 | | | Bill of Rights |  |
| | | Gifted Children’s Bill of Rights You have a right….. …to know about your giftedness, …to learn something new every day, …to be passionate about your talent with out apologies, …to have an identity beyond your talent area, …to feel good about your accomplishments, …to make mistakes, …to seek guidance in he development of your mind, …to have multiple peer groups and a variety of friends, …to choose which of your talent areas you wish to pursue, …not to be gifted at everything. Del Siegle 2007-08 NAGC President | | | | | |
|
| | | My Schedule | |
| | | Mrs. Herman’s Schedule 9:10-10:20 4th + grade math 10:25-11:35 5th + grade math 10:30-11:00 Friday a.m. kindergarten enrichment 11:35-12:30 5th grade reading lunch 1:05-2:15 3rd + grade math 2:20-2:50 Monday and Tuesday planning 2:20-2:50 Thursday-Friday 2nd grade enrichment 3:00-3:30 Monday planning 3:00-3:30 Thursday and Friday 1st grade enrichment 3:00-3:30 Tuesday and Wedneday kindergarten enrichment | | | | | |
|
| | | | Gifted and Talented Program | |
| | | Philosophy
The Gifted and Talented Program at Wilder will identify and provide an educational program for the intellectually and academically gifted and talented student in grades K-5. The program will be flexible, child-centered and provide a variety of options including higher level learning activities and experiences, independent studies, peer interaction and research opportunities. Gifted and talented students, families and educators will find an atmosphere of support and guidance at Wilder.
Definition
"Gifted and talented children" means those persons between the ages of five and twenty-one whose abilities, talents and potential for accomplishment are so exceptional or developmentally advanced that they require special provisions to meet their exceptional needs. …"Gifted and talented students are capable of high performance, exceptional production or exceptional learning behavior by virtue of any or combination of these areas: general or specific ability, specific academic aptitude, creative or productive thinking, leadership…abilities…"(Source: Colorado Exceptional Children’s Act)
Student Search Nomination Process
Step One – Student Search- the G/T Facilitator asks for informal review of students.
Step Two – Nomination- The G/T Facilitator collects information on nominated students. Students may be nominated by G/T Facilitators, classroom teachers, counselors, parents, special services, self and peers. Information may be collected from parents, students, teachers, classroom assessments, and standardized testing. Students who transfer from other G/T school programs are automatically nominated.
Step Three – Recognition or Identification- 3 positive indicators out of 6 signal exceptional needs:
Student Achievement- Indicator of student knowledge
Student Interest- Indicator of student’s focus areas and /or curiosity
Student Motivation to Learn- Indicator of student’s commitment to pursue learning
Student Aptitude- Indicator of student’s demonstrated mastery
Student Performance- Indicator of a student's demonstrated mastery
Observable Student Behaviors- Indicator of a student’s need for differentiation
Step Four - Service Options Match- Plan for services to match exceptional needs. Services include, Flexible grouping, Cluster grouping, Pullout grouping, Acceleration by subject, and Acceleration by grade skipping.
Instructional Strategies for Gifted and Talented Students
Differentiating
Compacting
Independent projects
Interest groups
Ability groups
Mentorships
Enrichment activities | | | | | |
|
| | | Mrs. Herman's bio | |
| | | I am honored to say that this is my 16th year as the gifted and talented facilitator at Wilder Elementary. Prior to that I was a 4th grade teacher at Centennial Elementary in Littleton and a substitute teacher for LPS. It was while I was substituting that I took classes to renew my teaching certificate, and discovered my passion for the field of gifted and talented. This passion drove me to take gifted classes and attend many gifted conferences. In one of my classes I met a principal named Ken Coddington. (Years later he hired me for the Wilder gt position.) My bachelor’s degree is in elementary education from the University of Nebraska at Kearney and my master’s degree is in gifted and talented from the University of Northern Colorado. In the past twenty years I have been privileged to hear and meet gifted and talented notables such as Carol Ann Tomlinson, Mary Ruth Coleman, Barbara Clark, Joe Renzulli, Sally Reis, George Betts, Jerry Flack, Barbara Kerr, Frank Rainey, Karen Rogers, Susan Winnebrenner, Bertie Kingore, E. Paul Torrance, Dr. Shirley Weddell a(my mentor) and many more. In 1998 I was inducted into the Colorado Academy for Gifted, Talented and Creative. It truly is an honor to be a member of an organization with the most notable gifted and talented professionals in Colorado. In 2001 I received the Gifted and Talented Teacher of the Year for the State of Colorado from the Colorado Association of the Gifted and Talented. I am married and have 3 children (who attended Wilder, Goddard and Heritage), and I have three grandsons. In my spare time I enjoy doing crafts, reading and photography. | | | | | |
|
| | | | Other Resources | |
| | | Information & Resources for Parents Frequently Used Terms No Child Let Ahead
Author(s): Vanderkam, L.
Source: Davidson Institute for Talent Development
Does the accountability movement hurt top students? That’s the question behind a new report from the Fordham Foundation on “High Achieving Students in the Era of No Child Left Behind.” The answer is that while high-achieving students have not seen their test scores fall, few teachers feel that their intellectual growth is a top priority. NCLB – the federal education law created in 2001 – is closing the achievement gap. But the results of the Fordham study raise the question of whether that was a good goal for such a far-reaching piece of legislation.
The results
For the Fordham report, authors Tom Loveless, Steve Farkas, and Ann Duffett looked at how students in the 90th percentile and the 10th percentile scored on the NAEP (the National Assessment of Educational Progress, or “the nation’s report card”) over the past few years. They also surveyed teachers about their time and priorities.
While some of the test scores are murky, there are a few pronounced results. From 2000 to 2007, 4th grade reading scores rose 3 points for students at the 90th percentile, and 16 points for students at the 10th. In 8th grade math, NAEP scores rose 5 points for students at the 90th percentile, and 13 for students at the 10th. An analysis of states that implemented accountability programs prior to 2000 found that for 4th grade math scores, students at the 90th percentile gained an average of 1.6 points, while students at the 10th percentile gained 5.7 points. Among a comparison group of states without accountability programs, 90th percentile students gained 2.5 points, and students at the 10th percentile gained 1.9 points.
In plain words, this means that when accountability programs are put in place, scores for high-achieving students stay flat. Scores for lower achieving students rise. This causes the achievement gap to close – which was precisely the point of NCLB.
A flat score does not constitute being “hurt.” However, the survey responses from teachers painted a more nuanced picture of how NCLB and accountability programs influence the classroom experience. Among the key findings:
Teachers don’t think schools are concerned about high achievers. 78% of teachers agreed that getting underachieving students to proficiency is so important that the needs of advanced students have taken a back seat. About a third said that academically advanced students were a low priority, and 40% of high school teachers said that honors and accelerated classes were often watered down.
Teachers themselves are concerned with the needs of high achievers, even if they don’t believe their schools are. 73% agreed that “too often the brightest students are bored and under-challenged in school – we’re not giving them a sufficient chance to thrive.” In focus groups, teachers talked about “cheating” their students and levels of frustration “when they have to sit by while we’re babysitting.” Noted one teacher: “It does seem that the resources, when we do get them for the higher achievers, are always geared toward things like day trips to places...The problem is that when we do get funds for the gifted students, it’s always ‘Take them to the science museum.’”
Teachers think students do better with homogeneous grouping. By a margin of 72-14, teachers believed advanced students were more likely to reach their academic potential in homogeneous classes, rather than mixed ability classes. They also – by a margin of 46-36 – favored ability grouping for struggling students. A full 76% of teachers said they favored the idea of homogeneous grouping for meeting students’ needs. They were well aware of the problems in mixed classes: 77% agreed that when they assign group projects, advanced students do most of the work.
Teachers do not like full grade acceleration. While 85% liked the idea of subject matter acceleration, 63% opposed grade skipping. This is reflected in school policies. 46% said that their schools do not allow grade skipping, and 27% say they are not sure, which means that it is likely rare in these teachers’ schools.
While some teachers have long had concerns about acceleration, the preference for subject matter vs. full grade acceleration may also be a function of NCLB. A 4th grader who goes to 6th grade for math could still be counted as a 4th grader (with her scores bringing up the school average). A 4th grader who moves to 6th grade for all subjects would count in the 6th grade average.
Analysis
The accountability movement does seem to be raising struggling students’ test scores. This is a good thing. Gifted advocates should try to figure out ways that the good parts of the accountability movement can be sustained, while changing the incentives in such a way that schools will want to help high achievers do their best. These are a few ideas:
Currently, states use their own tests to measure progress. Could all states use the NAEP? Since the NAEP does not “top out” as easily as a grade level test, schools would have an incentive for high achievers to do better.
Can scores be compared by age, rather than grade? A 10-year-old working at the 10th grade level could still count, for testing purposes, as a 10-year-old. This would remove the disincentive for whole grade acceleration.
Teachers like homogeneous grouping. So advocates should work with teachers to push for this whenever possible. One recent study from Kenya found that ability grouping raised test scores for both students in the higher and lower tracks alike. This makes ability grouping NCLB-friendly.
Gifted advocates should write their representatives and ask that the mission of NCLB be clarified as “boosting all student achievement” rather than “closing the achievement gap.” Words matter. The Fordham report shows that when an entire federal agency throws its weight behind a result, you get that result – whether it was the right outcome or not.
View the report here.
This article is provided as a service of the Davidson Institute for Talent Development, a 501(c)3 nonprofit operating foundation, which nurtures and supports profoundly intelligent young people and to provide opportunities for them to develop their talents and to make a positive difference. For more information, please visit http://www.davidson-institute.org, or call (775) 852-3483.
The appearance of any information in the Davidson Institute's GT-CyberSource does not imply an endorsement by, or any affiliation with, the Davidson Institute. All information presented is for informational purposes only and is solely the opinion of and the responsibility of the author. Although reasonable effort is made to present accurate information, the Davidson Institute makes no guarantees of any kind, including as to accuracy or completeness. Use of such information is at the sole risk of the reader.
| | | | | |
|
|