[Ohiogift] "Common Core" - Implications for Gifted Students

[Katie Thurston]

Being a recent returnee to the gifted e-mail list, I was hoping to
help advocate for the gifted, which includes my 15-yr-old son. In the
past I've sent a letter to state officials in hopes of having concerns
addressed, but haven't a clue if it was even read... My main concern
is helping Zachary and others like him who've fallen through the
cracks, even with "failsafes" in place, like his IEP (which is mainly
to address his "ED"- which of course, began upon his entrance to
public school...hmmm). My gifted son has called himself a "failure"
and insists on telling me he's "not as smart" as I know he is.
Although we have tests that show he is gifted in math and high scoring
in other areas as well, he has several f's on his report card. Now
that  he is in high school, the district's main concern is meeting
with us , signing a new IEP and just letting him sit in a "resource"
room once a day while his mind rots and attitude worsens. I'm looking
into homeschooling but feeling mired and wondering what alternatives
are available to us. Thanks for your time.

On 5/26/13, Colleen Boyle, PhD <boyleconsulting at me.com> wrote:
> It was supposed to be put online, printed in Ides of ODE, and shared at the
> conferences they had coming up (which included the RttT conference a week or
> two later).  I don't know if that actually happened since I wasn't at the
> conference nor do I get Ides of ODE, but that was what we were told would
> happen.
>
> Colleen
>
> On May 26, 2013, at 7:17 PM, Ann Sheldon <anngift at aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes, but did any of this information go to the curriculum directors or
>> others outside of the gifted community?
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On May 26, 2013, at 7:07 PM, "Colleen Boyle, PhD" <boyleconsulting at me.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Reps from ODE are also making it clear that the Common Core does not
>>> eliminate the need for acceleration.  Gifted Coordinators of Central Ohio
>>> met with Brian Roget (ODE's Curriculum Department, Math specialist) and
>>> Wendy Stoica (Asst. Director in the Office of Exceptional Children) to
>>> talk about this very topic.  Brian had put together a nice list of
>>> options for math progression in the common core for average, above
>>> average, and gifted children.  Within the CCSS design, there is the
>>> normal math progression for most kids, and there is the option of the
>>> Advanced 7th Grade Math/Advanced 8th Grade Algebra or Integrated Math I
>>> path for above level or honors kids.  Brian also talked about the
>>> feasibility of compacting three lower grade math curricula into two
>>> years, such as 3-4-5 into the 3-4 years.  This would be appropriate for
>>> gifted learners who pick up math, including a depth of understanding,
>>> very quickly.  He did emphasize that districts were discouraged from
>>> compacting 6th grade standards because they are a transitional year from
>>> arithmetic to mathematics.  Finally, in his list of options, he included
>>> that subject acceleration may still be very necessary for students who
>>> were so advanced that the compacting options were not enough.  In GCCO's
>>> conversations with Brian and Wendy, we emphasized the need for this
>>> message to go out widely, and they were supposed to be working on
>>> something to publish in Ides of ODE and on the web alone with
>>> communicating that message verbally in their work with educators.  I
>>> would imagine if you email Brian, he could share that list of options
>>> with you for your district.  So, between the CCSS actually talking about
>>> the need to modify for learners above grade level (see Sally's email for
>>> the direct quote or look at the CCSS booklets online), ODE's continued
>>> endorsement of acceleration within the Office of Exceptional Children and
>>> the Curriculum Department, and NAGC's position statement, we are building
>>> an argument to debunk that myth about CCSS being sufficient for gifted
>>> learners.  Another coordinator made a great argument as well.  If an
>>> educator believes gifted learners are advanced and need different levels
>>> of curriculum than typical learners, and if that same educator believes
>>> the CCSS are sufficient for meeting the academic needs of gifted
>>> learners, then the logical conclusion to be drawn is that the CCSS are
>>> too rigorous for typical learners.  People can't have it both ways.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Colleen Boyle, Ph.D.
>>> Gifted Coordinator and Educational Consultant
>>> Columbus, OH
>>> boyleconsulting at me.com
>>>
>>> Specialities:
>>> Educational Psychology
>>> Gifted Education and Psychology
>>> Educational Administration
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On May 26, 2013, at 10:59 AM, Anne Flick <anneflick at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Mark,
>>>>
>>>> NAGC has done a lot of work on this.  The link below includes NAGC's
>>>> statement on the CCSS and gifted learners as well as research:
>>>> http://www.nagc.org/CommonCoreStateStandards.aspx
>>>> Of course, better research opportunities become available only after
>>>> CCSS are implemented.
>>>>
>>>> As usual, the statement's language is a huge understatement when it
>>>> comes to highly, exceptionally, and profoundly gifted learners.
>>>>
>>>> Anne
>>>>
>>>> From: "Bohland, Mark" <mbohland at mvcsd.us>
>>>>
>>>> I must wonder aloud if the gifted community as a whole has any sense of
>>>> what “common core” actually means for the education of gifted students.
>>>> I'm not sure I do.
>>>>
>>>> Has there been state or national discussion/debate of the issue?  Have I
>>>> just missed it? Has there been  something scholarly published that
>>>> addressed the question?
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Ohiogift mailing list
>>>> Ohiogift at lists.service.ohio-state.edu
>>>> https://lists.service.ohio-state.edu/mailman/listinfo/ohiogift
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ohiogift mailing list
>>> Ohiogift at lists.service.ohio-state.edu
>>> https://lists.service.ohio-state.edu/mailman/listinfo/ohiogift
>
>