This figures to be one of the more interesting school board elections in recent times. The unfortunate part of it is that the debate may be drowned out by the bigger stage national elections. One issue that appears to be ripe for further community discussion is the issue of GATE.
Last week, Jann Murray-Garcia asked provocatively, “Will GATE be Davis’ Watergate?” She expressed her discomfort “about labeling some of our children as ‘gifted,’ and, by default, other children as ‘not gifted.’ “
She argued, “These labels, most often conferred on both sets of students in Davis in the third grade by a 45-minute IQ test, follow each student into the junior high tracking system, regardless of how that student has performed or developed in the fourth, fifth and sixth grades.”
“We define our children as gifted or not gifted with tests known since their inception in the days of the eugenics movement to be both culturally biased and economically exclusive,” she continues.
A couple of letters follow up on critical points.
Lisa Baumeister and Joshua Fenton thank Dr. Murray-Garcia for her “ongoing efforts to help us see more clearly the consequences of current Davis Joint Unified School District policies for the Gifted and Talented Education Program (GATE) testing and enrollment.”
“If the Test of Nonverbal Intelligence (TONI) has been established as an equivalent but less culturally biased test of cognitive ability as compared to the Otis Lennon School Abilities Test (OLSAT), then it is unjust to give more advantage to those testing high on the OLSAT than those testing high on the TONI in terms of access to the GATE program,” they write. “If the district believes these tests are not equivalent, then it should provide a clear and public explanation of the rationale for the way these tests are used.”
“Furthermore, private testing for the GATE program should be discontinued,” they continue. “Private testing is differentially available to students from higher-income families and cannot be standardized. Thus, it has the potential to exacerbate existing achievement disparities in our school system.”
“Because public funds are being used to pay for the GATE program, the school district has an obligation to ensure that the societal benefits of the program outweigh any potential harms. Prohibiting private testing for the GATE program and transparency regarding the use of TONI vs. OLSAT testing would be important steps in that direction,” they conclude.
In a separate letter, Jill Van Zanten writes, “During this time of fiscal challenge to our schools, we have an opportunity to reflect on the ways we deliver education to our children, both intentionally and unintentionally.”
She argues: “It seems to me that our district’s GATE program has morphed from a well-intentioned program for special needs students into an entitlement program serving anxious parents who desire a ‘gifted’ label for their child in these competitive times.”
Ms. Van Zanten adds: “I personally know of several parents who have had their kids tested and then privately retested, not because their child will not do well in a regular classroom, but because of a belief that the GATE label will open the way to high-achieving classes in junior high and honors/AP classes in high school.”
“In other words, it is now more about perceived educational opportunities that will be open to the GATE-identified child (and the fear of the reverse) than it is about pedagogically sound teaching practices,” she writes. “Ironically, our current, enormously bloated GATE program probably does not fully serve the needs of that small percentage of students who are so intellectually outside the mainstream that they cannot feel accepted or thrive in a regular classroom and truly need a separate learning environment.”
In conclusion she states: “It is time for our school board to boldly and publicly state the true purpose and definition of the GATE program. (A different name, which actually describes what the program does, wouldn’t hurt either.) The next step will be to resize and redesign the program, while at the same time expanding the models of creative, differentiated instruction working so well at schools like Patwin Elementary and Emerson Junior High, where even exceptionally gifted children are served and nurtured without a self-contained GATE program.”
“This is a mess we have to figure out,” Jann Murray-Garcia wrote last week. “It is clear that our definitions and process of defining and identifying and labeling and segregating students as ‘gifted’ are not scientifically neutral and certainly not without the kinds of injustice that puts our district at legal liability. We need to do the soul-searching about the anxiety of some of us in securing extra advantage for our children, for purchasing that label, that status, for buying automatic admission to a junior high school curricular track, and ultimately for the impact that differential status has on our entire community of impressionable, developing minds.”
“Some kids do need an accelerated program, and other prodigies an alternative to a traditional classroom, but isn’t each child of yours gifted?” she asks. “It’s not the same as the elective activity of a sport or music endeavor. These are school communities that our children are legally mandated to attend, for half their waking hours, that together we create unequal and stratified to both their peril and ours.”
What ensued last week on the Vanguard was a good discussion, but we need to have more clarity of discussions in the coming weeks and months. That is why on October 1, the Vanguard will host a school board candidates forum. The time and location will be announced. We have a written portion in addition to a unique debate format.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David Posted:
> Jann Murray-Garcia argues,
> “We define our children as gifted or not gifted
> with tests known since their inception in the days
> of the eugenics movement to be both culturally
> biased and economically exclusive,”
I don’t know why, but in my life every person I have ever met that self-identified as an “activist” and/or personally decided to legally change their last name so it was hyphenated was the kind of person that needed a lot of attention and liked to cause problems for others…
As far as the old “standardized test scores culturally biased and economically exclusive” claim it is funny that you rarely here it in places like San Francisco (I have a cousin that teaches at Hoover JHS) where the top scores come from Chinese kids who know little about our culture and work to support their poor families.
I agree that all children are gifted but some children are ‘more’ gifted than others and need a more challenging curriculum than the other less gifted children.
It it interesting that in politically sophisticated Davis we’d start such an imposing social stratification program at such a tender age. GATE has grown to become tier rather than an alternative; it’s evolved into the Lucky and Advantaged Track Education (LATE) program.
What pressure to put on young students and their parents, having to test out so early and to decide (if qualified) whether to join GATE. Or whether to invest (if rich enough) in private training/testing/retesting to be “good parents” and keep opportunity’s doors open for Willy and Sara.
At a time when we feel justified and obligated to recruit (steal) students from surrounding communities in order to suck up the state funding they represent–thereby downgrading each district’s capability–DJUSD needs to take a close look at how GATE really affects education for all of our kids.
A political campaign isn’t the best time for and method of evaluating GATE, but ofttimes that’s the way change gets rolling.
“I don’t know why, but in my life every person I have ever met that self-identified as an “activist” and/or personally decided to legally change their last name so it was hyphenated was the kind of person that needed a lot of attention and liked to cause problems for others…”
I don’t think that comment belongs here. This is 2012, I think a third of all new married women go hyphenated.
[quote]I think a third of all new married women go hyphenated. [/quote]That may be your thought, but it patently untrue.
On-topic: A great teacher (gifted?)would be able to identify the learning needs of EVERY student, whether “slow”, “average” or “gifted” (sorry, we, as humans, need labels to sort out the complexities of our lives). Good teachers should at least be able to identify the different learning needs, and if they cannot accommodate, be able to refer kids to those who can meet their needs.
There is, I believe, a ‘bell-curve’ for teachers, just as there is for students. Anyone who thinks all DJUSD teachers are “good” or “great” are delusional.
From DJUSD’s web-site Frequently Asked GATE Questions.
http://www.djusd.net/programs/gate/faq
[quote]1. How do I know if my child is “gifted”?”
Certain characteristics are indicators of giftedness. The most common myth—all gifted students are motivated and perform well in school—results in many students not being recognized for their potential. …[/quote]
That is the first FAQ on the District’s web-site. This implies to me that DJUSD’s target market is underacheiving students who have potential.
“I don’t think that comment belongs here. This is 2012….”
Excellent point, one I’d thought appropriately would apply to offensive labor-union comments as well.
There is a “danger” in being identified as “gifted”… some think that the are so bright that the don’t have to work at learning… I know of at least one who was identified as gifted, ‘failed’ at Jr High, got their act together in HS, graduated in the top 4%, got 1590 (out of 1600) on SAT’s, got a National Merit Scholarship, graduated college, had a good career, and was widely recognized as a “problem-solver”.
We are not “created equal” in our cognitive abilities. Education should draw students towards their highest potential, empower them to be good citizens, and support self-esteem. Parents/family have a HUGE role in that, too, IMHO.
[quote]On-topic: A great teacher (gifted?)would be able to identify the learning needs of EVERY student, whether “slow”, “average” or “gifted” (sorry, we, as humans, need labels to sort out the complexities of our lives). Good teachers should at least be able to identify the different learning needs, and if they cannot accommodate, be able to refer kids to those who can meet their needs. [/quote]
It is not that difficult for teachers to accommodate different ability levels. At the junior high level we used to teach in teams, dividing the kids roughly by ability level. It worked beautifully – and interestingly enough, it was not unusual for the slower students to nearly “catch up” with the brighter students…
BTW… also know someone who “struggled” in school, had slightly higher than average SAT scores, did really well in college (worked very hard to do that), earned an internship AND two Fellowships in their field, and is a high-performing professional at a prestigious hospital.
Just as a note: “slower” versus “brighter” had more to do with a mindset than actual ability. Most students are quite capable of learning basic material, some just don’t think they are capable…
“10. What is different about a GATE class?
Teachers are trained to understand the characteristics of gifted children, to deliver curriculum to meet intellectual differences, to differentiate curriculum in a concept-oriented manner, and to work with the varying degrees of intellectual, social, and ethical development that often make these children feel isolated. There is much less repetition and review, and students spend more of their class time on analysis, synthesis, and evaluation.
11. What is the curriculum in the GATE classes?
The GATE curriculum is based on state and district standards as well as most adopted materials with identified objectives for which teachers may “enrich” or “accelerate” or add “depth and complexity.”
Wouldn’t it be better if these weren’t differences in the DJUSD’s approach to education? What if we’d concentrate on training ALL teachers so ALL would be able to teach ALL students in this manner? What if we’d just agree that parents shouldn’t have to spend the vacation fund on GATE training/testing to help keep their kid from being doomed to a school life of repetition and review?
You’re not going to have a “discussion” when one group of parents routinely disparages another as “anxious” and GATE as a “mess…bloated…entitlement program.”
Parents will seek the best educational placement for their children. We should be celebrating that. Higher-testing kids will not perform as well in a class of mixed learning abilities.
Resentment of GATE is nothing new. “Resize” = shrink. What we have is parents that are hostile to GATE advocating for its reduction or elimination.
I urge the district to adopt necessary testing changes to provide more equal access and thus deal with the threatened lawsuit. Perhaps private funds can be sought for funding for economically disadvantaged students who wish to take private tests. It would be useful to know how much of an impediment the cost of private testing truly is.
GATE is a successful, popular, and effective. There is no need to change it.
Don wrote:
> GATE is successful, popular, and effective.
> There is no need to change it.
For many people successful, popular, and effective does not matter unless you can add “open to all”…
You think GATE should have open enrollment?
Lawsuit? it’s hard enough to evaluate a school program in the midst of a political campaign, but…. We don’t need no stinking’ lawsuit. Your suggestions sound like improvements that the district should be considering.
GATE’s popularity with those who get in and its past success shouldn’t keep us from continuing to evaluating its effectiveness and its impact on the rest of the programs.
Our family has had five qualifiers, two who entered and the last three for whom the decision was to skip it based on our earlier experience. (All of the kids weren’t above average–the sixth didn’t pass the first test and we gave up rather than invest in private evaluating and testing.)
Are you sure there aren’t other ways to identify and teach the G&T (even the label has got a little problematic for what gets nailed in third grade)?
What test effectively measures the following “Ds”: (1) drive; (2) desire; (3) dedication; (4) determination; and, (5)durability?. These personal characteristics (among others) contribute greatly to ultimate personal achievement and fulfillment(success?)in life. Thank goodness “Life” doesn’t post its winners at the “quarter mark”, be it at 18, 21, or at a later year.
JustSaying: I was referring to the lawsuit that David mentioned, also cited in the Enterprise, that has been threatened against DJUSD with regard to GATE testing (among other aspects of the program).
My experience (from the 60’s) was there were two chances of being evaluated… one at 3rd grade, the other at 6th. I went in after 6th grade.
I was excited about the GATE opportunity for my kids before they experienced it. More often than not, however, we observed an accelerated academic curriculum, rather than an enriched curriculum, along with social exclusiveness rather than social inclusiveness. I was dissapointed that the curriculum didn’t engage my kids more. I was caught totally by surprise that a public school in this day and age would sort 9 year olds into two groups and do nothing to mitigate the social consequences of doing that. So with respect to popularity–I would have responded to a popularity poll one way when my kids were primary aged and would respond another way, now that we’ve been through it.
We need to address, as best we can, all children’s needs to learn. Period. End of statement.
BTW, when I was in a “GATE” program in the 60’s, the district had special programs for the ‘developmentally challenged’ on both ends of the bell curve, as well as the regular program. Ideally, any given teacher should be able to do that. It is not an ideal world. Do teachers in the GATE program receive higher compensation than those who teach the 67% kids, and/or those who are on the “low” end of the bell curve? If so, WHY?
According to the DJUSD website:
“For elementary students, once a child is GATE identified, several service options are available: the student may apply for a place in the self-contained GATE classes or the student may remain in the regular classroom and receive differentiation via cluster grouping, flexible grouping, and/or individualized plans.”
If students may receive differentiation via “cluster grouping, flexible grouping, and/or individualized plans” within their regular classrooms, then a mechanism already exists to accommodate their needs. I believe Elaine eluded to this in her response, “It is not that difficult for teachers to accommodate different ability levels.” So, the question remains as to why the district continues to label and segregate these students?
Here is a thought provoking and somewhat controversial question: What does the Davis community expect from the GATE Program with respect to student outcomes? To ensure program quality, national education policy has moved in the direction of outcomes assessment. In order to perform such assessments, one needs to define student outcome measures of importance and how to objectively measure them. So, how can the DJUSD justify the existence of the GATE Program if there is no way to objectively measure it’s effectiveness?
“…or the student may remain in the regular classroom and receive differentiation via cluster grouping, flexible grouping, and/or individualized plans.”
If this is seen and offered as an effective technique for those who are able to pass GATE testing in the 3rd grade, why is it not available to others using the cluster grouping, flexible grouping and/or individualized plans that would be appropriate for their needs? There must be some reason these options are not opportunities for those who test out lower that the cutoff, but it’s not apparent on the surface.
One of our grandchildren turned down GATE after qualifying because she wanted to stay with her friends. Maybe she’s not as smart as we thought?
Sherman, you also bring up the idea of measuring expectations. After these decades, whak kind of testing programs have been conducted on the GATE program and hat have shown about the effectiveness of the program during all these years?
Sherman: [i]”national education policy has moved in the direction of outcomes assessment.”[/i] Do you support that trend?
Do you believe DJUSD should conduct outcomes assessment for Special Ed, Spanish Immersion, Davis School for Independent Study, King, ESL?
I’m curious why you and others seem to be singling out GATE for these concerns.
Generally speaking, do you feel students are tested and assessed enough, too much, or not enough?
Don, don’t you think that many of these special programs have been undergoing regular testing for years. Cali
Call it “results tests,” “outcomes assessments,” whatever. Just seems that there would file cabinets full of such data and reports.
Probably: [url]http://www.djusd.net/learn/gate/master-plan-section7-program-assessment[/url]
Probably: http://www.djusd.net/learn/gat…assessment
[quote][/quote]
Followed the think and didn’t find what I expected. The theme of acceleration is pervasive; I can see why the program is attractive to honors and high acheiving types. I expected to find assessments like the number of students with GATE-related drop-out risk factors who go on graduate from high-school. I was hoping to see something about a committment to raising contributing citizens to a democracy.
There are kids who learn faster, and kids who learn slower. It doesn’t necessarily relate to how “successful” they are later in life. (People’s definition of success is also different too). GATE is not a name originated in Davis. You can call it something different, but it should still be a program in our public school system where fast learning kids can get a little more challenge. Otherwise it would be unfair too. I understand secretly every parent wants their kids to be the “faster learners,” and is jealous that the neighbor’s kid “got in”. But there is no need to be so jumpy about this and attack the system. Instead, this time could be better used playing with your kids and enjoying the happiness around them.