Civic Issue #3: Is There a Solution?

Welcome to my final civic issue blog post! So far, I have only presented some of the glaring issues with gifted programs, but I have yet to discuss any possible solutions. In this post, I will discuss the different ways schools across the country are addressing gifted education problems.

One solution to improving the identification process of gifted students is to simply test all students. This is what pilot schools in Aurora, Colorado did to diversify their programs that had an overrepresentation of White and Asian students. The gifted education coordinator, Carol Dallas, stated that the testing showed a 9% increase in the Black gifted population, an 8% increase for Hispanics, and a 5% reduction in Asian overrepresentation (1). There was also more representation for girls, immigrants, low-income students, and English-language learners (1). This pilot test greatly helped to reduce the inequity in Aurora’s gifted programs and identify student populations that are often overlooked.

Another approach is one I stumbled across early on in my research. The article described schools in Rockville Centre, NY that had eliminated their gifted program and most of their “remedial, average or advanced classes” altogether (2). This change in the system began over 30 years ago, with the goal of less segregation between races, economic status, and academic levels. In many middle and high schools, including my own, once you were placed into a track, it was difficult to move into a more advanced one. This resulted in students either not being challenged or believing that they could never catch up to those in the accelerated tracks.

Instead, South Side High School in Rockville “requires subject teachers in each grade to teach the same content at the same time” (2). Additionally, the school offers advanced classes to anyone who wishes to take them and even requires students to take certain college-level courses, such as English (2). Struggling students can attend support classes where they are taught the material before the actual lesson. This helps prepare them for when they go to their main class. South Side’s approach and higher expectations for all students seems to be working. In 2019, “89% of all students and 67% of economically disadvantaged students earned a New York State Regents with Advanced Designation” compared to 33% statewide (2).

The model in South Side is a version of the Schoolwide Enrichment Model (SEM) that nearly 4,000 schools in the U.S have implemented (3). The model was created in 1977 by Professor Joseph Renzulli and has since been modified by himself and Professor Sally Reis, both of whom worked at the University of Connecticut. According to the Renzulli Center for Creativity, Gifted Education, and Talent Development, the SEM “promotes ‘a rising tide lifts all ships’ approach” and “provides enriched learning experiences and higher standards for all children through three goals: developing talents in all children, providing a broad range of advanced level enrichment experiences for all students, and providing follow-up advanced learning for children based on interests” (3).

Washington D.C. began implementing the SEM in schools in 2012 after getting rid of their gifted programs in 2005. When it opened in 2019, the Ida B. Wells Middle School had a large population of students performing below grade level (2). Using the SEM, classes were filled with every type of student, including gifted, those learning English, and those who need special education. Each class has 2-3 teachers, depending on the subject, which allows for smaller group instruction. There is also a talent specialist that holds additional classes for struggling and accelerated students (2). However, it remains unclear how beneficial this method of teaching is. In most D.C. SEM schools, students continue to perform below grade level and there has been no increase in racial or economic diversity like the district wanted (2).

New York and D.C. are not the only places that have altered their gifted programs. In Miami-Dade County Public Schools, students are evaluated differently based on their income or other factors that would influence their ability to get accepted into accelerated programs. This method of screening is allowed by the Florida law known as Plan B (4). From the Seattle Times, “middle-class and affluent kids need IQ scores of at least 130, while low-income children or those whose first language is not English can get in with scores 13 points lower — provided they rate highly in measures of creativity and academic achievement” (4). This controversial system has resulted in Miami’s gifted student population closely matching the district’s demographics. However, these changes also incurred a high cost of $10 million that covered “additional psychologists, teachers, administrators and a battery of nonverbal intelligence tests for kids not yet fluent in English” (4).

According to Florida law, “all teachers of the gifted complete 300 hours of study on the temperament of highly intelligent kids, as well as the best ways to instruct, counsel and draw out their creativity” (4). In addition, teachers in Miami are trained to find and support gifted students. Christy Nudd is one of those trainers who helps educators “spot buried capabilities” (4). She claims that “giftedness is really just potential… it doesn’t mean these students know everything. It means they have the potential to know. And it’s our job to build the bridges” (4). Nudd’s words reflect the growing sentiment about what it means to be gifted. That “giftedness” does not simply mean good grades. Giftedness can manifest in a variety of different ways and in a variety of different kids.

Looking at the approaches of these schools, I personally believe that diversifying enrichment programs (in terms of demographics and how they are taught) is important. However, I feel that eliminating them is too extreme. Having no academic level segregation is a nice idea, but it places a heavy burden on teachers. They must be knowledgeable in multiple types of education and subjects versus having a handful of teachers who specialize in a specific area. Even some students at the South Side school are skeptical because it is a “competitive pressure cooker” and “they feel pushed to take advanced classes” (2). Furthermore, many districts do not have the funding to implement some of these strategies, including hiring teachers with the proper qualifications. As for the system in Miami, I’m conflicted about evaluating students differently because I understand both sides of the controversy. But I do like that Miami is focusing on expanding the definition of “gifted”. Ultimately, like many things in life, there are no clear solutions. It’s going to take more experimenting, pilot programs, and further analysis of the current systems to determine the best ways to solve the gifted program issues.

I hope you’ve enjoyed my civic issue blog, and I would love to know your thoughts on the different solutions that schools have implemented!

Resources:

1. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/education/america-s-gifted-education-programs-have-race-problem-can-it-n1243143
2. https://hechingerreport.org/getting-rid-of-gifted-trying-to-teach-students-at-all-levels-together-in-one-class/
3. https://gifted.uconn.edu/schoolwide-enrichment-model/semresearch/#:~:text=The%20Schoolwide%20Enrichment%20Model%20(SEM,enrichment%20approach%20for%20all%20students.
4. https://www.seattletimes.com/education-lab/the-push-to-find-more-gifted-kids-what-washington-can-learn-from-miamis-wins/