"Revision to Johnston County AIG Plan" According to the July Board of Education meeting, the "Revision to Johnston County AIG Plan" will be an action item during the August Board of Education Meeting. Please make plans to attend this important meeting. If possible it would be great to get a copy of the revisions before the meeting so public comment could be made. Keep our children in the forefront. They will be the ones making decisions for us when we are older
It seems that Dr. Parker and Board of Education Chair Kay Carroll are not content with splitting the AIG but they also want to 'dumb down' the cirriculum as well. http://www.aig.bravehost.com
This is all particularly troubling when you consider the emphasis on high stakes testing. We have to focus so much on bringing the low students up already, at the expense of enrichment for others. Money is behind some of this I am sure. They probably want to free up some money to spend on the low achieving students. Teachers can differentiate in the classroom but it is not the same as the center. It is more learning on your own in the classroom where as in the center it is teacher facilitated. I have seen very little differentiation in the regular classroom for my rising 5th grader. Another issue we all need to consider ( I bring this one up a lot on here!) is getting all of the board members except Larry Strickland and Donna White replaced with people that will question Dr. Parker and ask for more information before just voting for everything he wants. These two consistently ask if he has polled staff or parents and want to know what they think- not just what Dr. Parker wants.
I would love to see a show of hands of parents who have said or heard another parent say "My child doesn't like school because it doesn't challenge him/her enough. He/She gets bored in class." I'm not just talking about the Academically Gifted either, there are children who don't test into the AIG yet are higher on their education than others within their classroom and those children get bored as well. If you can't see me, I have my hand raised high in the air. so let's dummy it down even further in the classroom so we can get those scores up for the others.
I called the JOCO School Bd this am already - Had to leave a VOICE MAIL... does no one WORK at the C.O. of Fridays? I do not want my rising 1st grade child that reads at the 3-4 grade level to sit around and have zero to do.... Augh!!!!!!!! He will find projects to do- that teachers do NOT- like if he's unchallenged. Grrrrrrrrr....Dr. Parker, Grrrrrrrrrr. It's time for him to move on.
Kel~ Right there with ya, sista! I got an email last night about the revisions. I haven't read all 100 pages, but did a quick search to see the changes. Really!!! The beginning said the elementary school advisory board (after reasearch) suggested more differentation and two days a week at the AIG Center. Looks like Dr. Parker wants it to all (AIG) just go away. I'm REALLY not happy with these proposed changes, especially since they just adopted this LAST YEAR!!! Frogger
This is a sweeping statement so I did take time to skim the 2 alerts and read the Revision of the Proposed plan -- It is unclear to me how you equate these changes to "dumbing down" the curriculum. For example, for Elementarty pg. 58 the bullets that remain under "Learning Environment" and "Content Modification" show no indication of lowering standards -- in truth many of those lined out items are the same thing different educational jargon -- the way I read it is not that big chunks of services are being eleminated but the entire process is being streamlined Page 62 addresses rigor and how services must be aligned with the NCSCOS -- seems to me some of the issues I have read in regards to the JoCo parent concerns have much to do with the NCSCOS -- that becomes a DPI issue -- by law the county has to follow the NCSCOS, but has control over methods of instruction for the NCSCOS -- pg. 58 is an outline for delivery of AIG instruction There are some very strong feelings out there in regards to this --- I am trying to understand -- where is the evidence and data -- BOTH sides?? Did this AIG sub group meet AYP -- How much growth?? Is this sub group consistently performing at the higher levels? If not, why not? Are current services so good that there is no room for improvement? Are the improvements same song different title? What improvements will best serve the student? What does the available data say about current instruction and student performance?? Are changes being made based on data? Having read the plan I don't see evidence to substantiate the claim of dumbing down...
One commenter above said the issue of travel time has never been a problem at AIG and another said the issue did not receive much attention in the meeting, I have had several teachers at AIG tell me that since it takes so long for some students to travel to the center that they don't have much time left for instruction. The AIG day is a good bit shorter than a regular school day due to the time to get kids from home school to the facility and then back to home school in time to get their homework assignments from their home school teachers. If the center was split though it would lose a lot of the things that make it special and it seems to me it would be much more expensive to maintain two separate facilities than one. The idea of having two days a week spent at the AIG center (mentioned above) is something I would strongly oppose. It is hard enough for teachers at the home schools to plan around students being gone one day of every week and it is difficult enough for kids to be out of class one day a week. The home school teachers are not supposed to teach anything new on the AIG day, but ours sometimes did. For the days they don't teach anything new they ended up doing fun stuff that my daughter was so upset that she missed out on due to AIG that she didn't want to go anymore by the end of the year.
AIG Curriculum Claytonsassy – I appreciate your opinion, but I have to respectfully disagree. You did not comment on how the entire service delivery model (Treffinger) was removed on pages 46-49 without giving a replacement. How can AIG be taught without defining the direction/philosophy behind the program? Plus, this extensive removal was not listed as a ‘change’ on the letter to the BOE, which seems suspicious to me, like Dr. Parker was trying to slide this through. You did not comment on the quote from the letter #1 that had a national leader of AIG commenting that she "doesn’t know how anyone can make a decision on this document.”. It is difficult to tell what is going or staying. The intent is unclear". I would certainly acquiesce to her views since AIG is what she does for a living and she must see hundreds of this type of curriculum. You did not comment on the many contradictions throughout the document, nor on the complete removal of the entire list of programs used in AIG and differentiation that are listed on pages 62-65 (also coincidentally not listed as a 'change' on the BOE letter. I also am very concerned that there is no longer any reference in this document to allowing the teachers to teach above grade level. This document is consistent with what I have been told by many teachers…that they have been told to stop taking children above grade level, even if the children are more than ready for it and bored to tears at the current level. Sounds like the administration was prepping teachers for this change to the document. I thought all points in the summary from the web site listed earlier are right on. Here it is in case someone reading this has not been to http://www.aig.bravehost.com You also asked where is the evidence for performance. That is irrelevant to what is going on with this document. Before the proposed changes, the document was well written and defined the curriculum very well. With the changes, it is poorly written and has no defined service delivery, in addition to taking out the text that allowed teachers to teach about grade level. ______________ AIG Curriculum: -August 12, the Board of Education will vote on revisions to the existing 2007-2010 state approved AIG and Differentiation curriculum. -The current curriculum is well defined and clear. In direct contrast, parents and teachers find the proposed changes alarming for the following reasons -The document is poorly written and has numerous contradictions. Parents asked a number of experts to evaluate this new curriculum, including Dr. EJ Gubbins, Associate Director at the well-known National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented at the University of Connecticut. After reading the document she said that she "doesn’t know how anyone can make a decision on this document. It is difficult to tell what is going or staying. The intent is unclear". She also said "there is no way to know what is being voted on". -The revised document, on pages 46-49, has removed the current service delivery model (teaching philosophy) with no mention of what new AIG philosophy/direction will be taking its place. -On page 49, the statement referring to the students that require high differentiation and "acceleration of content and grade" has been removed. This implies that students would not be allowed to work above grade level, even if they had mastered their current grades curriculum. -On pages 62 - 65, an entire list of programs used in the schools have been eliminated, with no mention of what programs will be taking their place. Some of the eliminated programs include: Accelerated Reading and Math, Junior Great Books, etc. -On page 58, many content modifications have been stricken from the document. This includes Computer-based instruction. What Now? -Please read the two letters linked to on this website for more detail. Look at the curriculum. If you are concerned about these changes, voice your opinion to the Board of Education members. The majority of the Board do not personally read their emails so please use USPS mail or make phone calls. Write letters to the editor, talk to the media, forward this email to other parents, and sign up to speak at the August 12th Board of Education meeting. -Hopefully our input will prompt the administration to “un-revise” the document. If not, at least this document should be reworked so that it is clear what the intent and service delivery model (philosophy/direction) is going to be, as well as what programs would be used to achieve these goals. It is also vital that teaching above grade level be allowed. So, for example, if a kindergartner enters school knowing addition and subtraction, they would be allowed to advance from that level rather than being limited to only kindergarten skills, such as learning to count to thirty.
I appreciate your passion and desire to see this issue dealt with in a manner that puts the child and his/her education first And far be it from me to argue with your experts and while it does support your statement that contradictions seem to exist it seems to me as I said earlier -- many of the things you cite as lined out exist either in different terminology or in different format of presentation -for instance your concern for the all, many, some, few philosophy isn't that what the tables on pages 50 to 52 address for elementary students? Again, I appreciate your efforts in garnering parents to become actively involved in the process to insure that a group of students are served appropriately, however I am still not convinced that the statement that was made in regards to Parker & Carroll attempting to "dumb down" the curriculum is an accurate one...
AIG Curriculum Good morning, Claytonsassy, I do appreciate your comments as well. I really hope that you don't take anything I am saying in a negative way. The charts that you were referring to on page 50-52 only define what test scores /achievement/performance/etc a student needs to exhibit before they can receive AIG services. For instance, if a student gets above the 88th percentile on the EOG, then they would qualify for Cluster grouping. If they get 130+ on an aptitude test, then they can enter kindergarten earlier. These charts on pages 50 - 52, address the "Criteria for Service Options Match", which is NOT the same as Service Delivery (Treffinger - pp 46-49). I can completely see where this is confusing though, because the charts you were referring to are really out of order in the document, as they come directly after the Treffinger philosophy. However, if you read through the Treffinger section, it is actually referring to the charts on page 58-60, where Treffinger's service delivery model is also struck out. In fact, on the last page of Treffinger (p 49), it says "The following are Service Options Grids that outline the opportunities available for K-12 in learning environment, content modification, interest/talent development, special programs, and instructional strategies". If you match up the column names, you will see that this grid is on page 58-60, not 50-52. To sum, the charts on 50-52 have nothing to do with the service delivery model that has been stricken from the proposed curriculum in both text and chart. There is nowhere in this document, whether through a chart or text, that a service delivery model is defined. Does this change your mind any?
You have clarified that portion of the document, however it does not sway me to believe the initial comment of the administration and board "dumbing down" the curriculum -- for what purpose would it serve for the superintendent and the school board to do that? It has been clearly stated/researched/published bored children lead to discipline issues, students who drop out point to school boredom as the primary reason to quit school, dumbing down the curriculum doesn't produce higher test scores - testing is a state level issue, there are far too many concerned & involved parents to deal with to make it a goal of the administration or board to "dumb down" the curriculum. So to what advantage is it to "dumb down" the curriculum? Has the AIG program as it currently exists outgrown its original intent? Does it need to to evolve to better serve the students for whom it was designed? Does it need to align itself with the NCSCOS in a way it has not before? Someone stated that student performance was irrelevant to the document -- the document exists because of student performance -- does the data show that the program was serving the children in such a way that they were achieving growth? Again, my concern lies not with the document and the changes that do OR do not need to be made, but the broad sweeping statement that was made about the intentions of the administration and some on the board -- it reminds me of another administration which uses those kinds of sweeping statements to instill fear in order to get its way.
AIG I DO think dumbing down the curriculm would help the test scores! The resources used for AIG then can be used for the lower performing kids. The AIG child would be bored to tears, but thats OK because they will still do good on the test. If we are relying on the JC Board of Education to fight for what is good for AIG children in Johnston County we are in trouble! Donna White and Larry Strickland are the only two that seem to care! Just seems like the BOE is trying its best to change the gifted program and after attending the July board meeting I believe anything Dr Parker wants will pass. (Simply because everyone , but Larry and Donna, will vote on anything he says) I could not believe the way our school board conducts a business meeting. Maybe they could learn from our AIG kids? (Since AIG children are often used as teachers in the classroom!!!) HA! HA! I challenge everyone on this forum to attend the August 12th meeting and see it for yourself. It is embarrassing!!! We NEED to let the board know how we feel about this change. We were successful in saving the AIG center for one more year and I know we can do the same for the curriculm. Please call, write, or sign up to speak at the next meeting! We can make a difference.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who saw the board arguing like a bunch of kids in a very dysfunctional family! Interrupting each other, refusing to listen, etc.
AIG Kenlymom - I think you have hit it on the nose. If they don't have to teach the AIG and higher level students at the level they need to be at, including higher than their grade level, that will free up more time for the teacher to work with the lower and middle kids to help bring up the EOG scores. Claytonsassy, I don't know what is in Dr. Parker's or the BOE chairman's head. The paragraph above is certainly one possibility. But, regardless of their reasoning, this all comes down to the fact that this curriculum will hurt the higher level and AIG students. Among other reasons, the proposed curriculum has no service delivery model. It crosses out any reference to being able to teach above grade level. It removes references to all current programs used with AIG or higher level students. AllChildrenFirst - Yes, that board meeting was just unbelievable. I was completely floored. I was also told that this was a tame meeting, not nearly as contentious as usual. Amazing. Do you remember when Dr. Parker reared up and screamed "don't interrupt me, don't you ever interrupt me" while waving his finger all around?
Did that happen after the break? I left during the break. I was shocked at how Kay Carroll spoke to Larry Strickland during the first 30 minutes, and I remember him telling Larry to stop interrupting when he'd interrupted Larry first and wouldn't let him finish his point.
I am still sitting back and watching this discussion, but I wanted to agree with this point. My son is living proof of being bored and having discipline issues because of it.
I don't have a dog in this fight - but the only board members worth anything are Larry and Donna :mrgreen: I've seen it time, and time again with the others...:?
