Schoolwide Enrichment Model

Synopsis

Joseph Renzulli's Schoolwide Enrichment Model was developed to meet the needs of "above average students" (the top 15-20% of students) through individualized enrichment. This model has a revolving door identification that allows for flexible inclusion of those top students. Renzulli's model has a three ring concept of giftedness: (1) Above Average Ability, (2) Creativity, and (3) Task Commitment. A "Total Talent Portfolio" is maintained for each student, listing strengths, interests, learning styles, and preferred modes of expression, recognizing that each student is an individual with unique needs (page 322 and 332). The model has tiers and types that offer authentic learning for all students.


What Works for Me

• I like that the model fits within RTI, that curriculum compacting is an active part of the model ("The Compactor" on page 332 was helpful)
• The Total Talent Portfolio is appealing and could be used in the consultation model I'm currently using. I like that this model requires practitioners to gather data this way (pages 322 and 332).
• Students can engage in "content intensification" and dig deep into areas of interest
• The Project M Cubed (SEM-Mentoring Mathematical Minds) is an established program for Mathematics within the Schoolwide Enrichment Model is appealing

What Doesn't Work for Me

• This model is for the top 15-20% of students, which means that the top 5% and the highly gifted students could be overlooked and not have curriculum that is differentiated enough. A school would definitely need to follow the non-negotiables listed on pages 339-341 to ensure that the staff is highly trained in enrichment within this model. 
• Renzulli uses a three ring concept of giftedness (above average ability, creativity, and task commitment). I am aware that students who are not motivated, will likely not engage in any model unless the work appeals to them, but characteristically, gifted students are not always "task committed." Our gifted students engage in divergent thinking and often do not look like our "bright learners."
• Although Project M Cubed exists for math, it does not appear rigorous enough for gifted students, it is more designed for the top 15-20%, and not the highly gifted learners
• The revolving door identification seems like it could be a good thing for those learners who need an occasional challenge, but it lacks some consistency in reality

Considerations

• Political: Personally, I find it difficult to urge my district to fully implement this model. I think because it reaches the top fifth of students, people (administrators, teachers, parents) may view it as an "elitist" approach. Others may be concerned like I am that this model is not differentiated enough to meet the needs of our truly gifted learners. 
• Budgetary: This model seems rather 'budget friendly.' Staff would need to be trained in Renzulli's model and the non-negotiables which could cost money up front. 
• State/District Guidelines: The state of Maine's Chapter 104 laws require that gifted programming exists and that this programming, acknowledges that "Gifted and talented children need to be challenged to develop their abilities and potential; therefore, specialized curricula that are advanced, conceptually complex and carefully differentiated from regular curricula shall be provided in lieu of the regular curricula." The Schoolwide Enrichment Model is close to providing 'regular curricula,' and may not offer specialized curricula that is advanced enough for our gifted learners.
• Population: This model, as stated previously, is for the top 15-20% of learners.
• Time: The model also requires that enrichment is individualized, and that each student has a Total Talent Portfolio. This could be time-consuming and a strain on staff, when 85% of the population also needs differentiated experiences.