Regarding “Board approves budget, hears concerns” on Sunday, June 23, I would like to clarify Superintendent Winfred Roberson’s erroneous implication reported in Sunday’s Enterprise concerning “appropriate classroom placement for high-achieving students,” seemingly referring to students in the AIM/gifted self-contained classes as these high-achievers. While it is true that many gifted people are high-achieving, it is equally true that many gifted people are not. In my experience during my 20-plus years teaching gifted students, I could count on roughly one student in five as being either under-achieving or non-producing!
The superintendent did imply later that the District should “advocate for high achievers as well as students who are not reaching their full potential,” but the words were unclear as to whether or not he considered the latter students to be part of AIM/gifted.
I would also like to clarify further that the lady who should still be the GATE Coordinator, Ms. Quinn, has always advocated for all students, whether in the program or not, gifted or not.