It has been brought to my attention that Lynn does not have a "gifted program". Those darn "special needs" kids get everything There always seems to be money available for them and their programs. Get on an IEP and you are on "easy street". All our education budget is spent on a few students so that when it comes time for programs for the kids who are going to discover the next miracle drug or the new microprocessor that computes at warp speed there is no money left for them.
Those few "special needs" kids represent around twenty percent of our student body, Those cash cows they call IEP's are not called "Special Education Plans" but instead "INDIVIDUAL EDUCATION PLANS". That begs the question "Why isn't everyone on them?". Are we saying, "If you are not on one, you are not an individual"? In effect we are segregating the "Special Needs" population by paying lip service to their rights to be included with the "Normal" kids.
Only when we shift our focus from trying to micromanage particular aspects of every minute detail of every day will see the global aspects of our educational needs. Learning is on a continuum. We need everybody and everybody matters.
This is why I harp over and over again about the need for fully functioning libraries. It's like the old adage about teaching a man to fish, libraries become our "ponds of knowledge". Until we have a respect for learning the process of education can't move forward.
At the recent LSC meeting where a "Student Government Day" was held beforehand one of the students playing the role of an LSC committee person lamented about the nonexistence of a "science fair" and how no students from Lynn were represented in the nearest one (in Lowell I think). How can we expect our students to take their education seriously when our own administration doesn't, preferring the creation of a six-figure Deputy Superintendent's position instead of restoring someone to head up the science curriculum?
By ignoring the more basic needs of our students educational objectives, the short sighted, self interested leadership of a few helps polarize and isolate distinct parts of our student population. Us against them,"Special Needs" against "gifted". Remember, learning is on a continuum and we should have a common goal.
Well, I know that I brought it up to you that there was no gifted program here and there needs to be one, but I never said it in an us against them way. And I stand firm that there needs to be a gifted program so that the four year old entering preschool and reading and comprehending at an advanced level is not force to sit through "Over in the Meadow", and the eight year old who understands algebra isn't sitting through basic division, and the twelve year old writing their first novel isn't being forced to come up with sentences for vocabulary lessons on words they already know, or the kid who is passionate and knowledgeable about geography and only gets an hour a week of instruction in one grade... Then there's the emotional side of it. Being at a vastly different level of learning than your peers is no easier or harder for a kids with a harder time learning materials than to a kid to whom it comes easily.
ReplyDeleteYou should read up on this. If you are claiming to be an advocate for the children of Lynn, then realize that there are kids in this city who cannot be properly educated here because their needs can not be met within a "normal" classroom as you call it, and don't qualify for IEP's to get their needs met. Many of the families these children belong to cannot afford to supplement their child's education the way it needs to be to keep them learning at their own pace.
If you want to meet and have a chat over gifted education and the "special needs" of this population, I would be more than happy to sit down with you and fill you in.
Jocelyn
Jocelyn, I did not assume that you were personally divisive, however this polarization does exist on both sides. We end up having the ends fighting against the middle.
ReplyDeleteAs for reading up on the problem, I have lived it. I am all too aware of the social pressures and stigma of appearing "too smart" and the detriment that can cause to one's development. I am also the father of an autistic son who needs a little help finding the gifts he has.
I look forward to sitting down with you and strategizing on the best ways to move forward in pushing for a more comprehensive approach to education.
Cool... It's a frustrating thing having to push the need for TAG education when people think "they already have it good, why do they need help," and don't understand the needs of this population. (Not referring to you.)
ReplyDeleteThese TAG children might qualify for IEPs. The way that the law is written speaks to educating the child to their potential. For example if a child has a verbal IQ of 140 but another aspect of their IQ is one standard deviation away (15 points) then an argument can be made that the child is not learning to their potential, especially if they do not have a learning disability. IEPs are also written for children that have a social deficit. Many times an intelligent child is socially awkward or disruptive because they get bored.
ReplyDeleteI also think this speaks to the rigidness of the LPS - why can they not make exceptions for these children? Have the four year old who reads read to their class; have the eight year old attend a higher math class; have the twelve year old attend a higher writing class.
I am sure that LPS will come back with a litany of mumbo jumbo about waterfall schedules, logistics and union contracts. Instead of excuses why don't we demand solutions?
I definitely see the need for an IEP!
ReplyDelete