Total School Cluster Grouping Model

Middle school is a period of transition for adolescents. Students are no longer the children were once were in elementary school; they are beginning to mature into the adults they will need to become. Gifted learners at the middle-school level face the same developmental and tasks tasks and challenges that their peers do. Yet, gifted learners also possess traits that are different from their peers, which often make them misunderstood or ignored. The need for teachers to identify these students and differentiate instruction in a way that addresses the needs of the gifted students in the classroom is becoming more crucial than ever.

In 2015, I wrote about my personal philosophy of the gifted learner. I stated in my paper that, “Giftedness is not a one, set definition. The definition of gifted must encompass intellect, ability, creative talent as well as emotional awareness. It cannot be micro-managed and be a “one size fits all” definition” (Dauber, 2015). People, who are gifted, need differentiation and opportunity to express, demonstrate and show their giftedness. Educators must be able to provide opportunities for the gifted learner to express his/her abilities and/or talents. Gifted students learn differently and require special educational experiences in order to grow academically and achieve their highest potential. Therefore, the education field must be able to understand not only the cognitive side of a gifted learner but the affective or social/emotional aspects too.

One of the difficulties in identifying the needs of low-income students is the profound cultural barriers which exist that prevent their strengths and deficits from being identified. Children from low-income homes frequently have poorer vocabularies and a weaker basis of the type of knowledge that is frequently considered 'intelligence' on most forms of assessment. A low-income child's IQ may be high, even though he lacks a framework of accepted middle-class knowledge. "In January 2003, the National Academy of Sciences released a report on the seeming overrepresentation of minorities in special education and underrepresentation of those students in gifted education. The NRC reported that, nationwide, 7.47 percent of all white students and 9.9 percent of Asian students are placed in gifted programs. Meanwhile, 3.04 percent of African-American students, 3.57 percent of Hispanic students, and 4.86 percent of American Indian students are classified as gifted" (GT-minority identification, 2003, ERIC Clearinghouse). The discrepancy, the NAS believed, could not be solely explained by talent alone but was at least partially rooted in the methods of identifying students labeled as gifted. Biases in standardized and other tests identifying student strengths, combined with prejudices, however unintentional, amongst educators and administrators lead to under-identification of the gifted

I teach first grade at Lowe Elementary School; my class is made up of twenty-four very diverse seven year-olds; they come from all over the city of Louisville, from a variety of socio-economic situations. Each student brings a unique personality to our classroom community, and they all work hard to become “smarter and smarter” and to “go to college”. Thirteen students are boys and eleven are girls. Of these twenty-four students, three of them are English Language Learners. Additionally, eight students receive tier two interventions and two receive tier three interventions in reading. In math, five students are tier two and four are tier three. I also teach one student who receives ECE services for a developmental delay. Within my class there is a wide achievement gap.

The second compliance standard we discussed was “Identified gifted/talented students are assured an array of learning opportunities that are commensurate with their abilities and that emphasize content in the four (4) foundation curricular areas.” She stated that the G/T students are given additional challenging and creative opportunities to master the content. Furthermore, G/T teachers are required to demonstrate the ways they facilitate the differentiated content for these students. This includes participating in projects and fairs, taking field trips, and encouraging student-centered instruction. The last standard we discussed was “A minimum of thirty (30) clock hours of professional development . . . required for teachers who provide instruction and services that are a part of the district’s defined gifted/talented services.” She mentioned that Plummer Middle School provides adequate staff developments for educators who are also given a deadline to complete their certification. Teachers are well informed about opportunities to improve professionally and the principal is keen on allowing them to attend these activities (Texas Education Agency, 2009; M. Studer, personal communication, February 16, 2017).

Therefore, it would be unproductive to attempt to persuade the audience, because they do not have the influence or power to bring about change. It would be in the speaker’s best interest to simply inform the audience about his or her topic. A more specific purpose would be to inform the audience of the benefits of special education for gifted students, such as the benefits of supplemental curriculum for the students, specialized educators working closely with the students, and long term influences of the classes on the

I am a proponent of ability grouping. I believe that the best way to make progress is taking students and breaking them up into leveled sections so that they can achieve to their highest potential. To me, this is the only thing that truly makes sense. In an article from Newsweek.com entitled America Hates it's Gifted Kids (2014), by Chris Weller, while No Child Left Behind from 2001 did help to improve the scores of underachieving students across the nation, by some degree, we did terrible things for our gifted students. Many of these were left to fend for themselves. Gifted programs were often unfunded in order to handle the needs being created for underachieving students. When our gifted children may someday become our inventors, engineers, and doctors of the future, why on earth is their education and growth not as important as a student with special needs, or anyone else? We build individualized education plans for students who struggle, those with needs, yet we ignore other special abilities. Why can't we build a plan for them as well? Why don't we build a plan for each student, so that instead of a one-size-fits-all education, we provide a track for all students to run on based on their strengths and weaknesses. In this manner, all can continue to grow. There is nothing that says a student who begins in one group cannot move up. There is nothing that says a student who struggles in math couldn't be a high achieving reader. In the Education Week (2004) article on tracking, the major concern against ability grouping has to do with labels. That the majority of students in low level ability groups are poor and minority, and that ability grouping sets a stigma on that particular population. Yet that is where they achieve! By giving specialized instruction at each individual level, all have a chance to grow, instead of lagging further behind, stagnating, or creating a greater challenge when their unique needs aren't met, and further

Because of school-wide issue such as, funding, space, and staff availability, this may be the maximum amount of time that they can physically provide for pullout enrichment for gifted students. This is common, and in these cases, it is important to “ensure that the curricular and instructional experiences within the general education classroom are appropriate for the advanced needs of gifted students” (Brighton and Wiley, 2013, p.192). We know from the Lackland description, that their students are not receiving these educational opportunities in their general education classrooms because many of the students are displaying a lack of

gifted students within those states, and are not consistent across the United States. “Seven states

PS/MS 188 is located on Manhattan’s Lower East Side. They are school serving over 400 children Kindergarten – Grade 8, who typically live in the neighborhood surrounding the school. Their faculty is committed to helping each of their children reach her/his full academic potential. They implement a rigorous academic program within a fully inclusive environment, with the over-arching goal of closing the achievement gap. Believing in a strength-based and multiple-intelligences approach, they implement Renzulli’s Schoolwide Enrichment Model (National Research Center for Gifted & Talented at UConn), and have been designated as an SEM training site for NYC educators (teachers, principals, superintendents).

The topic of gifted and talented education is one that has always sparked debates among parents and teachers, and recent movements towards totally integrating classrooms have added to this debate. For many years now, "average" children, gifted and

The myth you stated first, “Gifted Students Should Be With Students Their Own Age” (Cross, 2011), it is true that most educators fear that those student will not be ready for an accelerated program/class. Cross also states the following, “it is clear that gifted students need opportunities to be with their intellectual peers, no matter their age difference” (Coleman & Cross, 2001), this supports

The Teaching and Learning Consortium (TLC) school I chose for EDFD220 was Bethany Catholic Primary School located in Glenmore Park. This school is in a middle class suburb. It is a 3-stream school with approximately 600 students. The vision of the school is to provide a supporting and rewarding learning environment, which is founded on authentic Catholic values and traditions. ("Bethany Catholic Primary, Glenmore Park" 2016) There is a mix of cultures and heritages of families in Bethany Catholic that are included in the school community. A key feature the school pride themselves on is their love of all peoples. The school focuses on teaching in an encouraging yet challenging manner. Most lessons the students are given open-ended work that enables them to be put into their Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). The year level is usually taught the same or a similar lesson at the same time, e.g. year three will have the same or similar math’s lesson on a Tuesday afternoon, and the kindergarteners have their guided reading at 9am. Bethany Catholic has a ‘gifted and talented’ program to help enable all students to reach and exceed their potential. During TLC some ACU students worked on this program with gifted mathematicians in the Bethany school. The school also has a focus on literacy and learning support to enable students to reach the required levels as stated by the Board of Studies. The support helps with communication, vision, hearing problems,

Those that support ability grouping in schools argue that it is not just gifted and talented students that benefit from this practice. Although students benefit slightly from ability grouping even when course content is not altered, they could gain much more when the curriculum is adjusted to suit their academic needs, according to Mary Ann Swiatek (1997). Swiatek argues, students with mathematical talented are ready to learn statistics/probability, geometry, and pre-algebra long before those topics are introduced in school. If the advanced material is presented, gifted students will learn it, thereby boosting their academic achievement. (Swiatek, 1997)

or as the author said, “Restructuring, school improvement, learning styles, thinking skills, "at risk," cooperative learning, and other issues being discussed throughout education can contribute to strengthening and improving gifted education” (Triffinger,