tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post6420505782265811602..comments2024-03-28T02:21:17.452-07:00Comments on Seattle Schools Community Forum: Equitable Access Work SessionMelissa Westbrookhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17179994245880629080noreply@blogger.comBlogger74125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-56865449176052238062013-04-13T15:34:58.750-07:002013-04-13T15:34:58.750-07:00Recommend reading Malcolm Gladwell's "Out...Recommend reading Malcolm Gladwell's "Outliers" over spring break. If nothing else, just read the first chapter and then let's talk equitable access. <br /><br />huesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-88217919820627054802013-04-13T07:37:53.788-07:002013-04-13T07:37:53.788-07:00Enough Already -
Tru dat!
-EA2Enough Already -<br /><br />Tru dat!<br /><br />-EA2Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-20974310397104427502013-04-12T23:55:16.057-07:002013-04-12T23:55:16.057-07:00I didn't find 'enough already's' p...I didn't find 'enough already's' point particularly offensive. As to the segregation usage, it was used at one school as a reason to do away with self contained spectrum. Ironically, some of the parents who supported doing away with self contained classrooms and such segregation practice have kids in APP now. It feels a bit odd when you bumped into these parents now at APP sites. But hey, more power to them.<br /><br />There are talks about appeals and cut offs. But I don't think you are going to get parents to admit they prep kids in the open or how many times their kids went through CogAT testings to finally test in. I am not bothered by that as it just means parents are willing to do what they need to do to get the education they think their kids need. What it means to me is there are real advantage to parents who are well socialized about APP. APP culture and tone is changing as it expands. <br /><br />CogAT is not an IQ test. And yes there are studies out there that do suggest using such measure to determine giftedness is not always reliable, especially when children are in kindergarten and among children who don't have the environmental exposure and/or are ELL, or 2E students Sue P. so eloquently stated. Many school districts now won't test kids until they are in 1st gr. and more and more in 2nd grade. Other school districts re-test between elementary school and middle school. And school districts with well thought out G & T program don't just use the CogAT as a measure. <br /><br />As to wanting to do more to bring in kids that APP seems to miss, that's all good talk and that's the frustration I sensed from 'enough already's' posts. For the true outliers, I suspect parents of those kids are already looking at UW's program for early entrance. <br /> <br />huesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-87521743562601201022013-04-12T23:07:44.539-07:002013-04-12T23:07:44.539-07:00I will restate some points:
True giftedness is li...I will restate some points:<br /><br />True giftedness is like special education and should be delivered in a similar model--self contained is best for a the cases where an inclusion model is not the best environment for the child. <br /><br />SPS is not identifying giftedness correctly unless one ascribes to a eugenics model.<br /><br />There is a difference between well prepared students and giftedness, and tests cannot be counted on to make this distinction. Many students in the APP program (and the similarly bloated programs in NYC and other places) are well prepared but do not fall into the research based definition of giftedness (which has certain characteristics of thinking, etc.)<br />They could and should be served in their neighborhood schools with enrichment.<br /><br />http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/18/nyregion/new-york-city-schools-struggle-to-separate-the-gifted-from-the-just-well-prepared.html?pagewanted=all)<br /><br />The very bloated APP program is segregated by race and income and, although there are plenty of 2E students, their disabilities as an aggregate in that program are less severe that in other schools.<br /><br />This is definitely a political issue. Charlie's statement about giftedness is research generated but this district has a history of not using research to make decisions. The currently bloated APP is neither research based or fair.<br /><br />--enough alreadyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-69845416146550683342013-04-12T23:02:06.045-07:002013-04-12T23:02:06.045-07:00"Segregation" is a loaded term with a sp..."Segregation" is a loaded term with a specific racial history. To use it in the context of advanced learning programs in SPS is buying into the spin of the advanced learning detractors.<br /><br />If the critics on this thread are truly concerned about SPS schools being racially segregated, then why aren't they broadening their focus to include <i>all</i> the schools in the district where there is racial imbalance? There are numerous schools that are whiter and richer than the APP schools. Why aren't they raging against them? Instead they return to their obsession with gifted ed.<br /><br />The irony is that, done right, APP/Spectrum, even ALO if it were consistent and meaningful, offers kids of all socio and ethnic backgrounds a chance to be academically challenged at their level, and within the affordable public education system. If Spectrum were more solid, arguably more advanced learners would stay in their neighborhood schools instead of being forced to pursue their academic needs at the APP schools. But the district has chosen to essentially dismantle Spectrum, taking away that option for these families.<br /><br />@ another parent - All the positives that are claimed by charters should be allowed in all public schools, and with the oversight that is meant to come with it, as I stated earlier. <br /><br />But charters have a troubling history of high attrition rates, high teacher turnover, racial segregation, and overall, not very good results. There are rational reasons to say no to charters. But what are you arguing for? They are now legal in Washington, so go ahead and sign up for one.<br /><br />@ enough already - I didn’t go anywhere you hadn’t already gone. All I did was follow you through the thicket of your own thorny reasoning to the logical conclusion.<br /><br />As for your bizarre obsession with charters, my children’s schools have all been part of the Seattle Public School system, subject to the mandates, overcrowding, whims and oversight of the district. Their classes have included kids with various needs. The schools they left to join APP are doing just fine without them. So your comparison is contrived and false.<br /><br />By the way, who are you to say who my children’s peers are or that they aren’t among them in their current schools (and the other aspects of their lives)? You have no idea. <br /><br />Parenting and test–prep are not the same thing. And test-prepped does not equal gifted. But, if a person were to follow your logic here, you probably aren’t going to like where this leads either, for you are essentially saying that giftedness comes from households where parents teach their kids at home, which therefore means that kids who <i>don’t</i> come from such households can never be gifted.<br /><br />I don’t happen to agree with that. I believe there are innate abilities as well as nurtured ones. And sure, any child who is born into a nurturing and intellectually stimulating environment will have a leg up in the world, including academically. But that doesn’t mean that a child born into such an environment can’t also be highly capable by nature. And it doesn’t mean that a highly capable child can’t be born into a less stimulating environment, but nurtured intellectually outside of the home.<br /><br />That’s the conversation I would rather have: How to reach and help those kids. Not, how to toss out, disparage, or repeatedly test a certain percentage of kids already in certain schools, just to suit some random anonymous blog commenter’s notion of social balance. <br />suep.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17281578510716234624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-19746066156672018492013-04-12T18:59:40.234-07:002013-04-12T18:59:40.234-07:00370, you are confusing me.
What study are you say...370, you are confusing me.<br /><br />What study are you saying "proved it?"<br /><br />Where did I say charter school students "aren't deserving?" <br /><br />I'll wait.<br />Melissa Westbrookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12588239576000641336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-58200045745461833232013-04-12T18:45:06.454-07:002013-04-12T18:45:06.454-07:00Right Enough Already. It's perfectly FINE to ...Right Enough Already. It's perfectly FINE to segregate for APP becuase they're really a lot more deserving than everyone else, and 1 study proved it... but as Melissa said.... charter school students aren't deserving. For them (and all the rest of us) resegregation is a bad thing. Only OK for advanced learning, and hopefully for as many as possible. Crack open the private tests!<br /><br />370 rocearAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-63274568490878101862013-04-12T16:13:32.524-07:002013-04-12T16:13:32.524-07:00I filled out many a coloring book in 4th grade. I...I filled out many a coloring book in 4th grade. I totally understand what your daughter went through DK.<br /><br />HPAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-40715238847321455732013-04-12T14:17:14.916-07:002013-04-12T14:17:14.916-07:00My fears for my child are a return of the subtle (...My fears for my child are a return of the subtle (and not so subtle) ways that she would be discouraged from learning. Things I know have been said to her by adults, prior to her being in a classroom with similarly-matched peers:<br /><br />"Stop showing off".<br />"You couldn't possibly understand that book; it's too complicated for your grade level".<br />"Don't overthink that math problem."<br />"Finished early again? Just find something to do while I help the rest of the class."<br />"Please write shorter reports next time, and focus on better penmanship."<br />"Stop reading that book in class, and start reading this (simpler) book."<br />"No, you have to solve the math problem the way I taught you (said about long division)."<br />"Pick a less boring topic."<br />"Your parent must have done that work/that research/that design/that project for you."<br />"Don't copy passages from books (she hadn't)."<br />"Stop doodling in class and pay attention (said after she'd already completed the worksheet being discussed).<br />"Your science hypothesis is too complicated, please make it simpler for your classmates to understand."<br /><br />And this is the ADULTS talking, not the other kids. In a mixed classroom, without enough other similarly-matched kids, you hear and see this all the time, and the total net effect is deeply discouraging. I get that you may not see or hear such things, but for those of us who do,it is extremely demoralizing.<br /><br />She began deliberately holding herself back and suppressing her interests, to better fit in with her existing classmates and to not piss off her teachers. I watched her internalize the messages: "don't be too into math", or "don't use too many big, sciency words", "don't read those big thick books", all of which go against everything our public education should stand for. When she was moved to a classroom that had enough students with similar learning styles, pacing, and general knowledge, she began to thrive again. <br /><br />We would NEVER tolerate such messages on the other end of the spectrum. Bias is bias, and any messaging that shuts down a student's love of learning should never be tolerated.<br /><br />I do not care if the classroom is self contained or not, some portion of the school day needs to be with kids who have similar learning styles, at either end of the spectrum. Given our current funding levels, there is simply no way to make our huge classrooms work without hearing statements just like this for kids anywhere outside the middle of the range. It is simpler, cheaper, and provably effective to provide targeted learning for at least part of the day, if truly fair and equitable education for each child is your goal. <br /><br />DKAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-2759816228817138242013-04-12T11:50:46.803-07:002013-04-12T11:50:46.803-07:00Charlie's comment at 4:55 AM -- yes! Exactly.
...Charlie's comment at 4:55 AM -- yes! Exactly.<br /><br />TCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-60456777029867911482013-04-12T08:26:43.226-07:002013-04-12T08:26:43.226-07:00Let me guess:
""we have Board policy co...Let me guess:<br /><br /><i>""we have Board policy commitments we need to honor."</i><br /><br />That trumps legal and moral commitments.mirmac1https://www.blogger.com/profile/10183460709639638172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-10357843524815552082013-04-12T08:20:43.947-07:002013-04-12T08:20:43.947-07:00My Part two of the Work Session might flesh this o...My Part two of the Work Session might flesh this out better with the Q&A from the Directors.<br /><br />Enough Already, I would just say that charters are not like AL. It's quite the apples and oranges. There ARE twice gifted students in AL. Are there homeless students? I don't know but there is no discrimination in who takes the test or how it is scored for any student.<br /><br />"..because the schools have assured them that their child's academic needs will be met."<br /><br />Charlie's comment goes to the heart of what the Work Session came down to (and there were some early divisions among Directors).<br /><br />Should the District seek to create academic assurances at EVERY school or forge on with popular and thriving specialty programs? (Don't say both because there isn't the money for them and there was also one key phrase used that showed that.)Melissa Westbrookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12588239576000641336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-34143625984405435192013-04-12T08:03:10.882-07:002013-04-12T08:03:10.882-07:00Some gifted children will not perform to a gifted ...Some gifted children will not perform to a gifted level if they are not surrounded by other gifted children. Instead of lifting those around them in general ed, they drop to a lower level. I was one of those children. Being identified as gifted and sent to a gifted school saved me. Gifted children were selected for testing by two means, teacher recommendation which I did not have and by a standardized test we all took in 4th grade, Iowa Basic Skills test. Those kids who scored well on the test and/or were recommended by teachers, took an IQ test and the those that scored well above average went to gifted school. There is no way I would have done as well in life if I had not been pulled out for the gifted program. Some gifted kids will continue to excel in general ed but many will not and will grow bored and be disruptive. <br /><br />HPAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-45010842579085615922013-04-12T08:00:43.919-07:002013-04-12T08:00:43.919-07:00To clarify the APP threshold - it's 98% for Co...To clarify the APP threshold - it's 98% for CogAT, but 95% for MAP. If it were 98% across the board, both for CogAT and MAP percentiles, you may have a lower percentage of students deemed "highly capable." Part of the presentation mentions the need to evaluate the identification process. By using MAP, more students were identified as highly capable; but if they were to raise the thresholds, it may not have the effect that HMM and others want to see.observernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-64877309299625909012013-04-12T07:33:50.208-07:002013-04-12T07:33:50.208-07:00I was just looking at the presentation again and I...I was just looking at the presentation again and I noticed that the heat map for ELL and Special Education didn't match the distribution of students around the district.<br /><br />Clearly the district isn't doing a good job of identifying ELL and Special Education students in certain neighborhoods.Charlie Mashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17173903762962067277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-31592118332612646012013-04-12T05:05:15.559-07:002013-04-12T05:05:15.559-07:00I don't regard the elements provided in this p...I don't regard the elements provided in this presentation as a framework.<br /><br />First, while I see some frame, I don't see any work. This is not actionable. It does not, in fact, provide a guide for decision making any more than we already have from Policy 2200. I don't imagine that the data in this presentation will be used to designate Stevens, View Ridge, and Loyal Heights as the elementary APP sites (as the heat maps would suggest).<br /><br />This presentation represents the start of a conversation is which we have barely defined the terms. The actual discussion was not advanced. Strictly speaking, the presentation did not even complete the discussion of the nomenclature. You'll notice that Montessori, language immersion, international, IB, and alternative instructional strategies have been put outside the discussion of equitable access by classifying them as "curricular foci". This, despite the fact that they were specifically included in the Board direction in September 2011 and in September 2012.<br /><br />Can anyone read this presentation and say "Ah! Now I know how the District will make program placement decisions!"? I don't think so.Charlie Mashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17173903762962067277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-40303646010741079782013-04-12T04:55:50.625-07:002013-04-12T04:55:50.625-07:00Segregation in general is a disservice to students...Segregation in general is a disservice to students. It should only be done when the benefits outweigh the costs. It should only be done for legitimate academic reasons, not as a matter of choice, preference, or racial bias.<br /><br />That's the difference between creating self-contained classes for students with special needs and creating self-contained classes for students from families that choose to remove themselves from the general education classroom.<br /><br />Even then, we should only make the decision to create a self-contained class when the benefits outweigh the costs. We want to preserve the least restrictive environment for all students.<br /><br />The rationale for self-contained APP is predicated on the research that shows that children with cognitive abilities more than 1.5 standard deviations above the mean think differently from those closer to the mean. This is the source of the "top 2% nationally" idea. The state law allows districts to classify many more students as "highly capable". Further research has demonstrated that the inclusion of these children in a general education classroom has - on the whole - a detrimental effect not only on their progress, but on the progress of the other students in the class. Hence the self-contained delivery model acknowledged best by nearly all gifted education experts, and why APP is self-contained.<br /><br />The APP enrollment exceeds 2% of the students locally because we are home to a fat tail as a result of being an urban center. People are not evenly distributed; they gather in cities and communities in a variety of cluster types.<br /><br />Opposition to self-contained classrooms for APP are based in politics, not pedagogy.<br /><br />This leads to the question about why Spectrum is self-contained. These students may not have cognitive abilities in excess of 1.5 standard deviations above the mean and the same rationale would not apply to them.<br /><br />The rationale for Spectrum lies in the regrettable fact that advanced learners cannot be reliably served in our Standards-based general education classrooms.<br /><br />Our classrooms are, in large part, devoted to bringing every student up to grade level standards. This focus leaves little time, attention, or effort to advancing students beyond Standards. Most Spectrum families can tell a tale of woe about how their child went essentially un-taught for a period. While this is likely to happen to all students briefly at one time or another, we're talking about things like kids going an entire year without learning any new mathematics. The Standards, intended in theory as a floor, function in practice as a ceiling.<br /><br />Not in every school. Not in every classroom. But in enough that becomes detrimental - for everyone - for these children to remain in the general education classroom. For Spectrum, the rationale for self-contained is operational, not research-based.<br /><br />There are, of course, a number of schools and classrooms where students working beyond Standards are well-served. APP- and Spectrum-eligible students remain at these schools in higher numbers than at other schools. Though qualified, their families choose not to participate in the programs because the schools have assured them that their child's academic needs will be met.<br /><br />That's all that anyone wants - for their child's academic (and social and emotional) needs to be met. If it can happen at the neighborhood school, all the better. But if not, then they need another option. Not as a matter of choice or for segregation's sake, but to provide the child with an appropriate academic opportunity.Charlie Mashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17173903762962067277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-34130579102991726762013-04-12T04:14:58.269-07:002013-04-12T04:14:58.269-07:00"'Segregation is a disservice to students...<br />"'Segregation is a disservice to students'...in your opinion. Okay?<br /><br />How does AL impoverish a school? I don't get that."<br /><br />Substitute APP for Charter and here are your answers:<br /><br />From this blog 1/19/2012<br />By Melissa Westbrook<br /><br />Why don't I support charter schools?<br />"Charter schools are...less likely to serve students in special education. They serve fewer homeless students.<br /><br />This has a two-fold problem. One, the resegregation of our schools. Two, it puts more of the responsibility on traditional schools and the accompanying costs."<br /><br />--enough already<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-75922376455110298132013-04-11T22:53:22.013-07:002013-04-11T22:53:22.013-07:00I think you have some incorrect data. I have an in...I think you have some incorrect data. I have an incomng kindergartner, so have been looking at it. Sometimes on the charts people think "advanced learning" means app, but it's not. 2000 students are currently app qualified and enrolled in some advanced learning program, out of 50,000. About 4%. Which is in line with what you'd expect in a city with our education level and demographics. The cutoff is 2%, which is where every body currently researching puts the bar for children who will consistently learn differently/faster. I know you don't think it should exist at all, but assuming it does(and I do, not for racist reasons, thx, but because I have been in enough classrooms to believe differentiation is great...to a point. And then it fails, and kids don't get to learn.), these are the right numbers.<br /><br />I also think these heat maps could have been really helpful in furthering outreach efforts, but they look so hyperbolic without looking at the baseline heat map it seems like they're just provocative. We should do an overlay, look at those differences, then focus.<br /><br />-sleeperAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-46976833738164178482013-04-11T22:41:16.331-07:002013-04-11T22:41:16.331-07:00"Segregation is a disservice to students"..."Segregation is a disservice to students"...in your opinion. Okay?<br /><br />How does AL impoverish a school? I don't get that. <br /><br />I also disagree that these programs are an "entitlement."<br /><br />I would actually agree that APP should be the top 1%. If there were ALOs, of quality and in EVERY school, even get rid of Spectrum.<br /><br />But the main thing that HAS to happen is differentiation in the classroom - a teacher has to know how to teach and the curriculum must be able to be broken up to help each student at their potential. So on that Another Parent, we do agree.<br /><br />However, to my view, teachers tend to teach to the middle. Mostly, it's not their fault and especially with larger classes and standardized testing. But it leaves high-achievers staring out the window or twiddling their thumbs. It's wrong.<br /><br />I believe that there is change a 'comin'. I hope it's a new AL director and I hope it is clear and coherent.Melissa Westbrookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12588239576000641336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-79027445781082761892013-04-11T21:51:59.077-07:002013-04-11T21:51:59.077-07:00The point Enough is making is quite simple. Segre...The point Enough is making is quite simple. Segregation is a disservice to students. The idea of segregated AL - should be that it is for students who absolutely can NOT be educated inclusively, and not that it is something we should hold out for "as many students as possible." Creating a huge entitlement and segregated track is not best practices though it placates those who really hold racial and classists ideals. Regular classrooms should work for as many students as possible with universal design and differentiated instruction. Enough is right on. The whole idea that charters impoverish the rest of the district is exactly the same problem as segregated AL. But somehow, AL parents think they deserve it.. and charter school families don't. <br /><br />If the norm in Seattle for smart people is really "oh so large", because of the "oh so smart tech and university residents", then the regular classroom should be fine because it the norm will be higher. If SPS's intelligence quotient is truly higher - then the bar for gifted program should likewise be higher. Since APP is now serving about 5X the number it should, ostensibly because people in SPS are 5X smarter than the rest of the country - then lets set the bar for segregated programs at 5X national norms.<br /><br />It's ridiculous to "lose sleep over unidentified giftedness". Much better to lose sleep over the failure to provide advanced learning opportunities to as many as possible through inclusive education. Why do we have to identify "giftedness" in order to provide advanced learning? That's crazy. There's never going to be a perfect "identification" of worthy students. Nobody should use that as an excuse not to educate to as high a level as possible.<br /><br />-another parentAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-27576744118310556742013-04-11T18:56:31.683-07:002013-04-11T18:56:31.683-07:00"Are our APP classes ready to teach gifted......"Are our APP classes ready to teach gifted...2E kids,"<br /><br />We have established that they are not, by design. The NSAP codifies that a child must be either/or, not both.<br /><br />I wonder how this contributes to the mindset that students in special education are not worth effort, that they should be warehoused or tracked into low-expectation courses, particularly at the secondary level. Here our district fails miserably. MAP data demonstrates that, after tracking closely up 'til the 4th grade, by the eighth grade, special education students are nearly 5 grades below grade level.<br /><br /> <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/120501430/FRL-vs-NFRL-Predicted-Grade-Level-SpecEd-BiL-vs-Reg-Ed" rel="nofollow">FRL vs NFRL Predicted_Grade_Level_ SpecEd & BiL vs Reg Ed</a> mirmac1https://www.blogger.com/profile/10183460709639638172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-12432659472698958662013-04-11T17:50:01.125-07:002013-04-11T17:50:01.125-07:00A timely article that touches on achievement gaps ...A timely article that touches on achievement gaps and literacy:<br /><br /><a href="http://blog.coreknowledge.org/2013/04/11/talk-to-me-baby/" rel="nofollow">Talk to Me Baby</a><br /><br />parentAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-3629437234570902982013-04-11T17:44:30.358-07:002013-04-11T17:44:30.358-07:00I have never been a devotee of the "enough al...I have never been a devotee of the "enough already" line of thinking that says APP and/or Spectrum are riddled with kids who did intense test prep to pass the COGAT or achievement portions of the tests. Assuming I am right (so they are not "faking" brilliance to get it), I am also not aware of any solid research that suggests that, short of eating lead paint, or getting a TBI, anything that happens that makes gifted kids NOT gifted later on. So -- except with respect to kids who are "counseled out" of the program because they are not doing well in it (and yes, this happens), I don't lose sleep over kids unjustifiably getting in.<br /><br />I DO lose sleep over unidentified gifted kids (particularly 2E, or ELL kids -- but also just kids dealing with poverty and a whole host of issues that may delay language development, access to enrichment activities, etc. -- that cause them to never be tested, or to do poorly enough on the tests that they are not properly identified as gifted.<br /><br />While it is possible to test kids with nonverbal tests that indicate intelligence regardless of language issues, I don't believe the MAP (our current gateway) is such a test. As a result, who knows how many gifted kids grow up in homes with no books and no exposure to art, science, etc. --and thus go unidentified? I know of a family where the kids have (or read) no books at home, and where they claim their gramma keeps the tv on all day -- tuned to professional wrestling if she can find it, or various reality tv shows when she can't. How much MORE gifted than other gifted kids would they have to be to get noticed from a family like this? How many of the "average gifted" kids who should be in APP, or at least in Spectrum and/or ALO programs do we miss, because they simply grow up with fewer opportunities to learn? <br />AND -- when you GET them into an APP class, which is where they should be because they have the same IQ and the same learning issues -- are they really "two years ahead" of the curriculum? Are our APP classes ready to teach gifted ELL kids whose English is not proficient, 2E kids, or a gifted child who -- due to poverty and/or homelessness --has never read a book or known food security? I worry that we almost totally miss this largely invisible population.Janhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09923777229601243321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-69180050774808480112013-04-11T17:26:24.540-07:002013-04-11T17:26:24.540-07:00I saw no academic assurances for students receivin...I saw no academic assurances for students receiving special education services...? Only keening and wailing. Essentially laying the groundwork for further deterioration of services. But, hey, those popular programs will be funded.mirmac1https://www.blogger.com/profile/10183460709639638172noreply@blogger.com