Hebron Dollars & Sense

Despite what was stated at the Press Conference Thursday night, there is specific state statute regarding identification of "gifted and talented" students under the Special Education statutes. A member of the audience kept questioning "WHY" not one child was identified at Gilead Hill Elememtary as gifted and talented. If you were at the "press" conference the other night, most parents walked away at the end of the evening with the impression that they were NOT required to test for 'gifted and talented' students and none were identified. Apparently, special ed students INCLUDE the gifted and talented. This is a direct quote from the link on the bottom:

What is the Law? The identification of gifted and talented children is required under Connecticut special education law. Connecticut General Statutes (CGS) Section 10-76d(a)(1) states "...each local or regional board of education shall provide the professional services requisite to the identification of school-age children requiring special education, identify each such child within its jurisdiction, determine the eligibility of such children for special education pursuant to sections 10-76a to 10-76h, inclusive, prescribe suitable educational programs for eligible children, maintain a record thereof and make such reports as the commissioner may require...

Click here to link to the rules ... Parents remember YOU are the best advocate for your child.

It seems the folks directing the press conference might have been answering a different question, as they in fact do have current students who have been identified as gifted and talented (though these students might be graduating this year). Given the turnover in the special education director's office, it wouldn't surprise me if they haven't identified close to the right number of students - the official guidance from the state dept of education is that 5% of students should be identified. With the class sizes at HES, it would seem that there should be on average at least one student per classroom. My sources tell me there hardly seems to be close to that number.

The law requires identification- but does not yet require that these students receive any special services. Nevertheless, there is nothing that prevents these students from qualifying for special education services, and an IEP, that they might otherwise qualify for as a result of other needs. Gifted students at these tender young ages can feel isolated, or bored, etc. and they learn quickly that they can get attention by acting out of line. In today's world, it would not be difficult for a motivated parent to get their child's pediatrician to sign off that the student needs would be best served with special attention. It is definitely cheaper for the school district to provide an minimal service IEP than to deal with the paperwork mountain of an assessment and/or appeal process - something every student has the right to ask for.

If parents of the C&E students decide they wanted to fight the school board's potential decision to cut C&E (which is on the chopping block), they need to let the board know of the consquences - it can easily cost the school more in the long run.

Another thing the board should know is that if they harm these students - by eliminating this program - the parents can rather easily complain to the state dept. of education, notifying them that the local BOE is not following state law by not properly identifying students as gifted and talented, and THEREFORE the local BOE would be at risk of losing its state educational funding. The BOE may say that it has a policy and a process - but it is clearly not following their policy based on empirical data - so it can be argued that it has none. It's is not enough to say you have a plan, you actually have to follow it.

The question is whether or not the BOE and superintendent want to be involved with yet another dispute that will only make the lawyers happy.

If the C&E position is eliminated, there will be, to my knowledge, nobody on staff qualifed to handle the evaluation and identification process (although the Supt herself might have the qualifications as a former special ed director - she may have to be excused with a conflict of interest). If parents of these students request - the school will be required to pay for outside experts in this field to assist with the assessment/identification/appeal process.

Even if a child has already been identified, there is nothing that could prevent parents from requesting a re-identification each year. This demonstrates the C&E program is cost effective, and more important, it is the right thing to do for these students.

auntie, Thank you for the excellent synopsis of the information.

If I understand correctly, Hebron Elementary has gifted children identified but Gilead Hill does not. This might be part of the reason for confusion. It would be of great value to identify the gifted children at Gilead Hill at the 5% recommended level. There are indeed some smart, bored children getting their education there.

I think it is also important for the parents of these children to better understand the Administration's proposal for how to infuse C&E at Gilead Hill without a specific resource for this. One idea is that the "Cluster" program will be used as a way to get C&E to all the children. My opinion is that this is misguided. My experience with "Clusters" is that when you invite ALL the children to participate for Enrichment, you immediately remove the Challenge. Many well meaning parents have volunteered for clusters with the intent of challenging the students, only to find that the mix of ability levels requires simplification of the lessons. Hopefully if this is one of the selected solutions for getting C&E to the children it will be done very thoughtfully.

I encourage parents to ask for the specific details of how to provide C&E without a resource and make sure the administration clarifies when it is enriching and when it is challenging and how it intends to do both.