New Advanced Learning Policy

At the May 1 Board meeting we will see the introduction of the new Advanced Learning policy.

There is a LOT wrong with it. A LOT. This is the public's chance to speak up and ask the Board to fix it. It is time to get active.


Let's start with the Board Action Report.

"Policy D12.00 was adopted in 1992 and describes services and options for highly capable students that are out-of-date in 2013. A review of Advanced Learning programs conducted in 2007 by nationally recognized experts from the University of Virginia recommended convening School Board Briefing/Proposed Action Report an Advanced Learning Review Committee to reconsider our district’s mission for serving advanced learners. Members of that review committee and the mission statement they wrote support the new proposed Board Policy No. 2190 (see attachments)."

No such "Advanced Learning Review Committee" was ever formed. Not ever. This is a bald-faced lie and a feeble, transparent, and clumsy one. Moreover, it is an unnecessary one. This lie isn't needed to make a case for writing a policy.

"Revising the advanced learning policy is also part of the Phase II policy review process."

Yeah, and let's not forget that the Board voted on January 29, 2009 to direct the superintendent and staff to review and recommend revisions to the policy.

But, whatever. Let's face forward and focus on the work before us instead of the history.

Here is the proposed policy. Read it and you'll see the problems that I see. They are obvious.

Fault #1: The policy commits the District to providing instructional programs to meet the needs of "highly capable students of school age". Except that we don't provide any such program for kindergarteners, who are certainly of "school age". Can you imagine a student family demanding service for a kindergartener based on this policy? I can. The policy should be revised, as described, to reflect our actual practice. We provide highly capable services for students in grades 1-8.

Fault #2: The policy requires the superintendent to provide:

"specialized instruction that is responsive to students'... individual learning rates and styles"

I don't see the District doing that - actually accommodating individual students' learning rates and styles, but I can see a family demanding individualized service for their child based on this policy. Can't you? With this language, how could a superintendent deny it? Yes, I suppose that one could rely on the "within budgetary limitations" language in the policy, but the focus of the policy is clearly to provide individualized instruction, which is NOT our district's practice or focus at all. For the superintendent to follow this policy the focus of Highly Capable instruction would have to undergo revolutionary change.

Fault #3: The policy includes this section, which is not in any way specific to Highly Capable students. This set of objectives would apply to any student in the district:

"The framework for such highly capable services shall encompass, but not be limited to, the following objectives:
     A. Expansion of academic attainments and intellectual skills;
     B. Stimulation of intellectual curiosity, independence and responsibility;
     C. Development of a positive attitude toward self and others;
     D. Development of originality and creativity; and
     E. Appropriate professional development to assure equity of access."

This section is not only entirely superfluous, it suggests that non-Highly Capable students are not entitled to these things. The section should be stricken in its entirety. Better yet, this section should be cut and pasted into the Instructional Philosophy policy A01.00 to apply to all students.

Fault #4: The policy includes this requirement:

"The Board will annually approve the district’s highly capable application to the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction."

I don't think a policy can obligate the Board to vote one way or another on a motion brought before them. This robs future Boards of the option to disapprove the grant application - regardless of its contents. It should be revised to require the superintendent to make the application annually rather than to require the Board to approve it.

These four faults are easily corrected and, once corrected, the policy would be fine. It would be benign and unenforceable, but at least it wouldn't make trouble.

What's lacking here, of course, is any real sense of what this policy is supposed to accomplish. The Board is moving forward with a policy for Advanced Learning without first setting a Vision for Advanced Learning. That should have been Step One. Instead, the Board has ducked that responsibility once again. Disappointing.