NCLB Exposes Need for New National Gifted Legislation
sxc.hu | author: Tim & Annette
As the 110th Congress begins to take a second look at the reauthorization of Public Law 107-110, we need to consider one very small population of public school children that is being left behind. The much needed NCLB (No Child Left Behind) act covers the immigrant child, the special needs child, the minority child, the child that lives in an urban school that is under-funded and under-performs, the child whose needs cannot be met in the school district for which he lives…. Or does it?
What if that very same child was also gifted, functioning two or three grade levels above his peers and soaking up new knowledge like a sponge? There are currently no provisions for such a child, nor is there funding, as the NCLB act has forced many states, including Illinois, to reallocate funds from gifted programming toward achieving better test scores among at risk populations [1]. Gifted programs are drying up fast in Illinois and across the nation, and I have such a deep desire to see this population receive adequate funding, both as a parent of a gifted preschool son with currently no resources available to me, and also as a former educator in the public school system.
I am standing on a precipice much like millions of other families with talented children who have no feasible options. Families of the gifted have to pay out of pocket for educational services that children under IDEA get routinely for free. My son qualified for a special Saturday school program at a very prestigious in-state University. The program director said that their program is meant to meet the needs of this population in a way that the public school system currently does not. It is a wonderful program but it comes with a price tag of over $900 a year to enroll. This naturally excludes the family with limited income, which is a grievous mistake for our nation.
Parents unable to afford the many extra curricular activities that nurture the minds of our gifted children may be surprised to learn that the most least-restrictive and cost-effective solution, that of promoting their child to a higher grade level, is not an option in every school district. There are many schools that will simply not allow early entry to kindergarten despite the fact that they also do not have adequate gifted programming available to meet the specific academic needs of the gifted child in question.
- Losing Our Minds: Gifted Children Left Behind
- Re-Forming Gifted Education: How Parents and Teachers Can Match the Program to the Child
- The Social and Emotional Development of Gifted Children: What Do We Know?
- Genius Denied: How to Stop Wasting Our Brightest Young Minds
For example, Illinois now has a law that states no child can be enrolled into kindergarten unless they are 5 on September first. In our case, I requested that the local public school consider early entry into kindergarten based on my child’s exemplary test scores from three different sources. I was answered by an emphatic no. I further inquired about skipping kindergarten in 08 and going straight to first grade if testing indicated that this would be a better, more least-restrictive placement. Again, I was told that it was not possible. I finally asked what was the protocol to qualify my child for gifted services upon enrollment at our public elementary school. I was told by the principal that my child did not have special needs and that there were no services necessary. She said that there was a teacher that would work with him if the kindergarten teacher noticed that he had exceptional skills.
In other words placement was subjective, not objective. I asked if this teacher was a certified gifted teacher and was told no. It was a teacher who had taken a class or two on gifted children. I asked what reading group they would put him into and was told he would probably be in a group by himself. So who would be challenging him and teaching him to his abilities, stretching his boundaries? A regular classroom teacher is not equipped, and expectedly so, when she is faced with 25 or more students, many of which have special academic deficiencies that are required by law to be met. And any service personnel that she can avail herself of are provided by funding only for students with academic deficiencies, funding available through IDEA.
As a matter of fact, many public school educators all say the same thing; advanced preschoolers and early elementary children are not necessarily gifted. They claim that children will level out by fourth grade, and parents should not get too excited about how well their child performs at earlier ages. What exactly does this mean? Does the gifted child all of a sudden become average in ability by age 9? At what age, then, does this child stop learning so that his or her peers can catch up? Perhaps the public school system’s experts believe their NCLB programs offer the average and below average child the tools he or she needs to acquire giftedness by age 9? Common sense tells us these theories are simply not plausible. And the statement itself is no defense for decades of ineffective funding, programming, and protection of educational rights. This is simply not acceptable. Period. These children are our nation’s future. We need them to be well-rounded, well-challenged, and well-equipped to lead our country through the 21st century and beyond. Article continues on next page…
It’s a great letter. I too went this route – writing my congressmen a year or two ago, never suggesting a law as you have, but speaking to the importance of not neglecting the gifted population in schools, due to NCLB.
Unfortunately, I live in a state in New England in which simply saying one’s child is gifted (not to mention that the child needs more than schools supply) is usually looked upon as elitist. Needless to say, I received no responses. Recently, the national Javit’s grants are allowing some funds, however small, to go to selected programs for teacher education.
Thus far I am not sure if any funds actually funnel to the children and the classrooms themselves. The Javit’s grants should be able to be identified by state via the national gifted organization (nagc).
Great article I just saw today on this topic:
http://www.dukegiftedletter.com/articles/vol7no4_feature.html
Also, an interesting-sounding new book is coming out by a parent of a gifted child called “Infinity And Zebra Stripes” by Wendy Skinner. This is to be released September 1st and is published by Great Potential Press.
I’m hoping to generate enough people to send this letter (or their own modified version of it with personal info) to their senators and congressman. It is a long shot, I know, but collectively we have more of a chance to be heard. Snail mail might be better than email. I already hand delivered one to my congressman last month. I haven’t got a response yet. Even if we don’t get a law out of this, which is likely, perhaps we can get the dialog going. My girlfriend works at an educational think tank. They are very heavily involved in NCLB research and practice on a national standpoint. NCLB may not be the place to push for Gifted funding. Javits is the key. We need to push for legislation but that it is a long shot. Now is the time — as they are re-evaluating the act — for our representatives in Washington to at least think about the whole picture. I want to put a face (my child’s face) to the figure. The more faces they read about in their “in” boxes the more likely they will respond with something, even if it is only more money for Javits.
There’s a (relatively) new book, “How Computer Games Help Children Learn” that talks about the problems of No Child Left Behind–and what we might do instead about education. The book describes about how No Child Left Behind is taking our schools in the exact opposite direction from where they need to go in the age of computer technology and global capitalism—and how the new technologies of computer and video games can help get schools (and students!) where they need to go. From the introduction:
If you’re interested in the future of schooling, the book might be worth a look….
I searched some recent postings on Edweek and your pledge is right on.
Here’re a couple examples to support your article:
November 15, 2006
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2006/11/15/12letter-2.h26.html?qs=gifted
April 6, 2007
By Christina A. Samuels
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/04/06/32gifted.h26.html?qs=gifted
A recent blog entry from Edweek’s Teacher magazine draws a thoughtful analogy of gifted students to a lawn nourished by a rich soil (08-14-07):
http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/unwrapping_the_gifted/
The August 27, 2007, TIME magazine issue also features the problem of American schools failing its geniuses:
A co-founder of the Davidson Academy, Bob Davidson, says that not allowing gifted kids skip a grade or more is a grave mistake:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1653653,00.html
One mother speaking up for her child is considered pushy and annoying.
Three mothers speaking up for their children is considered a clique.
30 mothers speaking up for their children from the same school and all of a sudden the community starts to change the way they think.
300 mothers speaking up for their children and the school district changes their policies.
3,000 mothers speaking up for their children and they get national attention.
30,000 mothers speaking up for their children and Congress finally sits down to make a new law.
There was an ABC report earlier this summer, too, called “Genius School” about the Davidson Academy. Here’s the link:
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Story?id=3243344&page=1