Write a paragraph detailing which district you feel has the best program. Be sure to explain your rationale.
Write a second paragraph explaining which has the least effective program and why you believe this
• Underline aspects which you find positive.
• Circle aspects you feel are bringing down their grade.
I believe the most effective GT program is offered by AAISD. My primary rationale is what appears to be a multi-faceted and multi-input program, where parents, teachers, students and administration take an active role in making child-focused choices. Flexibility in nomination can potentially cause issues, but I have been told in previous GT trainings that parents are often the best early identifiers of gifted behaviors.
ReplyDeleteThe least effective program in my opinion is EEISD, primarily for what appears to be a lack of structure, and an appearance that it is mostly parent-initiated, rather than active identification from teachers. Yet, that said they do appear to have multiple assessment methods, implying flexibility and appreciation for multiple facets of giftedness.
After reading this handout, I realized that GT programs around the state must be "all over the place." I felt that the GT programs in AAISD and EEISD were totally unrealistic in today's economy. Yet, I could easily identify with the issues and struggles of BBISD and FFISD. Although the latter two did not have the large GT programs of the former two, the selection committee in both districts was composed of GT trained individuals. With the very serious issues these districts were facing (budget cuts and an alarmingly high drop out rate), I felt that these two districts had the best and most realistic GT programs with BBISD perhaps offering the better program. Although their program served students only in the core content areas, they tested their students early in their public education careers, used two diagnostic tests, and involved parental feedback in their decisions as to whom would be participating in the GT program in their district.
ReplyDeleteThe worst program, in my opinion, was the one operating in EEISD. No, we are not all gifted (nor are all of our children) even though we would like to think so. Quite frankly, I don't know how on earth they are able to support such a GT program in today's economy.
ReplyDeleteFrom the information given, the district with the most effective programme would be AAISD: it is multicultural, they take the GT programme very seriously, serve all areas of gifted education, represent most of their minority groups, and last but not least, apparently they don’t seem to be “TAKS” driven! (Which is a very positive quality). However, whilst they seem to be pretty much engaged and passionate about their GT’s, they do not seem to care at all about their “at-risk population”, which should be treated with the same respect and attention, trying to find as well a “NON TAKS DRIVEN APPROACH” for those pupils who might not be academically gifted, but definitely could have other “attributes.”
ReplyDeleteConversely, the one with the least effective programme would be FFISD. Basically, they seem to go overboard with their at-risk population and an emphasis about TAKS. One can read between the lines that they start showing signs of “data-titis”: that is, the syndrome of testing the students and collecting data for the purpose of improving TAKS scores and becoming exemplary, regardless of the loss of valuable, quality instructional time. Furthermore, the negative impact all this testing has on the children is absurd! The students no longer know the difference, since it is just one test after another one. The fact that they test all their second graders is proof of it: they do it as an indicator of “future TAKS performance”, not really for GT identification. Another “sin” of this district is the fact that they think there is little interest in the community with regards to the GT opportunities. Could it be that, perhaps, it is not a lack of interest but a lack of “knowledge” of what a “gifted and talented” child might be?
ReplyDeleteWhilst I am extremely frustrated with the fact that GT students are presumed to do well because “they are smart anyway and they will make it” (mea culpa, I am speaking as someone who does not teach in a GT class but happens to have a small number of high achievers every year and lots of at-risk pupils which demand 200% of my effort), I am very much in favour of ALSO paying attention to the at-risk population. However, I am afraid that we (here in America) are not taking the smartest approach. It is a pity that the High-school shop class programmes were dismantled as we educators aim at preparing students to become “knowledge workers” and sit behind a desk. The axiom “everybody should go to college” leads to another axiom: “working with your hands and having them dirty denigrates you.” Do we really have a job for everybody who goes to college? Let us just have a glance at the state of our current economy!
ReplyDeleteLast year I saw an interview with Mathew Crawford (a PhD in Political Philosophy who then became a motorcycle mechanic). Two things stood out from his interview: (1) he is very proud of his work, and (2) his job won’t be shipped out suddenly to India. And I so much remembered this today, when I called my bank (CHASE) regarding a wire transfer that did not take place when it should have, and guess where they answered the phone? In the Philippines! Try calling Direct TV, or other customer service numbers and you will be surprised where those customer service agents are located!
The European academic programmes differ so much from the ones we have here in America! Particularly in Germany. There is a specific interest of the government in identifying the qualities and aptitudes of children at the earliest age possible, so they can be channelled accordingly, neither “frustrating” the child nor wasting government resources in vane. The fact that Germany is already out of the current recession is thanks to their manufacturing capabilities and creation all types of jobs: both blue and collar ones, which turn out both into exports and domestic consumption and money spending…with obviously less need of social programmes like unemployment checks, food stamps, etc.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, last year Mathew Crawford was approached by the Department for Education in England, to assist them in the development of a model similar to the shop-class programmes that were dismantled here in the 90’s. After a study of dropout pupils in Britain showed an increased interest in “working with their hands and not feeling ashamed about it.” Who knows? Maybe some of our 5% GT’s who go “dark” could benefit from such programmes!
My apologies for “getting carried away”, but if you are interested, you can find more about this in:
http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-why-i-got-a-phd-in-political-philosophy-and-then-became-a-motorcycle-mechanic-2009-5
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/magazine/24labor-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&hp
I think the best program belongs to AAISD. I selected than one as the best because the policies and guidelines are reviewed every two years which means they are updating the program according to research or new trends in G&T education.
ReplyDeleteI also like the fact of involving parents and teachers in the placement of the children, and that the district has a flexible calendar to accept nominations. This translate in to a participative program that includes everyones voice in the decisions.
The least effective program I think is the one from EEISD. I think on the negative side, the district considers all children G&T which eliminates the opportunity to offer differentiation in curriculum and activities that GT students certainly need to stimulate and develop their talents.
In the positive side, it seems like the district has a committee for GT placement decisions, so at least the GT program has some structure, or someone coordinating it.
After reading the choices of programs offered in each school district, the best district is EEISD, I base this rational on the fact that there is a committee made up of school board members, administrators, and teachers of gifted and on level students. Also, there are different methods of assessing the student’s skills from formal testing to portfolios and surveys. In addition the child can be identified on any grade level.
ReplyDeleteMy conclusion for the worst district is the BBISD. My rational for this rating is based on this district’s placement criteria based a core content area test given in kindergarten based on their learning process. The positive is students can be nominated at any grade level, and teachers and parents can be involved through surveys. A little added concern, the members are more concern with being compensated rather than their identification program for G/T. Looks like this district’s G/T program is also based on members being compensated. If the chocolates weren’t given at the meetings the gifted program would be dissolve. Don’t expect this program will be around long all members will be out due to diabetes.
I think that AAISD has the most effective gifted program out of the four school districts represented. The fact that they serve all areas of gifted education inclucing leadership and creativity is great. It is awesome that most of their minority groups are represented in the identification procress. Having representation from the school board, parents, teachers and students makes this program very special. The fact that they accept nominations thoughout the year keeps the door open for any student to get tested when the need arises. Therefore, students do not have to wait a long period of time to get the services needed.
ReplyDeleteThe district that seems to have the least effective GT program in my opinion, is EEISD. This districts philosophy is that all children are gifted. That fact of the matter is, all students are not gifted. It is a little far fetched to think that they can meet the needs of the GT students if they are trying to accommodate the desires of all the parents that enroll their children into their district. I think it is wonderful to want to meet the needs of all the students, but the gifted students' program would probaly get watered down as far as what the program could realistically provide to meet their needs. There would not be a true differentiation in curriculum for the GT students.
EEISD rocks! Having all students placed in GT classes will raise the level of expectations where all students would receive a quality education. Differentiated instruction would be SOP; tiered instruction, peer tutoring (what you teach you know best!), ELL & SE students in the same classroom would be a through-back to the days of the "one-room schoolhouse". The buy-in would have to be with teachers willing to do what it takes to accommodate such diverse student backgrounds. In this district, testing/placement could be done yearly to ensure that GT students are accepted/released from the program as situations dictate.
ReplyDeleteFFISD falls Face First! GT students being neglected is a travesty as well as a lost opportunity for the district. Many GT students come from at-risk/economically disadvantaged backgrounds; this is a neglected population that is fully capable of thriving within a GT program. Little community interest as well as GT identification every 3 years is a problem the parents of this district must not let continue. Giving partially trained administrators a few minutes to consider documents that could alter a child's educational future is ludicrous!
This was a tough one. I personally wouldn't want to have my child attend any of these schools if she were GT, she has a while since she's only 15 months old. Since I have to choose a better of 4 evils, I choose Electrifyingly Energetic ISD (EEISD) because I believe that while they do create a false sense of GT believing everyone is GT in their own way, they do have the proper channel of assessing/identifying and then students are placed by a variety of personnel; i.e. school board members, administrators, and teachers who teach both GT and general education students.
ReplyDeleteThe worst in my opinion was the Absolutely Awesome ISD (AAISD). Their method is basically to create a euphoria GT environment. One that is unrealistic and fabricated. Their program, while seemingly diversified, has no merit in identifying GT. It is important to have formal assessments to determine giftedness and they only require surveys. Surveys are extremely subject to interpretation. They are likely identifying several high achievers rather than true GT students and I wonder how much pressure they accept from adamant parents who think their child is GT.
Also, I had to chuckle at the chocolate donated to the placement committee in BBISD.
I believe that AAISD is the best district. My reasoning is that they serve all areas of gifted education even leadership and creativity. I think the portfolios are a good idea. You can see the childs creativity. The flexibility in their nomination schedule is good also. sometimes the GT child doesn't expose themselves right at first.
ReplyDeleteEEISD seems to have the least effective GT program. Every parent wants their child to be gifted but in reality not all children are. Thinking that all children are gifted would water down the GT program. The curriculum would be the same for both groups. Would wouldn't be able the thell the difference between regular and GT classes.
Based on the paragraphs, I believe AAISD has the best program due to the multiple identifications, and apparent attention to diversity. Though it was close between AAISD and EEISD, I believe AAISD's small group meetings with parents and evaluators helps solidify a student's potential into action. EEISD is too broad which is great to label the standard student as gifted seeing how labels affect classrooms. But I find it important to look past labels, especially with GT students. It's not about the potential but succeeding the potential. Also the non-formal process means students with parents that don't care might get left behind.
ReplyDeleteFFISD has severe problems with their regular classes which inhibit their GT program. If they're worried about 60% at risk and their 1% gifted, then their mindset is wrong to begin. What if they recognized that their at risk were also their 60% gifted? To differ this with BBISD they just need to sell their merchanted chocolate and reach deeper into the community to come out of the tax-cut feeling.
After reading the 4 programs with GT program I believe that AAID is the most effective one. I think is important that the school board gets involve it the GT identification and that they are constantly monitoring it and making sure the program is being well implemented. They give more opportunities to students by serving all areas of gifted education. Students, parents and teachers love the program and feel confident with it. They all participate in the proper placement of the child. They accept several nominations through the year and place students as needed.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion the district with the least effective program is the Fantastical Fabulous ISD. This district offers the program but it doesn’t give it the importance and dedication it deserves. The administration examines the board polices for GT every 3 years and I personally think this should be monitored more often. The community of this district shows little interest in GT placement, I think this is because they are not well informed of the advantages of the program. The district should inform parents about GT program and motivate them to nominate their child.
After reading every district policy towards GT students I can say that AAISD would be my favorite choice. The reason I choose this district is that I like the fact that is multicultural and they take very seriously the GT program. I liked that they monitor their policies every other year to keep it updated. They not only focus on core content areas but also inlcuding leadership and creativity. As we discuss during our past trainings they are plenty of GT people in different areas not only academic ones. And last but not least I like the fact that they are not all over the tests.
ReplyDeleteIn the other hand, my least favorite is FFISD. I don´t like that they emphasis most of their energy in the at risk population. I definitely agree that population at risk and economically disadvantage needs attention but GT population needs attention as well. Also, there is very little interest among the population so if you have a gifted child this would be definitely the worst option to choose in my very personal point of view.
I do not necessarily see any of the 4 as having the best program, but if I had to choose one, I would say that AAISD is the best choice. It seems to be much more organized than the others. There are meetings to inform parents and let them know about nominations. I like that this district serves all areas of education and not just the content areas. This shows that this district recognizes there are students gifted in many different areas. The selection and placement process seems to be effective and structured.
ReplyDeleteThe least effective program would have to be FFISD. Just because students are at risk does not mean they are not gifted. The district is wasting time on focusing on the at risk aspect instead of the abilities of the students. The GT program is obviously the last priority for the district, and there are very few nominations made.
I feel that the best is AAISD because they serve all areas of gifted education including leadership and creativity. They also have most of their minority groups represented although they don't say to what extent. It doesn't seem very practical, however, because they have so much flexibility in their nomination schedule.
ReplyDeleteI feel that the worst is FFISD because less than 1% of their population has been identified as gifted. This reflects a lack of commitment on their part. In addition, the Stanford test is not a good indicator for giftedness especially in a lower SES population.
I'm going to play devil's advocate, and say that I think Fantastical Fabulous ISD is the best district! They rightly concentrate their resources on the education of the 60% of their population who are at risk and economically disadvantaged. They are still examining their GT policies regularly, and identifying those students the parents don't nominate, through testing all students in second grade. The fact that the test is also used to identify those who may need extra help in preparing for the 3rd grade TAKS is a smart use of resources. The 2nd graders who score high are then given the COGAT and surveys. I don't really like the use of surveys because those are so subjective. If they didn't use these subjective surveys, there would be no need for a committee to review the documents for placement.
ReplyDeleteI think Electrifyingly Energetic ISD is the worst of these 4 districts. A school district cannot be so wide open, using 4 to 5 different methods of assessing the students. I don't think that the school board should be actively involved in placing students in programs. The school board should only be involved in setting policies. Others should be implementing those policies. The policies should be so clear that there is no need to form selection committees. Although I agree that every child is gifted in his own way, I don't think that all giftedness can nor should be recognized and fostered by a school district. The GT program then becomes so nebulous that no student can be properly served.
ReplyDeleteI feel the EEISD has the best GT program for several reasons: 1)they give information to parents about the GT program; 2) they don't test students at any one grade level; 3) all children are gifted and 4) they believe their should be 4-5 different methods of assessing the students skills. This will provide more variety of information to help determine the level the student is at.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, I think BBISD has the worst GT program. Looking at their method of serving only the core courses are eliminating the rest of the students who are gifted in other areas. It's great for those students who have an outstanding GPA, but what about those students who don't make the grade. They are left out in the cold.
Based on the descriptions given and if such a school district existed, the best school district with the best program is AAISD. It is a multicultural district, which infers that they have GT students from various minority groups (Hopefully this includes Hispanics. I say this, because in my teaching experience I have had many students who I strongly thought were gifted, but were not given the opportunity to be tested for the simple fact that we did not have a bilingual person to do the testing). I like the idea that many people are involved in the process, starting from board members down to parents. Another fictitious fact I liked was that this district serves ALL AREAS, not just academics. Right now, I have a boy (second grade) whose artistic abilities are tremendous. When I display his work on the hallway, teachers and students stop to admire his drawings. Sadly, he does not have the opportunity to enrich his artistic abilities. It would be fantastic if such a district existed, because as a parent, I like the idea of being involved and having a voice in my child’s education. Something I don’t like about this district is the flexibility it has for nominating students. I believe that there should be some kind of structured guide for the GT process and not be too flexible in the selection process.
ReplyDeleteCompared to the other three school districts, FFISD is the worst school district serving GT students. By the descriptions given, FFISD sounds as a real school district facing the current budget struggles as many other school districts in the country. The use of the Stanford test as a method to identify GT students is inappropriate. We know that there are many GT students who are not good test takers. By using this method the FFISD hinders GT students to perform well their abilities. But who can blame FFISD when they have such a low percentage of GT students and almost no interest from parents. FFISD tries to identify GT students and serve them as best as their capability. I can relate with the district. I have ONE GT student in my class. I provide many activities for the students below grade level, but neglect the ONE. I have to say that, this training is giving me many ideas to provide more opportunities for the GT student motivated and challenged. Hopefully, FFISD will find a better way and more support from parents to serve better their GT population.
I believe that, from the four districts described, AAISD seems to have the best GT program, starting with their serving all areas of gifted education. It is a multicultural district and most of their minority groups are represented. They accept nominations troughout the year, which allows to serve students' needs at any moment vs. waiting a whole year.
ReplyDeleteWhen trying to decide which district has the least effective GT program, there were aspects that I did not like in each one of the remaining four: First I thought EEISD had to be the worst, since by unifying all kids under one single label, they are defeating the whole purpose of identifying and differenciating to meet specific needs. Saying that all students are gifted, seems to me more like a phrase made up to please every parent in a district where their influence seems to be strong; probably due to a higher education and/or socioeconomic status. Then, I looked at it on the brighter side: If that should be the case, gifted or not, the district is still taking care of every student and there still seems be some kind of placement. They do not mention the options for placement, but it sounds to me they do have them, since they say they are serving all students in all their "different ways" of being gifted.I decided this would actually be my second best choice.
Then I focused on the reamining -the bottom two: Although BBISD only serves GT students in the core areas, I decided that the least effective program had to be FFISD. The fact that their at risk students are the needier group is no excuse to neglecting the GT population. Maybe they have a "great" At Risk, TAKS based program, but if you have a GT child, this is your worst option. In addition, just because the population is "At risk" and parents do not seem to express interest in a GT program it doesn't mean there are not GT students. They will probably never be dentified,specially if their identification process begins with a standarized achievement test administered in second grade..
Contrary to popular belief, I feel that EEISD has the most effective program. Their selection committee has a wide-range of participants. If they work independently, they would have the greatest opportunity of identifying students that need and would benefit from the GT program. In addition, they utilized a multitude of methods to assess GT students (formal test, surveys, and portfolios).
ReplyDeleteThe least effective program, I felt was BBISD. My decision was based upon the fact that these individuals have the wrong motivation. BBISD has a narrow opportunity to identify GT students and the GT program is only for the core content areas.
Out of the four districts, the one I thought was best was AAISD. I felt that this district tried to make their parents aware of the program, represented the minority groups, and teacher input was given relevance to. There is a sense of cohesiveness to their GT program since all parties (school board, parents, teachers, students) were involved. What was also noteworthy was AAISD's flexibility in their nomination schedule where they accepted nominations throughout the year.
ReplyDeleteMy least favorite district was EEISD because it seemed like a district who wanted to please the parents more than anything. It would be great if all students were GT, but this isn't the case. To say that everyone is gifted may give parents false hope that their child would qualify as GT. I didn't like the fact that they chose to give out flyers rather than talking with the parents to inform them of GT procedure. I did like the fact that they used different methods to assess the students skills.
Initially I was torn between EEISD and AAISD, but I chose AAISD as the most effective district based on the fact that they are a multicultural district where minority groups are represented. Also, their GT program not only serves academic areas, but creative and leadership as well. I also think that accepting nominations throughout the school year has an impact on a lot of students in that they are not always identified right away as we have discussed in our training. Those students, as AAISD does, should be placed as needed. The one thing that steered me away from EEISD was their belief that all children are gifted. I would like to believe that, but if it were true, all parents would have their children tested to be placed in a GT program
ReplyDeleteThe least effective district is FFISD. This district seems to neglect the gifted students due to their high percentage of at risk students. The focus should be equally placed on the GT students needs as it is on the at risk students. These students are seen as those that don't require as much help and therefore are not challenged as often because the focus is on trying to get the other students where they need to be in order to pass the standardized tests.
Grading each district on Identifying GT Students:
ReplyDeleteAAISD - D
EEISD - C
BBISD - A
FFISD - F
I feel the school district with the best identification of GT students is BBISD for several reasons. While they have a limited budget, the district allows parents and teachers to nominate students. The district also uses surveys, COGAT testing and Stanford testing as they identify students needing GT services. The sequence of testing is also important so as not to identify only bright, high achieving students but those who may not be reaching achievement while having the ability. I believe they could do a better job if they rewarded the identification committee with more than chocolate however! The lack of reward for the comittee may equal lack of interest and motivation for some putting the identification of students as risk. When they can get more money they should spend some here!
The worst district for identifying GT students is FFISD. Properly named FF since they have only identified 1% GT students and focus is primarily on at risk students and TAKS testing. The sequence they give the Stanford and COGAT test is also a big factor because they are missing the underachieving gifted students whom a GT program should help the most.
I believe that AAISD represents their GT program the best. Flexibilty is key in everything, and that seems to be there focus when catering to their GT and potential GT population. Being able to accept nominations throughout the year and place students as needed allows them to catch all of the GT students at their peak. It seems that they understand that not all GT students exhibit their potential right away, so they are giving them time to reach their full potential. Besides the fact that they target all areas of giftedness, the best part about the program is the portfolios because it allows teachers, students, and parents to have a hand in the qualiication process.
ReplyDeleteThe district that doesn't appeal to me is BBISD, although EEISD comes in as a close second. It devastating that the teachers refuse to look at the nominations without compensation, especially since they know that their district is having budget issues. Their selfishness leaves those tested studnets unattended, and the studnets will continue to not be served within the abilities. Also, parent surveys can be bias and should not be the only measure of a students GT capabilites.
Electrifyingly Energetic ISD (EEISD) is clearly the preeminent model. If you raise the expectation, students will perform and rise to the occasion. Students should never be “dumbed” down. Gifted and talented students should undergo a meticulous testing process to be identified as such. The task of assessing giftedness should not be placed in the hand of the “lay” person, but instead conducted by objective people such as administrators, diagnosticians, and GT coordinators. Discussing a level of giftedness with a parent and teacher is considered bias because every parent and teacher would be considered boas because every parent would like to toot their own horn when it comes top their child being smart or on the honor roll. Additionally, school board members should just stick with reviewing and revising policies and not engage in this process. How does one create a culture or atmosphere of success if you don’t cultivate this into the minds of the students?
ReplyDeleteThe worst school district in my opinion is Fantastical Fabulous ISD (FFISD). First, they deserve an ‘F’. At the school I currently teach at, there are two non-negotiables and one of them is that we are here to service all students. How can you service one without the other? It is a mockery if the school district does not recognize that oftentimes the “at-risk” population may be gifted and talented. Just from previous experience, if you focus on one subgroup or population, the groups that usually perform well, their scores will dwindle. The identification process that starts at the 2nd grade and is not followed up until three years later is a joke. How could you adequately assess someone’s giftedness at such an infrequent interval? Let’s not even talk about the training that the GT teacher receives. This is a farce. This school district seems like your typical “Title 1” school, where the funds are available for various “pet” projects but the allocation of the funding is not equally spread out among the assorted services at the school.
Electrifyingly Energetic ISD (EEISD) is clearly the preeminent model. If you raise the expectation, students will perform and rise to the occasion. Students should never be “dumbed” down. Gifted and talented students should undergo a meticulous testing process to be identified as such. The task of assessing giftedness should not be placed in the hand of the “lay” person, but instead conducted by objective people such as administrators, diagnosticians, and GT coordinators. Discussing a level of giftedness with a parent and teacher is considered bias and subjective because every parent and teacher would like to toot their own horn when it comes to their child being smart or on the honor roll and what role that they played in that child’s success. Additionally, school board members should just stick with reviewing and revising policies and not engage in this process. How does one create a culture or atmosphere of success if you don’t cultivate this into the minds of the students?
ReplyDeleteThe worst school district in my opinion is Fantastical Fabulous ISD (FFISD). First, they deserve an ‘F’. At the school I currently teach at, there are two non-negotiables and one of them is that we are here to service all students. How can you service one without the other? It is a mockery if the school district does not recognize that oftentimes the “at-risk” population may be gifted and talented. Just from previous experience, if you focus on one subgroup or population, the groups that usually perform well, their scores will dwindle. The identification process that starts at the 2nd grade and is not followed up until three years later is a joke. How could you adequately assess someone’s giftedness at such an infrequent interval? Let’s not even talk about the training that the GT teacher receives. This is a farce. This school district seems like your typical “Title 1” school, where the funds are available for various “pet” projects but the allocation of the funding is not equally spread out among the assorted services at the school.
While none of these districts has an ideal identification program, all being singnificantly flawed in some aspect of their program, I preferred the identification methods employed by the Barebones Basic ISD (BBISD) to the others. BBISD recognizes that giftedness is different from high achievement or multiple intelligences and that is should be identified by qualified individuals rather than hopeful parents or teachers. The best overall program, however, belongs to Absolutely Awesome ISD (AAISD) due to their serving all areas of giftedness. Their programs clear flaw, however, lies in the selection process. There is no unbiased evaluation of a child's ability, and the selection committee lacks any qualified person to identify real giftedness. Apart from this, the program is outstanding.
ReplyDeleteThe least effective program in my opinion belongs to Fantastically Fabulous ISD (FFISD) is perhaps the worst because it relies almost exclusively on an achievement test for identification of giftedness. Students who do not test well or who perform poorly for reasons unrelated to academic ability would be excluded from further testing that might reveal their abilities. This is proven by the small percentage of identified GT students, merely 1% of the population which should be closer to 5%. While it is desirable for FFISD to address the needs of the at risk population and appropriate that they do so, they are underserving the GT population.
I think that the Absolutely Awesome ISD had the best. I liked that they involved the parents, children, and the teacher. I also thought it was important that all minority groups were represented and that they were able to accept nominations from througout the year. The portfolio process is also a plus because it gives parents something to look at if their child isn't successful.
ReplyDeleteI think that Barebones basic ISD has the least effective program for identifying G/T students. While testing the kids entering Kinder is a good idea, it just leaves too much open holes. Especially for students who haven't had much time to understand what the school setting is and will not have always had the same experiences. I also thought that the surveys weren't an effective tool because what happens if a parent doesn't turn it in?
In my opinion, the absolutely worst program is that of AAISD, followed closely by EEISD. At no level is any GT specialist involved in the selection process or in the structuring of the program. No formal testing is given. The placement of the child by a group comprising the child's parents, the child and the teacher is completely inappropriate. The the district is truly "absolutely awesome", why are there no GT specialists involved?
ReplyDeleteThe best program in my opinion, is the BBISD. Even though they have had to cut back because of financial issues, they offer two tests and survey both the teachers and the parents.
The district has found some cost-effective ways to manage the program including using those employees who had had the GT training. However, the lack of compensation (chocolates aside) seems a major problem.
In my opinion, I like BBISD because they do give information about GT services and they provide immediate feedback to parents about their children. While there are flaws to their programs (which are due to cutbacks), they try to make sure GT students receive are recognized in the core areas. By identifying the GT students at a young age, they are able to provide their students with a more challenging and rewarding education.
ReplyDeleteThe least effective GT focused school district is FFISD. I agree with Eliva and her opinion. I feel many GT students would get left behind and unnoticed of their abilities because they may not test well. Tests, like the ones they describe, are monotonous for many students and can wipe away creativity from them. Plus, people tend to focus more on the test instead of the student which can cause students to be left behind.
I think that EEISD has a very positive attitude and high expectations for their students. They believe that all the students are gifted in their own way and assess students skills in 4-5 different ways.When the results are in they place the students in the proper placement to assure their needs are met. I love this idea because I believe this is a great way to help children reach their full potential.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely Awesome ISD (AAISD) caught my attention for many reasons. AAISD seems to have a well organized program. This district tries to involve the parents throughout this process. This district has the support and participation of the school board. They also service all areas of giftedness, not just academics. This program is interested in servicing the whole child. It appears that this district wants what is best for the child. The part of the process that really got my attention was having the parent, child and the teacher sit down and discuss proper placement for the child. The child’s placement is not solely based on the counselor or the teacher. This district has sat down and planned an effective process for identifying and monitoring gifted students.
ReplyDeleteBBISD appears to have lost direction because of tax cuts. This district has taken a lack of interest in the GT program. After reading this district’s profile, I noticed that they are driven by money. They feel if they don’t have the money, they can’t make appropriate educational decisions that will benefit the students. This district doesn’t have a plan to identify GT students. The most disturbing factor is the administrators take a 30 hour course and feel that they are capable enough to quickly make a decision for GT identification. Where there is no structure or process, the plan will fail.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading and analyzing the four districts I have given each district the following grade:
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely Awesome ISD (AAISD) A, Electrifyingly Energetic ISD (EEISD) B, Barebones Basic ISD (BBISD) D-
Fantastical Fabulous ISD (FFISD) C
EEISD was rated the highest by me, giving it an A and that is only out of the choices I had. I believe that everyone is gifted in their own way and every child is given and opportunity to be in the GT program. I also like the fact hat it is not done just by formal testing. I gave Barebones Basic ISD a D. This shouldn’t be used as a standard due to the fact that all groups of minority groups are not represented and they only service the core content areas and children are gifted in many more areas. I feel as if there is know real thought or care that is going into the selection process and their services since they are concerned about compensation.
ReplyDeleteI would grade EEISD the highest! I love the fact that they think all of their children are gifted in one way or another. It sounds like they expect their students to shine in some area and they provide that opportunity. They do not just give one test, but allow students to be evaluated through several methods to get an accurate view of the child.
ReplyDeleteI would grade FFISD the lowest. I feel like they are not servicing any gifted children. They do not consider the few who are gifted and need that extra challenge. It is not fair to those students to only focus on the large at-risk population.
I give FFISD the worst grade. They have narrowed their focus to the students with the greatest need and give minor attention to the gifted and talented student. They test all students in second grade which would be a waste if they no that there is less then 1% enrollment of gifted students. Data from testing students may serve for the academic area of giftedness but not the other areas such as creativity and leadership.
ReplyDeleteIt has been difficult to give a grade to these districts. They each have an area that brings their grade down. AAIS is serious about their GT program, but I don’t agree with the students sitting down with the teacher and the parent to decide placement. The surveys and portfolios do allow student input. The structure behind their program allows all multicultural groups to be considered as well as all areas of gifted education to be served.
All the districts have their good and not so good points regarding the identification, costs, testing, areas served, community information, etc.
ReplyDeleteThe school district which I think has the best program is the AAISD. I like the fact that it begins the information process and nominations in Kindergarten, that in this multicultural district, the minorities are well represented, that they include leadership and creativity as well as academic abilities, and that they allow nominations throughout the year. The placement for the child is decided by parents, teachers and the child. I don’t know if using only surveys would be the best or only way to identify the gifted students.
FFISD seems to be the least efficient district identifying its gifted. Due to its large at risk population, GT education is definitely not a priority. They try to make the parents aware of the service, but the little interest in the community indicates that more should be done to promote it. They do test all children in second grade, but only those with high scores on this academic test are further tested to see if they can enter the program. “A committee of district administrators quickly gets together” also indicates that the process is not given the serious consideration the students deserve.