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.
Some highlights.
**he says America’s drive to catch up in test scores to the international leaders like Singapore and Finland is misguided. . . . Well, he thinks standards tied to high-stakes tests stifle creativity, and he believes they homogenize talent. . . . Zhao showed a Life magazine cover from 1958 – during the Cold War – depicting American students lagging behind their Soviet counterparts. And that lag has continued up to this day. Yet still for the past several decades, the U.S. has had the largest, most prosperous economy in the world and, he says, there are no workers who are more productive.**
The focus that Asian countries have on passing tests in not healthy in any way and certainly does stifle creativity. Finland, however, doesn't have the same focus on tests at all. I still don't think that system would work in all of this country.
In our local school district they have funding for special needs and gifted populations come out of the same pot of money. Right now it sits at about 90/10 in favor of special needs kids. Monetary wise the gifted kids are getting the shaft, but most of them "are privileged anyway so why should they get any more services"(that's the thinking in our local school board).
The first step would be to sort students into learning groups according to their test scores. One poster wrote about "Walk to math," "Walk to science," "Walk to English," where students stay in the same homeroom with their age mates, but walk to various levels of classes in various subjects. This could be implemented across the country.
The current overemphasis on testing has the side benefit of allowing educators specific information on deficits in knowledge.
This lower groups could focus on the repetition the students need to gain a basic foundation in a subject. All groups could move at the pace they are capable of.
Schools could sort out the poorly behaved into separate classrooms where learning to behave appropriately would be one focus along with academics. Once the students were able to manage their behavior to the point they are not disrupting classes, then they could enter the groups at the level they are capable of.
It is a perfectly sensible solution for everyone but the parents of the slow learners who want to pretend that their kids are capable of keeping up if only teachers would give them extra time and attention they need and modify the curriculum.
Most high schools sort students into SpEd, regular classrooms, and AP/Honors. Why not elementary and middle schools?
Tracking is politically incorrect now, though, and all students are expected to learn the same material in the same amount of time.
Tracking is politically incorrect now, though, and all students are expected to learn the same material in the same amount of time.
Yep, and this is the problem. I think many of us wish the "educators" (Politicians) would understand this. There are still positive solutions for SpEd students, while also meeting the needs of the top group.
It is so peculiar that we do not hear much about the results from 1987 with "at-risk" students:
Quote:
It started in the Vero Beach High School in 1987. School authorities put the "at-risk" students into a separate section where teaching was done, not by teachers, but by computers. Teachers in these classes became facilitators of learning.
Instructors in regular classes were relieved. Computerized education took unruly students out of their mainstream classes. Both instructors and other pupils in regular classes benefited immediately.
Since the Vero Beach experiment began, results have been beyond expectations. One indication of its success is that many other school districts in Florida have investigated and copied the program. Schools from across the nation have also heard of its achievements and have visited the school and its coordinator, Judy Jones.
Quote:
Odds against these students passing the GED were enormous. No one unfamiliar with the power of computers could have given them much chance to graduate. When the tests were given and scored, questions about the effectiveness of this novel way of teaching vanished. Computers had effectively overcome those oppressive negative odds. Eighty-five percent of these students taught by computers pass the GED with the Florida requirements on their first attempt.
So if this worked with "at-risk" why don't we hear about it a lot and shouldn't it do better with "gifted/talented" students? How does it get disappeared for 27 years with all of the talk about "education"?
And then I can't find what computers and software they used. Aren't the computers much better since 1987?
Tracking is politically incorrect now, though, and all students are expected to learn the same material in the same amount of time.
I find it amazing that anyone ever thought this was a good idea.
In my school there is no "tracking" but because AP classes are offered only certain hours and classes like band pull the better students from certain hours we see major differences in performance. I just gave a chemistry test where my highest class had an 81% average and my lowest class had a 69% average. Yup, they all learn the same material in the same time don't they?
Gifted students, not good students, but actual gifted students, have always been neglected. In most schools, you'll find most of the gifted students out smoking in the parking lot and sneaking off campus because we've already lost them. They started feeling frustrated by 3rd grade because, although they don't understand why, their parents don't understand why, and their teachers don't recognize the problem, without educators trained to work with them appropriately, in a regular classroom environment they are basically suffering the same as a learning disabled child suffers. In 7th grade, as they hit the key and turbulent age of 13, we lose a large percentage of them to disenfranchisement and its accompanying depression and acting out. Those that are still struggling, still trying despite their angst, frustration, and anger, we will lose for good before they finish the 10th grade. Some will drop out. Some will graduate but barely, and they will not have achieved what they ae capable of and will have internalized all the negative messages they've received from their educators and parents since middle school. There is research out there that shows us this, but as a society, we don't address it and fix the problem productively. Only in pockets sprinkled here and there. In this especially punitive society, too many of them will end up with jail and/or prison time before they've made it to full maturity, too. This is most especially true for our young males. It's really sad; heartbreaking, in fact, and it is not good for our country. It is a genuine loss for our country.
I have a feeling you are not describing gifted students in general but your own life.
My son would meet any definition of gifted. He scored an 800 on his math SAT and 760 on verbal. Graduated from an Ivy League school and medical school. He graduated second in his HS class with a bright group of gifted students. Three are now doctors and and at least four have completed their Ph.D. in various science fields. None fit the description that you describe. Most were very social and participated in sports.
Your statement, "In most schools, you'll find most of the gifted students out smoking in the parking lot and sneaking off campus..." is bizarre to say the least.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aplcr0331
In our local school district they have funding for special needs and gifted populations come out of the same pot of money. Right now it sits at about 90/10 in favor of special needs kids. Monetary wise the gifted kids are getting the shaft, but most of them "are privileged anyway so why should they get any more services"(that's the thinking in our local school board).
Quote:
Originally Posted by psr13
Tracking is politically incorrect now, though, and all students are expected to learn the same material in the same amount of time.
Someone will eventually catch on that this is a mistake.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snuffybear
Yes, exactly how it is here. I think our district is in compliance with national laws on the matter. Katiana, do you have any idea what these laws require? Are you a teacher or a sub or ??
I sense a change on how this is managed is coming with Common Core, as CC is not very special-ed friendly. However, the SpecEd lawyers / advocates / parents have a case, if the federal laws are not followed.
Since the passage of IDEA in 1990 there has been strong federal protection for children with disabilities. I don't see any trend away from this support. How do you see Common Core affecting existing federal law?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zot
Our current educational system is likely a violation of human rights on many levels, against all students.
As such, it's tough to single any class as being harmed more than another.
Generally, urban minority students without fathers seem to come out very badly.
Smart kids, by their own nature, would have better outcomes.
I would say the our current educational system has been moving stronger in the direction of human rights. IDEA is based on case law that says the deprivation of free public education to disabled children constitutes a deprivation of due process. The problem is how the Least Restrictive Environment principle that says to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities including children in public or private institutions or care facilities, are educated with children who are nondisabled. In some cases, gifted and bright motivated students can take more advanced math, honors classes and AP courses. Most of these options are not currently available to elementary or middles school students.
I don't believe we need Gifted/Talented programs. I don't see changes being made in elementary schools, but I see no reason why honors classes can't be offered in middle school, and why honors or more advanced classes are not offered for all classes in both middle and high school. Students would have to choose to be in a more advanced class and would have to maintain there grades in these classes to be eligible to continue taking them.
I have a feeling you are not describing gifted students in general but your own life.
My son would meet any definition of gifted. He scored an 800 on his math SAT and 760 on verbal. Graduated from an Ivy League school and medical school. He graduated second in his HS class with a bright group of gifted students. Three are now doctors and and at least four have completed their Ph.D. in various science fields. None fit the description that you describe. Most were very social and participated in sports.
Good scores on tests and graduating from Ivy League schools are not a good definition of gifted. Gifted people actually think differently. They can certainly do well on tests too, but that doesn't define gifted for me. Doctors, btw, are not necessarily gifted although they may be in a particular part of their career. I have doctors in my family and they are certainly bright, but not gifted in any sense of the word.
I don't believe we need Gifted/Talented programs. I don't see changes being made in elementary schools, but I see no reason why honors classes can't be offered in middle school, and why honors or more advanced classes are not offered for all classes in both middle and high school. Students would have to choose to be in a more advanced class and would have to maintain there grades in these classes to be eligible to continue taking them.
Giftedness is not just acceleration. Giftedness affects the whole child. A teacher trained in understanding giftedness will be both empathetic and adept at reaching the gifted child in all areas of their development, not just their academics.
Gifted kids thrive when they are among their like-minded peers. Many gifted children are actually self-motivated toward learning, but don't care about grades as much as the academically bright kids who are not gifted.
Type I
The Successful
Perhaps as many as 90% of identified gifted students in school programs are Type I's. Children who demonstrate the behavior, feelings, and needs classified as Type I's have learned the system.
Type II
The Challenging
Type II's are the divergently gifted. Many school systems fail to identify Type II gifted children for programs unless the programs have been in place at least five years and substantial inservicing has been done with teachers. Type II's typically possess a high degree of creativity and may appear to be obstinate, tactless, or sarcastic.
Type III
The Underground
The Type III gifted child is known as "the underground gifted." Generally, these are middle school females although males may also want to hide their giftedness. If a gifted boy goes underground, it tends to happen later, in high school, and typically in response to the pressure to participate in athletics.
Type IV
The Dropouts
Type IV gifted students are angry. They are angry with adults and with themselves because the system has not met their needs for many years and they feel rejected. They may express this anger by acting depressed and withdrawn or by acting out and responding defensively.
Type V
The Double-Labeled
Type V refers to gifted children who are physically or emotionally handicapped in some way, or who have learning disabilities. The vast majority of gifted programs do not identify these children, nor do they offer differentiated programming that addresses and integrates their special needs.
TYPE VI
The Autonomous Learner
The Type VI gifted child is the autonomous learner. Few gifted children demonstrate this style at a very early age although parents may see evidence of the style at home. Like the Type I's, these students have learned to work effectively in the school system. However, unlike the Type I's who strive to do as little as possible, Type VI's have learned to use the system to create new opportunities for themselves.
Type I are the kids typically identified. Type V are the kids with disabilities who belong in honors and gifted classes like my granddaughter. Type VI kids are like the will probably be ok anywhere and are the ones people think of most often. Type II, III and IV really need to be identified and served. Type IV kids in high school do drop out. I have known highly gifted kids who were so angry that they could not focus on school at all and often their parents had no idea they were gifted because they brought home very poor grades.
First, my child was in school with him since Kindergarten. Second, the parents have told me. Third, do you really think we don't know? My kids tell me the behaviors/learning issues of many of the kids (ie, John can't write so has to have a keyboard, and has trouble doing any of the writing assignments; Suzy can't remember her math facts so she is always asking me, because she can't do the division problems if she doesn't know her basic mult/division; Jack says inappropriate things and can't focus on his work and needs a lot of help and has card cues on his desk like "listen" and "raise my hand"; Jack is allowed to walk around the room when the teacher is talking, but no one else is --- these are all true things I heard in elem school by the way). This is true in any mainstream class, they are not in a closet, they are observed by other kids. Not to mention, parents go to back-to-school night etc and see the social cue cards on the desks, etc.
I've also seen/heard about the modifications on other tests (word banks, fewer questions, no short answer questions, etc). And, my son once received a test back of one of these kids (by mistake); it was significantly modified. My friends with special ed kids also tell me about their IEP meetings, what they are negotiating, etc. And all the kids know who goes to "Resource Room" for extra help daily, and who gets extra time on tests. It's all obvious, especially in a smallish school!
The kid with "mild autism" (using his parents words) also says a lot of socially inappropriate things; and he has trouble with eye contact.
Your point is? This doesn't sound too different from a lot of 7th graders!
Quote:
Originally Posted by psikeyhackr
It is so peculiar that we do not hear much about the results from 1987 with "at-risk" students:
So if this worked with "at-risk" why don't we hear about it a lot and shouldn't it do better with "gifted/talented" students? How does it get disappeared for 27 years with all of the talk about "education"?
And then I can't find what computers and software they used. Aren't the computers much better since 1987?
psik
A 1996 article about "computerized education"? The computer people will tell you it's always "garbage in, garbage out". Computers have changed things in some ways, but in others it's the same old, same old.
**One company supplying software for these programs believes a student with two hours of computer lab instruction can equal what a student would accomplish in one month of regular classes. The instructor who first told me about this felt that this was an accurate appraisal from what she had seen in two years of working in the program, after several years of teaching in regular classes.**
Seriously?
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 04-29-2014 at 07:18 PM..
My point is that he operates around a 3rd/4th grade level in 7th grade. I'm not sure it's really helping him to be in the social studies class. I'm sure he'd learn more in a class with others more like him. And my point was, that nana asked how I knew he had autism, and those combined with the other information I had, are signs of autism that can be found on any checklist.
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.
