I have read the proposed revisions to the Reg's Governing Gifted Education, in their entirety, a few times now.  And I have read all of the posted comments here, as well as all the suggestions and talking points we have received from every conceivable group, board or professional organization with any stake in these matters, and I am left, quite frankly, shaking my head.  I shake my head at all the hours and resources spent to re-write what has not appeared to be broken, and that the result of this lengthy and probably expensive process, is so roundly, whole heartedly, unanimously and passionately disapproved!  There are the obvious problems, such as (1) burying the language  requiring that funds set aside for gifted ed actually be used for that purpose; (2) making an efficient 5-year planning process into an inefficient and continually wasteful annual planning process; and (3) taking approval of the plans for educating our very brightest from the hands of the trained, experienced and cross-referenced and putting them into the hands of politicians (school board members) who are not required to have any particular educational expertise before running for office and who are trying to please the largest group of their constituents while monitoring the fickle political winds of change.  These three things alone, I think, would kill gifted ed.  But then there are the not-so-obvious items that make these proposals seem quite onerous.  The time constraints on referring and identifying candidates for the gifted programs seem quite strict.  Certainly, our system in Chesterfield county does not stop what it is doing to test one or a few candidates at the time.  They collect them and test once a year.  Testing more often, with smaller groups, would greatly increase the cost of just getting the kids TO the program.  This overly restrictive standard would take away limited resources from the classrooms of the gifted programs.  Also, educators/administrators are always complaining about the time and expense of testing to show progress made by students.  All our students currently are tested by the state and the federal government to ensure minimum standards have been met and that educational advancement is continuing.  So, why, when gifted students have already been tested by far in excess of the norm just to get into the gifted program, would the state mandate MORE expensive testing to show they are progressing in the gifted program?  We parents can tell they are advancing by using much less expensive, though less sophisiticated methods, such as asking our kids what they are learning at school, talking to their teachers, or reading their report cards.  In the gifted program our 3 boys are in, they had to test in the top 3% of the nation to get in the program.  If the program provides advancing curriculum, appropriately differentiated, and the kids are still getting A's and B's on their report cards, why do we need expensive tests to show advancement?  It seems that these proposals take away the quality control and accountability of the DoE plan approval process and replace it with expensive testing at the local level to prove that their new "local plan" is actually doing something.  Well, what if the local plan is not doing anything for the educational advancement of the students?  By the time the new proposals would prove that with this new layer of expensive testing, the horse would be out of the barn.  Kids would have already missed out on at least a year of meaningful, advancing, appropriate education.  They would already be falling behind their peers who may have had better "local plans."  Let's leave things the way they are, stop shifting costs to the localities, who these reg's don't even clearly require to fund gifted ed, and support the unique educational needs of the gifted, so they are not left behind.  If the state government just has to make changes to reg's, then lets INCREASE the funding for gifted ed and increase the opportunities for differentiated instruction into the second grade, so we can reduce the "turn off" of the gifted kids in that grade.  All our boys turned off in second grade, and it was very difficult to keep them engaged.  They started to close over and not express their personalities as much and they were made to feel ashamed of their gifts by their "age group peers."  This type of experience, common throughout the state for gifted kids, is unacceptable.  ALL our kids deserve the best education possible.  Gifted kids are "special ed," too, and as such, have a right to a challenging and appropriate education.  I don't see the proposed changes ensuring our rights, I seem them burying our rights.  Gifted kids have potential that even we parents cannot possibly see at their young ages, but to deny them their right to an education that takes them as far as their imaginations, spirits and minds can take them, is to deprive the world of the benefits of their talents.  Maybe these proposals have some good clarifications in them, or maybe they make some good revisions to definitions of terms.  I do not see these few possibilites of good changes in these proposals as enough to override the overwhelmingly detrimental changes in these proposals, and as the detrimental changes are the lion's share of the proposals, I have to ask that you NOT support these changes to the Regulations Governing Educational Services for Gifted Students.

Thank you for the opportunity to express this tax-payers opinion on gifted education in Virginia.

Sincerely,

Linda H. Hevener