Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Gifted Programs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Gifted-program and grading debates surface as candidates differ over test scores
Summary
Candidates disagreed over whether Lindbergh—s gifted program criteria and grading changes have lowered standards, with incumbents defending current practices and challengers saying alternatives have diluted gifted identification and challenge classes.
Candidates at a League of Women Voters forum offered sharply different accounts of Lindbergh Schools— gifted program criteria, grading practices and how to interpret recent test results.
Julia Voss and Jennifer Miller, both incumbents, said Lindbergh—s policies preserve academic rigor while giving teachers better tools to measure student learning. "The MAPS scores are difficult to compare over years because the test changes," Voss said, adding that NWEA scores (a nationally normed assessment) show Lindbergh near the 80th percentile in reading and just under for math. Miller said the district has adopted new high-school and workforce offerings and balances multiple data sources (NWEA, FastBridge, i-Ready) to assess performance.
Challengers pushed a different diagnosis. Russell Dahmer called for refocusing on "hard academics" and criticized equity-informed grading. David Randleman said Lindbergh—s gifted program is being "watered down," citing what he described as an alternative screening pathway that, he said, lets some students into the program without meeting the historic 90th percentile threshold. Randleman urged a return to more rigorous challenge classes in middle school, which he said helped prepare gifted students for high school.
Why it matters: Identification and acceleration policies affect who receives advanced coursework and how the district measures achievement. Candidates' claims on whether the gifted program—s size and standards have changed are central to competing visions of curriculum and accountability.
Clarifying details raised at the forum: - Program thresholds: Candidates repeatedly cited a 90th-percentile IQ benchmark for traditional gifted identification; incumbents said Lindbergh allows multiple pathways for access and that roughly 10-11% of students participate in the gifted program. - Test comparability: Voss cautioned against year-to-year MAP comparisons because the test itself changed; she and Miller cited NWEA as a stable, normed comparison point. - Grading: Incumbents described standards-based grading at the elementary level (priority standards, levels of mastery) and distinguished it from the equity-focused critiques challengers raised; challengers said grade-start policies and optional homework have effectively raised baseline grades for some students.
Speakers repeatedly urged voters to verify district data: candidates offered competing interpretations of percentages and program pathways that the district—s published performance reports and policy documents can confirm.
No formal changes were proposed at the forum; candidates characterized the issues as priorities they would address if elected.
