Virginia Regulatory Town Hall
Agency
Department of Education
 
Board
State Board of Education
 
chapter
Regulations Governing Educational Services for Gifted Students [8 VAC 20 ‑ 40]
Action Revision of regulations school divisions must meet in their gifted education programs, K - 12
Stage Proposed
Comment Period Ended on 9/26/2008
spacer
Previous Comment     Next Comment     Back to List of Comments
7/9/08  7:26 am
Commenter: Tim and Beth Laughlin, Parents of Gifted Students

Do Not Adopt Proposed Regulations
 

Under no circumstances should the "Proposed Revision of Gifted Program Regulations" be made.  Placing this control at the local level is detrimental to gifted students state-wide.  Local school board members DO NOT have the expertise in understanding the needs of gifted students.  School Boards are faced with a myriad of decisions in a very limited amount of time.  They do not have the time, in addition to addressing the other needs of the local schools, to provide constructive and productive feedback for gifted program plans.  Secondly, decisions made at the local level can become political in nature and often, very time consuming potentially damaging the educational needs of the gifted students.

 

On a state-wide level, there can be single authority with oversight and control along with the needed expertise to consistently address the needs of Virginia’s gifted students. 

 

The state funding for gifted needs should be used to support only those activities identified in the school division's gifted plan (as approved by the Board of Education).  The repeal of this will allow these funds to be used for any other purpose.  Gifted Education is already under funded as evidenced by the lack of gifted resource instructors in our county.  Please do not allow the underlined wording above to be repealed.  This will set back the quality of our Gifted Education program just as we are starting to see small improvements (new advanced class offerings at the Middle and High School levels).

 

Please vote NO to these proposed revisions! 

CommentID: 1835