Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No one disagrees about educating all students. Many with years of experience in education have stated that these special programs are not really helpful. See below. Now by high school, and in some cases middle school, the problem solves itself. I've known kids to be several years ahead in math, and to take classes at the CC when the HS can't accommodate them any more (free, mind you). I'm not worried about competing with Sweden.
Good news that we need not worry about China and Sweden and all the other nations whose students are doing better in science and math. By the way, we spend more per student than just about any nation except Switzerland I believe and with poorer results.
In high school the problems "solves itself" when the schools offer more rigorous coursework for the more capable students. We could be doing this all along.
But are they really going to be ahead forever? For most of them, no. By high school other kids with raw talent (but who were later bloomers) have caught up or passed, and in the end it just boils down to a combination of work ethic and intelligence. I'd rather spend the money at that level. That's where the special schools and advanced programs belong IMO.
In lower grades, there are less expensive ways to occupy bright kids.
On the other hand, the lifelong consequenses of not dealing with the kids who are struggling cost the kids and society dearly. I think those kids need to be nipped in the bud as early as possible. Save as many as we can, or we as a society will end up paying for many of them for the rest of their lives.
>>Less expensive ways to occupy bright kids<<
Are you joking? We're not talking about occupying bright kids. We're talking about challenging them, engaging them in education.
No one is saying that we don't need to provide a decent education to the ones that are struggling. Of course, we need to do that. Not sure I would refer to it as "those kids need to be nipped in the bud" but whatever. We are doing a terrible job of this and have been for years.
According to a study conducted in late April by the U.S. Department of Education and the National Institute of Literacy ... 19 percent of high school graduates can't read.
No one disagrees about educating all students. Many with years of experience in education have stated that these special programs are not really helpful. See below. Now by high school, and in some cases middle school, the problem solves itself. I've known kids to be several years ahead in math, and to take classes at the CC when the HS can't accommodate them any more (free, mind you). I'm not worried about competing with Sweden.
Not everybody gets to play on the comp teams. Not everybody gets admitted to Princeton, or West Point, or Annapolis. But everybody gets to play soccer at the level they are capable of. And everybody needs at education at the level they are capable of.
These special programs where students are pulled out for enrichment experiences a couple times a month are inadequate. They may provide a bit of distraction and engagement in exploration and critical thinking, but they are grains of sand in a beach of boredom.
Sort kids into classrooms by abilities so that everyone gets instruction and curriculum at the level they are capable of would be a more effective approach.
There's an interview with Steve Jobs where he describes his accelerated fourth grade classroom. As I recall, he ground lenses for a camera and one thing and another.
Bill Gates and Zuckerman attended private schools. Bill Gates' mother arranged for him and fellow students to have time on an early computer.
Concern for the late bloomers being left behind shouldn't mean that the early bloomers get held back.
I've known kids to be several years ahead in math, and to take classes at the CC when the HS can't accommodate them any more (free, mind you).
College courses are not free to the school district. They have to pay the tuition. In these budget tight times, many districts are reluctant to do so. Parents often have to advocate for their children to be allowed to enroll. Even then it means that they have to sacrifice class time to travel back and forth. Often this means the parents have to provide a car for them to do so. I have never heard of a public school that provides this transportation.
That a few students can take college courses their senior year in high school is too little, way too late.
I'm surprised that no one is advocating for the bright kids from low-income families. The ones from families who don't have the wherewithal to provide enriching experiences outside of school, who don't have the financial resources to send their kids to private schools, who aren't able to provide cars so their kids can take college classes in high schools.
We seem to be pouring a lot of resources into educating the less capable kids without any evidence that we are making much of a difference. The literacy rate hasn't changed in ten years. 19% of high school graduates can't read. Apparently we are celebrating a 40 year peak in graduation rates. However, considering that 25% of kids don't graduate it isn't much of a celebration.
This is very true. What many people mean by G&T is really just bright average children. This is the group that I don't think needs special treatment other than to get the bottom out of their classes. It's the bottom that slows down the pace of a class, however, I don't think you need special classes paced just for the top. I don't think there's any benefit in the long run to doing that. When I look around, I do not see nearly as many gifted adults as we seem to think we have gifted children in our schools. We need to quit defining gifted as smarter than average and walk away from the idea that just because a child can handle going faster/deeper they need to go faster/deeper. Sometimes the best thing to do is just let them bloom brightly where they are.
Gifted children do grow up to be gifted adults. They don't walk around with signs around their neck that shout "gifted" but they are there. They haven't changed. They may go on to take ordinary jobs but they are still gifted.
In order for society to be successful it has to invest (money/time) in its most promising citizens. I think that the refusal of the US to invest in anything except the bottom students is short sighted. It is not the least intelligent who drive innovation. Students don't just "bloom brightly" where they are any more than plants do. Plants need tending and so do students. ALL STUDENTS. And ALL includes the top.
My son has an IQ of 167 and is recognized by independent experts as an unparalleled genius. But at the age of 47 he has not had a job, as potential employers are threatened by his acute intellect. I am planning to seek redress via the International Criminal Court. |Do others share my experience?|
I hope you are joking.
My oldest also has an IQ in the same range as your son. He is 20. He currently has a job on campus working for a professor. He has an internship lined up for this summer. I think the issue is that at age 20 my son is interviewing for his own jobs, finding his own apartment for the summer and at age 47 your son still has his parents fighting his battles.
One thing I have noticed as my kids were growing up is that many parents of gifted students get hyper-focused on their child's superior intellect and develop that part of their child to the detriment of all else in the child's life. No matter how smart a child is he still needs social skills. Parents of gifted students need to make sure their kids do things that develop their whole child, not just his intellect. Gifted kids should play sports, take art classes, music lessons, participate in theater productions, dance, whatever...Smart kids need to be able to function in the real world and if all you ever do with them is academic in nature they develop into very very smart but dysfunctional adults.
Gifted children do grow up to be gifted adults. They don't walk around with signs around their neck that shout "gifted" but they are there. They haven't changed. They may go on to take ordinary jobs but they are still gifted.
In order for society to be successful it has to invest (money/time) in its most promising citizens. I think that the refusal of the US to invest in anything except the bottom students is short sighted. It is not the least intelligent who drive innovation. Students don't just "bloom brightly" where they are any more than plants do. Plants need tending and so do students. ALL STUDENTS. And ALL includes the top.
The investment that the USA makes in gifted children is in maintaining the most impressive system of colleges and universities in the world. This fact is frequently acknowledged when foreigners are polled about what is best about America. I question whether something in primary and secondary school is needed.
If a school district has ample funding, I don't object to them investing in gifted and talented children. However, what I haven't heard one of you supporters of G & T education acknowledge is that the overall scarcity of resources in many school districts means that running a G & T program means there will be fewer teachers and larger student/teacher ratios for average kids and kids in resource. My position is that I'm unwilling to make the sacrifice you say is desirable for gifted children until the needs down the ladder get met.
I don't remember there was a G & T program when I went to school at all. Yet, my school and graduating class turned out large numbers of doctors, lawyers, engineers, business leaders, military officers, and educators. Looking back on my educational experience, even though we didn't have a G & T program, we did have teachers who frequently assigned difficult books to students like myself who read at a college level in seventh grade. We had other teachers who made good students classroom aides and had them do special science projects. The overall program designed for average students was a good program and our district wisely focused the money it had on keeping it that way.
In order for society to be successful it has to invest (money/time) in its most promising citizens. I think that the refusal of the US to invest in anything except the bottom students is short sighted. It is not the least intelligent who drive innovation. Students don't just "bloom brightly" where they are any more than plants do. Plants need tending and so do students. ALL STUDENTS. And ALL includes the top.
I couldn't agree more. Bright students without parents who are able to nurture their gifts are left struggling on their own.
If we don't nurture the brightest of our young citizens, where we you think this will all lead?
I am not advocating pulling financial resources from the struggling students. Far from it. They need to develop the skills to be successful as well.
But to sacrifice the best and brightest, counting on them making it on their own, is indeed short sighted.
The investment that the USA makes in gifted children is in maintaining the most impressive system of colleges and universities in the world. This fact is frequently acknowledged when foreigners are polled about what is best about America. I question whether something in primary and secondary school is needed.
If a school district has ample funding, I don't object to them investing in gifted and talented children. However, what I haven't heard one of you supporters of G & T education acknowledge is that the overall scarcity of resources in many school districts means that running a G & T program means there will be fewer teachers and larger student/teacher ratios for average kids and kids in resource. My position is that I'm unwilling to make the sacrifice you say is desirable for gifted children until the needs down the ladder get met.
I don't remember there was a G & T program when I went to school at all. Yet, my school and graduating class turned out large numbers of doctors, lawyers, engineers, business leaders, military officers, and educators. Looking back on my educational experience, even though we didn't have a G & T program, we did have teachers who frequently assigned difficult books to students like myself who read at a college level in seventh grade. We had other teachers who made good students classroom aides and had them do special science projects. The overall program designed for average students was a good program and our district wisely focused the money it had on keeping it that way.
We used to sort kids out into groups and classes by ability to do the work. We didn't load classrooms down with SpEd students who needed a ton of extra time and attention. The kids who needed special attention were in classrooms where they got that special attention. We didn't expect teachers to meet the needs of students who couldn't read, stay in their seats, or pay attention for more than two minutes at a time while teaching average students and top students.
Teachers had time to develop special science projects for advanced students, find out what difficult books would engage them, etc.
Today we are sacrificing the education of the average and gifted learners. Every classroom I've seen assigns good students as science buddies, reading partners, etc. So instead of learning new material, they are being used as teacher's aides for the slow students.
We have some misguided notion that this will all work out if we only test them enough, if we only have a sufficient amount of I.E.P.s Teachers are leaving the profession in droves in many districts. Bureaucracy is often cited as one of the main reasons. Constant paperwork and demands to do things other than teach.
We still are turning out folks who are becoming doctors, dentists, and lawyers... But we are also turning out students who can't read or add and subtract well enough to take a community college class. One third of those admitted to community colleges have to take remedial courses.
25% of high school students don't graduate. Nearly 20% of those who do can't read at a fifth grade level.
This system isn't working. We're not challenging the top students. We are not educating the bottom ones. And we are paying as much or more per student as any nation in the world.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
