Blessed are the Gifted for they shall inherit the earth.

19 Comments

Okay so that wasn’t one of the Beatitudes in the Sermon on the Mount, but maybe that’s because the concept hadn’t been fully developed yet.  But things are changing.

Despite unprecedented financial pressures, three of the poorest cities in Connecticut will be redirecting hundreds of thousands of dollars in education funding to create special academies for a small group of their most gifted students.

In what might be called the most bizarre turn of events yet in Connecticut’s “education reform” movement, education reformers extraordinaire, Special Master Steven Adamowski and Bridgeport Superintendent of Schools Paul Vallas, are teaming up with the University of Connecticut’s Neag Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development to create three Gifted and Talented Academies in New London, Windham and Bridgeport. 

The purpose of the new schools will be to educate the “brightest young students” of those three cities.  The new schools, which will be called Renzulli Academies, are named after UConn Professor Joe Renzulli, who is widely considered one of the world’s experts on developing programing for gifted students.   According to the plan’s proponents, the new programs will be modeled after the existing Renzulli Academy in Hartford.

Each of the new schools will start with about 50 students and will expand, over time, to about 100 to 125 students.

According to media coverage, a $500,000 grant from the Jack Kent Cooke Foundation will be split between the three cities to provide initial seed money; however the money will not be used to “sustain the program or build new schools.”

Therefore, in addition to the $166,000 each city will receive from the grant in the coming year, the three local school systems will be expected to use a “money follows the child” approach and dedicate another $350,000 or so in taxpayer funds to run the special schools.  That amount will increase as the programs expand in the coming years.

Traditionally, rather than permanently pull “gifted” students out of their schools; supporters of gifted and talented education have urged that schools develop additional academic programing for those that are especially proficient in certain academic fields.

In this case, Renzulli is apparently pushing for a far more dramatic approach to support gifted and talented programing by actually removing the highest performing students from the existing local schools.

In a Hartford Courant article, Renzulli supported the move saying, “I think the superintendents in those districts are very courageous, because with so much going on and schools under so much pressure, it takes courage to do this for a very targeted group of students.”

Although the gifted students are being segregated out of their schools, New London’s Superintendent of Schools Nicholas A. Fischer explained to the Day Newspaper of New London, “We’re very excited about the possibility to create a Renzulli Academy in New London…It’s a great chance to highlight and encourage the potential of the young people in New London.”

The paper went on to explain, “In the model academy in Hartford, classes include weekly enrichment clusters on topics that appeal to the teacher and students and stimulate investigation and creativity, making learning fun.”

Of course, the whole notion of pulling select public school children out of the broad-based public education system is an extremely troubling one and fraught with problems.

In New York City, for example, the NAACP has filed a major law suit against the City because its “high performance” schools, such as Stuyvesant High School, use entrance examines that effectively discriminate by blocking equal participation by Black and Latino students.

And while one of the three superintendents explains that test scores will be used to identify which students will transferred to the new Renzulli Academies, Connecticut’s State Department of Education has been clear that CMT (Connecticut Master Tests) should not be used for individual student placement decisions because of their level of inaccuracy in determining future individual performance, let alone the fact that the test results so correlate so significantly with student poverty, language barriers and special education disabilities.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the players in this initiative are absolutely and totally silent about the biggest issue of all; If the Renzulli teaching model works, and I’m sure it does knowing his level of expertise on the subject, the logical and appropriate public policy decision would be to insert Renzulli’s approach into more schools and provide a broader range of children, included those “most gifted,” with the benefits of curriculum that includes “enrichment clusters that stimulate investigation and creativity, making learning fun.”

The proposal coming forward would move us in exactly the wrong direction.

When all is said and done, segregating students, diverting scarce resources and creating new administrative structures is hardly the “reforms” that Connecticut’s children need or deserve.

Yesterday, fellow blogger and political activist Jonathan Kantrowitz took a look at the overall proposal in the context of Bridgeport, see the CT Post: http://blog.ctnews.com/kantrowitz/2013/02/26/gifted-and-talented-school-coming-to-john-winthrop/ and you can read more about the  proposed Gifted and Talented Academies at the Courant: http://www.courant.com/community/hartford/hc-renzulli-academy-0226-20130225,0,3871187.story and the Day: http://www.theday.com/article/20130221/NWS01/130229925/1018

Be Sociable, Share!

  • jschmidt2

    Now that those disruptive gifted students are out of the normal classrooms those teacher will have more time to devote to the mainstream students to give them a mainstream education.

    As far as the Stuyvesant High School lawsuit goes, I thought we were trying to evolve to a ‘color blind’ nation where everyone was treated the same. I guess that was just liberal talk.

    • jonpelto

      That’s why I respect you – you are consistent !

      Not like those faux conservatives.

      Just like I’m like a Democrat from a former era, you are a Republican from a former era!
      Either that or we’re both have some libertarian in us.

      • jschmidt2

        We do have some libertarian in us. Can you give me an article where I could use the phrase from Scrooge, “Are there no poorhouses”. I’ve been trying to use that for years.

      • jschmidt2

        I also believe in Reagan words: “We’re all friends after 5 o’clock”. But I’m not sure that applies much anymore in DC or Hartford.

  • Apartheid First

    In Windham, for the precursor of the Gifted Program, they only use CMT scores, which is very unfair. In this day and age it is very hard to condone this separation and segregation of students within schools.
    I had always thought that Renzulli’s gifted model was meant to be implemented for all students, that they were all talented in their own ways. It should, ideally, be used to nurture every student. Some children do not excel in academic subjects–at first, anyway–but they are very artistic and talented and they have the potential to contribute their unique problem-solving skills to the rest of the class–but not if standardized tests are the measure.
    I have no idea who is funding this grant, nor how it is connected to the Renzulli academy, but I must say I have misgivings about these reformy efforts and their capacity to cash in on children. Is this Renzulli academy some patent or trademark?
    Why can’t Windham be in the forefront for a change, and offer gifted and enriching subjects to all children? Why condemn a child who did not do well on last year’s standardized tests to a school career that is mediocre or “low achieving” by labeling that student? School reform is the modern day equivalent of predestination.

    • Linda174

      Yes, the new American caste system is up and running in CT under the Pryor regime.

      Determining TAG status on standardized scores alone is bogus.

      Interesting the state says we cannot track and place students in classes by ability levels…special Ed. Students are to be included as much as possible and a teacher must differentiate the instruction to meet the needs of all.

      However, TAG can be tracked and separated? I believe talented and gifted is a category within the sped. classification.

      It appears the SDE and these “leaders” are violating the policies they enforce on all school districts.

      Evidently, some “educators” are more equal than others.

  • msavage

    On the one hand, as the parent of a child who has been “identified” as gifted since preschool, I’ve been consistently sickened by how few resources are directed at children on the higher end of the academic abilities scale in comparison to other special ed. students. On the other hand, this certainly does not seem like the appropriate way to accomplish better support for our gifted kids. Just another means of segregation and funneling resources away from the classroom for ALL kids and into the pockets of administrators. How many layers of bureaucracy will they claim that these new “academies” require?

  • Linda174
  • TMS

    What is the definition of “gifted” and who defines it. As I have mentioned in other posts, I am the mother of a highly-functional autistic child who is a freshman biology major at a state university. He made the Dean’s list last semester despite is dislike of English and writing. His professors are amazed at how detailed his mind is. It was the same way at the prep school he attended for high school.

    I was incredibly “pushy” when he was in grade and middle school. If I had listened to the superintendent of our school system, he would only be qualified for an hourly-wage job with no hope for a career or good quality of life. He wants to be a geneticist and study autism. Would he be considered “gifted” or special needs? I believe all people are gifted in something. They just need the same nurturing as anyone else.

    • msavage

      Speaking for myself, I would consider your child both gifted and special needs, requiring individualized instruction on both ends of the scale to achieve his maximum potential. Ie–perhaps he needs a little help in English and writing. Maybe some enrichment in the areas in which he excels. But truthfully, the fact that he sounds like he is thriving has more to do with you than it does with any administrator or teacher–a fact which you’ve acknowledged in your post.

      But special needs or gifted, if we are going to pour huge amounts of money into special education, shouldn’t we be serving those on both ends of the “average” rung of the ladder? A child who is already singled out by preschool teachers as being “headed for the gifted program” (which is what I heard when my son was 4 years old)–doesn’t he deserve as much attention, as many resources, as the child who is identified as a slow learner, or dyslexic, or whatever? Doesn’t every child deserve the opportunity to achieve his/her maximum potential? If we are going to pour vast sums of money into “Special Education,” isn’t it fair that we would be serving both the “gifted” and the “special needs?”

      As to how you identify the “gifted,” I have no idea. Certainly not via standardized tests. I would think that teachers, in observing a child interact with his/her peers (as my son’s preschool teacher did long ago), would be in the best position to make that determination.

      But these “academies” sound like just another method of segregation. And another way to spend money on administration.

      • TMS

        @4114141c9b617879711de491df2cee3b:disqus ~

        I think you are right in all that you’ve stated, but I do have to give the teachers a lot of credit. Just think, they had to fulfill my expectations and make sure the other children did not suffer. It was truly a team effort and that is my point. I believe that all kids NEED what you just outlined, help in the weak areas and nurturing in areas they excel. I did nothing many other parents haven’t done. I believe kids are used as pawns and suffer because too many parents don’t raise the bar and outright demand higher expectations. It’s risky, you’re labeled a lot of unkind things, but who cares. At the end of the day your child thrives

      • TMS

        Sorry about the number after your name.

  • buygoldandprosper

    he Malloy boys were “gifted”. At least in Mom and Dad’s eyes.

    Stamford had a “gifted program that was a joke. Mom’s would turn tricks to get their darlings in! It speaks to how desperate we all are for pure education be it a trade school or AP classes. The idiots in charge use our collective desire for the best to enrich themselves but at the same time cutting out the stuff that leads to opportunity.Remember HomeEc? Shop? Languages?

    Teaching to the masses is difficult, at best, but impossible given the meat flies that hover about at the top…appointed by people like Malloy.

    as for the “gifted”. I had several and absolutely believe that DESIRE beats ABILITY any day of the week.

    Oh! And JSCHMIDT, f**k Ronald Reagan ! He was the most pathetic excuse for a human that ever lived! A piece of crap from the get-go who was sold to the masses like a good toilet paper.

    • jschmidt2

      Your opinion doesn’t count in my book. He did much better than Obama and he was a leader.

    • Apartheid First

      It is absolutely true that the over-use of terms like “gifted” and even high achieving are becoming deterrents to actual learning.
      The battle for universal, democratic education is very hard in poor communities, where we are under siege on so many fronts. But the larger battle, for meaningful, enriching, comprehensive, and difficult (yes! you won’t like it all the time!) education looms. One of the first barricades to go must be the silly and damaging notion that the so-called “high-achieving” suburban schools are filled with straight-A students. That’s what they like to think–but if so many in Simsbury and West Hartford are getting A’s, then A has no meaning. A is supposed to exceptional.
      Americans, as usual, settle for too little. A “B” won’t kill little Einstein.
      And yes, bring back home-ec, woodworking, shop, and RECESS! Children are not drones and they are less successful at pretending to be busy and hard-working than Special Masters, commissioners, bureaucrats and politicians are.

    • jonpelto

      Like in lake woebegone where all the children are above average!

      Sent from my BlackBerry please excuss typos

    • JMC

      We don’t need the F-Bomb here, Mr. Gold. It’s merely a sign of mental impoverishment,

  • readdoctor

    Sounds like another way to further isolate poor and special needs students to me. Perhaps the name for this should Leaving average children behind. Since the commissioner wants to include test scores in teachers evaluations would this be extremely unfair to those teachers in regular schools. We have to add a tag to that new name “Leaving average children and teachers of average children behind. ”
    Perhaps we should call it “Robbing urban schools of their best and their brightest” or just more stupid stuff Ed Reformers think up.
    One thing you can be certain of is they won’t be teaching to the test.

    • jonpelto

      You are so right!

      Sent from my BlackBerry please excuss typos