Upper Saddle River

Parents Advocating for Gifted Education

The Upper Saddle River School District is a K-8 school district in Bergen County, NJ.

PAGE’S RESPONSE TO THE BOARD'S APRIL 28, 2008

“PUBLIC STATEMENT GIFTED AND TALENTED"

Please click here to read the Board's statement first.    

On April 28, 2008, the Board posted a statement on the district website that oversimplifies the issues we have raised regarding gifted and talented education. It was not until PAGE went to the Board in October 2007 that action was taken to revise the policy on gifted and talented education to comply with laws that went into effect over 2 years prior.  Their excuse:  the entire policy manual was outdated and needed to be reviewed.  We do not believe such an excuse is acceptable when it comes to the education of our children.

The Board has offered nothing to substantiate their claim that “the district program is fully compliant.”  Letter after letter we have pointed to shortcomings in their identification process and program, as substantiated by reams of articles written by experts in the field of gifted education and examples of gifted students’ frustration with the current program, which we provided to them.   

We wrote letters.  We met with the curriculum coordinator of the Quad-District to explain why many gifted children were not being identified by the existing criteria.  We provided the Board and administration examples of identification matrices and written programs used by other New Jersey districts .  We provided them with the identification criteria from a leading research institute on gifted education.  

We have never had the goal or intent of wasting anyone’s time – our goal and activities have been aimed at providing information and improving our program.  We do not feel this was a waste of our time or theirs.  

The Board writes that “[t]he State does not define who qualifies as gifted.”  This is a gross misstatement of fact.  The State of New Jersey does, in fact, define gifted students as those who “ possess or demonstrate high academic ability when compared to their chronological peers and whose educational programs must be modified if they are to succeed in accordance with their abilities.” 

In order to identify these gifted children, the board chose to use existing criteria developed by the Quad District to find children for an enrichment program who “demonstrate academic excellence.”  High performing children may or may not be gifted.  The gifted are a group of children who possess certain specific characteristics and learning needs, many of which are distinct from even a very bright and hardworking child who does well in school.

As a result, use of these criteria fall short of the state requirements, as they only find the high performing child (i.e., who “demonstrates”) and not the child who “possesses” high academic ability (thus recognizing the gifted underachiever and the gifted with special needs) as is also required by state law.  Were we wasting the Board’s time when we raised with them that entire groups of children were being overlooked?

Moreover, even if the identification criteria were correct (they are now being reviewed), the numbers cited in the board’s April 28^th statement show their failure to fulfill their own program guidelines: The Regional Enrichment Philosophy calls for the identification of 3-5% of the population as gifted.  While we argue that this number is ridiculously out of date[1] and inappropriate given the current definition of giftedness (there is no percentage goal or limitation in the law), the district is not even meeting these overly conservative numbers. 

The 13 students currently identified in Bogert are less than 3% of the student body.  And if the differentiated model works, one must ask why the enrichment specialist is “assist[ing] with the learning of over 80 able students.”  Is she there to work with the gifted students, as befits a gifted education program tailored to the distinct needs of that group, or to work with over 17% of the student body, which is appropriate in the context of an enrichment program designed for the general student body?  You cannot have it both ways, the program is either one or the other.

 Furthermore, the need for an enrichment specialist makes it apparent that the classroom teacher CANNOT reach all students adequately.  If this is true of the 17% of the “able” students, what does this mean for the gifted students who, according to state law, require special modifications to the curriculum?

We do not take issue with the Board’s position that a differentiated curriculum model  is one way to address some of the needs of the gifted students.  But the State Department of Education calls for the district to modify the process, content, product and learning environment for gifted children.  Differentiation, as currently in practice, within the classroom, as currently comprised, does not meet all these requirements.  In addition, the Core Curriculum Standards in New Jersey state that the needs of gifted learners can be addressed by curriculum compacting, acceleration, ability grouping and clustering.  Why is our district repeatedly refusing to implement any of these other methodologies, especially since they would not require extra funding? Clearly, their idea of “compliant” reflects a “good enough” philosophy which falls far short of our district’s presumed standard of excellence.

PAGE has also provided information for free training on gifted education to our board and administrators.  The district has repeatedly ignored this information. Instead, they cite names of people who have trained our staff on the differentiated education model, yet they refuse to state whether or when our teacher were specifically trained in the identification or teaching of gifted students.

We at PAGE agree that our Board members are “very busy with issues of incredible relevance to their roles.”  But when they decided to run for a position on the school Board and took their oath of office, they agreed to abide by a code of ethics which requires them to “uphold and enforce all laws, … and regulations … pertaining to schools” and to “strive for public schools which can meet the individual needs of children regardless of their ability.”  PAGE asked the Board not to undertake changing our program, but to direct those responsible in our administration to do so.  Their failure to direct the administration in our schools to effectively address the needs of the gifted students is what has forced PAGE to come back to them, Board meeting after Board meeting and letter after letter.  We are here to advocate for the gifted child.  We are dedicated volunteers for the children as well.