The Gifted programs are a fraud; a hoax. Do you see them in District 86?

The Gifted programs are for the parents - who want to be able to tell other parents that their kid is better than your kid. The programs neither serve the best interests of the children, nor make any rational attempt to place those who will benefit (as opposed to who "qualifies"). The "qualifications" often degenerate into which parents raise the most fuss about who gets in and who does not.

If you must have a Gifted program - let anyone in that is nuts enough to want to be in. If they can cut it - great; if not, then comes the time to gently hint to the parent that the child may be better off outside the program. This approach takes the parent-competition out of the mix.

Fact is - "gifted" kids are most in need of being in the mainstream. It is the social skills - relating to us commoners - they most need. They can be as gifted as all-gittout, but if they can't communicate with us, their contributions won't be worth squat.

If the kids need more stimulation, the parents are the best qualified to provide it. They know the kids better than any gifted-program teacher will ever know them.

It's an unfortunate fact of life that kids are going to differentiate among themselves according to ability. No review or independent consultant is going to be able to change that.

My question is, does this letter writer have the same concerns about the amount of money that is funneled into sports? Certainly that is an area where the "gifted", those who are well sized, proportioned and coordinated are separated out into groups based on their ability. Is it proper that tax money should be spent on say a talented group of football players when there are so many smaller and less talented players who can't participate?

I am guessing that a great deal of the 70% of whom the author writes, participates in at least one taxpayer supported sport, drama or musical activity. Should we try and figure out if they are taking too many tax payer dollars to develop those talents?

All human beings are unique with their own strengths and weaknesses and no amount of parental interference is going to change the kids' perception of these differences. But it is important for adults to realize that the gifted and talented students need and deserve just as many resources to help with their intellectual development as surely as the special ed children need support, the athletes their coaches and teams, and the artistic students their creative outlets of plays, performances and art shows.

As a mother of a gifted child , it pains me to watch him being force to work at the speed of the other children in the class. He's bored to death with both his class and homework. He spends much of the school day reading books and helping other students while waiting patiently for others to finish their work. Where's the harm in giving him work on his level?

Teachers differentiate all the time for ELL (English Language Learners) and for the low students with IEPs, 504 plans and/or SSTs. How is this any different than doing the same for the gifted students??? I believe it's the responsiblity of the teacher to challenge all students.

It would be nice to see more work that requires open ended thinking as opposed to multiple choiced questions geared to raise state test scores. Quite frankly, I believe this would help both our high and average learners to be critical thinkers.

I believe that if we don't challenge our gifted children we're not allowing them to acheive their full potential. Where's the justice in that?

Debate about the merits of gifted education and the wherewithal of public schools to identify legitimately gifted students probably will never end. The issue in D181 is the the disproportional cost of the programs. There is well documented evidence that public schools nationwide run these programs at a fraction of what D181 taxpayers are expected to pay. Why? No oversight. No fiscal restraints. And an enormous sense of entitlement among those "in the club" who think public schools have unlimited resources.

To Parent of a Gifted Child: D181 is obviously not delivering through their million dollar gifted and talented program.
Differentiating for children who are bored with class content is what high performing school districts around the country have been doing for years. Unlike D181, these districts do not rely on testing and tracking methods to differentiate for the top. Unlike D181, these top districts do not spend a million dollars on gifted specialists to give the top test takers more individual attention. Unlike D181, they do not have third grade honors classes filled with kids who score at a certain cutoff point on a test in second grade. They do not put pressure on parents to tutor their young children to get into separate third grade advanced and enriched math and reading classes. These high performing, wealthy districts do not attempt to determine a child's ability and potential at age eight.

As a parent of children in the program and not in the program, I have seen first hand the advantages my kids in the program have over my one who is not. Their "high achieving" label, enriched curriculum and access to gifted specialists has been a fabulous advantage over their "average" sibling. The reality is that my "average" child scored two points under the cutoff on a test that deemed her not in need of gifted services.

I agree with Proud Teacher this D181 program is a million dollar fraud for parents who believe their kids are in a class by themselves.

"It takes a village to raise a child" - if you are an average to below average student in district 181, the fact is you picked the wrong village. When you take all the top test takers out of a class and replace them with average to below average students, the ability to differentiate is affected and the standards are lowered. The squeaky wheels of our community have managed to use our tax dollars to develop an exclusive, expensive education for the top test takers at the cost of everyone else!

It is an unfortunate fact of life that our district has not been able to accurately identify those students needing gifted services. D181 administration is in possession of data that proves placement into these programs is arbitrary. Year after year on subsequent tests, students not in the gifted/talented programs test higher than students that are in the program. This is not and never has been a needs based program. It is TRACKING. The negative academic and emotional effects of tracking and labeling young children are, as the letter writer states, indisputable.

This is why public schools typically fail. They cater to the middle of the pack. Like most items in life, you get what you pay for. However, in Illinois that is not actually true as some of the money simply disappears in a system that is corrupt from head-to-toe. By the way, I'm not even sure education is a right as I read the constitution. Perhaps we offer publicly funded education for grades K to 8 with no frills (equal regardless if you are believed to gifted or needy). And, for beyond the 8th grade we take this out of the hands of public educators and you have to pay for it directly to private schools or earn a scholarship to the private schools. If there were to be public schools for grades 9-12, then they should be very few in order to ensure we invest (as taxpayers) only in the very best students, and not the entire herd.

Great comments, everybody. Remember, if you want to put an opposing opinion into a more in-depth statement, feel free to email me (joe.odonnell@patch.com) with your own letter to the editor. Thanks and keep the comments coming!

In response to Mr Raymond's comments to Proud Teacher, I find it disturbing that a teacher is not allowed to voice her opinion without being attacked. The extensive criticism of her beliefs (and abilities) is unnecessary simply due to her decision to speak out. In D181, this program carries extensive benefits to a select number of students during a time when we are facing an extensive budget crisis. Somehow, other Districts (in the North Shore for example) provide appropriate services to gifted children without a program of this type.

We commend Kristy Brindley and Rebecca Wear Robinson for speaking out in the proper arena and in a professional manner. I may not agree with Mr Raymond's opinion, but I refuse to attack him for stating his opinion. A shame he could not do the same.

The relevant issue is once again overshadowed by our growing American obsession with "personal attacks". These formerly were known as spirited debates. Today, if an individual dares to call into question an opposing view, he has "attacked". Get over yourselves. Back to the issue: The concern is not that we should ignore "what is best" for our children. The gifted education controversy centers on whether all taxpayers should be expected to subsidize "what is best" for another parent's so-called gifted child.

Mr. Woodward, that is a good question that could be asked about many aspects of education. Should funds from other students subsidize athletics, theater, special education, busing, band, or after-school clubs? Perhaps the answer would be to designate a certain portion of the education grant to subsidize activities of the student's choice.

Most parents of gifted students aren't asking for more than their 'fair share'. However, many of us have long felt we are getting less than our fair share. If our children enter a grade knowing 80% of the curriculum for that grade and the teacher will only teach that grade's curriculum, our children are only learning 20% of a full year's academics. All we are asking for is education aimed at our children's level. If our children are in fourth grade but doing math at a sixth grade level, we are asking that our children be given sixth grade level math.

Unfortunately, when gifted children are placed in a typical heterogeneous classroom, they usually receive little or no differentiation. Teachers have many students and often simply don't have time. Or they don't believe that differentiated academics is important. Or don't believe 'so-called' gifted children exist. That is why we ask for environments where gifted learning is supported. Often this means magnet schools or magnet classrooms. Sometimes these do cost extra money. Take it out of what we use to subsidize activities our kids don't participate in.

Mr. Raymond, you do not understand D181's program. These kids are not gifted. Seven year-olds take a test. If they score at a certain point, they advance one year in math, receive an enriched reading curriculum and have personal access to a gifted specialist. A child who scores one point under the cutoff gets none of this and the gap between the two grows every year. Subsequent tests scores fluctuate but only no one moves. Unless you believe in tracking based on second grade tests you cannot defend D181's program. Can you tell me what it is about a cutoff point on one MAP or SCAT test that translates to a need for advancement, enrichment and a gifted specialist? Do you believe 25% of a district is gifted?

25% gifted would be extremely high for any district, but it approximately the percent of children who would benefit from advanced education. Nationally, about 5-7% of the population is gifted, but as intelligence is partially hereditary, there will be areas with higher percentages. Many school districts identify the top 25% as high-potential learners. I don't think a 25% rate for advanced and gifted studies is indefensible.

It is unfortunate, but necessary to have a cut-off. While it sounds like this program has some issues, such as regular re-testing and possibly not enough differentiation between levels of giftedness, it probably also helps your schools by retaining students who would move to private schools and attracting families to your district, increasing housing values and decreasing empty houses. I've known families who have moved to other districts because my district does not have a gifted program except "differentiation" in the classroom.

Many districts your size have athletic budgets equal in expense to your gifted program. Are schools supposed to be in the business of creating students who excel or athletes who excel? Does our country need more Thomas Edisons or Mark McGuires? To do either requires an investment. If your district has chosen to spend more on gifted education than gifted athletes, it is to be commended!

To all those who would end this program, what would you put in its stead? What is your solution for providing that every child receives an academically aligned education?

25% would be acceptable if they were significantly and consistently above the next 25%. They are not. Year after year test scores show fluctuations in up to 65% of students. If a district cannot identify its "high performers" you do not have a need for a million dollar program.
Keeping third graders from an advanced and enriched curriculum given to their programed peers is indefensible. Most high performing districts advance and enrich all of their students.

Yes, It is necessary to have cut-offs when a separate class or track exists such as AP classes in high school. We are discussing seven and eight year-old children. It is very unfortunate and unnecessary to have cut-offs for second graders who are taking placement tests for third grade classes. Many seven year-olds do not have the executive functioning skills to take tests. Abilities can fluctuate in young children over a summer. Giving a child a label "gifted","high achiever", "average", or "low achiever" in second grade is unhealthy and strongly advised against by experts in education. Studies show children reach their perceived potential and the gap widens.

Our country does not decide who at age seven the next Mark McGuire will be. Nor do we choose at age seven the high school football team. Making decisions on who will be our country's high achievers at age seven is just as ridiculous.
Many parents I have met have wanted to move out of this district because of this program.

I come from a high-performing district. Based on looking at your profile, it is very similar to yours. My district also has a number of high-performing districts around it. Perhaps 1 of the 10-15 closest districts has a program that adequately differentiates for gifted students. Most of them focus on the average student making sure that they will pass our version of the ISAT. Kids who enter second grade already multiplying are given single-digit addition problems to work on. Differentiation within the standard classroom just doesn't happen in most schools.

Experts in education vary widely. Many recognize that schools will not provide academically-aligned education for unlabeled kids. Struggling kids are labeled so they they will receive extra assistance from a learning consultant. Special needs kids are labeled so the school can receive extra funding to help them. I don't like the labels 'gifted' and 'high achiever' but they are more recognizable than 'highly academically able' and shorter when there is a character limit imposed. If advanced & gifted children aren't labeled, they won't receive appropriate education.

Gifted education should always be on a spectrum. Some kids need just a little higher curriculum than grade level. Others need much higher. But any program will require a cutoff and D181 is using accepted standards. Unfortunately, adult egos on both sides are getting in the way of what is best for the students. One adult demands her child be in the gifted program because she just barely missed the cutoff. Another doesn't want his child dropped from a gifted program even though the standard classroom is now a better fit. A good gifted program re-assesses each year to determine which students should be in it and focuses on the student's needs, not the parent's ego. Kids do change throughout the years, but even kindergarten isn't too early to figure out which students currently would benefit from a gifted program. Add and remove children later as is best for them.

Ability grouping also provides some great benefits for children not placed in the top ability group. They are given the chance to be the academic stars in their classes and gain confidence. A teacher who does differentiate can spend more time with their academic level instead of splitting among five academic levels. This helps some of these children move up an academic level. Isn't that to be desired?

Again, what is your solution for providing that every child receives an academically aligned education?

This whole thread leaves me dumbfounded. I would think it is pretty obvious that kids working above grade level benefit from instruction geared for them. It benefits those kids, and benefits our whole society eventually. Is this some sort of expensive "private education" for those gifted kids? Well, why not object then to what 181 spends on special education? I don't know the figures, but I'm sure it dwarfs what is spent on the gifted program. What this discussion lacks, and what the consultant will surely look at, is what does 181 spend relative to other school districts on gifted education?

Oak Brook; $3000 on five children deemed gifted. Deliver an advanced and enriched curriculum much like our G&T program for all students.
Western Springs: $0, no G&T program. They have differentiation specialists that pull kid that are ahead and below the class.
Glenco; $0. Differentiation within the class with an advanced and enriched curriculum
Wilmette $0. No G&T program.
Winnetka $0. No G&T program.
Hinsdale $1,000,000 on a G&T program for a group of kids who test at certain point on a MAP test.

How many students does Oak Brook have in their schools? 100? If so, their GT program is missing many students.

Has anyone asked parents of GT students in Western Springs, Glenco, Wilmette, and Winnetka if their children's needs are being met? I live in a district that has "differentiation" and it is far from sufficient. In discussions with other gifted education experts and advocates around the United States, their experiences with "differentiation" have been similar.

While districts such as Winnetka and Oakbrook revamped their Language Arts and Math curriculum to enrich and advance all students, D181 put millions into revamping the curriculum to advance and enrich an arbitrary 25% of "high achieving students". The district CANNOT accurately identify high achievers - period. There is no reason why this district cannot provide this enriched curriculum for everyone. The sad fact is that people moved to this district for the excellent public education. Similar high achieving schools (public and parochial) in wealthy districts similar to ours use the same curriculum our advanced classes use, the only difference they use it for ALL students. More importantly, they are providing this enriched education without tracking and labeling children.

SHOULD all kids do it? COULD all kids do it? WOULD all kids want to? If the answer to any of these questions is “yes” then it isn’t differentiated.. – Harry Passow’s test for a differentiated curriculum

Until differentiation is understood, placing gifted students back in the standard classroom would be a disaster.

And looking at your test scores, students are getting an excellent public education.

Joshua, why is this so hard for you to understand. The 800 kids benefiting from the million dollar program are not gifted. Nothing about D181's identification measures gifted or talented or high achieving. We have spent over $6,000,000 on gifted specialists working with kids who have no more need of enrichment than any other child. It is a ridiculous advantage for a group of non gifted kids.

Oak Brook has 500 and has a higher percentage of kids in Central's honors classes.

D181 spends $300,000 on their RTI program for kids that struggle and $1,000,000 on a gifted program for kids who do well on a second grade test.

Hinsdale spends $960,000 on gifted specialists. Districts such as Winnetka do not have gifted specialists, they have differentiation specialist that work with all students, which makes it possible to provide an enriched curriculum for all students.
Joshua, our test scores were even higher 6 years ago before this tracking program began. Our strong D181 teacher obviously understood how to differentiate then and are more than capable of exceptional differentiation now. Turning the NINE gifted specialist in our district into differentiation specialists for all students should be done immediately – we do not need an expert to tell us that.

Id rather not have a race but a well rounded education without exclusivity and absurd disparity in resources for the top second grade test takers. Of course acceleration should be delivered to the typical classroom as they do in every high achieving district.

Its a world economy.
We could have this race to the top with India but until we are a country of one billion people motivated to overcome unfathomable poverty, we are not going to win. I would rather have happy healthy kids who can play and enjoy life than one who is being pushed by his own school district to be ahead of the top math student from India.

Building up your own at the expense of the majority of the students is exactly what happened in this district. A small group of parents pushed through their own agenda to benefit their children. What we are left with is a program that is social and emotionally damaging to children and has lowered the standards for the majority of students in D181. This is a public school district where every child should be challenged, not just a select few who happen to meet a test score cut-off when they are only seven years old. The program in this district is not a gifted program and is not a program based on needs. It is a program that has negative effects on so many children. It is a program that is leaving the students in the grade-level classes at a distinct disadvantage. It is a program that is not even meeting the needs of the truly gifted children. In a the spring of 2011 D181 reported that 41.5% of students on MAP tests fell into the category "below typical growth".
Catering to a few at the expense of many.

Mr Raymond, please excuse me if I am wrong - but I believe you aren't even from the D181 area. Rochester, MI? Do us all a favor and stay out of our affairs and education. I am left to wonder what your motivation is... Could it be that you are involved promoting programs such as this? Since you are the founder of SAGE (Supporting Advanced & Gifted Education), I believe your view point to be highly biased and unwelcome.

If you don't know about towns like Wilmette or Winnetka, you obviously aren't from this area. By the looks of the postings, you are completely out numbered and uninformed. Please keep to your own affairs and out of a situation which you know nothing about... Especially when you are promoting your own self interest and not the interest of our children.

What is really embarrassing is that D181 has 41.5% of students showing "below typical growth".