Reflection #6

OK, since this is a blog, let me voice my displeasure. This is round 2 for this post. After about an hour or two, I went to post my final product and received an error message and then lost all of my work. So, now I am frustrated, so this might be a little shorter than my other post. The big thing about the first part of the blog was the fact that counselors do a lot. I am pretty sure that I have discussed that premise before in the discussion boards, but the more and more I read, I realize that they are the work horses of the school. The text from this week discusses 8 major responsibilities of a certified counselor. These responsibilities are broken down and classified in domains. Most of the domains are focused around the students. In fact, 6 of the 8 domains (Program Management, Guidance, Counseling, Consultation, Coordination, and Student Assessment)are geared to providing the students with the best possible resources, environment, and guidance to assist the students in reaching their maximum potential. The other two domains deal with the counselors improving their competence and the cohesiveness of the school's faculty. The counselors really work with everyone. Sometimes they work with the students one-on-one. Sometimes they will work with parents and the community in order to improve the student experience. Sometimes they work directly with various staff members. It really is eye opening considering that what the media shows counselors doing all the time is only one part of one domain (Counseling Domain).
As a school administrator (this is going to sound chessy and over eager) I would love to have my hand in the entire process. Obviously, it would depend on my position as to how much I would actually be involved, but as a principal I would really want to put a lot into the creation or alteration of a program. I will tell you that my least favorite part of the process would be the organization part. I am sure as a principal, this would be one of the most important, especially when creating a site based committee. The parts I would love the most would be the planning and designing part. I have always been a good ideas guy, the only bad part of planning would be the research required to create a program. I am not a fan of research, but I really love learning about as much as I can. Once I have the adequate knowledge, I really love putting programs together. It's kind of like being the House of education. Then you would think that because I like to design programs then I would like to implement them, but I really could care less about the implementation part. It is kind of like chasing a girl and then being disappointed. Sometimes the hunt is better than the catch! I would like the evaluation part of the process, because it would give me a chance to compare the new versus the old and allow me to tweak if necessary. All of this being said,I would, as a principal, take and extremely active role in these processes. I think that this not only sends a good message to the department, but also strengthens the program.
Finally, my analysis of the department would be a rating of a moderate level. I say this again,like discussed in a previous discussion board, the struggle for our counselors is the fact that they are one short. They have created an implemented some good programs. The problem is that they are lacking some support and the community doesn't rally enough! To be honest with you, I don't know if the program meets standards or not, I would only be assuming when I say that I am sure that they do. However, the students do not seem to be improving in the high priority areas this year, in fact they are actually taking a step backward. I think that the biggest problem is that they have a lack of support! They need more support from the administration. I will continue to help them, but I am limited on what I can do! I will say this though, they are great when it comes to Responsive services! They are truly passionate about their jobs and they truly care about these kids. After these units on counselors, I definitely do not envy them. I have no desire to serve as a counselor!

Reflection #5

Let me start of by saying that this article is so true and a little disappointing. All too often students and just people in general are victims of their own successes. In this case, students are hand-cuffed by their intellegence. Why is that? The article offers up many beliefs for why our country shys away from acceleration. The biggest two of the 12 reasons I think is the fact that age trumps everything else and disasters are memorable. I think that we live in a society that dictates your status based on your age. Think about it. You can't go to school until you are five. Even if you are a smart four year old, you are too young to begin. Generally speaking, promotions and raises in the corporate world on based more on longevitiy than actual merit. Don't get me wrong, usually it works out that the older you are or the longer you are somewhere, the more deserving you usually are. The reality is that time and age are not always indicators of intellegence or performance. Sometimes young people (or new employees) can exceed the expectations set for them. I also agree that diasasters are memorable, especially in this context. If the belief is a student is capable of moving up or ahead, and the student fails, it could leave long term negative effects with that student. In this instance, it would be crucial to ensure that the student is truly prepared for the acceleration. Based on the reading, however, this seems to be very infrequent. As a parent, my oldest son has always been very intelligent. He has been in the GT program since elementary school. I think that the fear for us would be the maturity and social growth. I know that the reading discussed that acceleration was actually beneficial for academic and social growth. Despite the reading, I would still be reluctant. I think that for most parents, we just want our children to have normal and productive childhoods, and normal to us is the normal progression through school.
As I was reading through this report, I read several of the myths the authors drew attention to. I can't say that I was too suprisingly shocked by any of them. Honestly, based on the school in which I teach, I expect many educators to believe that acceleration is not important, because most of our students really don't need it! I hate to say it, but this is definitely the case at our school. We only had two students on the first six weeks honor roll! I think that when the masses don't need something, the minority is left out. Of course, I think that it is crazy, but it happens all of the time in our society. Also, due to my current school I think that it is ludacris to think that acceleration is solely for the wealthy. I teach at a low socioecnomic school and I have seen some truly intelligent kids come through there, and I can tell you that they were by no means wealthy. Also, think about all of the movies and publicity we see of people coming from the streets and being very successful based on intellect. Really, I hate to say this but when it comes to education (or lack there of) nothing surprises me these days.
Based on reading through the Texas State Legislation on Gifted and Talent programming, it would seem like the state is trying to do their part when it comes to our special students. The state has it all laid out in black or white, but it seems that it is three tiered. Tier one looks as if a district wants to be compliant they have to meet some minimum requirements, the second tier is for districts to be recommended and the last tier is for exemplary. The problem that I can see is that depending on the intepretation, acceleration is only mentioned twice. First, in section 2.1E it states that services for gifted/talented students are comprehensive, structured, sequenced and appropriately challenging. It would seem that acceleration could fall into place here. The other place is located in section 2.4E where it states that acceleration options are actively facilitated by district administrators, counselors, and teachers. The problem is not the fact that acceleration is only mentioned twice, but that the mention of acceleration only comes under the category of exemplary. My question is why not sooner? Why not emphasize acceleration at all levels? Ultimately, I believe the state has good intentions and a pretty decent program, but it is up to the districts to really put in place a good program for these students and not let them fall through the cracks!