Complaint regarding District's Gifted & Talented Program from former Board Member

On Friday, December 20th, former South Hunterdon Board Member Dr. Filomena Hengst sent a formal complaint to the SHRSD Board of Education regarding the district's Gifted and Talented (G&T) Program. Her letter can be read here.

The complaint alleges that the district has failed to follow board policy 2464 and NJ Statute N.J.S.A. 18A:35-34 regarding publication of a number of details for the Gifted and Talented program, and goes on to criticize the quality of the G&T program in the district compared to other districts.

Per N.J.S.A 18A:35-34, in response the district "shall issue a decision, in writing, to affirm, reject, or modify the district’s action in the matter", and thereafter the complainant may "then file a petition of appeal of the board’s written decision to the Commissioner of Education through the Office of Controversies and Disputes in accordance with N.J.S.18A:6-9".

The complaint may appears to be motivated, at least in part, by a review of the G&T program performed by third party consultant Public Consulting Group earlier this year (for a fee of $44,000), the summary presentation is available here.

The study found that while South Hunterdon has a strong desire by some individuals to meaningfully improve the program, and that the district has the right tools to implement it, the actual program itself is almost non-existent. Issues with the program include:

1. We can't all be G&T. Far too many children were enrolled. While nationwide standards target the top 10% of a school's population for a G&T program of study, South Hunterdon designated 20-35% of a given school's population as G&T. Anecdotally, this appears to be due to G&T being available "by request" by parents by ignoring cognitive test scores. PCG indicated that in many cases cognitive test scores were ignored when admitting children into the program.

2. No money. PCG indicated that exactly $0 was spent specifically on G&T.

3. No staff. Only 1.5 full time employees are involved in G&T, and apparently that is not their primary job function but an adjunct to their normal duties.

PCG also noted the lack of written communication on the topic that Dr. Hengst's complaint references.

In reading PCG's detailed report, while they do not say so in so many words, it is clear that their opinion is that at the time of their review, SHRSD more or less lacked a true G&T program entirely. Instead, it had a program named G&T that is lacking in nearly all elements required to qualify for such a program.