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
9/24/08  9:50 am
Commenter: Kerst ter Weele

NO!!
 

I am quite alarmed by what I understand the proposed 8VAC20-40, “Regulations Governing Educational Services for Gifted Students,” would do.   I am asking the Commonwealth NOT to enact the regulatoy proposal.

In particular, our wonderful neighbors who are excel in the emotional camaraderie of getting elected to serve on School Boards do not always take a pre-test on how particular budgetary or technical educational issues work.   In fact, there ain’t no tests beyond getting elected.

Now, many of these good neighbors do have lots to offer by sitting on the local school board.  But let’s also admit that when issues get technical, deeply time-consuming, multifaceted and rather demanding, few of these wonderful neighbors have the extra time and effort, since they do have other lives.  Nor do they tend to have PhDs in comparative educational practices to help them understand why some gifted children have some specialized needs.  Where school boards do well are when issues are more general in nature and when the experience is most like what they know.  Again, school boards do well when say, comparing more general needs, like whether the schools upgrade the local sports facilities versus improving the school bus depot.

 
Having the local plans regarding the services for gifted students go to Richmond to be reviewed by educational specialists is a strong plus for the Commonwealth’s education.  First, it helps standardize gifted services across the state.  Second, the educational specialists at the state level can and do provide specialized feedback to localities.  Third, the state review helps protect a small group, where the local general view may leave their needs unattended.
 
The heart of the matter is whether a Ph D in education is meaningful.  If one were to believe that getting a Ph D in education is NOT meaningful, then local reviews by whoever is available on the school board could seem just fine.  However, I do believe getting a Ph D in education is meaningful.  I believe having a review from Richmond by an educational specialist with a deeper understanding of the variable and diverse issues in dealing with gifted children is NECESSARY and MUCH BETTER than somebody local who say, is practicing politics or who is pressed by time or who is just too uninformed trying to uphold a specialized, technical review without looking foolish.  Hence, the real issue becomes what review system best protects the interests of the gifted child.  I believe that local plans reviewed by specialists in Richmond will do a better job than the proposal to leave plans to the generalist view of the local political landscape.
 
More simply: PLEASE DO NOT REVISE the Virginia code as currently proposed.  Please continue to require that local gifted plans be reviewed by educational specialists in Richmond with a 5 year cycle.  Please continue to earmark funds from Richmond that support these particular plans, so that our localities understand where the funding needs to be delivered.  
 
Please share, post etc. my comments with whichever concerned parties you deem could help provide better regulatory oversight and coordination.  Thank you.
CommentID: 2463