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.
OK so we should do nothing? Merit pay in the private sector does not function with perfect information or perfect fairness either.
We had merit pay for a few years in Fairfax County, Virginia, when I was a vice principal. There were 3 categories: does not meet standards, meets standards, and exemplary. Exemplary got -- as I recall -- a bonus of a bit over $3,000. I can only speak for my school (where I was the VP at the time)...the ratings given were, for the most part (decided by the principal) relatively accurate and deserved. "Exemplary" is quite a high bar.
I don't think anyone is talking in all or nothing terms (except maybe a few). ...
Two questions. These are both items that have bothered me since I was a kid in school and again when my kids were in school. So these are real questions I've had that happen to match directly to your statement.
The first: Why would you consider teachers wanting to teach gifted kids "fawning?" While I don't I've ever seen much fawning toward gifted kids, I've seen this sentiment expressed a lot.
The second follows from it. What I have seen is a lot of fawning over the bottom kids. Why is there this belief they "need the attention the most?"
So much of the attitude I've seen is gifted kids don't need attention; they'll be fine. Don't the gifted kids deserve attention too?
1. It sure does sound like some posters here are exactly saying 'all'.
2. Let me explain a little bit more my 'fawning over' comment. When I was still teaching I never asked for all GT classes. I always said, "I'd like to have at least one GT class"...and the reason was that with GT kids I could get deeper into my earth science content...and let's face it, if you're a trained geologist, in 9th grade you're only using maybe 2% of your knowledge and experience base. But let's put the concept of who needs help the most in a different context. If you donate money to your church to help those in need, do you want it to go to the rich? Because being gifted is sort of like being rich...just in terms of intellectual abilities. But what I'm really talking about here is not how any teacher teaches whatever kids they have in their class...I expect the best from the teacher whether the kids are in a gifted or regular class...or special ed, or ESOL, or whatever. I'm talking more about the behind the scenes manipulation of teachers to get gifted classes. For example, let's take science teacher Mrs. DelMonte. She comes in one day and demands all gifted classes the next year. "Why do you feel you're qualified to have all gifted classes?" "Because I'm the oldest teacher in the department". Really? That's a qualification...as compared to a couple of science teachers who had taken college programs regarding the gifted? Another teacher once said, "If I don't get all gifted classes next year, I'll sue the school system". And what would the basis of that law suit be? I even had one math teacher who said he would call George Bush if he didn't get all gifted classes. I know you think I'm making that up, but I'm not. Now here's my question do you -- those 3 examples...do you think their demands were based on what was good for the students...or what was good for them? I valued all types of kids. I didn't care what the race was, or the income level was, or the neighborhood was, OR what the intelligence level was. I wanted every one of them to get the best education we could give them.
“Be fine” from a utilitarian standpoint means that they will not be a drain on society and end up on SSI for life. IF your goal in schooling is to produce productive citizens, not “be all you can be” - then I would say that this is success.
Actually requiring more in high school isn’t going to make much of a difference. I can say this having gone to HS with mostly Gifted kids and seeing that a ton of us ended up losing our scholarships once we reached college. So many kids were burnt out at that point. I talked about it with a guy who was a few years behind me and he agreed that it was not an uncommon issue. At that time I think he’d just finished his freshman year.
ANd yep, I would say that working these days, I underachieve. I have a few other corowkers I know fall wishin the Gifted range and another one fully admits to underachieving. I have met tons of other people who are underachievers. I think that the issue is that there are people who do a ROI analysis and decide that if you do X work you can get a decent GPA or if you do an exponentially higher amount of work you can get a great GPA. So the underachievers are like “ok here is the minimum I can do to get the grades I want” and call it a day. I do that. My sister does that. I know numerous other people who do that. I don’t think there is any specific method to change that. If you are paying me the same amount as a regular achiever, why on earth am I going to achieve to my full potential?
I have never forgotten my elementary school years. We didn't have such a thing as a gifted program, but I remember in my class -- which sort of traveled along together year by year throughout elementary school -- that there were 3 kids who some called "the golden children". They got so much attention as the star students. Golden child Louis ended up being a used car salesman. Golden child Kathy ended up being a high-priced call girl. Of the three, only Golden child Diane ended up being truly successful as the owner of her own small corporation. Meanwhile some of us 'just regular' kids got college degrees and became quite successful. Where I was principal, one of our gifted kids ended up very successful in the path they decided on -- death row for multiple murders! I learned a long time ago...don't always bet on the students with the best odds.
Thankyou. Let's talk about 2. It seems like you were in a somewhat unique type of gifted structure where there were actual gifted classes. To have actual gifted classes taught by specialists would be a wonder.
Seems like more gifted "programs" (and I use that word tentatively) are closer to what someone else mentioned upthread and can be summed up in two words: More Homework.
Much like that provided in our district, "gifted" only existed in elementary and middle school. In both, the students were in the same classes as everyone else where they only difference is they were given an IEP that required "enrichment." What did enrichment consist of? More homework.
If the teacher gave out a 50-problem math worksheet and told the class to work 20 problems, the gifted student had to work all 50. The gifted student got to do a science experiment, at home, with no coaching or assistance or advice from the teacher, and then turn in a written report and PowerPoint presentation to the class. If the teacher assigned one chapter for reading, the gifted got two. Yeah, they sure expended a lot of effort on the gifted students.
Are we giving our gifted and other top students the best education we can give them? The 80/20 rule applies to education as well. If we put 80% of our effort into the bottom 20% of students trying to save that one late bloomer that might be there, what does that mean for how much we've lost by not elevating the other 80%?
You spoke of being gifted "like being rich." Seems like a lot of gifted kids and those who really understand them, it's more like a curse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
1. It sure does sound like some posters here are exactly saying 'all'.
2. Let me explain a little bit more my 'fawning over' comment. When I was still teaching I never asked for all GT classes. I always said, "I'd like to have at least one GT class"...and the reason was that with GT kids I could get deeper into my earth science content...and let's face it, if you're a trained geologist, in 9th grade you're only using maybe 2% of your knowledge and experience base. But let's put the concept of who needs help the most in a different context. If you donate money to your church to help those in need, do you want it to go to the rich? Because being gifted is sort of like being rich...just in terms of intellectual abilities. But what I'm really talking about here is not how any teacher teaches whatever kids they have in their class...I expect the best from the teacher whether the kids are in a gifted or regular class...or special ed, or ESOL, or whatever. I'm talking more about the behind the scenes manipulation of teachers to get gifted classes. For example, let's take science teacher Mrs. DelMonte. She comes in one day and demands all gifted classes the next year. "Why do you feel you're qualified to have all gifted classes?" "Because I'm the oldest teacher in the department". Really? That's a qualification...as compared to a couple of science teachers who had taken college programs regarding the gifted? Another teacher once said, "If I don't get all gifted classes next year, I'll sue the school system". And what would the basis of that law suit be? I even had one math teacher who said he would call George Bush if he didn't get all gifted classes. I know you think I'm making that up, but I'm not. Now here's my question do you -- those 3 examples...do you think their demands were based on what was good for the students...or what was good for them? I valued all types of kids. I didn't care what the race was, or the income level was, or the neighborhood was, OR what the intelligence level was. I wanted every one of them to get the best education we could give them.
Bingo! That's NOT gifted education. Meeting gifted students' educational needs involves a substantial alteration of the regular curriculum scope and sequence. There are almost NO gifted programs in the US education system that do either, let alone both.
Exactly. We put almost no support into true gifted education. Heck, even the top third of students need to be in a very different system than the bottom third, without even discussing gifted specifically.
Exactly. We put almost no support into true gifted education. Heck, even the top third of students need to be in a very different system than the bottom third, without even discussing gifted specifically.
At one time there was talk that every student would have his own IEP. If you're gifted at that but special ed at this and middle of the road on these other things, every class would be tailored to your individual needs. I think computers are a step toward that, with adaptive release. But socialization is a big part of school so computers only go so far.
We had merit pay for a few years in Fairfax County, Virginia, when I was a vice principal. There were 3 categories: does not meet standards, meets standards, and exemplary. Exemplary got -- as I recall -- a bonus of a bit over $3,000. I can only speak for my school (where I was the VP at the time)...the ratings given were, for the most part (decided by the principal) relatively accurate and deserved. "Exemplary" is quite a high bar.
Thankyou. Let's talk about 2. It seems like you were in a somewhat unique type of gifted structure where there were actual gifted classes. To have actual gifted classes taught by specialists would be a wonder.
Seems like more gifted "programs" (and I use that word tentatively) are closer to what someone else mentioned upthread and can be summed up in two words: More Homework.
Much like that provided in our district, "gifted" only existed in elementary and middle school. In both, the students were in the same classes as everyone else where they only difference is they were given an IEP that required "enrichment." What did enrichment consist of? More homework.
If the teacher gave out a 50-problem math worksheet and told the class to work 20 problems, the gifted student had to work all 50. The gifted student got to do a science experiment, at home, with no coaching or assistance or advice from the teacher, and then turn in a written report and PowerPoint presentation to the class. If the teacher assigned one chapter for reading, the gifted got two. Yeah, they sure expended a lot of effort on the gifted students.
Are we giving our gifted and other top students the best education we can give them? The 80/20 rule applies to education as well. If we put 80% of our effort into the bottom 20% of students trying to save that one late bloomer that might be there, what does that mean for how much we've lost by not elevating the other 80%?
You spoke of being gifted "like being rich." Seems like a lot of gifted kids and those who really understand them, it's more like a curse.
We were considered to have one of the best gifted programs in the state, and -- at least at the time -- there were two different gifted programs in our school. The first was "gifted center"; in that program students had all 4 core classes with ONLY students identified as being gifted. In electives and PE, everything was mixed. In the "gifted base" program, students were identified as being gifted in EITHER science/math OR English/history, and whichever 2 subjects they had been identified in as being gifted, the classes were only students who were identified as gifted. It was a top notch program. I understand that since I left (but not because I left) that it has been watered down, although I don't really know the details.
I thought it was great, but it did create a lot of resentment on the staff. But my personal reaction to that was, well, if you wanna be classed as exemplary, you gotta be exemplary.
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.
