|
|
Post by warriordiva on Feb 7, 2009 1:12:03 GMT -6
I just want to throw this out there - there were a lot of rumors about changes to the PA program at the middle school level. Administrators were asked point blank and they denied any changes of any kind. Now a middle school principal has said yes there will be major changes to this program in the fall.
The biggest change will involve the removal of the PA team - the kids will be integrated into the other teams. There will be no PA program as it exists today. There has been no reason given for this change although many have inferred that Dr. D feels the money would be better spent to help the kids who are having trouble on the tests that affect our NCLB status.
Why would the administration flat out lie about this? It's like the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing (I know shocking!) And those of you with kids on the PA teams - how do you feel about these changes. I would strongly suggest if you have concerns about these changes - you contact your school principal, Dr. John Rhodes john_rhodes@ipsd.org, Dr. D and the IPPC council.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Feb 7, 2009 6:14:08 GMT -6
I just want to throw this out there - there were a lot of rumors about changes to the PA program at the middle school level. Administrators were asked point blank and they denied any changes of any kind. Now a middle school principal has said yes there will be major changes to this program in the fall. The biggest change will involve the removal of the PA team - the kids will be integrated into the other teams. There will be no PA program as it exists today. There has been no reason given for this change although many have inferred that Dr. D feels the money would be better spent to help the kids who are having trouble on the tests that affect our NCLB status. Why would the administration flat out lie about this? It's like the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing (I know shocking!) And those of you with kids on the PA teams - how do you feel about these changes. I would strongly suggest if you have concerns about these changes - you contact your school principal, Dr. John Rhodes john_rhodes@ipsd.org, Dr. D and the IPPC council. <There has been no reason given for this change although many have inferred that Dr. D feels the money would be better spent to help the kids who are having trouble on the tests that affect our NCLB status. < if this is correct ( I'll see what I can find out ) - it would only once again likely increase the already huge dropoff in 204 from the ISAT 'exceeds' category from 3rd to 8th grade. I had heard they were actually looking at addressing this -- let's hope this is not the action. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Feb 7, 2009 6:54:39 GMT -6
I don't quite follow (or even grasp) the logic stated...
Is this like trying to make your 1984 Buick Skyhawk appear better by not parking it next to a 2008 Mercedes?
I can (objectively) understand if there is a budget/resources issue; but that would imply we really have a HUGE issue in that department if this is really the action plan... Otherwise, just offer more assistance to the struggling kids with the lower scores...
Is 204 that bad off financially that it has to be mutually exclusive? (If this is indeed true)
|
|
|
|
Post by rew on Feb 7, 2009 9:15:00 GMT -6
I have a MSer in PA and I was told by a counselor that the program is going to "be diluted" significantly next year.
I got the impression that the large MSs created large PA programs that easily translated into dedicated resources for PA. For instance, if you have 100 PAers in sixth grade you can form a team and pay certified gifted teachers to instruct etc.
But what happens when a downsized MS has 55 PAers...it becomes more cost effective to absorb them into a regular team, and have some enriched core classes, taught by the regular staff.
This is my understanding of the direction the district was going. It is my interpretation.
I wonder if this is part of the push to create a PA PTA, which is in the works?
|
|
|
|
Post by steckdad on Feb 7, 2009 11:23:07 GMT -6
I just want to throw this out there - there were a lot of rumors about changes to the PA program at the middle school level. Administrators were asked point blank and they denied any changes of any kind. Now a middle school principal has said yes there will be major changes to this program in the fall. The biggest change will involve the removal of the PA team - the kids will be integrated into the other teams. There will be no PA program as it exists today. There has been no reason given for this change although many have inferred that Dr. D feels the money would be better spent to help the kids who are having trouble on the tests that affect our NCLB status. Why would the administration flat out lie about this? It's like the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing (I know shocking!) And those of you with kids on the PA teams - how do you feel about these changes. I would strongly suggest if you have concerns about these changes - you contact your school principal, Dr. John Rhodes john_rhodes@ipsd.org, Dr. D and the IPPC council. sorry..what is pA? |
|
|
|
Post by refbasics on Feb 7, 2009 11:25:17 GMT -6
I have a MSer in PA and I was told by a counselor that the program is going to "be diluted" significantly next year. I got the impression that the large MSs created large PA programs that easily translated into dedicated resources for PA. For instance, if you have 100 PAers in sixth grade you can form a team and pay certified gifted teachers to instruct etc. But what happens when a downsized MS has 55 PAers...it becomes more cost effective to absorb them into a regular team, and have some enriched core classes, taught by the regular staff. This is my understanding of the direction the district was going. It is my interpretation. I wonder if this is part of the push to create a PA PTA, which is in the works? -------------------------- The bit of info i can add is: my current 11th grader was in the scullen PA 6th grade program in 2003 which had about 30 students(the school was not as big as now, tho) this year, 6th grade PA has about 87 students(i counted from the school directory).. i was very surprised at this number... the school is not 3 x as big as 2003!i had heard a rumor last year at the elementary school that PA standards had been lowered to increase the number of PA students.. to be more 'inclusive'- whatever that means.. so i think that has been going on already.. i don't know for how long since my current 6th grader is not in PA( he is in PA math- they are NOT ncluded on the PA team)... so i'm not tapped in to what's going on in PA now. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Feb 7, 2009 12:35:32 GMT -6
Project Arrow (aka 'gifted program') |
|
|
|
Post by rew on Feb 7, 2009 12:47:36 GMT -6
I agree that the PA program was expanded. I think this was because parents complained that the PA group was too small and therefore socially confining, so people were hesitating to participate.
In 2005 (I think) they allowed kids in PA that did not go into PA math, and I think, this was to allow more girls in (sorry if that seems sexist). Girls were opting out of PA because they didn't want to be on a team of 35 with 30 being boys. But I think it was 2007 when they really increased the participation.
So yes I agree that PA was redefined in the last few years to let more kids participate.
|
|
|
|
Post by refbasics on Feb 7, 2009 13:05:03 GMT -6
I agree that the PA program was expanded. I think this was because parents complained that the PA group was too small and therefore socially confining, so people were hesitating to participate. In 2005 (I think) they allowed kids in PA that did not go into PA math, and I think, this was to allow more girls in (sorry if that seems sexist). Girls were opting out of PA because they didn't want to be on a team of 35 with 30 being boys. But I think it was 2007 when they really increased the participation. So yes I agree that PA was redefined in the last few years to let more kids participate. -------------------- just to make the above more clear.. as PA was back in 2000, and on.. in elementary, the student was pulled out of classes for a PA class in a separate room for enriched studies, strategy games(chess, etc), and personal projects- all in addition to the regular schoolwork. in MS, PA students' core classes are PA english(reading, grammar), social studies & science- heavy emphasis on extra reading and writing. The PA students had all the other classes with the rest of their grade- gym, lunch, exploratory classes(FACS, art, band, etc) you could also be a PA math student which meant your 6th grade Math was an 8th grade level Math class(2 years ahead). back in 2003 at scullen, about half the PA class was girls...not a lot of students were PA & PA Math... some students were just PA math(but the student is not on the PA team: the '-4' team) i would guess because the team tries to integrate the english, science & social studies. |
|
|
|
Post by steckmom on Feb 7, 2009 13:22:15 GMT -6
I have heard that changes to the program are because of the changes to the middle school curriculum. Something to do with periods for different grades overlapping and PA teachers not being able to teach classes to two PA grades at once. My impression also was that it has not yet been decided, but is being looked at.
IMHO, as long as the PA curriculum itself is the same, I don't mind the integration. I can see benefits both ways.
I do mind not having PA specific teachers though. I don't think every teacher understands the concept of PA and why (and how) it is beneficial for some kids.
ETA: Just wanted to add that it sounds like changes will be made no matter what, but what those changes are exactly is not set in stone.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Feb 7, 2009 15:04:03 GMT -6
I agree that the PA program was expanded. I think this was because parents complained that the PA group was too small and therefore socially confining, so people were hesitating to participate. In 2005 (I think) they allowed kids in PA that did not go into PA math, and I think, this was to allow more girls in (sorry if that seems sexist). Girls were opting out of PA because they didn't want to be on a team of 35 with 30 being boys. But I think it was 2007 when they really increased the participation. So yes I agree that PA was redefined in the last few years to let more kids participate. I have a concern over this direction. We are watering down programs hoping to make it look like we have more kids in the 'exceeds'category than we do but when the test scores come out it shows the opposite. When my daughter was in PA it was the top 2% of the test scores - period. Top 1% to get let in in 1st grade. This is like letting sooo many kids in college level courses in HS and then < 30% pass the CLEP exam every year. It seems like smoke and mirrors to some extent. If this is an effort to properly identify things I would actually be for it -- the trouble is as usual the communications is horrific and the only 'word' on it comes from rumors and 2nd-3rd hand from teachers comments. What does our PR guy do again ? |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Feb 7, 2009 15:16:14 GMT -6
What does our PR guy do again ? Business development... Heard a lot about that lately too... mostly in the form of 'change orders'.  |
|
|
|
Post by researching on Feb 7, 2009 15:29:01 GMT -6
I agree that the PA program was expanded. I think this was because parents complained that the PA group was too small and therefore socially confining, so people were hesitating to participate. In 2005 (I think) they allowed kids in PA that did not go into PA math, and I think, this was to allow more girls in (sorry if that seems sexist). Girls were opting out of PA because they didn't want to be on a team of 35 with 30 being boys. But I think it was 2007 when they really increased the participation. So yes I agree that PA was redefined in the last few years to let more kids participate. I have a concern over this direction. We are watering down programs hoping to make it look like we have more kids in the 'exceeds'category than we do but when the test scores come out it shows the opposite. When my daughter was in PA it was the top 2% of the test scores - period. Top 1% to get let in in 1st grade. This is like letting sooo many kids in college level courses in HS and then < 30% pass the CLEP exam every year. It seems like smoke and mirrors to some extent. If this is an effort to properly identify things I would actually be for it -- the trouble is as usual the communications is horrific and the only 'word' on it comes from rumors and 2nd-3rd hand from teachers comments. What does our PR guy do again ? Is ANYTHING authentic in this district? I am serious. It seems to ALL be a political game of smoke and mirrors with the kids being used as the game pieces. If the numbers are manipulated by professionals to obtain a desired result they are still FAKE. |
|
|
|
Post by PA PTA Former on Feb 7, 2009 16:55:53 GMT -6
I encourage all interested parties in the Project Arrow Gifted (PAG) program in IPSD 204 to attend the chartering meeting of a PAG PTA/PTSA on Thursday 2/12/09 at the Crouse Center, 2nd floor starting at 7 pm. Officers will be nominated, elected and a bylaws committee formed. For more info, check the right colum on the main IPSD website: ipsdweb.ipsd.org/Click the title "Project Arrow Charter Meeting" One of the goals of the PTA should be work with the administration, teachers & parents to help build and improve the programs for gifted children and help ensure each child's adequate yearly progress (AYP). Of course, working to improve communications on the PA program would help as well! |
|
|
|
Post by macy on Feb 7, 2009 19:19:42 GMT -6
Project Arrow Charter Meeting
Reported by donnamom2seven@sbcglobal.net on 1/23/09
The Project Arrow Parent Organization (PAPO) has been a keen advocate for gifted and talented students in District 204 for over a decade. Today, PAPO leaders recommend evolving into a Parent-Teacher Association (PTA) to gain organizational advantages, including the opportunity to have a voice in the Indian Prairie Parents' Council (IPPC). IPPC and its 32 unit members meet monthly with district administrators to share information about issues affecting the education, health, and welfare of children and youth in District 204.
Please join us as we consider the creation of the Indian Prairie Project Arrow PTA, enroll members, and hold officer elections during the Indian Prairie Project Arrow PTA Charter Meeting on February 12, 2009 at 7:00 pm in the Crouse Education Center, Boardrooms B5-B7. The Crouse Education Center is located at 780 Shoreline Drive, Aurora, IL 60504.
As a PA PTA, our goals will be to:
•Work with the school district to provide the best educational experience for gifted and talented children and help them reach their full potential.
•Provide a local community support group for parents, guardians, families and educators of gifted and talented children
•Inform legislators, school board members, educators, and the community about the unique challenges of giftedness and the importance of gifted programming
•Be a resource of information on gifted services and community programs
Membership is open to anyone interested in the education of gifted and talented students in District 204. If you are interested in running for an office, officer descriptions are attached. If you have any questions, please contact Donna Manley-Essenfeld, IPPC Membership Chairperson, 630.983.6185, donnamom2seven@sbcglobal.net.
We look forward to seeing you on February 12.
Event Starts: 2/12/09 07:00 PM
Event Ends: 2/12/09 08:00 PM
Crouse Education Center
780 Shoreline Drive
Aurora, IL 60504
View Map To This Location
|
|
