintendent who followed also failed to follow the Board's direction. Again, the Board was aware of the situation and refused to act. When the Board scheduled their policy review they gave this policy no special urgency despite the January 29, 2009 Board vote.

This is simply further evidence of the utter purposeless of Board policies and how the District's culture of lawlessness is directly attributable to the Board's unwillingness to enforce policy.

The Board's Curriculum and Instruction Policy committee fumbled around with the idea of an Advanced Learning policy this week. Exactly as they did in July. They had a draft policy from Dr. Robert Vaughan, program manager of Advanced Learning, but they didn't have much to say about it. Exactly as they did in July. Dr. Vaughan came to them seeking guidance on what the policy should say, but, once again, the Board couldn't offer much guidance. Exactly as they couldn't in July. The Board's inaction and the committee turnover has extended the delay from three and a half years to four years. Congratulations.

What's the problem here? Why are we stalled and how can we move forward?



We are stalled because no one has any idea of what the policy should say. No one has any idea of what the policy should say because they have no idea of what the policy should do. No one has any idea of what the policy should do because no one can articulate a Vision for advanced learning. They can't say whom it should serve, why they need the service, how they should be served, or how we can determine if they have been served adequately. Once they have a Vision that addresses those fundamental questions, then they can write a policy to require it, and then the superintendent can be charged with implementing it.

So we need a Vision first, then we can have a policy. There's no point in trying to draft a policy in the absence of a Vision. That would be shooting an arrow without a target. Dangerous. You don't know what you might hit.

I will offer a sample Vision for Advanced Learning. It will appear familiar in some respects, but with significant differences. We need a document like this before we can have a policy.

Research indicates that students with cognitive abilities about 1.7 standard deviations above the mean not only think faster, but think differently from others. We will have a program, the Individual Progress Program, specifically to serve these students without regard to their level of academic achievement or preparation. We recognize that highly capable students come from all cultural, linguistic, and socio-economic backgrounds, and have diverse abilities. The District will make a specific efforts to identify these students by training teachers and counselors to recognize the indicators. The instruction in the program should not be keyed to any specific grade level expectations but be individualized. Pedagogical strategies that allow for a high degree of differentiation should be used to accommodate the broad range of knowledge and skills these children will bring to the classroom. Teachers in this program should have, or soon acquire, training specific to gifted education and training in the pedagogical strategy used in the program. IPP will be a 1-12 program with elementary and middle school program sites located across the District for accessibility but not so many that any site lacks the critical mass necessary to form a program. A number of high school programs can be designated as IPP pathways if they offer an extraordinary number and variety of AP classes, an IB program that leads to an IB diploma, or individual or project-based instruction that allows students to be supported as they work beyond the grade level expectations. These programs are subject to policies F21.00 and 2200 because they will require specially trained staff. Participation in this program is optional for eligible students. IPP will be the District's Highly Capable Students Program for the purposes of the state grant.

Our experience has shown us that high performing students cannot be reliably served in our general education classrooms. Standards, intended as a floor become, in practice, a ceiling. We will have a program, the Horizon Program, to provide an appropriate academic opportunity for high performing students, regardless of their cognitive ability. They may be high performing due to high cognitive ability, excellent preparation and support, a high degree of motivation and diligence, or some combination of these. These programs will use the grade level expectations of one grade above the students' age-based grade level (as developmentally appropriate) as a minimum standard, but the program teachers should give specific care to remove any ceiling on progress or acceleration and encourage and support students to go beyond the Standard. Students in the Horizon program should experience a compacted curriculum, an accelerated curriculum, and curriculum that calls for greater mastery of the concepts - an equal mix of faster, further, and deeper. Teachers in this program should have, or soon acquire, training specific to gifted education and training in the pedagogical strategy used in the program. Horizon should be a 1-10 program with a designated site for every attendance area. These programs are subject to policies F21.00 and 2200 because they will require specially trained staff. Participation in this program is optional for eligible students.

All students, regardless of cognitive ability or their current level of academic achievement, should have the opportunity to challenge themselves to higher achievement. Advanced Learning Opportunities should be open to all students who are willing to accept the challenge. These opportunities can follow a variety of delivery models or formats so long as they are research-based. A.L.O.'s can appear in schools of any grade level that choose to create them. No special training is required of the staff that teach in an A.L.O. Participation in this program is optional for all students.

Schools can have more than one of these programs.

The creation, location, relocation, and closure of IPP and Horizon programs are determined by the Superintendent per policy F21.00. The programs should be sized appropriately to meet the demand and placed in accordance with District policy 2200, Equitable Access to Programs and Services. Because the District creates these programs, the District retains the authority to dictate the delivery model or models, must accept responsibility for their quality and efficacy, and must make an assessment of the quality and efficacy of each program site. A.L.O.'s are developed by the schools that choose to create them. The schools determine the delivery model. A.L.O.'s are not programs for the purposes of policy F21.00 and they are exempted from the requirements of policy 2200 because they do not impact budgets, staffing or use of space in schools. To continue to receive district recognition, however, A.L.O.'s must be distinguishable from ordinary practices and must meet district standards for quality and efficacy.

The principal of each school with an advanced learning program will be accountable for meeting benchmarks for quality and efficacy for their program(s). A description of each schools' advanced learning programs and plans for the improvement of these programs must be included in the school's Continuous School Improvement Plan as a disclosure to families. The school principal shall be accountable for implementing the program as described.