As coordinator of the gifted program in Poquoson City Schools, I have several concerns with the proposed Regulations Governing Educational Services for Gifted Students.  Among my concerns are the following:

1. The repeal of the funding statement.  Even though the funding statement in the current regulations appears to be redundant to the Appropriations Act, it should also be included in the regulations specific to gifted education, where educators and parents can more easily find it, as it is in the proposed Special Education regulations.  What does it hurt to have it in both places?

2. The Local Plan.  The loss of the peer review process and state oversight of the local plan will likely result in even more discrepancy of gifted services across Virginia.  Administrators and parents will lose the “quality control” of an outside agency.  It is also not productive to develop a plan on an annual basis, whereas the five-year plan had annual objectives that set goals for deliberate change and a cohesive program.

3. Programs for students with specific academic aptitudes.  The proposed regulations state that “if the school division elects to identify students with specific academic aptitues, it shall include procedures for identification and service in, at a minimum, English, history and social science, mathematics, and science.” There are three problems with this.  First, the proposal does not state if all of these services must be available at the same time.  If we have a mathematics program that begins in grade 2, must we also have a social science program that begins in grade 2?  If so, we reach the second problem:  identification of a second grader in the area of social science. I don’t know of any viable tools to help with such identification.  And the third problem: it would be a huge strain on a small school division to offer programs in all four areas beginning in the early years.  Our school division has a very strong program in accellerated and enriched mathematics beginning in grade 2, but would be hard-pressed to add programs specific to the other disciplines at that grade.  We do have such programs in the later years, but the proposed regulations are not clear as to whether that is sufficient.  Must we eliminate a very successful program in one area because we can’t offer it in all?  Will we deny students services that we can offer, just because we can’t offer everything?

In summary, I support the recommendations of the Virginia Association for the Gifted on this forum on 6/23/08.  The changes they recommend meld the best of the proposed regulations with what is still good in the current regulations.  The wording they suggest is considered and is supported by many of the experts in gifted education across Virginia.