School Issues Newsletter #64

Return to School e-mail archive directory

Subj: Newsletter #64: Gifted, Inclusion, etc.
Date: 01/25/2000 12:02:49 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: jklagge@bev.net (Jim Klagge)

Dear Friends,

For those new to this newsletter, this is a way that I use, as a school board member, to share with the community some of my thoughts about issues before the school board. I send them out on an irregular basis, that turns out to be roughly monthly. If you do not wish to be on this mailing list, let me know and I will be happy to remove you.

Last year the SB commissioned a study of the gifted program by an outside evaluation team from UVa. This is part of an on-going process of evaluations that have looked at the Special Ed program, Discipline, and, probably next, Vocational Ed. I have had a special concern about the gifted program and took a special interest in the evaluation. The evaluation was very thorough, open and honest, as was the program itself through the process.

The gifted program here is really one aspect of the larger inclusion approach to classroom-instruction. Just as special ed students are not generally removed from classrooms for separate instruction, so too, gifted students are generally not removed for special instruction ("pull-out" model) but given differentiated instruction in the classroom, along with a variety of other students. This inclusion-with-differentiation model obviously puts a lot of pressure on the classroom teacher to be able to address a wide variety of needs at once. Gifted resource teachers primarily work with classroom teachers to provide ideas for differentiated curriculum and instruction. They do not generally work directly with students, though they do sometimes.

The system has moved toward a cluster-model of assigning students in classrooms, so that instead of each classroom having a cross-section of all types of students, there are supposed to be clusters (4-5 students?) of fewer different types of students. This way there can be a critical mass of each kind of student, and fewer extreme differences for the teacher to try to address.

The evaluation endorsed this approach, prodded the system to be sure that cluster assignments were being made, and judged that differentiation of instruction was not systematically happening. The feeling that many parents of gifted students have that genuine differentiation is not regularly happening in the classroom was confirmed by this evaluation. An initial newspaper report about this evaluation made it sound like the study was attributing the problem to the system's inclusion program. This is not really accurate. While the system's inclusion program does increase the challenge for teachers in trying to address the needs of gifted students, this is just part of the larger challenge of appropriately meeting the needs of all kinds of students. The people who did the study specifically endorsed the inclusive philosophy even for gifted education (as opposed to the pull-out model) even after my rather pointed questions about this. A later editorial by the newspaper, I thought, did a better job of giving perspective to the report, praising the general approach but highlighting the remaining needs.

It is clear that teachers will continue to need to work at differentiating their instruction for all students, and the system will have to increase its support in the form of staff development, gifted resource teachers, better cluster-grouping, and a clearer commitment from the administrative level that appropriate differentiation in instruction matters in the evaluation of performance. These were the main recommendations of the evaluation. People who are interested in reading a copy of the study should contact the SB clerk at 382-5138 or Montgomery County School Board Clerk. The SB will be trying to make provision for some of these needs in the budget process. But also, after teachers and administrators and parents have had a chance to read and discuss the evaluation, the SB will return to the issue for further consideration.

There is a tendency among some who are interested in gifted ed to blame the inclusion philosophy of special ed in the county for presenting too many different kinds of learners in the classroom. Some people think we have gone too far in this direction, especially since other counties do not seem to go so far. Thus, I was interested to see in the newspaper on Monday (RT, p. A8) an article about special ed from the federal perspective. Most of the requirements for special ed come from that level--in particular, the requirement that students receive instruction in "the least restrictive environment" from which they can benefit. The article says that although (or because) the federal government has not done much to force compliance with this, most systems are out of compliance. Thus it has fallen to individual parents to bring suits, often costing systems millions of dollars to resolve. The fact is that we are in compliance, and laxer systems are not. Our compliance, and the general commitment to inclusion, has been in large measure due to Dr. Pat Radcliffe, who is our director of special ed. As it happens she has just recently resigned to take a position in Roanoke County, where her family lives. But I think she deserves our thanks for not only helping our system to do right by special ed kids, but also for prodding us to learn how to make inclusion work. Even though this has been a rocky road, and many have found reasons to complain, it is a road that all school systems will have to learn to travel, and we have a valuable head start.

Recently I have received 50-100 postcards in the mail from people associated with a group called the Commonwealth Coalition for Community. They have all been urging me to help see to it that when we replace Pat, we find someone equally experienced in and committed to inclusion. I have to say that I am impressed that there are that many community members that care enough about this issue to take some action. Some people may have the impression that the school system is foisting upon a reluctant community the inclusion philosophy, so it is heartening to me to know that there is widespread support within the community. Mr. Morton, the superintendent, has had an excellent record of hiring top-level administrators, and I'm sure this will continue in replacing Pat.

Although the inclusion philosophy and need for differentiated instruction get highlighted when discussion turns to gifted and special ed, the real value of it is that it takes the needs of ALL students equally seriously. It is just as important that students in the middle don't get ignored. And the approach to these issues that we have taken tries hard to see that that doesn't happen.

Thanks for your time,
Jim Klagge
District F representative, and Chair
Montgomery County School Board.

Return to School e-mail archive directory

email: admin@gisone.com