By Mary

September 28, 2007 7:41 AM | Link to this

Barb, the Terra Nova is one of many assessments allowed by the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) for identifying gifted students in Ohio. You can view the table of different tests allowed including Iowa skills and Terra Nova by going to the Ohio Association for Gifted Children at www.oagc.com, click on “resources”, “ODE documents”, “assessments”, or something like that and look at the table and applications. Terra Nova is just one of twenty or thirty or more listed along with applicability such as current grade.

By Barb

September 23, 2007 12:36 PM | Link to this

The state actually identifies the gifted students according to the Terra Nova scores is what we were told at the gifted classes. I too was in them until I found out that Dayton really did not intend to do anything with the gifted students. I know one of the 4 who completed the course has pulled out of Dayton and is using her talents elsewhere. I also know that when I have tried to give higher grade level work to my gifted students I was told not to deviated from the Reading series all students are using, just move them faster. As a parent of 3 gifted students I know this is completely incorrect. By the way DPS has or had a gifted program at Valerie where students were challenged. No one ever seemed to consult this program to see what they were doing. We were also told the regular classroom teacher is to challenge the gifted students while working with the others in our full classrooms and being told to concentrate on the students who need help to pass the OAT. We have nothing but time I guess.

By DPS teacher

September 22, 2007 1:22 PM | Link to this

Last year a gifted teacher came to our school once a week to work with the gifted Language Arts students. The students really enjoyed the program, but I don’t know if it is still being funded. These gifted pull-out programs are very important. You are right to be concerned about whether or not your child is receiving these services. I am very thankful that I was pulled out of class for similar gifted reading classes when I was a child.

By Concerned Mom of 3

September 21, 2007 7:49 PM | Link to this

Barb- Thank you for your comments about the DPS Gifted program. The next question that pops into my head is- If there is no gifted program in place, why are there five or six people working in this department? At the parent meeting, we met the Associate Superintendent from the Office of Humanities, The Director of the Gifted Program, The Gifted Resource Teacher (who is the only one I have seen at the building level,) and three teachers from Cleveland, Stivers, and Orville Wright. We were informed that one teacher in Dayton has a Master’s degree in Gifted Education, four teachers have completed the program with a gifted endorsement, and that twenty four other teachers are currently pursuing a gifted endrosement program. Do the Dayton Public Schools really need to pay all these folks merely to “identify” the gifted students? Can’t the building level principals report the students that qualify as “gifted?” What a waste. Will my child ever come into contact with the teachers who are trained to povide the services and activities that will fully develop his capabilities? All I can say is that I am glad my son has been blessed with some artistic talents so he made it into Stivers. Thanks DPS for “identfying” my son as gifted.

By Barb

September 21, 2007 12:14 PM | Link to this

Concerned Mother of 3 I think you walked away with the correct impression. According to law all DPS has to do is identify the students. They do not have to service them at all. You are correct they are gifted more than likely for a reason and that is support at home. We do a daily injustice to these children when we lower the bar to meet the needs of the majority. I know; my gifted kids went to school in Dayton.

By Concerned Mom of 3

September 20, 2007 11:40 PM | Link to this

I attended a parent meeting for the 305 4th- 12th grade students who have been formally identified as “gifted” in Dayton Public Schools. The administrators in attendance were pleasantly surprised at the standing-room-only turn out at the Ludlow 2 building. (I wasn’t surprised that a lot of the students who are labeled “gifted” have caring parents behind them.) I walked away from the meeting with a good understanding of common characteristics of gifted students. (They often are bored and appear to have ADD.) The thing I didn’t walk away with was a good understanding of what DPS plans to do in order to meet the needs of these students- with the exception of an 8 week Saturday program, and some newsletters. At the high school level, there are honors classes, AP classes, and some kind of college credit classes available. The packet of information and activities distributed at the meeting was nice, but I felt overwhelmed- like I was supposed to do the activities at home with my son. (I don’t have time to implement a program at home. I already do a lot to ensure a well rounded education.) I plan to network with friends in suburban districts to find out what a gifted program should look like. I get the sense something is amiss. Probably has something to do with the failed levy…(Back in the day- one of my siblings attended a 2XL program for gifted students on Wednesdays at the Northmont library.) She was presented with advanced curriculum and extensions of the classroom lessons. She loved it. Should this be the kind of program my son should have access to? My question about NCLB- are there any requirements for “gifted” students? If so, what are they?

By Mary

September 20, 2007 9:10 AM | Link to this

“concerned mom of 3”, perhaps I am confused, but I think many in the education field also use the term “special ed” for gifted ed although the laws affecting the two groups (gifted and disabled) are entirely different. As we mentioned previously, some students are actually in both groups. Regarding special needs for testing, I think there is law suit in New York, because some students/parents clamor to get into the special needs/disabled groups so they get extra test time for things like SAT/ACT. Some are supposedly getting into Ivy League schools this way. Those bringing the suit are claiming unfair advantages by students claiming to be disabled. It apparently presents problems for the colleges, as well, in how to deal with test scores taken under entirely different circumstances.

By dadofpaspie

September 20, 2007 6:32 AM | Link to this

Laura, I guess my experiences are different, because special education services made available differ greatly by district and also by individual school. In my son’s case, segregated classrooms have had lowered expectations, and its been offered on a take it or leave it basis. If a child needs more one on one, the IEP team needs to plan appropriate services, whatever that may be. For my child and others with Asperger’s, the social/emotional needs can far outweigh the academic ones. I think these children get frustrated with language and reading people - they may be strong visual learners, while the material in the mainstream classroom may be presented mainly orally. Only now at age 16, is my son able to express how damaging the segregation has been to his self-esteem.

By Laura

September 19, 2007 8:27 PM | Link to this

dadofaspie: You are mistaken about how the special ed students are tested and their scores reported. I have 3 special ed students in my regular education classroom. One has Asperger’s. They are not segregated into another classroom. They spend more time in my classroom than in the resource room. According to the special ed teacher, the student with Asperger’s should not be mainstreamed. Not because of social skills, but because he needs more one on one time. It is his mother who insists he be mainstreamed. It is not in his best interest academically. He has gone to school with the same children for years and they all know him and for the most part are kind and understanding. Most of the students look out for him, help him with his work when they can and try to keep him on task. He has a few special friends and gets along with the children well. But he doesn’t perform academically unless he is in the special ed classroom. Over the last few years, as more students have been mainstreamed into the regular classroom, I have had more and more students that are required to take the test. It is heartbreaking to watch a child have a “meltdown” because they want to do well but can’t do the work and no one can help them. The people in power should observe a few of these incidences the next time they decide to make decisions that affect children’s lives. As far as students being placed in special classrooms where expectations are “lowered”. That is the farthest thing from the truth. Special ed teachers are more likely to believe a special needs child can do something as opposed to a general ed teacher. The special ed teacher has the training and experience to make appropriate decisions when work is too difficult or not for a student. A general ed teacher is more likely to “feel sorry” for the child and let them by with more.

By Laura

September 19, 2007 5:41 PM | Link to this

Mom of 3, Your son is not among those I am concerned with. He has an alternative assessment. I am talking about the students who do have to take the test. In years passed, those in special ed were exempted from taking standardized tests. With NCLB, they are required to take the tests and their scores are reported to the state.

By lou

September 19, 2007 5:25 PM | Link to this

Concerned Mom your son is a small percentage of students with special needs. There is a cap on what percent of students can be alternativly tested. Most students with 50-70 IQ’s take the regular test with accommidation. With the large percentage that our building has of students with special needs their scores count on the report card. Buildings and districts with small numbers of students with special needs scores are not counted or reported to the public.

By dadofaspie

September 19, 2007 4:51 PM | Link to this

NCLB I think has been a good thing. It puts an emphasis on teacher qualifications, expectations on grade level, and graduation requirements. There is a common misperception that special needs students “drag down” the class. There are alternate assessments, and many of these students are segregated into special ed classrooms -many cases i believe unfairly, and suffer from lowered expectations. People make the case that private schools and charters have an unfair advantage, because public schools have to accept the disabled. That is simply untrue - my son was recently denied access to a vocational school strictly because he is disabled. Private schools in many cases have sprung up specifically to serve the disabled, because parents could not find what their student needs. I am more concerned that existing laws like IDEA are not being enforced. NCLB needs accountability as well.

By Concerned Mom of 3

September 19, 2007 3:01 PM | Link to this

Laura- I have a son who is profoundly handicapped. His state report card comes back looking better than his “Gifted” twin brothers state report card. Are you sure the special education students jeopardize the overall rating of a school and/or district? He does not take the tests. His teachers and I have to conduct an “alternate assessment” which is based on his IEP. On another note… The “gifted” twin was very distressed to read the letter we received in the mail last week. He thought gifted students were the same as “Special education” students… My husband and I had a good laugh about his mistaken perception.

By Laura

September 18, 2007 8:32 PM | Link to this

I have pretty much the same question as Rich. When will NCLB become realistic? It is unrealistic to believe all children can achieve at the levels expected. It is extremely unfair to hold the success of menatlly retarded children against the scores of the state. What will be next? Removing those children from education or even society so the state can look good? What is reasonable about holding the school accountable for the attendance rate of students when it should be the parents who are held accountable. What is reasonable about school districts being held accountable for graduation rates when the law allows students to drop out at 16? What control does the school district have over that? Finally, when will NCLB be fully funded?

By Concerned Mom of 3

September 18, 2007 3:59 PM | Link to this

Rich- I liked your Chemestry Analogy. Here is another on that the women might be able to realte to… When you are trying to loose weight, the first 20 pounds comes right off. The challenge is losing those next 10 pounds. It is probably where most people on a diet crash and burn. It is sad to see the schools headed on a path to crash and burn…Now, on to one of my biggest concerns about having children who attend DPS… Are the teachers so focused on helping the “borderline” students pass the test, that my children who are already passing missing out on lessons that might otherwise be presented in a school that is not under the gun of making AYP? I think this is a real issue to be concerned about.

By School Supporter

September 18, 2007 1:55 PM | Link to this

Value-added has been around for about a decade—don’t we know enough to use it reliably to ensure appropriate annual progress for students? BTW, here’s a Spellings link: http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2007/9/16/its-back-to-school-for-secretary-starbuck.html

By mike

September 18, 2007 11:23 AM | Link to this

Will NCLB ever be funded completely?

By Rich

September 18, 2007 10:52 AM | Link to this

As it stands now, NCLB mandates that all students in each subgroup will be proficient in all tested areas by 2014. Of course, the devil is in the details (including the definition of “proficient”), but it’s a statement of fact that ALL students WILL NOT EVER be proficient in ALL areas. Nice goal, but it won’t happen. The latest renewal draft in the U.S. House education committee backs off a bit, speaking of all students reaching proficiency by 2014, or “being on a trajectory for proficiency” within 3 years afterward. What does the Dept. of Education really think of the overall goal — can they admit it’s lofty, but unrealistic, to set perfection as your goal? Beyond that, can they admit that AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress) as now administered is almost a guarantee of eventual failure for most districts? Low performing districts have so much room for improvement that achieving AYP is relatively easy. But as overall performance improves, meeting AYP gets harder and harder — eventually becoming literally impossible as the number of “failing” students decreases. It’s akin to what we know of chemical reactions — primary reactions are easy, taking a certain amount of energy to achieve 90% of the full reaction goal. Secondary reactions, achieving the next 8% of the full goal, take about as much energy as the first 90%. But that FINAL 2%, if you can even do it, takes more energy than the first 98% combined! This chemistry analogy isn’t perfect, but it IS an instructive way to think about it — rather than energy for a chemical reaction, think of the the time and money needed to successfully elevate 100% of your students to proficiency — will it happen? CAN it happen? The obvious answer is no. This isn’t defeatism, or an excuse for abandoning any student or sub-group — just realism. A little realism in our national and state educational goals would be refreshing.

By Mary

September 18, 2007 10:40 AM | Link to this

I would like to know what the reauthorization would do for the plight of students who could pass the tests with their eyes closed, and are underchallenged, while teachers are focused on bringing the lower peforming students up to passing. Every child should be encouraged to work to the best of their ability, and not held back.