The Davis community continues to weigh in on the issue of GATE, engaging in a spirited and at times contentious debate through letters to the editor and public comment.
Over the past week alone, a number of letters have appeared in the local paper on both sides of the issue.
In one letter, Eric Hays attempts to correct what he considers “a large number of false statements about the Davis GATE program.”
He writes, “There is this false idea that the level of GATE identification at Davis is impossible, an idea that is often extended into an implication that such a high level is an indication that the identification process, or perhaps the whole program, has become corrupted.”
Instead, he argues that a number of districts in California GATE-identify at higher rates than Davis, including a number of districts that serve communities with UC campuses.
Mr. Hays further argues that there are a number of self-contained high achiever programs at the elementary grade level with some beginning earlier than the fourth grade.
He adds, “There is a rich trove of peer-reviewed research about the benefits of self-contained GATE programs, to all students in a district, some of which is being gathered at DavisExcel.org.”
“Most importantly, there has been what I see as an attempt to redefine GATE as a program specifically for twice exceptional students or ‘real outliers,’ he argues. “But that is in no way articulated in the sections of state code (52200 through 52212) that define GATE programs, nor is it in the district’s GATE master plan. GATE provides an alternative learning paradigm, much as Davis’ other choices – the neighborhood program, Montessori, Spanish Immersion – do, and, just as those programs serve students with extraordinary needs, so does Davis’ GATE program.”
“While I believe the GATE program could be improved through careful consideration,” Mr. Hays concludes, “we will never have careful consideration so long as this level of misinformation persists.”
Bob Erwin writes, “Some in the community have suggested that we reduce GATE classrooms to those who are ‘tragically flunking.’ They claim that GATE was originally designed to help only those children who were doing poorly in regular classrooms, but showed high potential in standardized tests.”
He believes that this thinking is flawed. First, he cites state law in which “GATE is for the student ‘who is identified as possessing demonstrated or potential abilities that give evidence of high performance capability.’ “
The education code states that the program should provide “unique opportunities for high-achieving and underachieving pupils”
Furthermore, he writes, “The program has long been designed to provide appropriate instruction in a GATE classroom for students who were performing well in school as well as for those who were not.”
“Even in 1994, the first criterion for identifying GATE-eligible students relied on demonstrated development. The first criterion was ‘students who demonstrate exceptional intellectual development,’ ” he continues. “That plan even required the GATE coordinator to ‘search lists of honor roll students’ in an effort to find students who had not been nominated by their teachers.”
Mr. Erwin argues, “We should embrace the district’s mission – to help all our children ‘reach their full potential.’ The GATE classrooms have been highly successful in helping all children achieve – those in GATE classrooms and those not. Our existing GATE program has been proven to work. We should embrace what is clearly working.”
While Karen Hamilton agrees that there is nothing anomalous about the large number of GATE-identified students in the Davis district, and cites California regulations that allow districts to create their own set of cut-offs for the identification of grift students, she ultimately argues against carving out a huge amount of the student population to place them into self-contained classrooms.
“The common benchmark,” she writes, only requires that the district include only those who have “extraordinary or potential for extraordinary intellectual development,” based on “evidence as to a pupil’s capacity for excellence far beyond that of their chronological peers.”
“In other words, a student’s need for special services, such as a seat in a self-contained classroom, arises only when he or she is ‘exceptional’ as related to his or her peers. The more gifted students you have in a population, the less exceptional they are, with respect to that population,” Ms. Hamilton argues.
She adds, “If such a huge portion of the community’s students cannot have their needs met in the regular mixed-ability elementary classrooms, then those classrooms need to change.”
“Carving them out of the regular population and placing them in self-contained classrooms is not the solution,” she argues and adds, “nor does it meet best educational practices for ability-grouping in elementary school.”
She continues, “The testing and sorting of third-graders sends young students the message that their academic destiny has been predetermined and their own future efforts don’t matter.”
She urges the district to continue evaluating the GATE program and consider alternative educational approaches.
“The debate about GATE in Davis public schools has focused on whether to continue or get rid of the program,” James Harvey writes. “I would like to suggest that these programs be extended into other realms besides academics.”
He continues, “I suggest that students be tested early, no later than third grade, for music, art and athletic excellence. We could then have special schools for each of them. Our budding musicians and artists would not have to waste time with those not interested in the arts, while our athletes could concentrate on their skills.”
“While not focusing on academics, the sports GATE program would assure that the athletes learn how to test well, in order to facilitate entry into Division I schools. The athletic high school would be associated with Davis High in order to guarantee championships,” he continues.
“Excellence has to be recognized,” he writes. “I believe that the students should be able to wear special uniforms and be granted some privileges, to compensate for the sacrifices they make. The school district could save considerably if libraries and athletic facilities were reduced at the non-GATE school.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I assume Mr Harvey’s comments are a form of sarcasm?
My assumption as well.
It is absurd that 20-30% of our school population have “extraordinary or potential for extraordinary intellectual development,” based on “evidence as to a pupil’s capacity for excellence far beyond that of their chronological peers.” GATE in Davis is tracking. This has academic and social benefits. I had a parent in Jr. High (where there was no GATE at the time) that it was important for her child to get into at least one advanced/accelerated class, because then he would be grouped schedule-wise with other nice (rich, white) kids throughout the rest of his day.
England in the 1960’s used to have an “11 plus” examination. Children took an exam and then at 12 years old were tracked into grammar schools (university route) or comprehensive schools (trade school/work force training route). If you didn’t pass the exam, you weren’t going to University (unless your parents placed you in private school). This was abolished in the 70’s.
Why does the current GATE program remind me so much of this antiquated system?
“If such a huge portion of the community’s students cannot have their needs met in the regular mixed-ability elementary classrooms, then those classrooms need to change.”
20% is not a huge portion in our community and is comparable to other similar communities. Please see data referenced earlier.
If their needs were and could be met in mixed ability classrooms then there would not be the need but obviously this is not the case. Parents and children are choosing SCGATE for a reason. Why is there a waiting list? Would we take our kids out and put in them mixed classroom now?
I would agree perhaps the effort should be focused in changing the mixed ability classrooms rather than dismantling SCGATE. So why not do that. This should be the area of focus about improving the neigh hood school rather than taking away what is working for others.
because then he would be grouped schedule-wise with other nice (rich, white) kids throughout the rest of his day.
The SCGATE program in Davis is rich in diversity including ethic minorities, ESL, Low SES, and special needs children . This is an untrue and unfair comparison.
[quote]Why does the current GATE program remind me so much of this antiquated system? [/quote]
Could it be because both are proven successes?
J.R.: [i]Could it be because both are proven successes?[/i]
For whom? And based on what?
[url]For whom? And based on what?[/url]
Those are the right questions.
My answer is the following:
For whom are these programs a success?
For the students.
(As opposed to the teachers unions or those who see schools primarily as a vehicle for social engineering)
Based on what?
A mountain of studies and historical evidence.
GATE is a successful and popular program. If anything it should be expanded. When my child was identified for both Special Ed and GATE, each was crucial to academic success. What surprised me then, and continues to disturb me now, was the overt hostility other parents expressed toward the GATE program. The sort of generalizations about the demographics that I heard then, and hear now, would appall you if they were applied to, say Special Ed.
Modest changes were necessary for the admissions process. If the program is that successful and that many students are identified for GATE in Davis, then the district should consider adding more stand-alone GATE programs. There is plenty of mixing between GATE and non-GATE students (this seems to be a common concern of critics). I think it is provable that separating students for instruction based on aptitude helps them succeed.
Alicia Silva (from previous comment thread on GATE): [i]The question of GATE being a choice program is complex. First of all, the child has no choice on who they are and how their brain works and how they may learn best. On one level I feel the program fills a need. A need for a challanging and appropriate education. A need for growth and stimulation of the human mind. Remember when you had one of your first aha learning moments? Wasn’t it exciting?[/i]
Where some of this argument runs into some trouble with me is on my understanding of neuroplasticity ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity[/url]) — that a human brain develops capacities in response to environmental stimuli at different times, in changing situations. Karen Hamilton, who has criticized the emphasis on SCGATE, cites the work of Carol Dweck ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Dweck[/url]), who is known for positing that self-awareness of one’s capacity for neuroplasticity improves one’s motivation and results. With this in mind, what if testing in third grade doesn’t adequately catch all of the students who could be appropriately GATE-identified? What if one aggressively tested students in 4th through 8th grades, and ultimately end up with 50%, 60%, 70% of the student population as GATE-identified?
I see at least one public example of where a gifted student ([url]http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/the-story-of-a-gifted-child/[/url]) would clearly benefit from some sort of GATE attention. But he was never in the DJUSD SCGATE program, and it seemed that his GATE attributes haven’t been suppressed or diminished. I imagine that SCGATE could be worthwhile up to a point. I’d just like to know what that point is. And I’m not convinced that standardized testing catches all that is worthwhile in education.
There’s an Enterprise article from ~Nov. 27, 2007 that describes a suggestion by the district GATE Advisory Committee to turn Holmes JH into a GATE magnet for grades 4-9. Obviously it never happened, but when I read that, it made me think that the vision of the district GATE program is over-reaching.
Don, When your children were in elementary school, there were two strands of GATE at Valley Oak and one strand at Willet. Students came from all over Davis. Many families chose to stay at their home schools. There was a good mix of high-achieving (student leaders) students still at neighborhood schools. What is happening now is there are GATE strands at most all schools. Then with other special programs (Spanish immersion, Montessori, and Montgomery being placed in a category where students can request to leave), the regular school program is increasingly being viewed as a substandard, chaotic, unimaginative, and repetitive learning environment, for students who are the same. The GATE parents arguments state this over and over in letters to the editor, blogs and comments on petitions – some more blatant than others.
If a parent believes that the program his or her child is in is “substandard, chaotic, unimaginative, and repetitive” then that parent can place his or her child in one of the other special programs. Turning your point around, what you seem to be saying is that high-achieving students should be kept in with lower-achieving students for the benefit of the lower-achieving students.
Parents will seek the best placement for their students. The arguments against GATE seem to be in favor of reducing that placement option.
It’s not hard to understand how almost all Davis kids are above average. But, it’s difficult to see any bunch making up 20-30% of our students as disadvantaged when they’re classified as “gifted and talented.”
Until this discussion many of us viewed GATE as a kind of advanced placement program for our smartest. The more it’s justified by claiming that this large segment of the school population is unable to learn in our regular classrooms, the shakier the rationale seems. The testing and placement appear to be based on IQ and testing smartness, not on the behavior and learning disabilities now being suggested as the needs for GATE.
All special ed. programs must be more costly per student than the “regular” system. It’s hard to sell these extra costs in a time of tight education budgets when parents see larger classes with fewer available subjects for their “regular” kids.
Furthermore, the description of the GATE program and its techniques found on the district web site seem like what every parent would want for every child. Why would students have to pass a GATE test in order to get this kind of quality education?
Although it took special laws to make education access available to the “handicapped,” disabled and disadvantaged, it seems there’s more enlightened public support for such extra effort and spending. Trying to fit large numbers of GATE-eligible students into these underserved categories seems a stretch.
GATE techniques have proven successful. Why not provide the same opportunity to more as an open program with various tracks for different skills and interests?
First step: change the name to something not quite so elitist and less presumptuous.
To clarify: The Montessori Program is open to and serves ALL types of students, not just ones with “extraordinary needs”.
[quote]Turning your point around, what you seem to be saying is that high-achieving students should be kept in with lower-achieving students for the benefit of the lower-achieving students. [/quote]
And why not? I can’t believe that you are making this argument. Of course, the lower achieving students would benefit. The high-achieving students would benefit as well. Students have skills and talents that show up in different areas. Someone good at math, may not have the same talents in art or music; a student who is “low achieving” in math, may be excel at debate, etc. Differentiated instruction for different subjects can be done. I shake my head in disbelief when I see parents paying lots of money for tutors to help their GATE students keep up with the curriculum. They are clearly misplaced in the program or GATE does not offer differentiated instruction for students in the program.
Ok, Ryan, let’s narrow this down.
You believe that GATE students would have better outcomes if they were mixed in with different achievement levels than they have in their current GATE configuration?
Ryan, are you seriously suggesting that we reduce employment opportunities for the many Davis tutors making excellent money helping our gifted and talented students survive their special education experience? Could we just wait until the recession is over?
I think that the large majority of current GATE students would end up going to college and have happy productive lives, if they were mixed in regular classrooms and were given differentiated instruction in subject areas where they excelled and other areas where they needed additional support. There is probably a small population of students who are truly different and a self-contained GATE program would better serve these students.
And I mean really small.
Ryan: would they have better outcomes? You think they would be better off in regular placement than in GATE placement? You gave me a banality (“happy productive lives”). Their grades would be better? Their college entrance rates would be better?
You, and other GATE opponents, really need to come up with a better rationale for removing this placement option for GATE-identified students. It is a successful and popular program that leads to good outcomes for its participants. I suspect I wouldn’t have to search too far to find evidence that GATE leads to better outcomes for high-achieving students than regular placement.
The original intent of the GATE program was to address the needs of a small subset of children who’s brains develop differently, and who consequently learn differently, and therefore often do not respond well to the standard teaching methods. Compared with the Statewide student base, this subset accounts for roughly [b]2%[/b] of the population. The GATE curriculum was developed to address the learning needs of this small subset and was not intended as a curriculum for ‘high achieving’ students.
GATE students (the 2%) do best when segregated from the rest of the student population, and the rest of the student population also does better when those (often times disruptive) GATE students are segregated out. What screws the entire system to hell is when ‘high achieving’ students are put into a GATE program under the mistaken belief that it is an accelerated learning curriculum. GATE students suffer, high achievers suffer, and the rest of the student population suffers. With respect to learning needs, ‘GATE’ does not equal ‘High Achievement.’
If the Davis GATE program has expanded to account for [b]20%[/b] of the population, then it is clear that it has lost all semblance of what was intended. [b]2%[/b] does not equal [b]20%[/b], and the ‘University children’ argument does not account for the discrepancy.
What appears to have happened is that the GATE program has morphed into a High Achiever program primarily due to the mistaken belief that it GATE is an accelerated learning program. If our desire is to address the needs of all the students, then all of the programs need to be restructured. To address the needs of students requiring an accelerated learning path (or in many cases more correctly, the needs of their parents) we should create a separate ‘High Achievement’ program to track students in their specific area of achievement (since few students are high achievers in all areas). The GATE program should then be pared back to being a segregated program for the small subset (perhaps 2-4%) of students who’s brains develop differently, and who thereby learn differently.
I believe that their grades would not change, their college entrance rates would not change. These are high-achieving students who would do well where ever they are placed. You want to know the true “GATE” program for students in Davis? You know, the ones that will fail in a regular classroom? DSIS is where many of these students end up.
Where the expanding GATE program became a fairness issue in recent years was over resource allocation for the JH music program. A higher percentage of SCGATE students seem to participate in the instrumental music program than does the rest of the student population. Before Harper opened, Holmes had the only SCGATE program, and Emerson had a lesser-known integrated-GATE model. Lots of students living in the Emerson attendance area were attending the Holmes SCGATE program, and collaterally providing more than enough enrollment for multiple orchestra and band classes. Those band/orchestra classes could be easily differentiated by grade level/experience and provided greater scheduling convenience. Emerson didn’t have as many music class options, and some of those class options that were offered were staffed at much lower enrollment levels just to keep some parity with Holmes.
Some families with the option to choose GATE were favoring SCGATE because they could see that in addition to getting accelerated curricula, they could also get more music options, and possibly certain language options. Enrollments eventually evened out when the Da Vinci program opened on the Emerson campus.
But it is clear that there is a certain level of SCGATE participation that starts to throw other programs (music, foreign languages) out of whack in the JH. That’s why the 2007 idea of a GATE magnet school was alarming.
Mark: [quote]To address the needs of students requiring an accelerated learning path (or in many cases more correctly, the needs of their parents) we should create a separate ‘High Achievement’ program to track students in their specific area of achievement (since few students are high achievers in all areas).[/quote]
I think the “lesser-known integrated GATE model” described by wdf (which is what we used) accomplishes this.
Ryan:
[quote]You want to know the true “GATE” program for students in Davis? You know, the ones that will fail in a regular classroom? DSIS is where many of these students end up. [/quote]
Yes, that was our experience.
Here is the legislation that defines the GATE student:
CA Ed Code 52201(b) “Highly gifted pupil” means a gifted and talented pupil who has achieved a measured intelligence quotient of 150 or more points on an assessment of intelligence administered by qualified personnel or has demonstrated extraordinary aptitude and achievement in language arts, mathematics, science, or other academic subjects, as evaluated and confirmed by both the pupil’s teacher and principal. Highly gifted pupils shall generally constitute not more than 1 percent of the pupil population.
I would hazard to say that the vast majority of our current crop of Davis “GATE” students do not demonstrate [b]extraordinary[/b] aptitude and achievement and the program was never intended to serve 20-30% of the pupil population.
If we are trying to give the benefit to those who truly need the differentiated curriculum provided by the GATE program, we need to have a better understanding of the scale of need. If we have 500 students at an elementary school, then there are roughly 10-20 students (2-4%) combined in all grades who should be in the GATE program. One or two classes per grade level district wide.
MW: “[i]To address the needs of students requiring an accelerated learning path…[/i]”
Don Shor: “[i]I think the “lesser-known integrated GATE model” described by wdf (which is what we used) accomplishes this.[/i]”
The GATE curriculum is not an accelerated learning path. It is a differentiated learning path designed for students with specific needs.
Yes, an integrated GATE model can work to address the needs of GATE students, however, GATE curriculum should never be used to address the needs of ‘High Achiever’ students.
When you stick ‘High Achiever’ students in a GATE curriculum you end up with the same ‘square peg, round hole’ problem that the GATE program was designed to address for the small GATE subset (except in this case it would be a ’round peg, square hole’ issue).
Mark West: [i] If we have 500 students at an elementary school, then there are roughly 10-20 students (2-4%) combined in all grades who should be in the GATE program. One or two classes per grade level district wide.[/i]
Less than that if you use the way DJUSD identifies GATE. GATE students are only identified at the end of third grade. Assume 7 grades in a Davis elementary school (grades K-6). That’s 71.4 students per grade. Grades 4-6 would make up 214 students. 4% of that rounds up to 9 students.
[quote]When you stick ‘High Achiever’ students in a GATE curriculum you end up with the same ‘square peg, round hole’ problem that the GATE program was designed to address for the small GATE subset (except in this case it would be a ’round peg, square hole’ issue). [/quote]
And then these students end up being pushed out and end up at DSIS.
WDF1 “[i]GATE students are only identified at the end of third grade.[/i]”
The ‘old’ approach to identifying GATE qualified students was to have the classroom teachers identify the potential candidates from their classes, and then to test those students one-on-one by a trained Psychologist. The classroom teachers are able to identify most of these students in K-3, and with only a hand full per school, the cost of testing was reasonable, and the students who would benefit from the differentiated curriculum were being served.
The problems arose when parents, misunderstanding the program as an accelerated learning system, wanted their Jane or John included. The District, on the basis of ‘fairness,’ decided to subject all students to a standardized test as the means to identify GATE students. This unfortunately lead to the mis-identification of many ‘high achiever’ students as GATE qualified, and ultimately led to the gross expansion of the program that really benefits no one.
Of all the students K-6 at our elementary schools, 10-20 would be identified as GATE qualified by a trained Psychologist after first being identified by the classroom teachers. If we are only concerned with the students in grades 4-6, I agree the number would be in the 5-10 range per school.
Don, since you seem to be the principle advocate here for the current Davis GATE program, I’ve got a couple questions for you.
(I’m not sure the opponents really need to come up with all the reasoning here. In fact, I don’t think that those who are questioning the current GATE program. Surely, there’s room for improvement.)
What does research show about various GATE program elements? How and why do they work for gifted and talented students? How do they work if applied to the next 10% or 40% of those who aren’t GATE-identified?
I have little doubt that Davis GATE kids get better educations (and, subsequently, “better outcomes”) than the rest of our students receive. Of course, it’s successful for and popular with parents whose kids get in.
The kinds of questions Ryan is raising are important ones. Can GATE techniques work for others? Can most gifted and talented students get similar outcomes in differentiated classes rather than the self-contained program?
I’m not sure that John Dewey would agree with your “banal” rating for public education that leads to happy, productive lives. An educational system that effectively socializes and educates most of our kids to such a standard seems like about the best we can get in public schools.
I’ve never thought much of vouchers, but maybe that would be the best solution for the special needs children who cannot or should not be “mainstreamed” for whatever reason.
And, the small minority who are truly intellectually gifted and otherwise talented or physically amazing could be taken to their unusual potential. I hope that also would lead to a happy life for the top 3%.
JustSaying: I do not have the answers to your questions. I am feeling very outnumbered here, and don’t really know what people are advocating with regard to GATE. So I’m going to leave it to others now.
I’d like to see some numbers from the District, showing that they actually track students by program and educational outcomes. The one that comes to mind first–and that I think parents should know before placing their child in GATE– I’d like to know the number of GATE and non-GATE students who take Algebra in 7th grade, 8th grade, or 9th grade and who are still taking math their Senior year of high school. I suspect from talking to other parents and students, that the race to take Algebra in 7th grade is back-firing for a number of students. They are not developmentally ready in 7th grade, they don’t develop a truly strong foundation, they develop a perception that they’re not a math person, and they quit. I am under the impression that a lot of students drop out of the math sequence their junior or senior years and a disproportionate number of the students were in GATE because the GATE path promotes taking algebra in 7th grade more than the non-GATE path. I’d also like to know if what I am hearing is more of a girl phenomenon than a boy phenomenon. I’d be curious if any of you know.
Get rid of the qualifying exam score. Make it a rigorous magnet program for high achievers but let in anyone willing to try. The key question is can a student with a percentile ranking of 93% or 92% be successful in the program? I think they can especially when coming from the kind of high socioeconomic families that are common in Davis. So, if they want to try let them in. This program doesn’t seem to cost additional money so let supply meet demand.
Getting rid of the exam will reduce the stigma and division that an exam creates. Whenever you create a bar such as the 98th percentile you need to tell someone no. Then you start making exceptions and before you know it you are at the 96th percentile in some circumstances. At that point someone in the 94rd percentile gets left out and the program is expanded again. Where does it end? It ends when you give up on the exam as a basis for identification.
For kids that are testing two standard deviations above the norm, the original gifted standard, you can make additional accommodations if they have additional needs,but, as long as there is a qualifying exam there will be exceptions, system gaming, accusations of elitism, private testing, envy, lawsuits, rancorous town hall style meetings, hurt feelings and a community divided.
Get rid of the test score requirement for entry and most of the rest will work itself out.
Mr. T: [i]Get rid of the test score requirement for entry and most of the rest will work itself out.[/i]
I agree with the suggestion to change the name. The current name implies that if you aren’t in GATE, then maybe you’re not gifted and talented, and that maybe you won’t have any hope of being gifted and talented because you’re not in the program, which is patently false in the generally understood meaning of the words.
Does anybody know the annual numbers for GATE’s history in Davis?
I’ve got a feeling that it started out with the 1% target that Ryan noted in the legislation. Knowing the importance Davis parents place on education, I’d guess that more and more families sought entrance into GATE through extra tutoring, additional testing, pressure to expand the program, etc.
After all, we want the best for our children and it appears that GATE is the best route for success. (It used to be that folks were satisfied moving to Davis for the regular superior education offered here.)
I’ve always wondered what percentage of kids in the GATE program did not qualify on the IQ given at school, but later qualified through private testing. I’ve also always wondered what percentage of kids who’s parents pay for private testing end up qualifying for GATE. I guess the question is can you buy your kids a spot in the GATE program?