We have primarily focused our reporting on the process issues related to how the Davis Joint Unified School District’s Board of Education made critical changes to the GATE/AIM program, first in the June 4 vote that ended private testing and asked the Superintendent and his staff to come back with recommendations on how to implement differentiated instruction. Secondly, the June 18 vote rejected the staff-recommended variable services agreement (VSA) renewal for Deanne Quinn.
However, increasingly, the discussion will focus on policy issues – these are tough questions ranging from whether the district has over-identified GATE students, the proper testing protocol for identification, whether GATE represents a de facto honors class, whether it provided a program that meets the needs of students who are not otherwise receiving it, and whether the program is simply elitist and separates kids unnecessarily.
On one side of the aisle, one parent writes in a letter to the local paper, saying, “Our community is exceptional for its commitment to its young minds. It offers a diversity of educational programs found hardly anywhere else, in a state where education is chronically underfunded and underperforming.”
The district “offers a program for GATE-identified kids that actually addresses their needs, with research and appropriate training — it recognizes the fact that they are a special-needs population.” GATE kids “are no less deserving of an instructional model that fits their needs than other kids, and it’s well-established that their success is no less dependent on it.”
He argues, “GATE students are not ‘better’ than other kids. They just think differently, not only faster, but deeper. They quickly make connections that most of us miss. They have different interests than other kids, and they pursue them with unmatched passion and rigor.”
As such, he writes, “They need to be engaged in a whole different way in order to develop emotionally and intellectually. They can be startlingly mature, and moments later, reveal the gaps in that maturity, their deep insecurity and their fragile self-esteem. It’s for these reasons that there’s specialized training for teaching them, though most teachers don’t get that training.”
“Many people are surprised to learn that the diversity *within* a dedicated GATE classroom can be as great as the differences between the GATE population and the rest of the students. Differentiation to meet the needs of GATE students is challenging enough in a dedicated GATE classroom. It’s virtually *impossible* in a mixed classroom,” he maintains.
“GATE students languish in classes that, by design, don’t fit them,” he continues. “They frequently underachieve throughout life because they’re hardly ever challenged during their formative years. They suffer disproportionately from depression and social isolation. All of this is well established by research that it would be wise not to disregard.”
In this community, “we give GATE kids what they need, and what we already provide to our other kids: an instructional model designed to serve their needs. I urge the board to examine the facts, and not to make radical changes to the AIM program unless and until a research-based better alternative can be formulated.”
On the other side of the fence, Jill Van Zanten in an op-ed applauds the decision by the board to eliminate private testing and “shift resources toward ensuring rigor and differentiation in all classrooms across the district.”
“Some writers to this paper have implied that our neighborhood school teachers are not up to the task of educating our town’s ‘gifted’ children — and are even threatening to vote down the next school parcel tax if the district in any way reduces or reconfigures its very large, separate AIM/GATE program,” she writes. “I hope many parents will join me in publicly honoring and recognizing the tremendous job our neighborhood school teachers are already doing, day in and day out, in engaging the full spectrum of students in their classes, including many AIM-identified students.”
She notes, in particular, “Maybe I am missing something, but I have yet to hear of a single teacher not a part of AIM express enthusiasm for the program in its current form, or express any hesitation about teaching the AIM-identified students in their classrooms.”
She writes, “It is worth remembering that while 30 percent of Davis children qualify for the AIM gifted program, one-third of those children choose to stay at their neighborhood school or chosen magnet program. ‘Regular’ classroom teachers, Montessori teachers and Spanish immersion teachers from at least five of our elementary school sites are already teaching significant numbers of AIM-identified students.”
Meanwhile, recent data show just how wide the range of students enrolled in our AIM program is. “The majority of Davis students identified as ‘gifted’ — 75 percent — did not pass the OLSAT [Otis-Lennon School Ability Test], our district’s universal testing instrument, with a benchmark 96th percentile score or higher, but instead qualified after seeking private testing, or after being re-evaluated using a different testing instrument by the district.”
“Although the majority of retested AIM-qualified students in our district scored well above the 50th percentile on the OLSAT, the group’s test scores were spread across every decile, with some students scoring as low as the 10th percentile. If the entire school population were to be retested using the same alternative instruments, an enormous number of additional students likely would qualify for AIM — perhaps a majority of Davis students.”
She adds, “When four out of five of our school board trustees concluded that our district has been ‘over-identifying’ children needing separate gifted classes, they were making an understatement.”
Then again, perhaps the divide is not so wide. GATE supporters may well acknowledge the need to end private testing and examine methods for identification.
Last Thursday, retired teacher Marla Cook laid out a way to implement change. She said, “If what you wanted to do was change the program, I’d like to suggest a better way to approach it than a late night vote on an item somewhat on the agenda and one not listed on the agenda.” She suggested the district take the entire next year to hold public meetings on the subject of AIM and differentiated instruction. These meetings, she said, should include those happy with the program and those ‘happy to have it gone.’ She said, “Lead a productive dialog, listen to them all.”
Ms. Cook stated that for years the district has heard primarily from two groups – those who love the program and those who hate it. She said, “But what are the real concerns and how can they be resolved through grown up dialogue?” She suggested looking for ways to resolve these issues, “rather than by choosing a side – provide solutions that will work for all.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“looking for ways to resolve these issues “rather than by choosing a side – provide solutions that will work for all.”
What a refreshing point of view. Perhaps we could adopt this as a model for how to address all our communities issues.
i am concerned that if we go by the olsat only we create a white/asian gate program. the district is changing rapidly and just under 50% are now children of color including a large and growing hispanic population that are better served by non-verbal tests.
You are focused on creating diversity in the GATE program in its current form. Look at San Diego’s GATE program. GATE identified children are “clustered” in regular classrooms with most at least 25% GATE students in a class (some at least 50% GATE identified depending on the number of GATE students attending that neighborhood school), which solves the problem of high-achieving students having high achieving peers in their classes, gives teachers a significant groups of students for differentiated instruction and allows for differentiated instruction in subject areas where GATE students do not excel, and maintains diversity in the classroom. Only the top 2-5% of GATE students are put into self-contained “Seminar” classes. This seems like a healthier model to me.
i’m focused on the impact of a policy decision. i hear this constant complaint that we over-identify gate participants, but it seems a lot like code language for we over-identify minority gate participants.
Not really. Current methods of retesting and private testing is pulling in a majority of additional white and Asian students, along with some minority students. Nothing tells me that problem is that minority students are specifically over-identified. You repeat this concern over and over. Are you suggesting that the Board’s actions are the result of unconscious bias or racist in nature?
Where do you get that all retesting is stopped? It is my understanding that the direction given is for more appropriate testing be adopted for students and to retest students with tests appropriate for their risk factors.
my comment is more indicative of the conversation i heard and comments by lovenburg concerned about over-identification.
voice of reason has cited the data presented on olsat and the toni. you continue to misconstrue the appropriate usage of the toni.
After the research data presented to the Board, there is now a lack of confidence that the TONI test is being use appropriately. Whether or not this concern is valid is to be determined. The Board has directed staff to look at it. So I guess we will see.
but the presentation by white was misleading with regards to purpose of the toni. he presented it as though it were only for people with learning disabilities as opposed to people with language-based challenges due to low ses/ or immigration status.
San Diego, let alone La Jolla, ain’t Davis. Maybe they are the ones over-identifying and we are not. It depends on the cut-off. Do we know it? If we cut off at 2-5% of the population in Davis, we would miss a huge number of students from that 20% (out of 30% identified) who used to fill the GATE program’s four strands at 99 and 98 percentiles before the lottery. You can laugh all you like at our high numbers. They have only grown a little over past 50 years, from a starting point at 20%. What’s healthy about a district with 50% children of color and an all-white/Asian gifted program? Have you seen what the fabulously successful Silicon Valley workers look like?
If the proper identification testing was done you would only identify 2-5% of the student population and it would be diverse. If the District uses the proper testing methods they will identify the proper children that need help.
I know of no test or combination of tests described that would have that result. In the long-distant past, that percentage of the population was apparently identified directly by counselors and possibly teachers. I’d guess it was rather subjective.
San Diego only assigns children who score in the 99th percentile in its self-contained “seminar” program. These represents 2-5% of the children. Their cut off of students eligible for “clustering” is 98%. I think Davis goes down to 96% (?) and has a lottery to place children in a self-contained program regardless of need. The ones that don’t make it…are they clustered in regular classrooms? Is there a program and resources given to teachers for differentiated instruction? Is this the ideal program to serve our students?
I know that in the long distant past they used IQ tests to identify children in some districts.
I would have to think there is some test out there that can do it. If I have time I can do some research and give some options.
What people don’t seem to understand is the vast difference between a highly intelligent child and a child who grew up in a household that values education. One of those children needs special help, the other does not.
Sam,
Not sure if this is what you were referring to, but it might help explain the distinction between “Highly Gifted” and “Gifted and talented”.
From CAL. EDC. CODE § 52201 : California Code – Section 52201 – See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/EDC/2/d4/28/8/s52201#sthash.8dXjdao1.dpuf
“Gifted and Talented” would be an IQ score of 130+ and be about 2.15% of the students in the district (about 180 students in the district). “Highly Gifted” being 150+ (about 8 students in the district).
The current testing system identifies almost 3,000 students for the GATE program, but does nothing to identify who is “Gifted and Talented” and “Highly Gifted” out of the 3,000 identified.
Those 180 students think and preform differently than the other 2,820 in AIM and need to be identified and helped. The current program fails to do that.
Again: I know of no test or combination of tests that would identify those 180. If you simply reduce the overall number who qualify via current testing — which seems to be the direction the current board is going — you are just as likely to reduce the 180 as the 2820. It won’t be better for anyone. The status quo is better than simply reducing the numbers by constricting it. And firing the coordinator makes it all even worse, since she probably has the expertise to advise as to changes in testing and identification to manage the program better. I don’t know who the board is going to rely on now. Hopefully not the UC researchers they brought into the debate already.
Don-The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children test series would do it. Like I said before I have not done any research to find other methods, but that is one that will work to identify the students.
I do not know why the coordinator was terminated, I agree that she could have been a great asset to make changes to the program. I also, agree that trying to decrease the population using the current testing is also a poor decision because the current testing is not identifying the correct students, if it was the racial makeup of the students would be extremely close to that of the district.
I am sure there a valid identification tests out there that other Districts use.
ryankelly–you keep repeating that Asians get in because of the retesting, and that Latinos and Blacks and American Indians do not. That’s just not true. If we used the retests only and got rid of the Olsat, Asian numbers in the program would drop a lot. If we used OLSAT alone, Asians would be 44% of the program.
Davis Progressive is right. Hispanic or Latino students are identified heavily through the TONI–so attacks on the TONI have the effect of lowering the number of Hispanics or Latinos in the program. The Vanguard has published the figures before.
https://davisvanguard.org/2015/03/are-aim-students-being-overidentified-school-board-grapples-with-aim-identification-issue/
No, I’ve never said that or anything about race, except for the one comment above to refute Davis Progressives repeated post about his concern that the GATE program racial make up.
The only complaint about using the TONI that I have hear or read is that it is being used for risk factors that the test was not designed for, because the test can be administered in groups and takes only 30 minutes. In fact, I suspect that English learners may be appropriate for retesting using the TONI, so these students may yet continued to be identified as GATE qualified, which seems to be DP’s concern.
Quoting:
ryankelly
July 1, 2015 at 11:54 am
Not really. Current methods of retesting and private testing is pulling in a majority of additional white and Asian students, along with some minority students.
Your earlier comments seem to support pulling the TONI:ryankelly
March 19, 2015 at 5:13 pm
Is it true or not true that the TONI test was never intended to be administered as it is currently being used? If it is being used inappropriately, then why defend its use in this way?
Since all of the children tested using the TONI seem to pass it with flying colors, why not just skip that exercise and just merely select them to go into the AIM program, so the AIM program can maintain its appearance of diversity.
I believe that VoiceofReasonInDavis’ comment above is out of line and designed to muddy the waters by making this about race – an attack on Asian students. It is ugly politics and an attempt to discredit me. If there is any chance that the divide be closed, it is these tactics that will prevent it.
I don’t think you have made any assertions about race in this. I do think it has come up before in any number of discussions about GATE/AIM, and is a factor in local opposition to the GATE program. One example is from Jann L. Murray-Garcia in her columns in the Davis Enterprise:
http://www.davisenterprise.com/forum/opinion-columns/just-us-in-davis-clarifying-gate-youths-resist-hate/
Isn’t this an assertion about race?
Quoting
ryankelly
July 1, 2015 at 11:54 am
Not really. Current methods of retesting and private testing is pulling in a majority of additional white and Asian students, along with some minority students.
but that’s not what the charts show for the toni. so why is there a discrepancy there?
Huh? I’m dividing the community? This from the person who actually wrote ___ you to Don Shor? And please don’t pretend to want to close the divide. Your anti-AIM feelings have been plain here every time the issue is mentioned. Here is what I said:
ryankelly–you keep repeating that Asians get in because of the retesting, and that Latinos and Blacks and American Indians do not. That’s just not true. If we used the retests only and got rid of the Olsat, Asian numbers in the program would drop a lot. If we used OLSAT alone, Asians would be 44% of the program.
Davis Progressive is right. Hispanic or Latino students are identified heavily through the TONI–so attacks on the TONI have the effect of lowering the number of Hispanics or Latinos in the program. The Vanguard has published the figures before.
https://davisvanguard.org/2015/03/are-aim-students-being-overidentified-school-board-grapples-with-aim-identification-issue/
Repeating a lie won’t make it more believable.
i’m clearly missing something here.
https://davisvanguard.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/AIM-2.jpg
if we look at this graphic, it shows under olsat the selection is 92% white/ asian. under toni it drops to 55%. meanwhile black/ hispanic increases from 7% under olsat to 39% under toni. what am i missing?
ryankelly, Please tell us what is the lie? I don’t get it at all.
Re: Table
What I think is missing is that this table doesn’t show time. Each of these columns adds up to 100%, so it shows you that of the total number of students who took the OLSAT, the percentage of each ethnicity who obtained qualifying scores by a particular test, but it doesn’t tell you when.
With respect to re-testing.
– The District tests all students using OLSAT. The District also re-tests students with risk factors (a subset of students) with the TONI-3 and other tests. That is one form of re-testing.
– Students who don’t qualify through the Districts administered test (a subset of students), are re-tested by a psychologist in private practice and get a higher score. That’s another form of re-testing. Private testing is a few hundred dollars.
With respect to the table. It is probably explained elsewhere, but in isolation, the rows don’t make sense to me. I would have presented a table that showed how students qualified for the program, so that within each row, “OLSAT + TONI-3 + Other” adds up to 100% of qualifying students of that ethnicity.
The numbers represent the percentages of the students by race who are in the group of students identified in this manner. The total in the TONI-3 column adds up to 100%, so the numbers represent a percentage of only that group.
Of the total students who were identified with the TONI test, 8% were black/African American, 6% American Indian, 12% were Asian, 31% Hispanic, 43% were White. You would have to know the total number of students identified this way and the race of all children tested to determine what this meant in real numbers, since it is a percentage of a much smaller number than the OLSAT. If you tested 10 children, 10% could be black, but that represents only one child.
I note that the table presented shows the percentages of students who are AIM/GATE identified. It doesn’t mean that all those students actually participate in the program. That’s a different matter.
Vanguard: She [Marla Cook] suggested the district take the entire next year to hold public meetings on the subject of AIM and differentiated instruction. These meetings, she said, should include those happy with the program and those ‘happy to have it gone.’ She said, “Lead a productive dialog, listen to them all.”
Ms. Cook stated that for years the district has heard primarily from two groups – those who love the program and those who hate it.
Cook frames the debate in a way that misrepresents those who may not agree with her, as in there are “those who love the program and those who hate it.” Alternatively, one could just as readily say that the district has heard primarily from two groups — those who love the current self-contained program and those who want another option, which is mainly differentiated instruction.
There are many parents of GATE/AIM-identified students who would like to have the option of differentiated instruction. It doesn’t mean hatred of GATE (or “GATE hate”), or of self-contained GATE. It means that such parents think that differentiated instruction is a better fit for their children and for their parenting preferences. Such a choice may have very little to do with producing the “very best” testable cognitive outcomes, which is the conventional way of assessing education. There are plenty of other outcomes expected of schools besides cognitive ones.
Differentiated instruction is not a concept that was new on the late evening of June 4, 2015. It has come up every time AIM/GATE is discussed in recent years. Differentiated instruction is a frequent topic for the AIM Advisory Committee. The GATE master plan for 2008-2013 called for differentiated instruction. Differentiated instruction was a point of discussion for school board campaigns in 2005 and 2014, and most school board elections in between. It was mentioned in a Davis Enterprise article on school board discussion of GATE as early as 2003. Lovenburg’s motion elevates discussion to one of policy options of differentiated instruction to the top administrative and trustee level in a public forum.
Having a self-contained option as well as a differentiated instruction option will likely increase the overall number of GATE/AIM-identified students who are served.