Unwrapping the Gifted

I just spent a little time looking back over my old posts and it occurred to me that I never got around telling all of you more about myself (beyond the tiny bio above) and how I came to be in the position of writing books and blogs about Gifted Education. So, for anyone who may be curious about the path that led me to all of you, this is the story of how I came to be where I am.

My initial involvement in Gifted Education goes back to when I was a kid and participated in a gifted program at my elementary school. Then in high school I took a lot of Honors, advanced, and AP courses, graduating valedictorian in 1990-something. More notably, though, is my involvement from “the other side of the desk,” which began when I was in college. I was a member of my university’s Honors Program and was, at the time, the only UHP member who was an Education major. (SAD.) The Director of our Honors Program had children who were a part of the local school district’s gifted program, but funding for that gifted program had been almost entirely eliminated during what was my freshman year. Letters were sent home to parents of the district’s gifted kids, explaining to them how services would be changing or disappearing.

I can still clearly remember the UHP Director approaching me in the foyer, holding in his hands the letter he had received as a parent. He passed it on to me and said, “Tamara, here’s a problem. See what you can do about it.” He was such a believer in empowering us as students and although I didn’t realize it at the time, I think he saw it as an opportunity for me do something significant beyond the scope of my current education. It has turned out to be a powerful moment in my life, not only because it propelled me into Gifted Education, but also because it helped to shape some of the philosophy I follow with my own students now.

I took the letter and contacted the local district’s Gifted Coordinator (who now had seventeen schools and no budget), and together she and I created a mentor program that matched up university Honors students with gifted children in the local schools. For example, a college gifted student who was a Math major would be matched with a local 3rd grader who was doing Math on a 6th grade level. The volunteer mentors had to meet with their little charges at least once a week for at least one semester. That first semester of the program we had eleven volunteers, including me, and it only grew from there. (Interestingly, three of the other ten first volunteers later changed their majors to Education, due directly to their experiences volunteering in the schools through this program.) I was a volunteer for “Mentor GATE” for three years and, while still in college, presented about the program at the National Collegiate Honors Council conference as well as at our state gifted association’s annual spring conference. (Little did I know then that in just over a decade I would be organizing and running that conference! Such interesting turns our lives take…)

I ended up writing a university course proposal so that the volunteers could earn credit for their service. The number and variety of volunteers expanded, and now, fifteen years later, the program is still in existence, averaging thirty or forty volunteers a semester. (The local district has also since re-established a gifted program, of which Mentor GATE is one piece.) A few years ago, one of my students who had just graduated from high school headed off to college at that same university, joined the Honors Program, and became a volunteer for Mentor GATE. He emailed me, saying, “Hey, Ms. Fish, I thought you’d be interested in knowing about this cool mentor program I’m volunteering for where I get to work with gifted kids in the local schools…” It was a fun full-circle moment for me :o)

When it came time for me to look for a teaching job, I found myself most attracted to opportunities like the job I currently have as a K-12 Gifted Education Specialist. I’m in a relatively small district and in rural locations like this one we tend to wear a lot of hats, so I am both the GT teacher and program coordinator for all four of our district’s schools (PK-1, 2-4, 5-8, and 9-12). In most locations those roles (gifted teacher and gifted coordinator) are split between two or more people, but I enjoy the challenge of taking on both roles as well as the powerful consistency that comes from working with the same students for multiple consecutive years. In a way, it’s the ultimate form of looping. (My first GT group of Kindergartners graduates from high school next year. That will be my first complete loop. I guess I am getting older after all…)

Four years ago I earned a Masters degree in Gifted Education from the University of Connecticut, a process which has helped me connect with hundreds of people around the country who also work with gifted students. I attended UConn’s Three Summers Program, and although an online version of the program now exists (among other changes), I’m so happy that “back then” my only option was the summer-on-site version – because there’s nothing like learning face-to-face from the likes of Joe Renzulli, Sally Reis, Del Siegle, Jann Leppien, Susan Baum, and Sally Dobyns. It’s not required by the state of Montana that I have any sort of special endorsement or degree to be a Gifted Education Specialist here, but I quickly discovered after beginning my job just how much more I needed to know. My undergrad teacher-preparation program did a decent job of preparing me for a regular classroom job, but – like most of you – I had been given all of fifteen minutes of class time devoted to information about gifted students. It was my experiences in the University Honors Program, not the Education Department, that initially prepared me for my job. Doing things like creating and volunteering for Mentor GATE proved to be a big help. Hanging out with gifted college kids whose idea of a fun weekend was playing with liquid nitrogen (purchased from the Physics Department, $5 for a cooler full) helped to give me a broader understanding of these quirky individuals. But it was the Three Summers Program that gave me what I most needed: a marathon of information, insight, in-depth access, and individualized preparation for teaching, understanding, and challenging gifted kids.

Lastly, I have been on the Executive Board (currently President-Elect) of Montana’s gifted association (AGATE) for about the past seven years. Through AGATE, I do a lot of state-level work and consulting for Gifted Education, as well as help with conferences, lobbying, and advocacy. It’s a great group! I highly recommend getting involved with your own state’s gifted organization. It’s one of the best ways to stay informed and to connect with others who are in the same boat as you.

I haven’t quite worked up the guts to post what I was originally going to put up here for all of you today. I’ll keep polishing that one… In the meantime, I’m curious to learn how each of you became interested in or involved in Gifted Education. What is the story of how you came to be here?

Posted by Tamara Fisher at 4:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (15)

Today’s post has been uploaded for you via an analog cell phone signal at a campground in Nebraska. Isn’t technology amazing‽ (I’ve been here for a few days celebrating my aunt & uncle’s 50th wedding anniversary.) Summer is upon me now and I’m bound and determined to catch things up here at Teacher Magazine for all of you. I apologize for not keeping up during my unusually busy spring. But… onward nonetheless!

“Congratulations! You’re ready for Kindergarten! But – oh – You’re going to have to wait a year until you can actually go…”

That’s how I began my presentation to our School Board about a month ago. For many years, my district has allowed early-entrance to Kindergarten, although the process has been revised in recent years. “Polished” may be a better word to use because we found and created more accurate ways of determining readiness. Essentially, if a child turns five after September 10th but before October 31st and tests two standard deviations (or more) above the mean on our readiness assessment, the child may come. If the child would turn five after October 31st, then additional (i.e. IQ and other) assessments are done. We’ve had children enter under both categories in recent years and all are doing wonderfully. So philosophically, I know my district “gets it.”

Yet the reality of running a school district is that other factors, like budget and space constraints, are of significant importance, too. Hence my need to advocate recently. Here’s the situation…

The Montana Legislature passed funding in 2007 for districts to begin optional full-time Kindergarten programs in their schools (based on research showing the short- and long-term benefits of all-day Kindergarten vs. half-day Kindergarten). Well, nearly every district in the state decided to go for it. Most still allow parents the option of half or full day Kindergarten (again – Montana is an independent, local control state and the Legislature knew that the only way to pass the bill was to allow these kinds of options.) In our district, for example, the core academics are covered in the morning and parents can pick their kids up at 11:30 if they only want their child to go to half-day Kindergarten (a few do, but most come for the whole day). In larger districts, separate classes were created just for the half-day kids.

Anyway, one net effect of this new option in my district was that our Kindergarten enrollment grew significantly this past year. Montana accreditation standards only allow for 20 students per class in grades K-2, and we bumped over that limit in a few classrooms. For the past decade+ we’ve been steady at six Kindergarten classes, so 120 or fewer total Kindergartners. Going over that number and still maintaining our accreditation means two options: hiring a new teacher (and finding a classroom for her & the students in a building that doesn’t have any extra classroom space) or hiring aides to help out in the classrooms that are over 20 students (which we did). Both options are expensive options for a Title I district that isn’t exactly flush with cash and whose voters didn’t pass a recent levy.

Can you see where I’m going with this? ;o)

We did our Kindergarten Round-Up (i.e. screening and enrollment for the 2008-2009 school year) in April and a couple of handfuls of parents brought their kids through to see if they might qualify for early entrance to Kindergarten, two of which did. Yet our overall Kindergarten enrollment numbers for next year are looking to be a mirror of this year, meaning we’re likely going to be bumping over our 20-per-class limit again and are once again facing two expensive options for dealing with that. This is when the powers that be in my district drafted a language change that would essentially say kids can enter Kindergarten early 1) if they qualify as ready, AND 2) if there’s space available for them.

Obviously I wasn’t too keen on this proposed new addition of language.

For one thing, the parents wouldn’t know until after the first week of school if space would be available for their early-entrance-ready child. The child would miss that all-important first week of school when everything about how school works is explained. Secondly, the new procedure would be applied retroactively to the two children who qualified under the procedure that was in place at the time of our April Kindergarten Round-Up – which said nothing then about “space available.” And lastly, IT’S JUST NOT RIGHT. Here (slightly paraphrased) is how I explained it to our School Board:

Congratulations! You’re ready for Kindergarten! But – oh – You’re going to have to wait a year until you can actually go…

The rationale behind allowing early entrance to Kindergarten is based on recognition of the fact that some kids are ahead of the game. The early entrance strategy bases enrollment in these cases on the question, “Is the child ready?” not “When was the child born?” Fifty years of research support all forms of acceleration, including early entrance to Kindergarten, for children who need it. (I cited the Nation Deceived documents and even ordered a free copy that I gave to our Board and Superintendent.) Our policy, for many years now, has allowed for early entrance because we know that there are children for whom it’s an important and viable option.

The child’s readiness is and should be the most relevant factor.

A parent of one of the two children in question then spoke to her dismay that she began this process under one set of rules, made decisions for her family with that in mind, and now the rules were being changed on her (and her family) half-way through the game.

A vote wasn’t taken that night. The powers that be met in the intervening time and discussed the issue, the district’s options, etc. Last week (the night before our last day of school and the night I was packing to leave on my trip), the Board met again to vote on whether or not these two children could come to Kindergarten next year. (Interestingly, I found out about this whole issue – and it being on the agenda at both of these meetings – through the aforementioned parent, not through my district. But that’s another issue…) So (despite the bad timing for me) I went because of the importance I knew the decision held.

The Superintendent recommended that – despite the risk of going over enrollment limits – the two children be allowed to enter Kindergarten early. She cited my points from the previous meeting, as well as the parent’s concern of retroactivity, as key factors in her decision to recommend enrollment now for these kids.

It was moved, seconded, thoroughly discussed, and passed (unanimously). Yay!

But the usual questions came up. “Have you considered that your child will be the last one to get his driver’s license?” one Board member asked a parent. “My child was in this same birthday window, and we had him wait until he enrolled by his birth date and he did just fine through school,” another said. The parents of the two early-entrance candidates did a fabulous job of countering those “concerns” with their own concerns… that their children be adequately challenged in school, that their children learn when they’re ready to learn, that their children develop work and study habits rather than skate through a year later when it would all be so much easier.

For these two children, the roadblocks have been removed. That doesn’t mean my district still won’t consider adding the “space available” caveat for future school years. I may still have my work cut out for me on that one. But the decision last week gives me hope that there is still understanding here of the difference between “is the child ready” and “when was the child born.”

So much about these kids and their need for alternative learning options is misunderstood. Advocacy is SUCH an important means of beginning to overcome those misperceptions. But it’s also a dicey prospect to take on. When it comes to gifted kids, it often means educating first – educating others about gifted kids and their needs – and THEN advocating. Because until the decision-makers understand why and how these kids are different, they’ll be less likely to understand why and how learning options need to be different for them. When it comes to advocating for gifted children, I follow Aristotle’s advice: “The fool persuades me with his reasons. The wise man persuades me with my own.” Let’s all be wise men and women and find ways to advocate for the gifted kids in our own schools and communities that educate while we advocate.

Posted by Tamara Fisher at 3:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (9)