Creative Commons License photo credit: Napalm filled tires

Imprimus is a monthly speech digest published by Hillsdale College, an independent college in Hillsdale, MI. It’s independent in that it doesn’t accept any federal subsidies. Ever. The students don’t even accept federal money to attend school. Why is this relevant? Because your family can have a great deal of input into your child’s college education.

I recently received a reprint of an Imprimus journal from November 2006. This journal contained an excerpt of an article written by Larry Arnn, President of Hillsdale College. The article was entitled “Why the GOP is Flunking Higher Education” and appeared in the Claremont Review of Books in September 2006.

The excerpt in Imprimus that particularly struck me was titled “National Standards and the Danger of Political Correctness”. In this excerpt, the Dr. Arnn refers to something called the ‘Draft Report’ which, as it turns out, is officially titled “A Test of Leadership: Charting the Future of U.S. Higher Education“. So, I’ll follow his lead and just refer to this report as ‘Draft Report’

Dr. Arnn discusses one aspect of the Draft Report- national standards. He argues that standards go above and beyond the intent of the original Higher Education Act. He states,

“Charles Murray writes of the No Child Left Behind Act that it has not improved test scores and that it creates an atmosphere of endless drilling, which is poor for learning. And he is probably right. But even worse than the tests’ ineffectiveness and waste of time [emphasis mine] is that they will be expressions of the worst forms of political correctness.”

Although education is not a hot-button topic for most of America this election, those of us with gifted children understand how crucial it is to have an education system that it is efficient and produces the highest ROI possible for our children.

So, before you touch a screen, fill in an oval, or make a ‘hanging chad’ on November 4th, ask yourself, “Does my candidate really propose an education system that will help my child?”

The Broader, Bolder Approach to Education is the product of deliberation by leaders with diverse religious and political affiliations, and experts in the fields of education, social welfare, health, housing, and civil rights. The statement examines areas that research shows must be addressed if we are to keep our promises to all of America’s children.

More than a half century of research has documented a powerful association between social and economic disadvantage and low student achievement. Weakening that association is the fundamental challenge facing America’s education policymakers.

photo credit: lumaxart

I’m glad that other organizations besides the government are beginning to recognize that our system is breaking and needs fixing. It’s an interesting read, so go check it out.

Read the Full Statement

Read what the Iowa Independent has to say about this-
Iowa Independent:: In Wake of NCLB, Gifted Students at Risk of Being Left Behind

The proposal is getting mixed reviews. Some parents are happy, as they feel it brings more credibility to the programs. Others worry that students who are now benefitting from being in Gifted programs, may fail to qualify under the new standards. Personally, I’m undecided about this. I can see it both ways. Obviously, a Gifted program must be more difficult than a regular program, otherwise the term “Gifted” becomes watered-down and loses meaning. On the other hand, how do we say that a student who scores in the 90-95% percentiles can’t benefit from participation in a Gifted program? Especially now that normal school curriculum is so focused on NCLB requirements, borderline students are at risk of being lost in the shuffle, and that’s not good for anyone.

The best approach might be to use percentile scores as the objective part of the evaluation, and introduction a subjective part as well. The subjective part could include recommendations from teachers, administrators, parents, etc. Before my daughter could enter the Gifted program in 2nd grade, she was required to complete a project of her choosing and it was evaluated by the Gifted facilitator of the district. There’s more to being Gifted than just scoring high on tests.

This is, in many ways, an absolutely terrible idea. “Gifted” and “Special Needs” are two extremely different categories, and the casual suggestion of diverting resources from the latter to educate the former is an insult to the very real needs of many “Special Needs” students.

I can understand his point. A gifted child certainly doesn’t have the same special needs that a physically impaired child has. However, the needs of gifted children are definitely special. Many states differ in their definition of what a “special needs” child is, but in Kansas, a “special needs” child is defined as one for which the regular classroom setting is inadequate. I think we can all agree that the regular classroom is indeed inadequate for gifted children.

In fact, many states treat gifted students and “special needs” students the same by not funding programs separately. In Kansas, gifted funding comes out of the general special education funding used for “special needs” students. Because of the education system today is focused on NCLB, I’d argue that instead of ‘diverting resources from the latter to educate the former’ as Prof. Orzel states, just the opposite is happening- schools are diverting funds away from gifted programs to better educate “special needs” students.

Prof. Orzel proposes that we begin to separately fund “gifted” and “special needs” programs separately, which I whole-heartedly support. Unfortunately, that will never happen unless states begin to change funding guidelines. Florida is one state considering a change- let’s hope other states follow.