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.
I think what happens is we mistake ahead for gifted with kids. However, ahead today doesn't mean ahead for the rest of your life.
Here's a great example:
Dd#2 started playing the piano at 3 and composing at 6. At 6 she would have been considered gifted. However, by 9 most of her peers in her classes were also composing and a few of them passed her by by the time they were 12. Giftedness isn't how early a child does something. It's really how fast they progress once they start. The kids who started composing at 9 and passed her by by 12 were the truly gifted ones. Dd was just early. She lacked a passion for composing that slowed her progress so all that happened is her peers caught up. I think this is what happens with the academically gifted. I think for the most part their peers catch up so they don't stand out anymore.
This.
Pouring a lot of time and effort into the K-8 kids who had what I call a bit of an academic growth spurt can be great for those kids, in that it helps build their confidence and keeps them from getting too bored.
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.
Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) assessments show similar standings.
As to half of the students in Sweden getting vocational education, what is wrong with being an electrician, plumber, hair stylist, auto mechanic, administrative assistant...?
Nothing. But you were sort of making fun of another poster's kid for learning a vocation.
When our son was in middle school, he told us if they ran soccer like they do schools, no one would want to play.
"Out of the mouths of babes". Sorry, not impressed. Competitive sports is a process of exclusion. We have an obligation to educate everyone. And something tells me your son didn't come up with that by himself.
Yes, the goal is to make everyone mediocre - not to promote greatness. Money should be spent most heavily on the bright/inquisitive kids that are the most likely to transform society for the better. We should also do our best to try and educate the less intelligent, though still motivated and ambitious kids.
The lazy and/or troublemakers should be cut as losses and removed from schools in order to prevent disruption to the kids that want to learn. Not sure where they should be put, but anywhere is better than the general vicinity of kids that actually want to learn.
I agree with 50% of what your wrote. We spend too much money on the lower end and get very little in return. The problem in the minority communites to a large extent is the lack of a Dad at home. Study after study has found that a two parent family, even one where both parents were not HS grads, did better than those with only one. And it's a life long impact.
As a former Title 1 school teacher, it is very hard to get kids who start so far behind up to grade level.
We need to reverse the trend and expand funding to the top end, afterall where will the next Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs come from? Not the bottom quintile.
Likewise, learning impaired children here in Missouri are blended into the normal classrooms - at least in elementary school. This leads to these children being teased and picked on when they ask for help or make a mistake, and if by chance they have an accident, all hell breaks loose. In a special ed class, an accident isn't a big thing. In a normal class, it's a chance to humiliate an already-struggling child.
Our educational system, which tries to make an "one size fits all" environment, is grossly inadequate and headed for disaster. God save our kids!!
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?|
Nothing. But you were sort of making fun of another poster's kid for learning a vocation.
>>It is terrific that public schools helped Jodie.p.77.Reserves' sons become feed store managers and trombone players and power lifters. Also commendable that they provided top notch health care to her son with Type 1 Diabetes.
But we also need students mastering advanced calculus and quantum physics... in the years ahead. <<
I was not making fun of her kids for learning a vocation. I don't think we do nearly enough to help students obtain vocational education and training.
Likewise, learning impaired children here in Missouri are blended into the normal classrooms - at least in elementary school. This leads to these children being teased and picked on when they ask for help or make a mistake, and if by chance they have an accident, all hell breaks loose. In a special ed class, an accident isn't a big thing. In a normal class, it's a chance to humiliate an already-struggling child.
Our educational system, which tries to make an "one size fits all" environment, is grossly inadequate and headed for disaster. God save our kids!!
"Out of the mouths of babes". Sorry, not impressed. Competitive sports is a process of exclusion. We have an obligation to educate everyone. And something tells me your son didn't come up with that by himself.
He did indeed come up with this by himself. When our daughter was about seven, she was skating and kept falling. When I tried to get her to take it easy, she told us that if she wasn't falling, she wasn't trying hard enough stuff.
I'm not sure where you played soccer, but in the places we've lived, everyone who signs up plays. They just don't all play on the same teams. The more skilled players play on the comp teams. But everyone still plays.
I agree that we have an obligation to educate all students. I disagree that we should be doing this at the expense of the more capable students. We need to educate all students to their potential.
Last edited by GotHereQuickAsICould; 04-22-2014 at 08:18 PM..
He did indeed come up with this by himself. When our other daughter was about seven, she was skating and kept falling. When I tried to get her to take it easy, she told us that if she wasn't falling, she wasn't trying hard enough stuff.
I'm not sure where you played soccer, but in the places we've lived, everyone who signs up plays. They just don't all play on the same teams. The more skilled players play on the comp teams. But everyone still plays.
I agree that we have an obligation to educate all students. I disagree that we should be doing this at the expense of the more capable students. We need to educate all students to their potential.
Rec soccer teams, yes. "Club" soccer, no.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinawina
This.
Pouring a lot of time and effort into the K-8 kids who had what I call a bit of an academic growth spurt can be great for those kids, in that it helps build their confidence and keeps them from getting too bored.
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.
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.
