Promoting Advanced Achievement in Massachusetts’ Schools - Policy Paper (12/31/02)

Summary

In a report requested by the legislature, the DOE states that “unlike many other states, Massachusetts has no mandate for identifying academically advanced students or providing them special services” (MA DOE, 2002). Massachusetts is one of only 8 states without regulated identification of gifted students, and one of only 11 states without regulated mandates for serving these students (Swanson, 2002). While the Commonwealth did allocate a small budget for programs and support in past years ($2.5 million), even those funds have now been eliminated. We recommend the Romney-Healy administration take the initiative to better serve academically advanced children and increase our state’s economic competitiveness. Meeting this goal entails enforcing existing laws, mandating identification and accommodation of students, and increasing the range of options available to families with academically advanced children.

Background

Academically advanced students are rarely asked to stretch their minds in school; instead they are most often expected to listen “attentively” while a teacher covers material the student knew years before. Frustrated parents are often told their gifted child will be “just fine,” disregarding these students’ rights to an appropriately challenging education. Curricular accommodations or any grouping is deemed “elitist”. Yet excellence in education can only be achieved when equality is properly understood to mean equal opportunity to excel. As America’s students continue to score poorly on international tests, and companies “outsource” white collar jobs overseas, it is imperative that we address our educational system’s ability to serve our most talented students. We must support all students, including our most able, to help them reach their full potential.

As a consequence of the low priority Massachusetts schools place on supporting gifted students, families with gifted children face many dilemmas. Some reluctantly stretch incomes to find accommodations in private schools. Some professional women opt out of the work force to home-school children who are beyond the norm. Some out-of-state families reconsider relocating to Massachusetts after learning of the lack of services commonly available in other states. Weekly phone calls with these stories are just the tip of the iceberg; they represent many more families quietly avoiding or leaving our state or resorting to private or home schooling in pursuit of a better education for their unusually bright children.

Massachusetts once had a state definition of Gifted and Talented students, and the DOE once had an office for Gifted and Talented, but no longer. Until last summer, we had competitive grant money for development of district gifted services and AP programs, and a Dual Enrollment program for advanced high school students. These programs have also been eliminated. The DOE (2002) says “Massachusetts is often cited nationally [as] one of the leaders along with Florida, Kentucky, North Carolina, and Texas in developing rigorous standards, assessments and accountability measures. These other states, while facing similar challenges of improving the achievement of low-performing students, also have policies in place that support high achieving students.”

Gifted and Talented education is as often an issue of attitude as it is an issue of money. School districts are reluctant to make the necessary accommodations as doing so is commonly viewed as “unnecessary” or “elitist”. Like any special learning need, gifted education should begin as early as Pre-K or Kindergarten, where some children enter reading at a 5^th grade level while their classmates are still learning to recognize their letters. Differentiated Instruction is based on the common sense premise that learning is most efficiently and effectively achieved by grouping students flexibly according to their abilities, interests, and learning styles and then modifying curriculum content and products accordingly. We look to state leadership to draw attention to research and examples from other states, and to articulate the need to identify and accommodate the Commonwealth’s most advanced students.

Key Principles and Recommended Approach

Effective education for advanced students must contain the following elements:

• Identification of academically advanced students and appropriate curriculum acceleration and modifications for them;
• Assessment of and accountability for their achievement and progress;
• Options beyond the standard classrooms;
• Training for teachers and specialists to appropriately support and challenge them.

Immediate budgetary concerns make full implementation of all of these recommendations unlikely. Therefore, we recommend a phased approach with scheduled implementation of various elements of this plan. For example, identification of students could be mandated to occur by Fall 2004, while expanded schooling alternatives might not be available until Fall 2006. However, for the estimated 75,000 children in need, obviously the sooner, the better.

Key Recommendations and Initiatives

I. Enforcement of Existing Laws - The following state laws do not appear to be currently enforced:

• Title 69, Section 1B: requires the Board of Education to “provide technical assistance, curriculum, materials, consultants, support services and other services to schools and school districts, to encourage programs for gifted and talented students.”
• Title 69, Section 1I requires school districts to report annually on “programs for gifted and talented students”. 212 districts failed to respond to the DOE survey of academically advanced programs requested by the state legislature (DOE, 2002). This data should be published by district to provide annual accountability.

• Title 38, Section Q.5, requires all school districts to adopt and implement a curriculum accommodation plan to assist the regular classroom teacher in “analyzing and accommodating diverse learning styles of all children….” These plans should be available for public review.

II. System of Accountability - In order to enforce current laws, a system of accountability is required.

• A state definition of academically advanced or the federal definition of gifted needs to be formally adopted.
• DOE needs to have adequate staff to seek federal funding, support districts in their efforts and implement an appropriate reporting system.
• School performance indicators (MCAS and state initiatives in reading, mathematics and instructional technology) must include accountability for progress by gifted students. Advanced performance is currently ignored, resulting in a lack of incentive for school districts to move students into and across these levels. In the 12/6/02 Boston Globe, Sandra Stotsky, Associate Commissioner of Education said “The real issue for me [about MCAS] is not just getting kids out of the basement; the issue is why aren’t we improving in the number of kids in the top two categories?”

III. Identification and Modifications in all Districts - Every school district should have a plan in place for identifying and accommodating gifted students.

• Every school district should have a gifted coordinator. Without at least one individual designated to focus on the needs of advanced students, proper identification or curriculum modification is unlikely to occur. By Fall 2008, each gifted coordinator should be certified as “PreK-8 Teacher of the Academically Advanced” (created by the Mass. Board of Education, but coursework not yet offered in this state).
• Each school district needs to develop and implement a screening process to identify students and curriculum modification plans for those who are identified. These documents should be shared with the school administrator, the child’s teachers, and his/her parents.

IV. Restoration of Services - The following services, extant until 2002, should be restored:

• The Dual Enrollment program ($1,780,000) allowed high achieving high school students to take courses at state colleges and universities. According to the Boston Globe (12/21/01) this program was highly utilized by urban youths.   Dual Enrollment is a well-accepted solution for advanced high school students; according to the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (2002), "more than thirty states are operating or have passed legislation establishing dual enrollment programs."

• Competitive grant money for gifted education ($438,000) available primarily to elementary and middle schools seeking to provide a better education for advanced students. This figure pales in comparison with other states and should, when the fiscal picture improves, be raised to a higher level.
• Grant money for AP programs ($630,000, state and federal funds), a competitive grant program provided “for the expansion of Advanced Placement courses in high schools and advanced coursework in middle schools serving low-income students.”

V. Expansion of Public Alternatives - Gifted and talented students should have options beyond the district classroom to ensure an appropriately challenging education.

• Options should include school choice, subject or grade acceleration, part-time home schooling, and distance learning opportunities (e.g. courses through Johns Hopkins’ or Stanford’s programs for gifted students).

• The Massachusetts Academy of Math and Science should be extended to admit students at an earlier grade. It presently admits students at 11^th grade, but could start serving students as early as 4^th grade.
• Additional state public schools similar to the Mass. Academy, as well as ones specializing in the Humanities and Arts, should be started in other regions.
• Charter schools should be created for gifted students. The laws governing admission should be changed to permit examination and aptitude based entrance to these charter schools.

We believe a strong state leader championing the pursuit of educational excellence is critical in encouraging local responsiveness to the needs of academically advanced students.

Examples/Best Practices

The National Association of Gifted Children (NAGC) has developed gifted program standards and identified programs which reflect these standards (see bibliography below).

Key Constituencies

Supporters:

• The Massachusetts Association for Gifted Education (MAGE, www.massgifted.org)
• The Advisory Council on Gifted Education appointed by the Mass. Board of Education

• Senators Edward Kennedy and John Kerry (see their statements at above website)

as well as numerous State Representatives and Senators

No known organized opposition exists.

Authors

Mark Andersen, Ph.D. – President, MA Assoc. of Gifted Education (781) 674-0261

Judy Platt - Chair, Advisory Council on Gifted Education (508) 877-5944

Bibliography

Amer. Association of State Colleges and Universities, The Open Door…assessing the promise and problems of dual enrollment, 2002. (http://www.aascu.org/pdf/dual_enrollment_02.pdf)

MA Department of Education, Promoting High Achievement: Policies and Programs for Academically Advanced Students in Massachusetts, 2002. (http://www.doe.mass.edu/FamComm/aae)

Carol Ann Tomlinson, “Proficiency Is Not Enough,” Education Week, 11/06/02.

Mary S. Landrum, et. al., Gifted Program Standards, 2001.

Elizabeth Pinkney Coyne, Ed. NAGC Gifted Program Standards in Action, 2001.

Michael J. Stopper, Ed. Meeting the Social and Emotional Needs of Gifted Children, 2000.

Mass. Association of Gifted Education (MAGE), www.massgifted.org