7 thoughts on “Parents question focus and speed of Madison’s gifted students program”

1. I can’t help but feel that the district’s actions subsequent to the approval of the TAG plan reveal the MMSD’s real commitment to meeting the needs of our students of high potential. There are 3 unfilled FTE positions amongst an already understaffed TAG services. The district has not yet hired a replacement TAG coordinator who has specialized training in talented and gifted education. There has been next to no communication from Teaching and Learning since the plan was passed. Is it any wonder that parents feel the primary purpose of the TAG plan was to head off any potential lawsuit?

2. Or, one could consider that the plan was passed in August. Much of September and October was devoted to figuring out how to deal with a $12 million loss in state funds that came after the initial budget was passed. In addition to a lot of staff and board work related to the sprint to capture ARRA funds during the same period. On top of the work that typically happens to identify and resolve problems at the start of the school year.
   The fact that we did not announce draconian cuts after we got whacked in the state budget has probably masked the amount of intense thought and effort that went into passing the final budget and in a way that prevented program cuts and minimized property tax increases. Simply put, many of us — board and district staff — were going flat out during the past two months.
   And, while all of the open FTEs are not filled (two staff were added in September), other pieces are coming into place. This includes the needed and overdue work to provide professional training to much of the existing TAG staff.
   Is the TAG plan fully implemented? No. And if the district does not continue to move forward (including hiring qualified staff) that is a problem.
   But I also would suggest that it would be good to consider the length of time (3 months) since the plan passed, what HAS been done during that time, and the context within which progress was made. And then ask whether it might not be too early to assert that there is no commitment. Just a thought.

3. Dear Editor,
   Many thanks for the excellent article on the hopes and frustrations of Madison parents of “talented and gifted” (TAG) students. Alas, MMSD Teaching and Learning Director Lisa Wachtel’s suggestion that only 2% of MMSD students need TAG services reveals her ongoing failure to understand:
   1) The MMSD has a disproportionate number of high-performing students. Each year the District has about 60 National Merit Semi-Finalists, three times the expectation for a school district of 25,000 students. Similarly, more than 5% of MMSD students score at or above the 95th percentile on the WKCE.
   2) The MMSD must use a less stingy model of giftedness if it is serious about identifying gifted students from all demographic groups and closing the race- and poverty-based achievement gaps at the high end. The widely used “talent development model” identifies the top 2% of students as “extremely gifted,” the next 3% as “gifted,” and the next 10% as a high potential “talent pool.” Many of our gifted students of color and poverty will likely be found in the talent pool. We need to identify and start providing for these students early in their school careers so they can fulfill their true academic and creative potential.
   MMSD TAG students deserve leadership with a more informed and inclusive understanding of the issues.
   Laurie Frost
   Madison

4. Many thanks to Gayle Worland for her article on the MMSD’s new Talented and Gifted Education Plan. Parents appreciate both the TAG Plan and the District’s hardworking TAG Division staff. In fact, more than 150 packed Tuesday’s community forum, eager to hear of progress made since the Board of Education approved the TAG Plan last August.
   Unfortunately, the District reported little change so far in options for children with great potential. Its high schools with Small Learning Communities, for instance, will continue next year making all students take core academic subjects in standard, grade-level courses. Administrators of this system hinder gifted students from moving into higher level classes, so children who could fly with opportunity wind up spinning their wheels in settings far below their ability.
   Gifted students of all ages thrive on advanced, fast-paced learning and high-level discussion with intellectual peers. Why hold them back? Our district faces debilitating funding cuts, but grouping high-ability students together requires no additional funding. What we need is a shift in our basic philosophy. For years, Madison schools have dispersed high achievers among classrooms in order to be “fair.” Balanced classrooms, goes the belief, give each teacher one or two who can serve to inspire and help teach classmates who lack basic knowledge and skills.
   Meanwhile, gifted students throughout the MMSD need settings designed to inspire and help teach them. These children should not have to languish for years while the TAG Plan grinds slowly into gear.

5. Dear Editor,
   Looking Out for ALL Gifted Students
   Thank you for covering recent events relating to the challenges that gifted learners face as MMSD students. At the recent TAG Forum Superintendent Nerad asked for community support. I’d like to highlight some issues where the community and press can provide that support to help ensure MMSD correctly identifies gifted learners and provides meaningful programming for them.
   – We need to require informed leadership that chooses an inclusive approach to gifted education. The exclusive stance that MMSD staffer Dr. Wachtel took when she used 2% to represent the gifted population (492 students in MMSD), does not serve our purpose well. While there is no universally agreed definition for giftedness, the WI DPI’s Gifted & Talented Resource Guide identifies easily 5 – 10% of the student population as being “gifted” – this translates to 2462 MMSD students. Dr. Wachtel’s exclusive approach perpetuates the myth that gifted education programs are elitist and serves only a small population, further eroding confidence that our school district is committed to serving all kids.
   – Best practices for gifted students is like-ability grouping, however this conflicts with current MMSD practices of heterogeneous classes. These and other discrepancies need meaningful discussion.
   – We also need to ‘change the conversation’ so people realize that education for gifted learners is an effective strategy for addressing equity imbalances and for reducing the achievement gap. Again, Dr. Wachtel’s choice to use 2% undermines the potential to help an estimated 20% of high school dropouts who are gifted, or to provide a school system that taps into the potential of our minority gifted leaders, adding to the unnecessary barriers to achievement.
   Shari Galitzer
   Madison

6. I have similar concerns about “meaningful” implementation of the fine arts task force recommendations. The task force presented its recommendations to the School Board in October 2008, which were based in large part on input from more than 1,000 respondents to a survey. It was another 7 months before administration recommendations were ready for the School Board, and its been another 6 months since then without any communication to the community or staff about: a) brief summary of what the School Board approved (which could have been as simple as posting the cover letter), b) what’s underway, etc. Anything at a Board meeting can be tracked down on the website, but that’s not what I’m talking about. There are plenty of electronic media that allow for efficient, appropriate communication to many people in the district and in the community, allowing for on-going communication and engagement. Some of the current issues might be mitigated, so further delays do not occur. Also, there already is a blog in the arts area that is rarely used.
   Afterall, one of our School Board members, Lucy Mathiak, has a full-time job (in addition to being a school board member) as well as having a lot of other life stuff on her plate and she’s developed a blog. It wouldn’t be appropriate for administrators to comment as she does if they are wearing their administrator hats, but concise, factual information would be helpful. I mentioned this to the Superintendent when I met with him in November. He said he thought this was a good idea and ought to take place – haven’t seen it yet; hope to soon, though.
   In the meantime, I’m concerned about the implementation of one of the most important aspects of the task force’s recommendations – multi-year educational and financial strategic plan for the arts, which members felt needed to be undertaken after the School Board’s approval and in parallel with implementation of other efforts. Why was this so important to the task force? Members felt to sustain arts education in this economic environment, such an effort was critical.
   From the task force’s perspective, a successful effort in this area would involve the community and would not be a solo district effort. As a former member and co-chair of the task force, I’ve heard nothing about this. I am well aware of the tight staffing and resources, but there are multiple ways to approach this. Also, in my meetings with administrative staff over the summer that included my co-chair, Anne Katz, we all agreed this was not appropriate for Teaching and Learning whose work and professional experience is in the area of curriculum. Certainly, curriculum is an important piece, but is not the entire, long-term big picture for arts education. Also, there is no need to wait on specific curriculum plans before moving forward with the longer-term effort. They are very, very different and all the curriculum work won’t mean much if the bigger picture effort is not undertaken in a timely manner. When the task force began it’s work, this was a critical issue. It’s even more critical now.
   Does anyone have information about what’s underway, meaningful opportunities for community and teacher engagement (vs. the typical opportunities for drive by input – if you don’t comment as we drive by, you must not care or tacitly approve of what’s being done is how I’ve heard the Teaching and Learning approach described to me and I partially experienced personally). I so hope not, because there are many knowledgable teaching professionals.
   I know the topic of this thread was talented and gifted, but there are many similar “non-content” issues between the two topics. I’m hoping to address my experiences and my perspectives on arts education issues in the district in separate posts in the near future.

7. As a member of the Equity Policy Task Force, I’m moderately happy with the implementation of the approved policy. I guess in terms of the TAG and Arts recommendations, all I can say is there is a difference between policy and recommendation. However, in all 3 cases, a larger awareness was raised by the respective task forces. My experience is that sometimes, that is the best you can do.

Comments are closed.