One such group is Boulder Gifted Parent Support: www.bouldergps.org

Most parents of gifted children don't like the word, "gifted" - due to the elitist and privileged perceptions it invokes, which you exemplify here. However it is a necessary evil because this is the term that is recognized formally at the federal level and throughout the system - so, unfortunately, being labeled as gifted is more likely to get the child the accommodations they should be able to get without the label. Since we don't get the services without the label, we must often label the kids in order to get the services.

"Special ed" is similar in that one must be labeled as this in order to receive a certain level of services. However, it implies that there are disadvantages associated with this condition, whereas "gifted" does not adequately convey this. Searching for a term or word that better conveys the issues that these children face has been long-standing quest in the gt community.

I agree. The steps are simple really and would benefit all students academically, socially and emotionally, assuming there is confidentiality and flexibility (of course, affordability is a consideration):
- assessment: Is a student achieving to their potential, and if not, why (cognitive, achievement and physical assessment). This will bring to light potential learning disabilities and identify peaks, valleys, learning styles.
- ability-grouping: putting students in classes that are at their level of achievement and pace (and ideally, learning-style.)

Why would you feel these parents should object to a photographer being there? We've had news crews at our school to cover various topics - parents and children often talk with them. Do you think that there should be shame or secrecy around kids with such issues?

And do you honestly think that all of these parents are all just sooo proud of their children for having innate and unearned abilities that are difficult to deal with? And that their child can get through school without learning how to work or put in effort? Being accepting and open about their children having such issues is not the same as being a braggart and self-superior. And, what if they are asses about it - so what? It may be annoying but it doesn't take away from the genuine need....Why does meeting one group's needs have to be to the detriment of another's? It doesn't. Maybe you should worry about your children meeting their potential and being happy, and let us worry about ours.

Yours are the ramblings of someone with an inferiority complex - it sounds like you would have us all go underground with our kids so that you can feel better about yourself...how selfish.

We are a household that is very low income with gifted and twice exceptional children. Our oldest is now in a charter which meets his needs fairly well (or at least much better than the neighborhood one did), and although we can't really afford the transportation costs and time that we spend in getting him there, it's less costly than having him remain in his neighborhood school while we try to meet these needs at home.

I do believe, from my experience, that it's usually the "squeaky wheel that gets the oil" in the system as it is now...and, I think that more people at a lower income level (where situations in which two parents are working or single-parent households are more likely) are less likely to be squeaky, which does lead to inequity in accommodations for those from higher income families versus the lower income families.

However, I feel that this systemic issue reinforces the need for ability-based grouping being put into place as a concrete practice. If it were to be consistently put into practice, then all of the kids in need of differentiated education would have their needs met, regardless of their economic level, and regardless of how "squeaky" they are. In this way I believe that such practices would actually all but eliminate elitism because services would be given to those who need them in a consistent and measurable way.

These kids often do need extra support and resources to have their needs met, just as those on the "other end" of the spectrum do, but receiving this support does not mean they'll have extra opportunities - it works towards giving them with the same opportunity that others have in receiving an adequate education.

It's important (IMO) that when talking about tracking, you realize that there are differences between the practices of ability-grouping and tracking (whether the district recognizes this is another question). Here's an article that summarizes the differences - it's older so some references may be dated, but the points still hold true: http://www.madisonunited.org/reality.htm

If ability-grouping were to be applied in it's true sense, rather than as a tool for tracking, I think it should ideally be done in all neighborhood schools for all students...a less-inclusive but somewhat effective alternative would be a "school within a school" scenario, as JEFFCO has (they bus their kids who qualify for this program to the gt school). However, if the schools aren't taking such measures, for whatever reasons, it isn't right to prevent those in need from accessing services that will help them to normalize their experience and progress at an adequate pace - and, ultimately, to fit in academically, socially and emotionally.

The gifted school did not go out of business because it was charging too much (though it was). It went out of business primarily due to mismanagement and, subsequently, needs not being met, so it's very doubtful these people want to recreate that.

Though I was not affiliated with the gifted school I know several people who went there and have a good understanding of what's going on, and I believe that they ideally want something very different than RMS - they want a place where their kids fit in and their needs are met, and where the business side of it is well-managed. And although some people who were involved in that school are involved in this charter, there are also a lot of people from public schools who are working on this and eager for this option.

Calling it a conversion from a private to public is the strongest thing the district could legally find as justification for turning it down, because "We are anti-charter, period." would not have been a good enough reason. Even calling it a conversion is a stretch and would likely have been overturned if the charter had appealed it.

Just reading this thread and felt the need to chime in...I don't think this school is excluding anyone, just making it clear that it can provide accommodations for a group that existing schools typically don't, or if they do it's very random and hard to tell which schools and teachers really meet their needs, because they all say they are meeting all needs for all kids, even when this can't possibly be the case.

A gifted charter can't decide who will attend, but it can make it clear that they have special services and let the parents decide if their child is a good fit. Of course it won't be a great fit for everyone, just as many neighborhood schools aren't now, but at least they will be up front about this.

You might look at Lafayette focus school for gifted. They can't exclude anyone either, but they supposedly do a good job of meeting needs for gifted because they put more resources toward that - so of course they advertise themselves as a gifted focus because they can meet their needs. They have higher ceilings but that doesn't mean they don't have classes for the average and special ed kids too, they have to by law. Just because a school is geared toward a particular group doesn't mean they exclude - in fact I think it's better that it includes everyone because this will give the chance for parents to self-identify their kids. Many gifted children are not formally identified as gifted because they don't test well or school personnel doesn't realize that they have a disability (2E) that prevents them from qualifying, so they wind up not receiving services. A school like this would be better equipped to recognize this need and to have the resources to accommodate the child regardless of whether they're formally identified or not.

Nobody hates the term gifted more than parents of gifted kids, as it often evokes attitudes similar to yours that reacts to it sounding like an elitist group, rather than depicting the special need that it is. However, since the federal gov't continues to use this term to identify and serve these gids, it's typically what everyone must use to identify the need and get adequate accommodations. If all the schools were really meeting all of the kids needs, there would be no need to label kids as gifted, or as special ed for that matter.

I believe it's more like saying that the Governor of Colorado shouldn't be a member of a federal committee whose purpose is to monitor and supervise his office. Board members are supposed to represent the people in their district..they have responsibilities that sometimes include voting for or against the interests of the superintendent or other bvsd employees, something that is likely a lot more difficult to do without hindrance when you work with or for the same people. And, even though one might be able to make such decisions without feeling a conflict, his or her decisions can still have the appearance of being influenced by his or her employment and that can create a problem.

Charters do not cost the district or tax payers any extra money.

Hi - just re-reading some of these comments and wanted to point out that a charter doesn't actually cost the district anything more than what they are already spending per pupil, which is 6K. Charters actually tend to have less overhead than public schools and contribute some of their funds to the district to pay for administrative fees because they are still considered to be part of the public schools.