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 don't' think the parents of honor roll kids are denied their voice, in fact, they even have bumper stickers saying "My kid is an honor roll student". I've heard of parents getting upset over perfect attendance awards and think the award should be eliminated because their own child didn't get the same award. Maybe parents need to just realize their child may not get every award, every A+, every trophy, every medal, honor or recognition. And it's okay and life goes on.
I knew a straight A+ student in school and she's grown up now and works in church ministry. She's not a doctor, scientist, etc. Perhaps that's what she wanted to do, who knows, but my point is grades don't always predict someone will have some impressive STEM career later on.
I never said they were "denied their voice." But when friends of mine post on facebook that it bothers them when people share posts about their kid getting straight As or earning honors in school, how am I supposed to feel or act? I end up censoring myself because I don't want to make my friends feel badly. But as I said, some of these same people post about their own children's accomplishments and don't recognize the irony in that.
Granted, I haven't posted that it bothers me if people post about a child's athletic or artistic accomplishment because my son doesn't have a lot of talent in those area. The reality is that it doesn't make me feel badly though, I think any achievement by our kids is worth taking pride in and acknowledging. What bothers me is that I now feel like I can't share the achievements that my son does have because it bothers some people, even the same people who have no problem sharing their own kids' achievements that happen to be in different areas.
So I suppose they are the ones who are supposed to realize not every kid gets every award, etc., etc. Yet oddly enough, I still feel like even if they should be more open minded about it, I don't want to be someone contributing to something that makes them upset.
^^You must be hanging out with totally different types of people than I did when my kids were the age of yours. We didn't have facebook then, but of course there were always ways to get this stuff out. I gave a number of examples. And the thing is, I live in deep suburbia,and my kids attended suburban neighborhood schools, not choice schools. Among my friends and acquaintances, parents were proud of their kids' academic achievements. I did know a couple of families who were way off into sports, in one family two of their three did get sports scholarships to college.
Why is academics not competition? why are fast learners need to wait for the slowpokes before they can move on to another lesson?
When children truly are "fast learners" they are usually placed into a gifted program. If they were assessed and it was decided they didn't qualify for the gifted program, then yes, they have to deal with being in a class with what you refer to as "slow pokes". I get tired of hearing parents slander other people's children, though. If your kid is so great as you say he is, then being in class with slower kids isn't going to hold him back.
The separation of better students into advanced classes is a policy that has come into style and gone back out, several times, over the history of education in the U. S. There was no separation when I was in grade school, but then in grades 7-12, the separation and stratification into ability-categories, was almost total. In grades 7-9, all those in each of the 8 groups per year-level, had the same class schedule. All the highest-scorers on comprehensive tests were put in one group and the lowest in another, with those in between, grouped accordingly.
This was eventually regarded as a failure, as it isolated so many students from those in other groups. Those who were put into the lowest-scoring group, which was only half-sized, had little chance to learn anything in the classes. Their teachers spent most of their efforts, keeping order and discipline, as most of those students were of a delinquent type and many came from dysfunctional families.
Now, there seems to be a policy of mostly mixing them all up, causing complaints from parents of advanced students, about how this holds them back. Personally, I think it's better, as it puts students together with others of all academic levels, as it will be in adult life, after school. No matter how well educated and qualified people are, many will be working with those of all ability levels.
Students who truly have excellent academic capabilities, should be able to take the initiative on their own behalf and craft a good education, regardless of which others are in their classes. These self-driving students are the ones who will be the most successful in college and in later life.
The separation of better students into advanced classes is a policy that has come into style and gone back out, several times, over the history of education in the U. S. There was no separation when I was in grade school, but then in grades 7-12, the separation and stratification into ability-categories, was almost total. In grades 7-9, all those in each of the 8 groups per year-level, had the same class schedule. All the highest-scorers on comprehensive tests were put in one group and the lowest in another, with those in between, grouped accordingly.
This was eventually regarded as a failure, as it isolated so many students from those in other groups. Those who were put into the lowest-scoring group, which was only half-sized, had little chance to learn anything in the classes. Their teachers spent most of their efforts, keeping order and discipline, as most of those students were of a delinquent type and many came from dysfunctional families.
Now, there seems to be a policy of mostly mixing them all up, causing complaints from parents of advanced students, about how this holds them back. Personally, I think it's better, as it puts students together with others of all academic levels, as it will be in adult life, after school. No matter how well educated and qualified people are, many will be working with those of all ability levels.
Students who truly have excellent academic capabilities, should be able to take the initiative on their own behalf and craft a good education, regardless of which others are in their classes. These self-driving students are the ones who will be the most successful in college and in later life.
I had a similar experience in grade 7-9. It worked pretty well. It still exists to some extent in most schools today especially in high school. It is mostly done by students picking the type of class they want in the core subjects. Schools use terms like academic English and accelerated English. In classes where there is no self or school grouping, it turns into a waste of time for more advanced students who are place in classes with students with little background knowledge and motivation to learn. In smaller school districts, this happens because there are so few students to group. Imagine a high school with graduating classes of 50 students.
The problem with mixing students up is that teachers are forced to teach somewhere in the middle. That means some of the class are bored out of there mind and some are lost on the subject. Once a student falls behind they likely just give up.
A lot of it depends on the culture of the individual school and community.
My middle school was a gifted center (meaning about 30% of our student body was in one of two gifted programs) and traditionally it was core subjects that gained the most attention by our community. Sports were an after-thought. In the high school we fed into, there was more focus on sports, but academic activities were strongly supported.
I've been in other schools were sports were everything. That was most true in a rural school I taught in early in my career where the athletics were the main community focus. No movie theater or anything like that, so football, basketball, and baseball games, along with other competitive sports were the major focus of the community.
It's simply a baseless claim or faulty impression by the OP. In my experience, between K-12 the gifted students are always recognized and usually have all kinds of extra side group meetings, teacher recommendations, advanced placement courses, top teachers, private schools preference, SAT study groups, tutors, college scholarships, Congressional sponsors for service academies.
These people have the red carpet rolled out for them. It's all the "regular Joes" that get left behind with the "normal" education.
Maybe that's how it rolls in HI today, but, I can tell you, in the Atlanta suburbs back in the 70's, it didn't roll like that at all. The out and out retarded were cut from the herd and given special treatment, but gifted students could at best hope the teacher would just let them read ahead, and leave them alone.
Occasionally an individual teacher would take initiative, my 5th grade teacher taught several of us gifted kids to use a slide rule, back in the day (mid-60's).
A lot of it depends on the culture of the individual school and community.
My middle school was a gifted center (meaning about 30% of our student body was in one of two gifted programs) and traditionally it was core subjects that gained the most attention by our community. Sports were an after-thought. In the high school we fed into, there was more focus on sports, but academic activities were strongly supported.
I've been in other schools were sports were everything. That was most true in a rural school I taught in early in my career where the athletics were the main community focus. No movie theater or anything like that, so football, basketball, and baseball games, along with other competitive sports were the major focus of the community.
As I've read through this thread, I keep getting the impression that posters have a different idea of the definition of the term "gifted." Maybe you can give a more broad definition based on your experience in different states.
In Pennsylvania, school districts may set criteria such as high-test ceilings or IQs of 140+, or design a matrix that is more restrictive than the requirements of Pennsylvania Code (22 Pa. ... Chapter 16 defines the term mentally gifted as "a person who has an IQ of 130 or higher or when multiple criteria indicate gifted ability."
Based on this criteria, it would be very difficult for a school to have 30% of its student body classified as gifted. Around 2.1% of the general population would qualify at the 130 IQ standard. At the high IQ standard of 140, this would represent around .38% of the general population or around 4 students in a school of 1,000. Of course we have schools where the majority of the students are above average and different states and school districts may establish different criteria. Regardless, it seems like this discussion has expanded the definition of gifted.
As I've read through this thread, I keep getting the impression that posters have a different idea of the definition of the term "gifted." Maybe you can give a more broad definition based on your experience in different states.
In Pennsylvania, school districts may set criteria such as high-test ceilings or IQs of 140+, or design a matrix that is more restrictive than the requirements of Pennsylvania Code (22 Pa. ... Chapter 16 defines the term mentally gifted as "a person who has an IQ of 130 or higher or when multiple criteria indicate gifted ability."
Based on this criteria, it would be very difficult for a school to have 30% of its student body classified as gifted. Around 2.1% of the general population would qualify at the 130 IQ standard. At the high IQ standard of 140, this would represent around .38% of the general population or around 4 students in a school of 1,000. Of course we have schools where the majority of the students are above average and different states and school districts may establish different criteria. Regardless, it seems like this discussion has expanded the definition of gifted.
I chuckled when I read your first paragraph.
Our school system was noted for our gifted/talented program, and our particular middle school was (out of about 24) thought to have the best GT program. Yes, there were standards...that seemed to change over time. And we -- at that time -- had two programs. One was called GT-Center, which meant that a student accepted in that program would have GT classes in all four core areas. Then we had GT-Base, meaning that students in that program would have gifted programs in EITHER math/science OR history/English. For the GT-Center program, it was pretty much controlled by the system-wide GT office, although (and I hated this) they would always say, "Mr. _____ has the final say", even thought I didn't...it was just a way to pass the buck. In the GT-Base program, I did have the final say, and it was somewhat nebulous. Each elementary school would sit in on a half-day meeting with me and we would pore over the stats for each student they were nominating. Some of it was data, other factors that were heavily weighted were teacher recommendations. So no, I never saw that clear definition for what gifted meant.
Now, as I understand it, almost anyone can take a gifted course.
It's sort of like when people ask "What is middle school?" In some districts it's 5-8, or 6-8, or 7-8, or 7-9, or ___________. When someone would ask me that question, I would say, "Let me tell you a little secret. Middle School is whatever the physical building availability is".
in schools where classes can have different sections, all the gifted/fast learners should be in section 1. you could make this a very large class since you don't need a lot of teaching.
This comment is unfair, but instructive. It's a perfect example of how many in our society view gifted/advanced students. Not necessarily an attitude of hatred, but an acceptance/belief that they'll be "fine on their own" and that their education doesn't deserve much consideration or resources. On the contrary, every child that walks into a school has the right to be challenged and to be pushed to reach their potential. That means that quality, thoughtful teaching should be occurring regardless of a child's prior knowledge or ability level.
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.
