[Ohiogift] "Common Core" - Implications for Gifted Students
Edward A. Hawks III
eah3rd at windstream.net
Mon May 27 09:33:15 EDT 2013
Katie:
Much too often, the twice-exceptional student's disability or disorder
overshadows the intellect. I've seen this happen whereby an IEP will focus
on a disability but not address the high level of intelligence. Giftedness
takes a back seat. . . True, both need equal attention; however, the
legalities become the driving force behind what is and is not addressed. If,
for example, taking geometry in 8th grade would prove more beneficial for a
highly gifted child, that should be provided for him. If he is stuck in his
regular math class, he might perceive it as a punishment and the work as
mundane. A sad consequence is underachievement, at which point the teacher
questions his true giftedness because he is not obtaining a 4.0 in her
class. Bottom line . . . the teacher hasn't a clue what to do with a child
with such an intellect for math, and suggesting differentiation would become
a moot point. Case and point - there is a 4th grader in one of the buildings
I serve. He is a highly gifted individual who really excels in math. I've
been providing differentiated instruction for him, taking the classroom
concepts to a higher level. He has thrived! Plus it has helped to diminish
what was once perceived as an elitist attitude.
Yes, Katie, I've seen highly gifted students receiving Ds and Fs and have
come to their defense from the standpoint that they are bored and need
something to challenge their minds and capture their interests. It becomes
clear that this type of request seems ludicrous and not plausible. To
paraphrase George Moore, If we are to have genius, we must put up with the
inconvenience of genius, a thing the world will never do. It wants geniuses
but wants them to be just like other people.
Hang in there,
Chip
Edward A. Hawks, III, M.Ed.
_____
Gifted Intervention Specialist / Exceptional Student Education
Kent City School District
_____
"What he seemed, he was-a wholly human gentleman, the
essential elements of whose positive character were two and
only two, simplicity and spirituality."
(Douglas Southall Freeman on Robert E. Lee)
-----Original Message-----
From: ohiogift-bounces at lists.service.ohio-state.edu
[mailto:ohiogift-bounces at lists.service.ohio-state.edu] On Behalf Of Katie
Thurston
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 7:22 AM
To: Colleen Boyle, PhD
Cc: Ohiogift List
Subject: Re: [Ohiogift] "Common Core" - Implications for Gifted Students
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 < <mailto:boyleconsulting at me.com>
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 < <mailto:anngift at aol.com>
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"
>> < <mailto:boyleconsulting at me.com> 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
>>> <mailto:boyleconsulting at me.com> boyleconsulting at me.com
>>>
>>> Specialities:
>>> Educational Psychology
>>> Gifted Education and Psychology
>>> Educational Administration
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On May 26, 2013, at 10:59 AM, Anne Flick < <mailto:anneflick at yahoo.com>
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>
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" < <mailto:mbohland at mvcsd.us> 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
>>>> <mailto:Ohiogift at lists.service.ohio-state.edu>
Ohiogift at lists.service.ohio-state.edu
>>>> <https://lists.service.ohio-state.edu/mailman/listinfo/ohiogift>
https://lists.service.ohio-state.edu/mailman/listinfo/ohiogift
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ohiogift mailing list
>>> <mailto:Ohiogift at lists.service.ohio-state.edu>
Ohiogift at lists.service.ohio-state.edu
>>> <https://lists.service.ohio-state.edu/mailman/listinfo/ohiogift>
https://lists.service.ohio-state.edu/mailman/listinfo/ohiogift
>
>
_______________________________________________
Ohiogift mailing list
<mailto:Ohiogift at lists.service.ohio-state.edu>
Ohiogift at lists.service.ohio-state.edu
<https://lists.service.ohio-state.edu/mailman/listinfo/ohiogift>
https://lists.service.ohio-state.edu/mailman/listinfo/ohiogift
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osu.edu/pipermail/ohiogift/attachments/20130527/353fd79c/attachment.html>
More information about the Ohiogift
mailing list