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.
There are tons of elementary and middle schools with no specialized programs, not even a once a week pull out experience.
Kids do progress at wildly different paces. Any teacher who is capable of teaching classes with wildly different levels of students would likely be capable of moving kids from track to track depending on what their needs are at the time.
Our daughters went to an elementary schools that combined grade levels in various combinations. K-1, 1-2, 2-3 and so forth. It worked moderately well in that those who were charging ahead would be in the higher combinations and those who needed more time would be placed in the lower ones. Some students stayed with the same teacher for two years, which seemed to work out well.
Tracking, or streaming as it is sometimes called, is used in many of the countries whose students consistently outperform our students on math and science tests.
A German professor told me once that our public education system is geared to turning out a lot of people who are practically unemployable now that most manufacturing jobs have moved out of the country. Because the curriculum is so watered down, without parents picking up the slack many students drift on through graduation unable to comprehend what they read enough to understand an instruction manual, unable to figure out what 10% off would be. He said that Germany could not afford to support that many low-skilled citizens. There just weren't that many stocking and cashiering jobs available.
We are coming to that same conclusion in this country. We have focused on the needs of the low performing students and for the most part ignored the higher performing students. The outcomes aren't that impressive to me.
Now the question is what to do about it?
What I am saying is that is not because it is "out of fashion" among educators, as was implied earlier. Most still believe that all kids should not be learning the same thing at the same time. Where possible, some advanced SOMETHING is usually implemented.
If a school doesn't have something in place, usually, 1. They don't have the budget to create a separate opportunities, and not because "all the money is going to the lowest students", but because school budgets have been getting slashed for years so there really isn't enough to do everything you need to do to run a proper school AND 2. Standardized testing, and the new reality that schools are being rewarded or punished based on how many pass the test, forces the attention on getting as many people to pass as possible. But that's not coming from EDUCATORS, that's coming from policy makers.
As states have shifted to the "one year's progress for all students" model we do see some more focus on getting the top kids to learn a bit more, but the assessment system is still problematic.
In any case, I still think that a properly staffed classroom with a well trained teacher & assistant can take care of the needs of 97% of the student population. Actually, the 2 grades/1 classroom model you describe is one of the ways it is accomplished with a limited budget. But teachers have to be trained to do it well, which takes money and time.
If anything I think individual schools should be freer to pick the classroom setups/staffing that works with their population of students.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GotHereQuickAsICould
Exactly. Teachers are expected to meet the educational needs of each student at whatever level they are at. As classroom sizes increase, how is that even possible?
It's not. It only works if the classroom is staffed properly for the amount of students in the class.
But, no one wants to spend any more money on public education.
I think I've posted this before. It's a single data point pulled from my local school district, showing the amount of money allocated to the children outside of "norm" for various reasons. The special needs budget is roughly 100x that of the gifted and talented program.
That is really interesting. My suspicion is that smarter kids should need teachers less then others especially if the are self motivated. The trouble is how can they know what to do? It is not like they can magically know what they are interested in when in grade school.
I don't know about that! Many teachers really bond to these early bloomers, especially if they're outgoing.
So what if teachers "bond" to the extroverted early bloomers? Teachers also "bond" to the shy underdogs. Who cares?
The kids are there to get an education so they can, hopefully, be successfully employed at some point in the future. Why have the early bloomers, bonded or not, sitting around, bored out of their gourds waiting for the late bloomers to catch up. What a ridiculous waste of precious time.
So what if teachers "bond" to the extroverted early bloomers? Teachers also "bond" to the shy underdogs. Who cares?
The kids are there to get an education so they can, hopefully, be successfully employed at some point in the future. Why have the early bloomers, bonded or not, sitting around, bored out of their gourds waiting for the late bloomers to catch up. What a ridiculous waste of precious time.
Oh, no they don't, for the most part. If you have a quiet, shy kid, you're always getting "advice" from the teacher(s) to get your kid to participate more, etc, basically to change their personality. And teachers often don't think they're very bright. The teachers were always surprised when my kids would score well on tests, b/c they weren't calling attention to themselves all day, every day. This is particularly true in elementary school. A friend of mine once asked a teacher (this was in middle school), "would you like a whole room full of kids like that?"
If a school doesn't have something in place, usually, 1. They don't have the budget to create a separate opportunities, and not because "all the money is going to the lowest students", but because school budgets have been getting slashed for years so there really isn't enough to do everything you need to do to run a proper school AND 2.
I have to disagree. The money is there, the problem is that state governments and the Feds have very specific directives about where it has to go. The bulk of the money is going towards closing the "achievement gap" and/or towards special education services. These initiatives have caused massive bloating in educational spending in the past few decades and tied the hands of local officials in deciding their own budgets. Not only are gifted programs being drastically reduced or axed altogether, but other "non-essentials" like music, foreign language, physical education, heck in some cases even social studies have all been cleared out to spend money on government mandates.
It was done by subject in our schools too, and that makes perfect sense to me. The students still see their friends for lunch, gym, etc. It doesn't make sense to push kids ahead an entire grade when they may lack the maturity to be around older kids.
In our school there is no gifted program, but there are opportunities for acceleration within math, science and foreign language. Those classes have mixed ages but the 9th graders are still considered 9th graders. They stay with their grade for English and Social Studies. Electives are mixed ages (9-12).
I don't mind mixed age classes but it is hard to be the only 14 year old if everyone in a class is 17 or 18. It's different when there is a mix. It's hard to be the only anything in a group.
Was it not some of the smartest people in history who were gifted,smart, or perhaps even just ahead of his or her time? How about Einstein and Tesla. People thought of them as mad men. Tesla invented many things, he died alone in Central Park feeding birds! Einstein's theory of relativity is basic common sense nothing can't just come from nothing. Yet nothing plus nothing equals nothing. They still to this day try to determine and theorize, Albert Einstein. I think it's just time the hole human race; just takes a deep breath, relax and realize. We are all in this together. stop with the labels of people. Ever ship needs a captain. We all working together can accomplish much more together. Than we can fighting over who deserves what based on whether your smart too smart or just smart enough .
I don't know, but my children have the opportunity to learn. They all know hard work is involved. My oldest son learned agriculture, farming, ranching. He is twenty and manages a feed store.My oldest twin son (very talented mechanic)...I thought IEP...was independent educational preparedness. I thought it was a bad thing. That he was slower. If I'm understanding something I just read on here? He was in gifted the smartest program all along.. Makes sense now looking back.My third born son is very smart nothing less than A-B's student all threw high school. Not the first to catch on but when he does he does very well. Important to note. The identical twins born preemie. One weighing 2#s the other 3#s will both be graduating high school this spring each with very promising,bright futures. My fourth born son plays the saxophone and competes in power lifting. My youngest plays the trombone is a straight A student. Not only has he been provided a wonderful education. He is type 1 diabetic and receives top notch health care while attending any junior high activities. So I don't know.. Guess I should just be very grateful. That my kids have received such opportunities to learn. I feel like there local schools deserve some recognition or something.
I have a hard time believing it's only $11,148 for gifted. I'd love to see what that includes. I'll point out too that it costs nothing to simply place a child in a higher grade level. I'll also point out that many of these disabilities don't automatically mean intellectually disabled.
It seems that no one here has defined what they mean by gifted and talented education, either. What kind of teaching/programming does everyone here think that should be?
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.
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.
What does "bright average" mean? I thought that one would preclude the other. Or are you referring to those with an IQ score that's just a little over the average? If the average is 100, then perhaps you're referring to those with an IQ in the 105-110.
What are your criteria for determining which adults are above average intelligence? Advanced degrees? A scarlet "G" embroidered on a shirt. I wouldn't be surprised if an anti-intellectual culture and a lack of support during childhood have resulted in a great deal of squandered talent.
Comparatively, money is poured into supporting the bottom half of students. I don't see why we can't, as a society, throw a few more nickels at the top half, especially the top third. I believe that "results" in adult life spring from investment (time & resources) in the potential displayed by above average children, be they "just bright", geniuses, or somewhere in between. On the other hand, many (Americans) around me believe in self-revealing talent. I think that attitude is an extremely risky proposition.
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.
