As these are lengthy correspondences, we excerpt for you sections from the letters on two issues that we raised. The following are but two examples of how the board “responds” without addressing the substance of the issue raised. Over and over again, they are not providing direct and meaningful answers to the issues.
ISSUE 1 - NOTIFICATION
PAGE letter 10/23/07 to Board:
We request that the Board immediately instruct the enrichment coordinators in each of the schools to contact the parents in their schools whose children have been identified as eligible for enrichment. We ask that such notification include the basis for the identification and the educational opportunities that the child will be offered.
Board letter 11/27/08 to PAGE:
If parents are uncertain as to whether or not their child has been identified, they may request that information from the classroom teacher, enrichment teacher, or school principal.
…
There have been many parent questions and requests related to their individual’s child “designation” and this leads me to believe that we should improve how and what we communicate. I will tell you that this needs to be done carefully and sensitively because the more transparent we become the more conflict it may create among other parents. That being said we will examine closely our current practices of notifying parents about our program, their child’s designation, and make improvements as administrators, educators, and parents may recommend.
PAGE letter 12/17/07 to Board:
Are parents notified of the criteria that their children are identified as having fulfilled or not fulfilled?
Board letter 1/28 to PAGE:
If these are unanswered questions, I would direct you to either Dr. Katz, the enrichment teacher at the school involved, or the school Principal. We acknowledge the need to improve our communications to parents in this area.
Board Public Statement 4/28/08:
The district has acknowledged the need to communicate better with parents on this issue, particularly those identified as gifted and talented. The timing and nature of the communication will be determined.
Five months later, we still wait for the most basic letter saying “Your child has been identified.” Why won’t they convey this most BASIC information to parents?
ISSUE 2 – IDENTIFICATION OF STUDENTS
PAGE letter 12/17/08 to Board:
N.J.A.C. 6A:8-3.1 defines the gifted and talented student as “[t]hose students who possess or demonstrate high levels of ability, in one or more content areas, when compared to their chronological peers . . . “ (emphasis added) The Quad District Enrichment Philosophy and the DRAFT Regulation No. 2464 state that the Enrichment Specialists have “established unified criteria with which to identify students who demonstrate academic excellence.” The difference between these statements is beyond the semantic. As we have explained previously, an enrichment program is different than a gifted program. Our current enrichment program is aimed at those children who “demonstrate academic excellence” whereas the goal of the state policy for gifted and talented children is to reach those children who “possess” the ability to go beyond their peers academically, whether or not they are currently achieving in accordance with their ability. This is the requirement that our new policy and program must meet.
Board letter 1/28/08 to PAGE:
In this paragraph you disagree with the wording in our proposed regulation which refers to “…students who demonstrate academic excellence” as opposed to state code which refers to “students who possess or demonstrate high levels of ability.” The code does refer to “demonstrating high levels of ability;” we would contend that in order to know that a student demonstrates high ability, we must rely on (as required by code) multiple sources of information to make that determination. This would include, but not be limited to, teacher recommendation, class work, and other sources of information that could likely be classified as academic excellence.
In this exchange, the board completely chose to miss the point: we were not disputing that the law focuses on those with high ability. We were bringing to their attention that our enrichment program is missing an entire group of students that the law requires to be identified – those who possess (but do not necessarily demonstrate) high levels of academic ability. The inclusion of the word “possess” in the law was not accidental and shows the clear intent of the State of New Jersey to capture these particular children.
The board’s response fails to understand the issue and the distinction between finding students in need of an enrichment program and gifted students.
