# data[].attributes.body
The Multiple Menu Model by Joseph Renzulli is exactly what it sounds like where it is designed to offer curriculum builders different options on how to approach content, instruction and design. The basis of this unit requires the curriculum designers to delve into a topic by considering how the knowledge within the topic is develops and then use that to create more authentic tasks for the learners. This model requires the designers to be extremely reflective into what discipline they present to their students and also how their students receive information. The goal is to use various menus to synthesize methods students can access while emphasizing the knowledge it is desired for them to obtain.

# data[].attributes.body
MMM provides clear guidelines on how to present students with information while still allowing them choice. This is exactly the type of thing I think all students need, but especially GT. While I love students to be creative, without thorough training and build up of a creative brain, it is extremely difficult to know where to start. This method eliminates the struggle of giving students clear cut options on how to achieve their goals, but is still varied enough that they can access something to keep engagement.
I think I can easily see this being implemented into any general education classroom as a way to differentiate and it could likely be paired with something like the Autonomous Learner Model or the Integrated Curriculum Model to help students build up their skills in how to become more independent workers.

# data[].attributes.body
The largest concern I have with this model is the preparation that goes into the implementation, especially if this is being offered in a general education classroom and not in a pull-out program. If this serves as the basis for differentiation in any class it would take the teacher an incredible amount of foresight and reflection to create the right formulaic menus for different types of students without limiting them to the teachers own personal biases. Which leads me to ponder, where does the line between metacognition and bias lie? Synthesizing the right information into the menus is a monstrous task.
Furthermore it changes the role of the teacher, which is why I would see this more beneficial as a pull-out program. Within a general education setting the teacher would struggle to reach kids who have lower ability because there would be less emphasis on teaching the process and more emphasis on obtaining the knowledge itself. This is almost the opposite of what I'm currently doing and what the standards I grade are asking us to do. While that may be appealing for gifted students, it would be very difficult for a general educator like myself.

# data[].attributes.body
I think with the right structuring my district would be a huge fan of this method. I've played around with adapting some of the curriculum we are currently offering to cater more toward this method while maintaining a whole-class instruction component for those that need it and it has been received well. I do think that the community would receive this well because it's possible for any general educator to create these menus and that would cut down on cost and training that other programs might need. I also think that because this is fairly clear cut in its organization, it's easy for people like school board members to anticipate the outcomes. The only challenge I see would be potentially needing a full-time GT coordinator at the high school to cater to their needs in this type of programming and the potential need for scheduling to allow the general education teachers to work with the GT coordinator in the development of the menus.

# data[].attributes.body
While this doesn't directly relate to any of the current initiatives in the district this would tie in well with other things we're attempting like Cluster Grouping and Renzulli's three ring conception of giftedness. As the menus are created they could be manipulated to fit into other types of programming by changing how students gain access and work through them. I think this would also work well in our district because as our GT program is undergoing a transition and build-up its something that general educators could do to offer additional support to those students.

# data[].attributes.body
In accordance to our state guidelines, this model would easily follow Chapter 104's discussion of serving the top 5% and could potentially offer services beyond those students if it were being offered in general education classrooms and not just a pull-out program. If it came down to a pull-out program it could require more participation that just a GT coordinator because content teachers would likely be more experts on how their knowledge should be received by students, but if the districts are willing to pay for curriculum building time, this wouldn't be a problem.

# data[].attributes.body
Scheduling could be difficult depending, again, on the approach of the school. I think in my setting a pull-out program makes the most sense, but when working with high school students this becomes increasingly difficult especially if the GT specialist is only available at limited times. Ideally the GT specialist would have their own room and would be available during any period as a sort of resource room set-up (with limitations in number of students in the room at one time and content focuses ) so students could obtain services whenever they needed them. These would primarily come down to specific content and knowledge mastery as the model emphasizes and would likely require the specialist to have resources to help students obtain proper and authentic information beyond what might be offered in a general education setting.

# data[].attributes.body
The Talents Unlimited Model created by Carol Schlichter is one that might work in conjunction with other models, like the Schoolwide Enrichment Model, because it focuses on helping students hone in and build on a specific set of skills that deepen a student's inquiry skills. Those talents are used to drive how teachers and all students approach the curriculum through things like productive thinking, forecasting, planning, decision making, and communication in addition to basic academic skills. The primary directive in this model is to train teachers on helping students utilize their talents in effective ways for problem solving and more authentic tasks. The implementation and monitoring takes place over a 2 year period where teachers are receiving regular support through things like workshops and observations and students are being asked to become more engaged in their interests and how to use them in their learning.

# data[].attributes.body
Because this model is so focused on the teachers and works with training the teachers first, so that all students are getting access to support, it is extremely inclusive and attainable. It increases the chances for identification when being implemented school-wide and allows services to not be limited to the state cut-offs. It also is designed to really enhance a students ability to think critically by immersing them into the decision making and planning of what they interact with. This would build student creativity and would allow more room to build more nuanced skills that might go outside of a curriculum like Human Relations (as the book calls it).

# data[].attributes.body
This model requires that you commit to its two year structure and looks to have the it fully integrated into the curriculum within the first 6 to 8 weeks after having teachers trained. It's possible that based on this structure, some schools might structure to maintain the focus on student talent development. The point people in the district or the building could become burnt out, or that the regular support through observations, workshops and staff communication could fall through. This model can also depend, to some extent, on student participation and engagement. While some students may be all too eager to actively participate in their learning program, others will consistently fail to become engaged. If this is adopted as a school-wide method, which is suggested, focus could then turn to students struggling to adapt to the model and all students, not just the GT students may not receive the attention originally hoped for.

# data[].attributes.body
While I really like this model and can see the benefits, my district's struggles with school-wide or district-wide goals or programming. Many of the ways that we approach our learners is piecemeal and we have specific point people for each program. Teachers who are involved in several programs struggle to keep up with their regular work because none of that is diminished by the programs and, it often is the same teachers that latch on to these opportunities. Because this model is suggested to be used in conjunction with ones that add a Type III learning style like SEM, I can see the resistance people may have on implementing this.
I also think that the surrounding area is not one that is a fan of having students involved in their own learning process. Much of the climate centers around if the teachers/administration are doing enough to serve each individual's needs. Students are not often held accountable to this type of involvement, and it would take a lot to convince the community it was worthwhile, even if it was playing to the child's strengths. Often parents and the school board are in favor of teachers and units that are created so anyone can access them at anytime and don't require more than short articles or small stories for reference. This would be delving into territory far beyond that.

# data[].attributes.body
In our district, while their is no formal initiative in place that says so, we really do believe in between class grouping methods to accomplish goals and specific tasks. I think that the talent clusters that are discussed with this unit would be ideal in some ways for accomplishing the goals of this model. We have systems in place to accomplish this with freshman because their scheduling is more concrete, but this could be expanded more easily with this model if we were thinking across disciplines and doing between class groupings that way.
On the other hand, I can see my district struggling to provide the necessary workshop opportunities and support through the two year implementation. Our district mainly functions with teachers overtaking and running programming like this, not administration, and I can foresee those teachers becoming burnt out, or administration not giving this the proper attention, leading to the whole thing crumbling.

# data[].attributes.body
This model would work well given Maine's guidelines of supporting the 5% because it's designed to work with all students. I think it might also help some districts who are struggling financially to meet the 5% needs because they are training more than just one or two people in the district to support a whole group of students. Now there are several point people in each building who serve as supports to not just students, but teachers as well.

# data[].attributes.body
The scheduling for the students might become easier to manage using this model, if, at the high school level, we were combining students into specific talent clusters that could work across disciplines. The identification process for this could end up being time consuming, but with multiple inputs, I actually think it would be easier to approach rather than more complicated. I foresee that in other discussions of time, students would be able to complete standards more succinctly through this process because their talents would help bridge gaps between multiple disciplines. The only major time problem I foresee is with the teachers. Outside of identification, this type of curriculum building might take teachers from multiple disciplines to work together. This would require significant time before students were exposed to the curriculum and without opportunities earlier in the summer, the 6 to 8 week timeline given in the book may be difficult. I also foresee the district struggling to provide enough workshop, observation, or reflection time throughout the two year process to yield truly relevant results.

# data[].attributes.body
This model is extremely appealing in many ways; it is really looking to be more student-centered with proper teacher training. It focuses on engagement and building critical thinking, which are things we want for all students and it would create a more supportive community for students through the work that the staff is doing to provide them with appropriate opportunities. While this all may be true, districts may struggle to follow the necessary procedures to make this a success like the workshop time and curriculum planning between disciplines.

# data[].attributes.body
This model was designed not just by one person, but by a varied group of educational theorists. This stems from concern that students' needs were not being met, including social and emotional, and so it was created to cater to those GT students, including (and maybe especially) underachieving GT students. The model focuses on the learner becoming more ingrained in the learning process, including differentiation, all focused on making the world a better place. The teacher becomes more of a facilitator with goals to help create life-long learners.

# data[].attributes.body
I really appreciate that this model emphasizes communication. I think that working with students to develop these skills make attaining information in the future and becoming life-long learners significantly easier. I also think, as all teachers probably do, that any curriculum that is focused on changing the world in a positive way is worth having. Too often, even with advanced learners, we avoid utilizing real world problems, authentic scenarios, or other organic situations as a launchpad for our curriculum.
I also think that extended studies and investigations, as is emphasized with a Learner Differentiated Curriculum, is what would make this truly successful. Students in this model need to be able to delve into their contents deeply and richly in order to truly be a part of the creation and development and to maintain engagement. If the work done is more superficial, then the benefits of this model are extremely diminished. Structuring it this way would allow for more interdisciplinary opportunities and could more easily fit into content areas the student is less comfortable with in a way that would create success.

# data[].attributes.body
This type of GT program is not easy for a schoolwide design and would, therefore, function better as a pull-out program. At the high school level, this could be particularly difficult to obtain unless GT students were more exclusively in a setting to complete more in-depth investigative projects. This could be done with trained general education teachers if they had designated parts to the schedule where these students would approach the curriculum in this way, but would get complicated quickly with students who were only receiving gifted services in one content while others would be receiving it for all.
There's also some struggles with the implementation process. As the attached article discusses, students should be involved in creating their three year learning plans for their remaining high school years. This means that as freshman, students are being considered autonomous. For the typical freshman, this is honestly impossible, but even with gifted students this can be a struggle. Wouldn't that mean that students are being trained on what it means to be autonomous at 12 or 13? The transparency is discussed in the article as well. The major disconnect I foresee is actually with whoever the students are working with to develop this definition and these understandings before coming to the high school. It is rare that a general education teacher understands both middle and high school students to the extent this transparency requires. And, if it is a pull-out GT specialist working with these children, it is rare that after working in both schools they understand the nuances of both systems. The best way to fix this is to have looping GT specialists that have worked at both the middle and high school levels within that district.

# data[].attributes.body
Out of all of the programs, this is the one that I think would most benefit the students in my district, but only if it was done well. Far too many of our GT students are underachieving because they have no support for their giftedness. Many see no point in doing any work at all let alone enriching themselves because people at home are reinforcing that they will amount to nothing more than someone who lives off the state (because that is what they have done). With that in mind, if parents perceive that students are being asked to do too much, I foresee them withdrawing their students from the programming. In Betts' article above, it makes me nervous that he discusses how after the first year students and staff struggled with implementing this model. Even with an emphasis that a minimum of two years might be needed to see some success, I don't picture parents, school board members, or even administration supporting it if students were significantly struggling after the first year. Too often our district is looking for what we call "Band-Aid programs" and not real solutions. It would be a challenge to implement something like this.

# data[].attributes.body
This program would work well in terms of Chapter 104 in the state of Maine, except that it seems designed primarily for high school and maybe middle school students. That would mean that a different program or model would need to be adopted for elementary GT students, in order for the requirements to be met, and it would need to mesh well with ALM. My suggestion would be using something like the Total School Cluster Grouping that might help students build up some necessary skills to become autonomous, but would do it in a group setting. That would also allow for help with identification depending on the way the students were grouped and what they were asked to do. If social and emotional needs were also targeted in whatever model was adopted for the younger students, it might allow a mitigation in ones that are particularly struggling, but also identify those that have the potential to truly benefit from ALM.

# data[].attributes.body
With the idea of ALM primarily serving the high school population, my district might struggle to maintain another program or model for the younger students. I suggested this working in conjunction with something like Total School Cluster Grouping because that is the closest thing that general education teachers in the district are being asked to do, and I believe these teachers might be the biggest assets in identifying students to work with using ALM. Our general education teachers are the ones who often get way more involved with students' lives through the day-to-day interactions and can provide wider spread opportunities for the students who fall just outside of qualifying for services.

# data[].attributes.body
As discussed before, I think this model would work best in a pull-out program, which is not well suited for my district unfortunately. Our district currently only has one GT coordinator and she only has enough time to meet with high school students for a half hour once a week currently. Perhaps if a second, exclusively high school, GT support was brought in, this could become more of a reality, or if as mentioned above the younger students were given a program like Total School Cluster Grouping that can rely more heavily on the general educator, the GT coordinator would have more availability to work with our students in this capacity.

# data[].attributes.body
This model is one of the most appealing for the district I currently work in despite some of the challenges it might cause. It caters to the students that are extremely prevalent in our district and it has the ability to model how to create genuine change while even coming from a poor, rural setting, which students need more examples of. While some of the challenges may require additional funding, like hiring another GT coordinator for the district, or offering training in a secondary program for the younger student accommodations, the outcomes of combating GT students falling into stagnant, unenriching, unengaging positions in life far outweigh these struggles.

# data[].attributes.body
The Integrated Curriculum Model, designed by Joyce VanTassel-Baska and Susannah M. Wood, is a model created to serve GT students who need a more rigorous curriculum that is more tailored to their individual needs. This model takes three components; designing all curriculum around clear issues or themes, providing advanced content that allows students to address those issues and themes, and developing more collaborative processes to create high-quality products. The goal with this combination is to have students become Type III learners who are involved in authentic assignments and utilizes Paul's Elements of Reasoning to give students an outline of how to work through their curriculum.

# data[].attributes.body
This program begins with a Diagnostic Prescriptive Instructional Approach, which means that students are pre-assessed and worked with based on the results of the pre-assessment. This gives a clear documentation to the students starting point and would allow for  more clear data collection as the model is implemented than many of the other models. Data would help convince administration and school board members of the benefits of ICM.
In addition, because the units are designed around themes and are used to help create culminating, synthesized products, it would be easy to work with students for a long period of time on on focus. This could allow for greater student engagement as they address a theme in a way that they truly care about and can delve into it in a variety of ways (in an interdisciplinary fashion) to meet their standards for several classes with one major project. Finally, ICM really emphasizes acceleration, which is something my district highly reveres as administration sees this as the best way to cater to advanced students.

# data[].attributes.body
To truly address ICM well, advanced content is a must, but at the high school level, especially a rural one with limited funding, this can become a challenge when wanting to provide students with more authentic, real world interactions. I foresee in implementing this a need for experts in fields that students study, full-time access to a well-trained research librarian, and potentially a community coordinator to connect students with real problems within their local neighborhood. These are not things many schools have readily available--ours certainly does not.
Furthermore, structuring this type of learning for the students might involve a teacher from each content, including electives, working together to offer true interdisciplinary opportunities, all which are differentiated to the learners within the GT realm. This is a significant amount of coordination and collaboration that a GT instructor couldn't easily do alone and would take full teacher buy-in to truly be successful.

# data[].attributes.body
Out of all the models we read about, I can see this one being one of the most well-received by the community, but maybe not the administration. The community values students feeling special, and there are definitely parents of GT students that feel our district isn't doing enough. With this type of approach their children would be much more individually catered to and would be working through some serious advanced curriculum to their peers. Many parents would view this as not just beneficial, but necessary, as they want their children to feel more exclusive and entitled to different opportunities. The administration, on the other hand, would likely need a huge amount of coordination before truly pulling this off. My guess is they would slowly want to implement the concepts behind this model by starting with just core subjects creating broad, theme-based units with strong differentiation. Then they might expand to those core teachers working with more elective-based teachers to do the same. Finally, creating specific periods and times when students who are identified are working on these types of curriculum.
Finally, I always have concerns when a program emphasizes student motivation as being a key component, which this one does. However, I believe with it's structure of broad themes and issues, students might much more easily be able to maintain engagement in their goals.

# data[].attributes.body
ICM is something that could easily cater beyond the 5% that Chapter 104 gives as options in our state for GT programming. Depending on the size of the cohort of teachers working to implement this type of curriculum, potentially any student could benefit from this structure. Also, because this program emphasizes flexibility in how advanced the content may be for each student, the more teachers that are involved, the easier it would be to schedule those opportunities for our truly gifted students because they wouldn't have to fit into a specific class period, work with a specific teacher, or even focus on a specific content. Students would be able to approach the curriculum from whichever area they were gifted in and obtain achievement in standards for other contents along the way.

# data[].attributes.body
While our district has no formal initiatives in place that work on this, they are huge fans of accelerating students. Sometimes this occurs without considering the social/emotional impact, sometimes it is done strictly based on test scores. In utilizing this method, students would be able to be flexibly accelerated which would mitigate some of the common issues that we see when we put advanced content mastery students in with students with advanced maturity. More than a few times in the past few years has moving a student forward because of their content skills become an issue because the student couldn't easily handle the themes behind the material, or the emotional components their peers would hone in on (particularly with our twice exceptional students). ICM could mitigate these issues by offering appropriate themes for a specific age while allowing students to dig deeper into the content and without limiting them with things their maturity level might not have prepared them for.

# data[].attributes.body
Initially, scheduling seems like it would be really appealing with this model because students could easily access ICM through any classroom if it was differentiated properly and used overarching themes. However, I think the true scheduling nightmare might come more from an administrative level where students might want to work with more of a focus on the content they are gifted in, perhaps requiring less time working in other contents as standards are being met through more indirect means. Not to mention the scheduling for collaborative curriculum building between teachers. This would be the ultimate way to present this to students but could require massive amounts of time for teachers to work with one another in order to do well.

# data[].attributes.body
ICM could truly be an ideal set-up for my district because financially it might not require much training or a new position to be added, but there are many ways that my current district would limit what this is truly meant to look like. I think that in order to do this well it would need to be developed for several years before rolling out to students and would require outside resources, like a community coordinator, to be truly successful. Furthermore, I have a true passion for implementing this type of model because I think it really utilizes an interdisciplinary approach. Most of the struggles I see from any student, not just GT kids, is that they struggle to access material in one class because they feel like they are only successful in one other class. Showing them the relationships between contents and giving them curriculum opportunities to approach things like science through a literacy lens or math through an artistic lens seems likely to help all students be a little more successful. I also am finding that despite what my administration is preaching, short, chunky assignments aren't necessary better than comprehensive, culminating ones because they don't account for reflection and growth, which is what learning should be about.

# data[].attributes.body
Total School Cluster Grouping designed by Marcia Gentry and Jamie MacDougall is a schoolwide program that reorganizes how we separate our GT students in comparison to tracking or other types of flexible groups. The primary objective with GT students is to put them all in one class with only two other differentiated levels to mitigate the amount of differentiated instruction a teacher is giving at one time. Based on this model, students who are advanced, but not gifted may be given more opportunities to show advancement and receive similar services and attention as GT kids. The model emphasizes that if implemented correctly, students of all abilities will improve because they are being provided a structure that pushes them to succeed and helps the teacher better manage their needs.

# data[].attributes.body
The primary way this works in my mind is for the teacher, because you're lessening the load of what they are being asked to handle in each class period. With a less varied classroom ability-wise, the teacher can more effectively differentiate and students have a better shot of being met where they are.
Beyond that, I think this model could pair well with one that discusses what the teacher can be doing with their differentiation in this structure. Things like the Talents Unlimited Model or the Autonomous Learner Model might build off of the structural foundation that TSCG provides. This creates even better advancement opportunities for the GT kids and could likely give a more broad population access to resources from GT services.
I also really appreciate the many levels of ability this model identifies. All too often in education we group kids as high, average and low. But there are huge ranges of these students within those three realms and TSCG offers a clear suggestion on how to break it down more effectively.

# data[].attributes.body
TSCG is primarily an elementary school model. It caters to the idea that teachers can easily flexibly group their students and that there are multiple classrooms working on the same material. This means it also doesn't cater to smaller schools as easily because there's less ability to really group kids into the multiple differentiation groups this model preaches.
In my current district we are playing around more and more with between class grouping and specific scheduling for students, but without tracking kids at the high school level this becomes very difficult. This issue becomes tenfold when considering that not all students are gifted in all areas, so every content would require different scheduling. Finally, going even deeper into how to structure this program, not all students who are gifted in a content are gifted in all of its components. This means that even if I schedule a student in a specific class period with other GT students in that content, students might not always fit into ability level with that content that they've been assigned--hence the necessary flexibility of the grouping.

# data[].attributes.body
My district is so on board with this type of thinking. Administration, parents and school board members all agree that gifted kids should be grouped with like-minded and similarly able students. However, the implementation of this process is extremely limited from my view because of the scheduling conflicts and because are administration refuses to allow us to have input on how to best construct these opportunities for our students. For example, previously this year the other American Literature teacher and myself worked with the U.S. History teachers to develop a curriculum that worked between the different classrooms, but when we suggested offering a schedule that had a history and an English being offered at the same time to allow for flexible grouping between them, administration asked us to revert back to our previously used curriculum.

# data[].attributes.body
TSCG really is appealing when considering Chapter 104 in the state of Maine because it could allow for more regularly differentiated services offered to students beyond the identified 5% and would help boost even GT students based on where they are. Nothing is worse than placing an identified kid in a program or specific class to find they struggle with a major concept or skill within that setting and having no easy way to differentiate. I've seen this happen time and time again to students who are placed in Advanced Placement courses. Their comprehension or something is extremely strong but when it comes time to jump through one of the other requirements of the course, like recall or synthesis, they truly struggle and it causes them to constantly feel beneath others in the same course. That being said, if this program is truly being taken advantage of, acceleration would no longer be an issue because students could be accelerated in some units and not in others. Again, using another model might help with how to best approach this by helping manage the delivery of the curriculum.

# data[].attributes.body
My school doesn't quite use TSCG, but it uses a similar model, especially with the freshman in English. Students take standardized reading assessments every six weeks that track their ability in specific core skills. These scores are then utilized to think about how to group students between other freshman English classrooms as they approach their assignments. Students are constantly being rearranged not just based on ability but also work completion. It also serves as a great way for students who need intervention to build up their deficient skills before attempting a task they aren't prepared for.

# data[].attributes.body
As previously discussed, scheduling becomes a nightmare at the high school level because of the considerations that need to be made about grouping students not just on what content they are gifted in, but also what processes within those contents they are more capable with. Flexible grouping becomes an extreme challenge at this level unless the school is structured in a way that caters to this philosophy. That could include just insuring that each period this is offering of the major courses and not having curriculum attached to grade levels. That means that one day a student might find that they need to attend the gifted section of English, which is offered either one period or another period, and attend an average Geometry, an advanced Biology and a GT World History. Students would be able to determine which teachers they would need to see when based on where they've been identified and all classes could be structured around things like broad themes as the Integrated Curriculum Model suggests. Ultimately, though, it's just messy.

# data[].attributes.body
While I can see the benefits of this in many settings, where I currently work, this would become a scheduling nightmare. There are some ways to approach this on a smaller level, like certain parts of my school have done, but overall the task would be too great for me to see the administration taking it on. Furthermore, because this really emphasizes the structure and less the curriculum, it might be beneficial to combine it with another curriculum program. This is likely to be fought against strictly because it becomes more difficult to manage two things and do them both as well as they are intended.

# data[].attributes.body
The Schoolwide Enrichment Model by Sally M. Reis and Joseph S. Renzulli is designed, at it's core, to create more creative productivity with all students as they delve into a curriculum. Originally Renzulli created this model to accept the top 15-20% in a talent pool based on achievement or IQ tests and it would involve both creative and differentiated work in the general education classroom and access and work with GT specialists and other GT resources. Students are looked at using Renzulli's Three Ring conception of giftedness which includes above average ability, creativity and task commitment. A student needs all three to function well within this model at a "gifted level" but the model also emphasizes that they are looking to develop giftedness and creativity in all students.

# data[].attributes.body
First of all, clearly this model is effective because it's so widespread and commonly recognized as being beneficial. In the case of my own school, I think there could be many benefits to this model because it includes a combination of work with general educators who might be more curriculum experts and could help with the above average ability piece and work with GT coordinators and specialists. I really think students need both in order to truly receive gifted services.
Perhaps my favorite thing about this model though is the emphasis on the combination between Type I, Type II and Type III learning opportunities for the students. While all three levels can be offered to all students, despite Type III being more catered to advanced students, I enjoyed that this model discussed how to provide enrichment with Type I and Type II. I think all too often, especially with a model like this, teachers feel pressured to create these complex, rigorous and advanced learning opportunities that almost drop in from nowhere. When looking at creating enrichment with a Type I focus, it makes it become more attainable for teachers to feel like they can provide any student with enrichment and it gives more opportunities to understand students capabilities because it almost serves as a scaffolding.

# data[].attributes.body
SEM is so revered, but there are few methods behind this approach that create concerns for me. The major one is that it is designed around using the Renzulli Learning program to serve as a basis for the set-up and support each student receives. In my opinion, having no exposure to this program or how its designed, differentiation and working with students especially when emphasizing creativity takes much more of a human touch to obtain the desired results.
Also, there are a lot of components to this model in order for it to follow its suggested course. There's the usage of Renzulli Learning program, there's the creation of each individual students' Total Talent Portfolio, there are enrichment clusters outside of the regular curriculum and those require collaboration of several teachers and staff members to be truly comprehensive. I foresee the staff struggling to maintain the expectations of this program especially if they work with more than just gifted students.

# data[].attributes.body
I think the district, especially the school board and parents would be extremely hesitant to adopt something like this model strictly because it seems so complex in its implementation. The resources that things like the Renzulli Learning program could provide would be unbelievably advantageous to our students, but the utilization would likely be a struggle because of our regular apprehension of trusting a program to help us obtain information. Many of the students  taking advantage of this programming come from poverty-stricken, rural backgrounds where technology is less appealing. This would also seem extremely intimidating to those staff involved in implementation and would likely take a great deal of training to use. While it obviously can't be too complex because it is so common nationwide, the initial implementation could be a seemingly overwhelming task for administration.
That being said, our district's only set in stone initiative is the Renzulli three ring conception of giftedness.

# data[].attributes.body
My district currently should have large "under construction" signs labeled on its GT structure, but the one thing that has been emphasized by the coordinator is that they use Renzulli's three ring conception of giftedness to guide their identification. I think this would make adopting this model much more appealing in many ways because it suggests familiarity with Renzulli's methods, but I honestly am not sure with how this method would factor in given what we already have set in place. My initial feeling is that this is too comprehensive of a program for what our district could use while it's in transition because it would require a large shift in how we approach the GT clientele, as well as the general educators at times.

# data[].attributes.body
Perhaps the only way this might struggle to fit into the state guidelines is that Renzulli looked at identifying the top 15-20% but based on Chapter 104 in Maine we are only providing services to the top 5%. Because we're limiting the access to this model, I do believe this would change the dynamics in it's implementation. I think this program is designed for larger school districts and a broader population of students because its so specific. The clear design behind the programming might seem like too much work for a smaller district or population because of the specific nature behind it.

# data[].attributes.body
Depending on how many educators are participating in the implementation of this model, scheduling could actually be fairly simple. It might come down to more tracking GT students than proving flexible grouping as other programs do, which is actually significantly easier to manage at the high school level. Similarly, our school already has a built-in RTI period 4 times a week that GT students could use for enrichment clusters (which is a little of what my district is doing with the GT students now once a week).

# data[].attributes.body
MMM could have extreme appeal if the prep work and management of the execution were more easily accessible. I see my district finding this model appealing, but not being able to provide the teachers especially with enough time and resources to complete the necessary work to give students thorough and reflective menus to utilize. The appeal is that the educators have a little more control over what students are accessing, but it creates limits because of how much work it can put on the educators to create. It also leaves out some of the creativity components that other models emphasize and that many community members want to see in a gifted program. Finally, its structure can significantly change the role of the educator because of the focus on knowledge and not on process and this could put other students in a general education setting at a disadvantage.