[Ohiogift] Ohiogift Digest, Vol 6, Issue 23

Wed Oct 31 17:03:51 EDT 2012

I don't know if this is the sort of thing you had in mind, but you can check out the Challenging High End Learners tool created by the Oregon Department of Education, Joyce VanTassel-Baska, Jackie Buisman and Oregon Teachers at 

http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?id=2591 .

Margaret


At 02:41 PM 10/31/2012 -0400, you wrote:
>Send Ohiogift mailing list submissions to
>        ohiogift at lists.service.ohio-state.edu
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>        https://lists.service.ohio-state.edu/mailman/listinfo/ohiogift
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>        ohiogift-request at lists.service.ohio-state.edu
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at
>        ohiogift-owner at lists.service.ohio-state.edu
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>than "Re: Contents of Ohiogift digest..."
>
>
>Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Ohiogift listserve post request (Dwayne Arnold)
>   2. Re: New High Ability Halloween blog post (Art Snyder)
>   3. Re: New High Ability Halloween blog post (Rosado Feger, Ana)
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 12:37:20 -0400
>From: Dwayne Arnold <DArnold at npesc.org>
>Subject: [Ohiogift] Ohiogift listserve post request
>To: <ohiogift at lists.service.ohio-state.edu>
>Message-ID: <WC20121031163720.210CC6 at npesc.org>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>Can the following post be placed on the ohiogift listserve?
>
>In meeting with a third grade teacher the following idea/question came to fruition.
>
>Is there either a site or a program that has a universally applicable process or format to address a topic (driven by the content area) that has the following elements?
>1) Sections of complexity (driven by Bloom's Taxonomy) that have choices of activities for the student to select. For Example- Content Area: Science, Topic: Biomes 
>Section One- Choose from these two choices. (A) Create your own vocabulary list of 8-10 words, include a definition with appropriate references or (B) Choose four 
>concepts or ideas from the topic and describe each concept or idea in a well written two-three paragraph journal entry. etc.
>These sections would move up Bloom's and increase in complexity.
>
>2) A rubric scoring system for each section.  It would also include a self assessment component.
>
>Any ideas or suggestions of something already created would be greatly appreciated.
>
>Dwayne P. Arnold
>North Point Educational Service Center
>Supervisor of Gifted Programming
>(Office) 419-627-3954
>(Cell) 419-217-6919
>
>
>Confidentiality Notice: This electronic message transmission contains
>information from North Point Educational Service Center which is
>privileged, confidential or otherwise the exclusive property of the
>intended recipient or North Point Educational Service Center. This information is intended for the use of the individual or entity that is the intended recipient. If you are not the designated recipient, please be aware that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is
>strictly prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission
>in error, please notify us by telephone (419-627-3900), collect, or by
>electronic mail to the sender and promptly destroy the original
>transmission. We take reasonable precautions to ensure that our emails
>are virus free. However, we accept no responsibility for any virus
>transmitted by us and recommend that you subject any incoming email to
>your own virus checking procedures. Thank you for your assistance.
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 2
>Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 14:06:23 -0400
>From: Art Snyder <artsnyder44 at cs.com>
>Subject: Re: [Ohiogift] New High Ability Halloween blog post
>To: <Ohiogift at lists.service.ohio-state.edu>
>Message-ID: <8CF85A99253B6B3-678-5EDE0 at webmail-d094.sysops.aol.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
>Friends:
>?
>Ohio is not alone, unfortunately, with increased and?increasing restrictions on service to gifted students. Yesterday's New York Times carried a similar article about new hurdles for families and students in the community of gifted education. Since the article now has limits on public access to it, I have copied and pasted it below, FYI.
>?
>Art Snyder
>
>===========================================================================
>October 29, 2012
>
>City Ends Sibling-Preference Rule in Gifted AdmissionsBy AL BAKERNew York City education officials are rolling out several changes to the admissions process for gifted programs as they confront an explosion in the number of children qualifying for seats.
>?
>But none have [has]?created quite as much furor as the new policy that could send Rachel Fremmer?s daughters to different schools. 
>?
>?How does it benefit the schools to have parents? time and money split between different schools?? said Ms. Fremmer, who has a 7-year-old daughter in the second-grade gifted program at P. S. 163, on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, and a 4-year-old daughter in preschool hoping to enroll there next year. 
>?
>The policy ends the sibling preference for gifted and talented programs that have more eligible students than seats, a situation that has become common as more 4-year-olds have scored high on the admissions tests in recent years. Last year, almost 5,000 qualified for kindergarten seats, more than double the number from just four years earlier. 
>?
>Under the old rule, if Ms. Fremmer?s younger daughter had scored highly enough on the tests to qualify for a seat ? in the 90th 
>percentile ? she would have been automatically accepted into the same gifted program her sister attends, a policy intended to keep families together and to keep parents from having to drop off and pick up at different schools. But now, if that program has more qualifying applicants than seats, Ms. Fremmer?s other daughter will have to enter a lottery like everyone else. 
>?
>Simply put, the shift reflects the Education Department?s effort ?to make it fairer and more equitable for students scoring most high on these exams,? said Robert Sanft, the chief executive of the department?s Office of Student Enrollment. 
>?
>For years, sibling preferences had been a sacrosanct element of the admissions process for popular public and private school programs, but increasing demand for seats has already led some private schools to do away with the policy. Parents upset at the 
>?
>Education Department?s decision have been writing letters to city officials, including Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg. 
>?
>The old policy, however, was not universally admired. Parents who did not already have a child in a gifted program complained that it was unfair, and in a petition backing the shift said it was ?crucial to maintain the high quality of the programs and serve a child?s best interests.? 
>?
>The sibling preference was particularly criticized by parents of children who scored at the 99th percentile, the highest level, but still could not win a seat in one of the five so-called citywide programs, including the Anderson School on the Upper West Side and the Brooklyn School of Inquiry, which are reserved for the highest scorers. Students with a sibling already in those schools could get in, under the old rules, by scoring in the 97th percentile, allowing them to vault past students who scored higher but had no brother or sister in the school. 
>?
>?Why should a child who scored a 99 on the test be deprived of an earned seat because another child has a sibling?? wrote one parent on the petition. ?This isn?t how life works and it isn?t how the N.Y.C. public school system should work either.? 
>?
>The change is one of several intended to manage the ever-growing demand for the city?s gifted programs, and the ever-improving performance of students on the admissions exams, a phenomenon that has coincided with the rise of a local tutoring and test-preparation industry. 
>?
>Several years ago, the city instituted the test-based admissions process, which involves two exams given in one sitting, replacing a system that had largely left each district to set its own criteria, which could include tests, grades and teacher recommendations. The change has led to a drop in the number of black and Hispanic students qualifying for the programs. This year, the city has thrown out one of the two exams, the Bracken School Readiness Assessment, and replaced it with a new 48-question test known as the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test ? Second Edition, or NNAT2. It has also reduced the weight given the other test, known as the Otis-Lennon School Ability Test, or Olsat, in the student?s final score. 
>?
>The NNAT2, said Adina Lopatin, deputy chief academic officer in the Education Department, is ?less impacted by things like spoken language, socioeconomic background, culture and school experience,? and should increase diversity and ?improve the accuracy of our identification of gifted children.? 
>?
>In another change, those students entering kindergarten or first grade who score highly enough for a gifted program will no longer be guaranteed a seat in one. The city said this would not curtail students? options because roughly half of parents in those cases rejected their offered seats, choosing instead to send their children to neighborhood elementary schools or private schools. 
>?
>Dozens of parents came to an information session in a Chelsea high school on Wednesday evening to hear what several Education Department officials had to say about the process, which some parents called overwhelming and daunting. But many said the presentation did little to relieve their sense of confusion. 
>?
>?It is insanity,? said Jennifer Perrine, who attended the meeting to explore all the schooling options for her 4-year-old daughter but left the presentation ?pulling my hair out.? 
>?
>She added, ?The average parent is left with the impression that you can?t get in anywhere, even if you?re Albert Einstein.?? 
>?
>Representatives of several tutoring companies, which are already trying to adapt to the NNAT2, were also there to greet the parents, and seek their business. One of them, Bige Z. Doruk, also happened to be personally affected by the new sibling policy, because she has two children in a city gifted program and a 4-year-old preparing for the coming tests. But she said education officials were doing the right thing to abolish the sibling preference. 
>?
>?This is not about accommodating families,? said Ms. Doruk, the owner of Bright Kids NYC. ?It is about creating a fair gifted and talented system for all families, giving every family a fair shot at being in a gifted and talented program.? 
>
>-------------- next part --------------
>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>URL: <http://lists.service.ohio-state.edu/pipermail/ohiogift/attachments/20121031/a8941ca2/attachment-0001.html>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 3
>Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 14:40:58 -0400
>From: "Rosado Feger, Ana" <rosadof at ohio.edu>
>Subject: Re: [Ohiogift] New High Ability Halloween blog post
>To: "Ohiogift at lists.service.ohio-state.edu"
>        <Ohiogift at lists.service.ohio-state.edu>
>Message-ID:
>        <54154C2CA798A14C92BB9F3B4252F0BD38D2B8F6 at EXMAIL2.ohio.edu>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
>?Preparing? 4-yr-olds for tests to determine ?giftedness??   Does this set off alarm buzzers for anyone else???
>
>
>--Ana L. Rosado Feger, Ph.D.
>Assistant Professor of Operations
>Ohio University College of Business
>336 Copeland Hall
>Athens, OH 45701
>740-593-0119
>rosadof at ohio.edu
>
>From: ohiogift-bounces at lists.service.ohio-state.edu [mailto:ohiogift-bounces at lists.service.ohio-state.edu] On Behalf Of Art Snyder
>Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 2:06 PM
>To: Ohiogift at lists.service.ohio-state.edu
>Subject: Re: [Ohiogift] New High Ability Halloween blog post
>
>Friends:
>
>Ohio is not alone, unfortunately, with increased and increasing restrictions on service to gifted students. Yesterday's New York Times carried a similar article about new hurdles for families and students in the community of gifted education. Since the article now has limits on public access to it, I have copied and pasted it below, FYI.
>
>Art Snyder
>
>===========================================================================
>October 29, 2012
>City Ends Sibling-Preference Rule in Gifted Admissions
>By AL BAKER<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/al_baker/index.html>
>New York City education officials are rolling out several changes to the admissions process for gifted programs as they confront an explosion in the number of children qualifying for seats.
>
>But none have [has] created quite as much furor as the new policy that could send Rachel Fremmer?s daughters to different schools.
>
>?How does it benefit the schools to have parents? time and money split between different schools?? said Ms. Fremmer, who has a 7-year-old daughter in the second-grade gifted program at P. S. 163, on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, and a 4-year-old daughter in preschool hoping to enroll there next year.
>
>The policy ends the sibling preference for gifted and talented programs<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/g/gifted_students/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier> that have more eligible students than seats, a situation that has become common as more 4-year-olds have scored high on the admissions tests in recent years. Last year, almost 5,000 qualified for kindergarten seats<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/14/nyregion/as-ranks-of-gifted-soar-in-ny-fight-brews-for-kindergarten-slots.html>, more than double the number from just four years earlier.
>
>Under the old rule, if Ms. Fremmer?s younger daughter had scored highly enough on the tests to qualify for a seat ? in the 90th
>percentile ? she would have been automatically accepted into the same gifted program her sister attends, a policy intended to keep families together and to keep parents from having to drop off and pick up at different schools. But now, if that program has more qualifying applicants than seats, Ms. Fremmer?s other daughter will have to enter a lottery like everyone else.
>
>Simply put, the shift reflects the Education Department<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/e/education_department_nyc/index.html?inline=nyt-org>?s effort ?to make it fairer and more equitable for students scoring most high on these exams,? said Robert Sanft, the chief executive of the department?s Office of Student Enrollment.
>
>For years, sibling preferences had been a sacrosanct element of the admissions process for popular public and private school programs, but increasing demand for seats has already led some private schools to do away with the policy<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/06/nyregion/at-elite-new-york-schools-admissions-policies-are-evolving.html>. Parents upset at the
>
>Education Department?s decision have been writing letters to city officials, including Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg.
>
>The old policy, however, was not universally admired. Parents who did not already have a child in a gifted program complained that it was unfair, and in a petition backing the shift<http://www.change.org/petitions/new-york-city-department-of-education-abolish-sibling-priority-for-gifted-and-talented> said it was ?crucial to maintain the high quality of the programs and serve a child?s best interests.?
>
>The sibling preference was particularly criticized by parents of children who scored at the 99th percentile, the highest level, but still could not win a seat in one of the five so-called citywide programs, including the Anderson School<http://www.ps334school.org/> on the Upper West Side and the Brooklyn School of Inquiry<http://brooklynschoolofinquiry.org/>, which are reserved for the highest scorers. Students with a sibling already in those schools could get in, under the old rules, by scoring in the 97th percentile, allowing them to vault past students who scored higher but had no brother or sister in the school.
>
>?Why should a child who scored a 99 on the test be deprived of an earned seat because another child has a sibling?? wrote one parent on the petition. ?This isn?t how life works and it isn?t how the N.Y.C. public school system should work either.?
>
>The change is one of several intended to manage the ever-growing demand for the city?s gifted programs, and the ever-improving performance of students on the admissions exams, a phenomenon that has coincided with the rise of a local tutoring and test-preparation industry.
>
>Several years ago, the city instituted the test-based admissions process, which involves two exams given in one sitting, replacing a system that had largely left each district to set its own criteria, which could include tests, grades and teacher recommendations. The change has led to a drop in the number of black and Hispanic students qualifying for the programs. This year, the city has thrown out one of the two exams, the Bracken School Readiness Assessment, and replaced it with a new 48-question test known as the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test ? Second Edition, or NNAT2. It has also reduced the weight given the other test, known as the Otis-Lennon School Ability Test, or Olsat, in the student?s final score.
>
>The NNAT2, said Adina Lopatin, deputy chief academic officer in the Education Department, is ?less impacted by things like spoken language, socioeconomic background, culture and school experience,? and should increase diversity and ?improve the accuracy of our identification of gifted children.?
>
>In another change, those students entering kindergarten or first grade who score highly enough for a gifted program will no longer be guaranteed a seat in one. The city said this would not curtail students? options because roughly half of parents in those cases rejected their offered seats, choosing instead to send their children to neighborhood elementary schools or private schools.
>
>Dozens of parents came to an information session in a Chelsea high school on Wednesday evening to hear what several Education Department officials had to say about the process, which some parents called overwhelming and daunting. But many said the presentation did little to relieve their sense of confusion.
>
>?It is insanity,? said Jennifer Perrine, who attended the meeting to explore all the schooling options for her 4-year-old daughter but left the presentation ?pulling my hair out.?
>
>She added, ?The average parent is left with the impression that you can?t get in anywhere, even if you?re Albert Einstein.?
>
>Representatives of several tutoring companies, which are already trying to adapt to the NNAT2, were also there to greet the parents, and seek their business. One of them, Bige Z. Doruk, also happened to be personally affected by the new sibling policy, because she has two children in a city gifted program and a 4-year-old preparing for the coming tests. But she said education officials were doing the right thing to abolish the sibling preference.
>
>?This is not about accommodating families,? said Ms. Doruk, the owner of Bright Kids NYC. ?It is about creating a fair gifted and talented system for all families, giving every family a fair shot at being in a gifted and talented program.?
>-------------- next part --------------
>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>URL: <http://lists.service.ohio-state.edu/pipermail/ohiogift/attachments/20121031/6060b125/attachment.html>
>
>------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ohiogift mailing list
>Ohiogift at lists.service.ohio-state.edu
>https://lists.service.ohio-state.edu/mailman/listinfo/ohiogift
>
>
>End of Ohiogift Digest, Vol 6, Issue 23
>***************************************