Miscommunication, Best Intentions and Lost Opportunities

I went to a meeting last night about a pilot project started just this year to address the needs of high-end learners. I had heard rumblings about this project since I went to a meeting last December of some parents who have been concerned that the needs of their kids were not being met. (I alluded to the meeting here. I was shut out of later conversations with this group because I didn't agree with the straight acceleration goal these parents were seeking at the time - and I was laid off shortly afterward and somewhat preoccupied. Also the mother of the kid in this hat incident was involved and I really have trouble dealing with her for reasons above and beyond that hat incident.)

I've had concerns about M and keeping him engaged in school and the learning process. He gets bored with school-work easily and I've worked with his (young, inexperienced and somewhat floundering) teachers the last couple of years to supplement what he is doing in school to keep him engaged in the process. As such, he's doing math several levels above his grade, and reading close to his brother's level (which is already above grade level). It's something I constantly have to keep antenna tuned to. And this is in stark contrast to C, who has had majority excellent, experienced teachers (save one) whom I have felt have addressed his needs well and kept him challenged.

For this pilot program, kids in grade three, four, and five were identified as kids that needed more distinct differentiation of instruction. The kids have been clustered in classrooms, and the teachers received training on how to address their needs within the curriculum. The kids are not pulled out or identified to the rest of the class. The vision for the program is that although a set of very high-end learners will be clustered in one class, more teachers will receive training on differentiated instruction and will be able to apply those skills in all classrooms for the kids at all learning levels. So even if your kid isn't one of the identified cluster, he or she will still get a boost as appropriate to his or her needs. That's the plan anyway. At any rate, right now there are only 14 kids total in clusters over three grades, out of about 800 students total.

M is not in the cluster. Of course I'm disappointed, but then again, I have to be realistic. As a pilot, the program was intended to grab the top 2-3% of kids - up to 8 per grade - and M is in the largest class our school system has ever seen. And although I think my kid is very smart ("He's a genius!"), if I have to question at all whether such a program is right, it's not for him right now.

As an example of the kids they are trying to identify right now: When I was in elementary school, I was in a pull-out independent study program. There were 8 in the classroom. We were all the straight-A, quick on the uptake kids. But there was one among us that was beyond what the remaining 7 of were, and obviously so. Once, when presenting our term projects to one another, this kid's project was to build a model rocket that flew higher than a certain brand of commercial model rocket. When asked how he would know whether his rocket was better, he responded, "Oh, simple trigonometry," and proceeded to write out all the equations that supported his method. THAT'S the kind of kid this pilot program is trying to identify and assist.

That said, I don't think M - and other kids - had a fair chance at evaluation. The rubric used is, unfortunately, flawed in that the relative experience (or inexperience) and understanding of the teachers that evaluated the kids cannot removed. M has had teachers the last few years who are just trying to keep their heads above water in the classroom - lots of potential, but new and inexperienced - but that experience and confidence for them limits some of their abilities to differentiate those way up and out there kids as being just that, up and out there, versus behavioral challenges in the classroom because of their boredom. Was M not looked at properly because I've done so much beyond the curriculum to keep him engaged? Did I hurt the process by being so proactive?

Then again, I don't think parents should have been involved in the identification process, either. If the teachers have a difficult time with subjectivity, the parents will have double the problem. We all think the best of our children. They are all brilliant and gifted. It's the nature of parenthood to believe that about our children But do they all belong in this pilot? No. That's a tough pill to swallow, even for me.

If you could have heard the vitriol last night, you'd have been shocked. There were parents who could hear no good in what is happening, could not fathom how it will benefit all the kids. There were parents who claimed this was the schools telling them they are bad parents for not advocating in a certain way for their kids (please check your martyr complex at the door next time). There was a guy grumbling about how we shouldn't do anything new until standardized test scores stabilize (don't get me started on that and the teaching to the tests mentality). The principal of the school, whom I like very much, was getting battered.

There have been emails flying around town - which I thankfully haven't seen (it's an advantage to not be a joiner sometimes). People were prepared to tear the program down completely. It was shameful, really.

There were musings on what this would do to the school budget (it's been funded by grants so far), and how would we justify this when it will be a long while until we have metrics to qualify the success or failure of the program? Getting the budget through already is a challenge every year.

There was this one guy I wanted to punch in the face. There were women who were just plain nasty to those they perceived as members of that parent group (right in one instance, wrong in another - and I'm glad I was out of that group at that point). There were parents just sure that these clustered kids were going go around taunting other kids with, "I'm gifted and you're not, nyah, nyah!" (Puh-leeze - I can't say for certain, but I will bet that none of the kids have been told they are one of the "annointed" as one irate mother called them.) It was a rough night.

There were also people thanking the schools for finally doing something, even if their kids weren't in the clusters. There were people pointing out that if we were talking about kids on the other end of the spectrum, there's no way parents questioning spending money on a project would be tolerated, much less allowed to go on for hours.

The schools have made two major, major errors in how they implemented this pilot program. First, they didn't say anything to the general population. It was only when someone stood up and mentioned it at a school committee meeting that they'd heard a rumor about it that the superintendent came clean to the town as a whole. It was only last Thursday that the principal called each of the cluster kids' families to let them know they were a part of the program. Yeah, you read that right.

As it happens the kids of the four main families who went to the schools last spring asking for something are in the program. But they weren't notified until Thursday, just like the other 10 kids. I know a couple of those kids. It is absolutely appropriate that they are in the program. Still, on the communication front, they really screwed up, and will have a hard time recovering from that.

The second major error was in the identification process. It is very, very flawed. They do know that, and are trying to address it. Whether or not they allow "parent nominations" of kids into the program appears to be a sticking point already. I kind of hope not. If we can make this as objective as possible while knowing that it will be difficult and a *process*, I think that's preferable. We all think our kids are geniuses, but are they all really geniuses? No.

I like to think that my approach to involvement in my kids' education - and M in particular in this case - would not change with involvement in the pilot. (I hope) I would still watch for the behavioral signs of boredom and address it as I can.

The school's intentions are good. While some may argue that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, I hope they don't back off. The pendulum in our town has swung so far to one end that we really need this small move back to the middle. I really do think it will be good for all - or most - of the kids over time. Much as we want it to be, the schools can't be all things to all kids, and they don't have bottomless budgets. They are doing the best they can, making mistakes along the way. Just like all the parents in that room.

Sigh.