In a rare moment of unity this week during Governor Stricklands’s State of the State speech, both Republicans and Democrats stood to applaud Ohio’s rise in the education rankings to number five. The rankings are based on Education Week’s Quality Counts 2010 Report (sorry, you need a subscription to access the report). The report is an annual ranking of all fifty states on education policy and performance over several indicators. Ohio was ranked sixth in the nation in 2009 and has climbed (with a grade of B-) to number five in the 2010 report.
As I read the report, I scratched my head a bit. Really, Ohio is number five? I won’t go into the merits of the metrics used in the ranking system. For a rundown on that, you may wish to check out the State of Ohio Education or Education Gadfly blogs, both of which have covered this issue. And I really don’t want to bash all the good Ohio educators out in the field who are proud of this ranking. However, I do think it bears mentioning that the factors used to rank the quality of education in the Ohio Counts report don’t really have much to do with student achievement. As a parent, a taxpayer, and a longtime advocate for high ability students, the measurements that interest me have to do with the numbers of eighth students taking Algebra, the numbers of students scoring well on AP exams, and performance at advanced levels on the NAEP exams. These are the kind of measures that speak to opportunities for students to really achieve.
When these metrics are examined more closely, a less than top ten performance emerges: Ohio’s ranking on the percent of schools where 8th graders taking Algebra is the norm? Number 28. Ohio’s ranking on the number of students with high AP scores? Number 27. Percent of students achieving at advanced levels on the 8th grade NAEP math exam? Ohio is ranked a stellar number 33.
Clearly, for high ability kids, Ohio is not a number five state in which to live. Heck, we aren’t even in the top half of the country. Ohio’s accountability system currently has no measure that relates to students achieving above proficiency. Everyone knows that if you don’t measure it, it doesn’t happen. The addition of a performance indicator for gifted children on the state report card could help if it is implemented in a meaningful way. But by and large, Ohio’s education system is geared toward proficiency. Until we go beyond the mindset that mediocre equals excellent, Ohio will never be at the top of the rankings in a way that will benefit all of Ohio’s students – especially those who are already beyond proficient.
Note: This blog entry is a duplicate of the Advocacy Update on the OAGC website.
Advocacy Update: January 15, 2010 – Is this a Pre, Post, or Pre-Post Budget Meeting? – With the late adoption of the FY2010/FY2011 budget, the budget hole fix required this fall, and the upcoming big budget hole for FY2012/FY2013, it appears education advocates have entered a never-ending cycle of budget planning. So what could be seen as post budget implementation meetings now appears to be morphing into budget corrections and pre-budget planning meetings. At the end of the day, it is a distinction without a difference. For gifted advocates, especially gifted personnel who are feeling particularly vulnerable during this transitional period between funding systems, the next year of pre and post budget meetings is truly a critical time. Over the next few months, there are three or four different venues that are of particular importance for budget issues. Here is an overview of each and the decisions that each body is responsible to make that will impact gifted education:
Ohio School Funding Advisory Council – The Ohio School Funding Advisory Council (OSFAC) was created as part of House Bill 1 (HB1) and will meet at least twice a month through June to develop recommendations for the State Board of Education and the Ohio General Assembly on various aspects of the Ohio Evidenced Based Model of school funding. One of the areas that the council is required to review and report on by December 1, 2010 is the new gifted education funding formula. And, in fact, one of the sub-committees that Superintendent Deborah Delisle recommends the council establish is Special Needs. This subcommittee would review gifted education funding among other areas. However with no gifted expertise on the council, it will be interesting to see how the issue will be addressed. While HB1 allows for the council to bring in outside members to serve on sub-committees, the council will have to vote on whether or not they wish to bring in outside members with that expertise. This should happen at the next meeting on Tuesday, January 19th. If the council allows outside members, there is a good chance that someone from OAGC may be asked to be part of the Special Needs subcommittee. If not, then we will continue to advocate through testimony and direct contact with council members. OAGC has a new page on the website devoted to the work done by the Ohio School Funding Advisory Council. A new update will be posted after each meeting.
Gifted Education Advisory Council – The Ohio Department of Education (ODE) is convening a gifted advisory council to review department recommendations including:
- The development of administrative rules regarding the expenditure and reporting of gifted funds; and
- The development of a performance indicator reflecting the level of services provided to and the performance of gifted students by December 31, 2011.
While OAGC was invited to nominate two representatives to the council, it is unknown how many other individuals from the twenty other organizations will have any gifted background. No meetings have been announced, at this point. All information on the council will be available at a special area of the OAGC website. Interestingly, two of the organizations that represent the majority of districts in the state, the Ohio Coalition for the Equity and Adequacy of School Funding and the Ohio Alliance for Adequate School Funding were not invited to submit nominees to the advisory council.
School Funding Rule Development Stakeholder Group – Working parallel to the gifted advisory council, ODE will also be convening a stakeholder group on the HB1 spending and reporting requirements. The first draft of this rule is posted on the OAGC website. These rules will determine what elements of the school funding formula will be required by all districts and how the spending will be reported. This group is an important one to watch. OAGC has already indicated that they want to provide input as a stakeholder group, as the general spending and reporting rules are developed.
State Board of Education Budget Subcommittee – The State Board of Education is already beginning their work on the FY2012/FY2013 budget. As part of this process, the budget subcommittee is inviting education stakeholders to present each month. In January, representatives from the Buckeye Association of School Administrators (BASA) and the Ohio Educational Service Center Association (OESCA) presented to the subcommittee. In February, the Ohio School Boards Association (OSBA) and the Ohio Association of School Business Officials (OASBO) will present. And finally, in March, the Ohio Education Association (OEA) and the Ohio Federation of Teachers (OFT) has been asked to present. While still unofficial, it is likely that other stakeholder groups will also be asked to present their budget priorities. If true, OAGC representatives may be presenting budget priorities to the budget subcommittee in April.
The bottom line is that these are all important groups to monitor to ensure that the House Bill 1 gifted funding formula is implemented with integrity. Call it post budget work or pre budget work, if you prefer. It appears that the biennial budget work is no longer cyclical work for gifted advocates in Ohio.
In dealing with the social needs of my own children, some of whom are gifted in different areas, I had to conclude that even in my own district there are still gifted myths and stereotypes that are still prevalent and need to be broken. So I sat down and reflected on these myths. Here are some of my thoughts, after reading a chapter of Handbook of Giftedness by Steven Pfeiffer.
Myth 1: Gifted students are nerds. This may have been a myth brought on by the 1980’s movie Revenge of the Nerds, where people called nerds looked a certain way and seen as outcasts. Sometimes gifted students can feel like outcasts because they are so smart, and sometimes gifted students don’t always make friends easily so they may feel like an outcast themselves and to those around them. Sometimes students in a classroom feel intimidated by smart students so they begin to call them names and begin to disassociate themselves with gifted children.
I sat at my desk and began to wonder, “What are we teachers doing to stamp out this myth?” Teachers need to be more aware of name calling and profiling that is going on in the classroom. We need to be proactive and have safe classrooms where students can be themselves and feel good about being who they are. We also need to show that being gifted or smart is a great asset to have.
Myth 2: Being gifted means you can do and be anything you want. Sometimes gifted students feel like they can’t fail. They have this pressure on their shoulders that they have to be perfect at everything. They don’t want to hear, “You’re gifted, why can’t you do this?” from their peers, teachers, or family.
Sometimes gifted students hear that they can do anything they want, which in a sense, means they have to choose something and know about that topic all the time. Sometimes all these students need is a little direction and discussion about what they have passions for.
This myth can really devastate a gifted child. We teachers need to be open for students to struggle and to let them fail at times. It’s through failure that some of the world’s greatest minds have created some of the most powerful and useful inventions for mankind. For example, Thomas Edison tried several hundred times to create a successful light bulb. In failure after failure he learned what he would need to do make the right combination of gas and filament to make the light bulb work. It is the same way in our classroom. We need to let gifted students know that it is alright to fail and that failure isn’t a bad thing if you learn from your mistakes and keep going.
As teachers, we also help to illuminate the passions of our students. We need to be the compass in our students’ lives and show them where their strength and weaknesses will take them, and point them in the right direction. We need to let gifted students know the world is open for them, but they don’t have to tackle every issue the world has to offer. They need to see where their passions lie, and begin to work toward getting better in that area. It is alright to have knowledge about school work, but we need to show these students that the knowledge they possess will help them reach their goal.
Overall, we need to look at the social needs of gifted children in our classrooms. We need to know they are appreciated for the diversity they bring, the challenges they overcome, and for the ability to bring out a different view in a debate, or discussion. We need to be able to harness their giftedness and talents into a positive experience, and break the myths of giftedness.
Note: For more information gifted myths go to prominent myths relating to Gifted Education.
After a winter break, High Ability Blog is back in action. Actually, I find I never really have a break from high ability children. Even when I am technically not at a work, it seems I have a talent for running into situations that revolve around high ability kids. This winter break was no different as I encountered three unique high ability stories. The first situation was at a dinner party. A woman I have known casually for many years was telling me about her granddaughter who is three years old. I’ve met the older brother at other parties, and I helped work with the family to understand why he needed to be accelerated. (Before three, he was conducting experiments, which he explained to us in great deal using difficult vocabulary and big hand gestures.) With a little reluctance on the part of the parents, he was accelerated and is now fairly appropriately placed in a magnet school with a gifted program. Though I was well acquainted with the little boy, I hadn’t heard much about his little sister. All I knew was that she was, as described by a friend, “hell on tricycle wheels.” As Grandma explained to me, little sister doesn’t sleep. The parents have taken her to the doctor, childrens’ hospitals, and sleep clinics, but no one can figure out why this little girl is so active. A mutual friend who has a heavy special education background “diagnosed” her with as having “something that looks like ADHD but isn’t.” She had never seen anything like it.
At this point in the conversation, I just shook my head. Too bad, Grandma hadn’t talked to me a little sooner. I could have explained to her that her that while big brother is pretty gifted, little sis may be off the charts. I could have explained Dabrowski’s theory of overexcitabilities and directed the parents to a psychologist who was familiar with what that means. I could have referred the parents to the excellent book, Misdiagnosis and Dual of Diagnosis of Gifted Children and Adults. I will be emailing a list of reading materials to share with the parents. It won’t get their daughter to sleep, but at least they may have a better understanding of what makes her stay awake.
At another dinner, I learned about a young man who is twice exceptional. He has physical disabilities due to a rare childhood illness, but his mind is sharp. Sadly, his parents are having trouble getting the high school to accommodate his needs. The problem isn’t really about the fact that the teenage boy is disabled. It is that he needs to be in advanced classes, where apparently the teachers have never dealt with a kid with his needs before. The district would much prefer to put him in the school where other disabled students are, but this isn’t where he needs to be academically. I don’t have much advice for his parents as they seem to know how to advocate for their son. But it is clearly frustrating for them and him to continue to do battle all the time.
Finally, a high ability high note. At one last holiday gathering, I met a man who is edging close to thirty years old. This man was highly accelerated as a youngster and graduated from college at seventeen. For all of you parents out there worrying about radical acceleration, I have good news. He’s doing just fine. He has a great job, owns a home, and has a new girlfriend. In short, it appears he is happy and well-adjusted.
As I get back to my day job, I know I will be immersed in school funding implementation questions, gifted policy problems, and other macro level issues, but is always good for me to remember why it is I do this job. These close-up gifted encounters always renew my interest in state and national education policy. Because at the end of the day, macro level education decisions will have a huge impact on the micro level child. And that is why gifted advocates never really take a break.
Welcome to our newest contributor, Missy Bedell. Missy is the parent of at least one gifted child. The other one is busy being a toddler. She blogs about the daily joys and challenges of raising gifted children.
I’ve enjoyed and survived 7 holiday seasons as a parent. Holidays, while being a joy as a parent, can be particularly stressful for a parent of a gifted child. Gifted children feel emotions differently, experience activities more intensely, look at life more uniquely than other kids. Every holiday season spent with my Oldest daughter has had its share of emotional highs and lows. At my blog, Loving Your Gifted Child ), I’ve spent this month talking about the four “basics” for optimal holiday enjoyment for all – gifted children and their (sometimes) exhausted parents. Thanks to High Ability for allowing me to share a condensed version of them here.
Sleep
Good sleep is important for the kids. But it’s immensely important for the parent. While I’m a huge proponent of healthy sleep because children need it, I’m an even bigger proponent of healthy sleep because you’re a better parent when your children get enough. Here are some tips for decent sleep during the holidays:
- Stick to the sleep schedule as much as possible. Up to age 12, children should get 10-12 hours of sleep a night.
- If you deviate one day, try to make up for it the next.
- If you deviate from the sleep schedule for the whole holiday vacation, plan to have overtired, stressed kids and completely overtired, stressed parents by the end. That’s about it. It’s simple, really. I know that vacations and holidays need to be different just by their nature. Staying as close to the sleep schedule as possible, however, is paramount to having a halfway good time. Here’s what Marc Weissbluth, in Healthy Sleep Habits, Happy Child says about this:
Please don’t think that it has no lasting effect when you routinely keep your child up too late – for your own pleasure after work or because you want to avoid bedtime confrontations – or when you cut corners on naps in order to run errands or visit friends. Once in a while, for a special occasion or reason, it’s okay. But day-in, day-out sleep deprivation at night or for naps, as a matter of habit, could be very damaging to your child. Cumulative, chronic sleep losses, even of brief duration, may be harmful for learning.
(Healthy Sleep Habits, Happy Child pg. 62)
Nutrition
I think the most important way to enjoy the holidays from a nutritional standpoint is “everything in moderation.” It would be unnatural, and likely create conflict to try and limit all of the sugary goodness your children are exposed to during the holiday season. Try to be aware, however, what their triggers are. If food and drink with red dye, for example, send them into a level of hyperactivity that is unmanageable, then try to avoid it. Also recognize that healthy, well-balanced meals at regular intervals help everyone stay at a manageable emotional level as well. Skipping meals is not a good idea. Loading up on junk food only is also not your best choice. If you keep the moderation rule in play, your kids may not thank you for it now, but their better behavior will be thanks enough. Transitions Interestingly, I don’t find much on transitions in my gifted “go to” books. I first learned the word transition (I’d been experiencing its impact for years with Oldest, but had no name for it) from my oldest daughter’s first teacher. What she was saying didn’t really register until a couple of years later when someone mentioned the book Raising Your Spirited Child as a life saver to them. The book has an entire chapter devoted to transitions. According to author Mary Sheedy Kurcinka,
A transition is a change or passage, from one place, action, mood, topic or thing to another.
(Raising Your Spirited Child Pg. 13)
For us, no matter how large or small, transitions were a battle. And they were exhausting. Which is why transitioning into and out of school from a long break has always been painful for all of us. Less so now that my oldest daughter has grown and we know what we’re dealing with. We’ve been able to give her some coping mechanisms to minimize the challenges. Spirited Child lists the following suggestions to help your transitionally challenged child. These can be found, in depth, on pages 138-147 of Kurcinka’s book.
- Using Words
- Establish a Routine
- Allow Time. Kurcinka statess that “every five minutes spent in prevention saves you fifteen minutes of turmoil.” Page 140.
- Forewarning is Critical. This has been a lifesaver for us over the years. I use “5,3,1.” I tell her when she has 5 minutes, then 3 minutes, then 1 minute before leaving somewhere.
- Allow Time for Closure.
- Use Imagination.
- Limit the Number of Transitions. As in, don’t have a morning of too many errands.
- Help Them Deal with Disappointment.
- Working Together.
Holidays and transition aren’t easy for any of us, really. If you think of how much the holidays wear on you as an adult, is it any wonder our children fall apart one or multiple times throughout the “most wonderful time of year?” They are little people who haven’t had years to hone their coping skills, like we (hopefully) have. It’s up to us to help them and to remember to make good choices for them, not trying to do it all at the expense of their (and our) mental health. Routines Sticking close to a routine during the holidays is important. Just as important, however, is the transition from “laid back holiday routine” to “back to school routine.” During the holiday season, try to keep mealtimes, snack times, rest times and bedtimes as close to the norm as possible. Right now, with the two week break looming out long and blissfully unstructured in front of you, it may be tempting to switch everything up and just go with the flow of wherever time off takes you. Or you may be so overscheduled with holiday happenings, that you feel like you can’t keep up with the normal routine. To deviate from it significantly would do a disservice to both you and your gifted child(ren). All children, and especially gifted children, crave the structure, the knowledge of a routine. They like knowing what’s coming next. To take that away from them can sometimes spell disaster (it actually always spells disaster in our house). The closer you stick to the routine, the more easily you will transition everyone back to “normal” when back to school comes.
Finally, remind your children about the routine and what it means to get back into it as they holiday break comes to an end. You may not get back into the swing of things without a few bumps, but the more knowledge you arm your gifted person with, the more likely they are to handle the changes. They’re smart that way. 
References: Raising Your Spirited Child, Mary Sheedy Kurcinka, 1991, Harper Collins Publishers.
Healthy Sleep Habits, Happy Child, Marc Weissbluth, M.D., 1987, Ballantine Books.
Okay, so I admit it. I watch the Real Housewives shows. I am particularly fond of the Atlanta gals, though I understand most people prefer the New Jersey ladies. What do I like about the show? It’s all about the drama, darling. But last night I stood up my regular date with the housewives and opted for some real drama — the Ohio Senate Floor Show. Throughout the years, I have seen some amazing floor speeches in the Ohio General Assembly. But I just have to say, for sheer drama, the debate on HB318 (freezes taxes and saves school funding) was unparalleled.
References to country-western songs are not all that uncommon in a good floor speech. This is, after all, Ohio. But citations from The Simpsons, allusions to the Lord of the Rings (really, Governor Strickland cast as Frodo?), and quotes from everyone from Don Corleone of The Godfather to the seventies band Bachman Turner Overdrive are actually pretty rare. And, after last night, I believe I have now heard every possible synonom for a tidal wave.
As fun as it was, it was also a bit troubling. At least two of the senators took swipes at their own caucus leadership, and not one senator wanted to add their name to the title of this bill. Those of us who went through the hell that was the budget impasse of July, 2009 were hopeful that the highly contentious negotiation was an anomaly. After observing the HB318 process, I’m not so sure if this bill-making-as-a-grudge-match isn’t the (tidal) wave of the future.
If you just would like to see the bare bones of House Bill 318, go to the OAGC budget document section. If you want to see some real drama, head over to the www.ohiochannel.org and watch the archives of last night’s Ohio Senate budget debate — Ohio Senate Session Part 3. In particular, watch the floor speech of Senator Bill Seitz. Like most Statehouse observers, I can never figure out if Senator Seitz is crazy or brilliant. Maybe he is brilliantly crazy? Whatever. Watch his speech and you may dismiss the Real Housewives as a snore fest in comparison.
At Last: Proof that Middle School May Really be a Black Hole of Learning for High Ability Kids
We all suspected it. Some of us would have put money on it. And, at long last, we know that it is true: Middle school may be a black hole of learning for many high ability students — at least in math.
The shift from junior high schools to middle schools beginning twenty-some years ago was more than just a change in name. Based on the philosophy that raging pre-teen hormones prevent learning, the middle school philosophy frowned upon ability grouping. Parents of middle schoolers subjected to dioramas, collages and other art projects disguised as “hands-on learning” for any subject from social studies to math, have been frustrated by the middle school philosophy for years. And now, a new study in Massachusetts by Tom Loveless, confirms what we already knew. Middle schools that do little or no ability grouping (Loveless uses the term “tracking”) have fewer students performing at advanced levels and more students who fail. The study, “Tracking and Detracking: High Achievers in Massachusetts Middle Schools” is sponsored by the conservative-leaning think tank, Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and is the fourth in a series of studies on high achieving students in the No Child Left Behind era, including the excellent report, High Achieving Students in the Era of No Child Left Behind. For those of you familiar with the also excellent “Nation Deceived” research on acceleration, you may be interested to know that John Templeton Foundation also helped to sponsor this new investigation on high achieving learners.
The new findings are, quite frankly, not at all surprising:
- The use of ability grouping (tracking) in middle schools has decreased tremendously in the past twenty years.
- Middle schools serving only 7th and 8th graders (the old junior high model) are much more likely to track than the middle schools serving 5th – 8th or 6th – 8th graders (the more common middle school models).
- Detracking is much more prevalent in urban, high poverty districts — a critical point when considering the Race to the Top funding that will flow to these districts.
- Detracking adversely affects the performance of high ability students and increases the number of failing students.
Shocked? I’m not. When I first started advocated for gifted students back in the early 1990s, I consistently told policy makers that the lack of appropriate public school opportunities for gifted children hurt poor, urban students the most. In fact, before I wrote this post, I dug through some old files and pulled up an article that Colleen Grady (former State Board of Education member, former House representative, and blogger – www.stateofohioeducation.com) and I wrote a column for the Primer, A New Ohio Institute publication. Colleen and I wrote,
Without appropriate instructional adaptations, gifted children not only fail to achieve at expected levels, but in many cases fail to outperform non-gifted peers. Their achievement can regress to the mean and even below. Economically disadvantaged students or those students who reside in geographically isolated areas are particularly vulnerable…..
The Primer article was written ten years ago in 1999. We predicted then what would happen with the loss of opportunities for high ability students, including appropriate grouping. This was well before the insanity of the proficiency goals in No Child Left Behind. What is really interesting is that even the National Middle School Association (NMSA) and the Ohio Middle School Association (OMSA) agreed a few years ago that some ability grouping was a good thing. In fact, both the NMSA and OMSA issued joint statements with the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) and the Ohio Association for Gifted Children (OAGC). These position statements were written four years ago. The result? Not much. The percentage of middle schools that have detracked classes has doubled since 1991. Since 2005, there has been no slow down of detracking according to the new Loveless study.
I gave Arne Duncan a hard time a couple of weeks ago in my blog entry about Race to the Top (RttT) application and the lack of emphasis on top students. But it does appear that the Secretary of Education understands that the current goals under No Child Left Behind are lacking. In a recent interview in Education Week, Duncan acknowledged that schools are wrongly getting credit for kids coming in a year and a half ahead of peers and who leave with a half a year of learning. (Ed Week Online, “An Interview with Arne Duncan, Dec. 2, 2009)
Will the re-authorization of NCLB include much needed reform for higher achieving students — especially in the middle school black hole of learning? Or are we destined to ignore the research of Tom Loveless and once again embrace the low level goal of proficiency only? I think high achieving students, especially those in poor, urban schools deserve better than what they are getting now. Something has to change or these kids will fall further and further behind.
*As an interesting side note: Andy Benson was the editor of the Primer, which was published until sometime early this decade. Some of you may know Andy as the Director of Policy for Knowledgeworks – roughly the liberal equivalent to the Fordham Foundation.
Eric Calvert is a new contributor to the High Ability Blog. He is currently a doctoral student at Bowling Green State University. Eric is the former Assistant Director of Gifted Education in the Center for Exceptional Children at the Ohio Department of Education.
Just when you thought it was safe to tune out of state politics for awhile and enjoy the holidays, a reemerging hole in the state budget is once again putting schools (and gifted funding) at risk.
What went wrong? The biennium budget passed in July assumed the state would rake in hundreds of millions of dollars from lottery terminals to be installed at racetracks around the state. However, a legal challenge to the lottery terminal plan has the initiative in a state of limbo that is unlikely to change anytime soon, making it likely that the state won’t see a penny in lottery terminal revenue this fiscal year. By law, lottery funds must go to fund education, so any cut in these revenues affects the education budget. Adding yet another wrinkle is the recent passage of a constitutional amendment to allow the construction of full blown casinos in the state’s largest cities. The casinos would surely siphon off much of the business assumed for the track-based lottery terminals and, unlike the lottery terminals which would put revenues directly into state coffers, the bulk of the tax revenue for the casinos would flow to city and county governments instead of the state treasury.
Now, the state is facing a likely shortfall of around $850 million over the next two years, with the majority of impact felt in FY2012. Governor Strickland has proposed postponing the final round of income tax cuts passed during the Taft administration to make up for the lack of lottery revenue. However, with the GOP in control of the Senate, he needs Republican support for the plan, and the GOP caucus in the Senate is balking, wanting to maintain an anti-tax image heading into a Gubernatorial election year. The Republicans want the Governor to make concessions on construction rules changes that would hurt him with labor supporters before they will give him the votes he needs to pass the tax cut delay.
School officials around the state are nervous, because after December 31, the Governor and legislature can’t legally put off the planned tax cut, meaning that virtually all of the deficit would have to be addressed through spending cuts. Further, because virtually every state program was already cut to the bone in the July budget deal while education was largely protected, school funding would have to bear the brunt of any new round of cuts. Making matters worse, cuts in state funding for schools would also put Ohio out of the running for a $200-$400 million chunk of federal funding that is contingent on state “maintenance of effort” requirements.
For schools, this means potential cuts of 10%-15% in state support. (A table showing district-by-district cuts simulated by the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) is available here.) With that size of a cut, it is hard to imagine that gifted programs would not suffer (along with other talent development-oriented programs in the arts and extracurricular activities) and, with the lack of a state mandate for services and no federal match on the line, it is possible that state gifted funding would bear a disproportionate share of the cuts.
Therefore, before tuning out of school for a few weeks to focus on celebrating the holidays with family and friends, please take a minute to contact your representative in the Ohio Senate and in the Ohio House and tell them not to come home for Christmas until a budget fix is passed.
Yesterday, as I checked my email during a break in the OAGC Coordinator Division workshop, “Enhancing 21st Century Skills,” one item in my in-box stood out. The subject line of the daily Ed Week Update, ironically, was, “Motives of 21st-Century-Skills Group Questioned.”
Shady Motives Behind P21 Group?
The Partnership for 21st Century Skills (P21) has no small number of critics, many due to educational or political ideological differences. Apparently, there is a new set of critics who believe that technology companies are marketing 21st Century Skills as a way to push technology (i.e. spending on technology) in the classroom. Despite the concerns of critics, Ohio has recently become the 14th state to be accepted as a member of P21, run by Ken Kay, a former executive director for an information technology policy group.
Kay vs. Kim
As an interesting aside, the Ohio Department of Education also has an on-going relationship with creativity guru, Daniel Kim, who has been a steady presence at the Governor’s Institute for Creativity. A few weeks ago, Kim delivered what at least one attendee felt was a very anti-technology keynote at the recent Ohio School Boards Association conference. Apparently, Kim likened social media to the evil Borg from Star Trek. Considering Kim is still using an overhead projector to deliver his keynotes, I think his views should not be surprising to anyone.
What are the 21st Century Skills?
So what are these 21st century skills and what do they mean for high ability students? The first part of this question is easy. As outlined by the P21 group, 21st century skills generally include:
• Creativity and Innovation
• Critical Thinking and Problem Solving
• Communication and Collaboration
• Information Literacy
• Media Literacy
• ICT (Information, Communications and Technology) Literacy
• Flexibility and Adaptability
• Initiative and Self-Direction
• Social and Cross-Cultural Skills
• Productivity and Accountability
• Leadership and Responsibility
To gifted educators, the first few look pretty familiar, don’t they? Nevertheless, the second part of the question about how these skills relate to gifted students appears to be difficult to answer. As OAGC was putting on a workshp about 21st century skills and gifted students, I began to ask state and national level education experts about the relationship. The answers I received were largely the same: a blank look and ultimately a conclusion that gifted education already includes many of these 21st century skill building attributes. But does it really? I, for one, think we could badly use more “flexibility and adaptability” in the treatment of high ability students in most districts. And let’s assume most gifted professionals are already well-versed in teaching 21st century skills – especially the areas of “creativity and innovation” and “critical thinking and problem solving.” Why aren’t school districts clamoring for these gifted professionals to train others in the districts? It seems these days, that many districts instead are trying to find ways to eliminate gifted positions.
21st Century Questions
There does seem to be a void when it comes to defining 21st Century Skills for high ability students. So, I throw the following questions out there: What are the 21st century skills needed for gifted and high ability children? Are they any different than they are for other children? Are some more important than others? Also, who will win out in the Kay vs. Kim fight over Ohio education technology ideology? And finally, is it appropriate for a quasi-Luddite to use Star Trek references? What do you think?
