Promoting Advanced
Achievement in
Statement
In
the 1993 landmark federal report, “National
Excellence: A Case for Developing America’s Talent,” the U.S. Department of
Education found that compared with other industrialized countries “our
top-performing students are undistinguished at best and poor at worst…” and that
American students “are offered a less rigorous curriculum… and enter the work
force or postsecondary education less well prepared” (US DOE, 1993). In Massachusetts “the education of
high-achieving students does not appear to be a priority in most districts” (MA
DOE, 2002). A 1998 “national survey
ranked Massachusetts 48th among the 50 states in both the percentage
of public schools offering gifted programs, and in the percentage of public
school students participating in them” (Boston Globe, 4/21/98). As we enter 2003,
Inquiries
at the Mass. Association for Gifted Education highlight the concerns these
deficiencies cause. Families contemplating
a move to the state are surprised and deterred by the lack of support for
academically advanced students; families who live in state are choosing private
schools, home schooling, or moving out of
Background
The
Massachusetts DOE defines Academically Advanced students as those who have:
scored > 3 standard deviations above the norms on standardized tests:
demonstrated the capability of performing > 2 years beyond their age;
or scored > average college bound juniors on the SAT’s before the age
of 13 (MA DOE, 2002). These advanced students
(currently estimated at 75,000 in our state) are as different from the norm and
need just as much curriculum modification as those who have severe learning
difficulties. In previous years, we had allocated
a small amount ($2.5 million) to district grants, AP programs and a
dual-enrollment program to serve these students. Now even this is gone. In contrast,
Key Constituencies
There
are two widely-held misconceptions about gifted education: that providing
special services for academically advanced students is somehow elitist; and
that high-end learners will do just fine no matter what. These perceptions defy both common experience
and research findings (Winner, 1997). The
following support research-based gifted education:
1.
The
Massachusetts Association for Gifted Education (MAGE) representing the
estimated 75,000 Gifted & Talented students in the state;
2.
The
Advisory Council on Gifted Education appointed by the Massachusetts Board of
Education;
3.
Various
Representatives and Senators who have expressed their support.
Recommended Position for
the Romney-Healy Administration
In
order to improve both the Commonwealth’s educational system and its reputation
among states in serving our nation’s most promising students, we recommend that
the Romney-Healey Administration
support identification
of gifted students, district accountability for the progress of highly capable
students, DOE staffing, professional development, licensed specialists, and
options beyond the standard district classrooms.
Recommended Practices
Research,
literature, and practices implemented in other states suggest the following:
Talking Points
Promoting
excellence in achievement:
(Tomlinson, 2002);
Authors
Judy
Platt - Chair, Advisory Council on Gifted Education (508)
877-5944
Mark
Andersen, Ph.D. – President, MA Association of Gifted Education (781) 674-0261
Bibliography
MA Department of Education, Promoting High Achievement, 2002.
(http://www.doe.mass.edu/FamComm/aae.html)
Michael Swanson, National Survey on the State Governance of K12 Gifted and Talented
Education, 2002. (http://giftedtn.org/tiger/)
Carol
Ann Tomlinson, “Proficiency Is Not Enough,” Education Week,
Ellen
Winner, Gifted Children: Myths and
Realities, 1997.
America’s Talent, 1993.