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.
G&T kids aren't the ones who drop out so that argument would backfire. It's the kid
I really wish you would learn the facts, Ivory.
~20% of the drop outs come from the top 10% of the ability pool.
Way too many gifted kids drop out.
Quote:
Renzulli and Park did provide figures on the number of gifted dropouts. The first portion of their study compared gifted dropouts with non-gifted dropouts. Following the above definitions of giftedness and of dropping out, 334 of 1285 student dropouts (26.0%) were identified as gifted based on the NELS:88 Second Follow-up Dropout Questionnaire data.
Conversely, a longitudinal study in North Carolina tracked a substantial cadre of gifted children identified and provided services through Duke's Talent Identification Program showed a substantially lower percentage of dropouts than would be expected merely by standard measures, let alone the initial NELS data.
Gifted programs can work to reduce dropout rates. That is good for the kids, good for the families, and good for society as a whole.
Last edited by jps-teacher; 12-03-2009 at 08:12 PM..
The job of a public school is to make sure that we have an educated society not to cater to individual desires of those who were given more to begin with. Public education is for the public and should be designed to meet the needs of society. What society gets from public schools is people who have attained, at least, the minimum requirements for graduation. If you want something beyond that, go to a magnet school.
I have a bit of a problem with this attitude. For starters, magnet schools ARE public schools and the gifted have not been GIVEN anything. They have been born a certain way. High intelligence is inherent in gifted students.
Gifted students are part of society and part of the general public. Every student is entitled to a free, appropriate public education. EVERY student, not just the average ones, not just the disabled ones, all of them, including the gifted.
Society needs for all members to develop in an optimal way. We need scientists, doctors, inventors, business people, people who innovate, musicians, artists, etc.....The gifted will contribute more to society if they are allowed to develop their gifts to the fullest.
Public education should not mean substandard education.
Gifted students are part of society and part of the general public. Every student is entitled to a free, appropriate public education. EVERY student, not just the average ones, not just the disabled ones, all of them, including the gifted.
Society needs for all members to develop in an optimal way. We need scientists, doctors, inventors, business people, people who innovate, musicians, artists, etc.....The gifted will contribute more to society if they are allowed to develop their gifts to the fullest.
Ivory is of the opinion that "appropriate" is merely to grade level.
Further, she believes that the gifted students give no more to society with programs than without them. Therefore, society gains nothing, in her not at all humble opinion, by teaching the gifted appropriately.
I have a bit of a problem with this attitude. For starters, magnet schools ARE public schools and the gifted have not been GIVEN anything. They have been born a certain way. High intelligence is inherent in gifted students.
Gifted students are part of society and part of the general public. Every student is entitled to a free, appropriate public education. EVERY student, not just the average ones, not just the disabled ones, all of them, including the gifted.
Society needs for all members to develop in an optimal way. We need scientists, doctors, inventors, business people, people who innovate, musicians, artists, etc.....The gifted will contribute more to society if they are allowed to develop their gifts to the fullest.
Public education should not mean substandard education.
There are magnet schools that are just for the gifted. There is an efficiency in grouping. If you have a school where you send the G&T kids and you have the same proportion of students to teachers you have everywhere else, you aren't forcing another child into a larger class or giving another teacher a heavier workload to accomodate the gifted child. Also, because gifted children are gifted, you could probably put more of them in a class so the class sizes can be larger at the magenet school meaning that more teachers can be placed in other schools.
For a school like mine, running G&T classes with 12-15 kids means more kids in the remaining classes to accomodate the small size. If you took those 12-15 kids and sent them to a magnet school along with a few hundred more from other schools, my school can now go to even numbers in all classes. We won't see our classes overcrowded during hours honors classes are offered. We won't have a situation where some teachers get their load lightened by having those really small classes while others suffer through larger classes.
No, public education doesn't mean standard education. It means minimal or average education. It exists to make sure that society, in general, achieves a minimal level. Catering to those already at an advantage does nothing towards that goal, especially if done in a way that takes away from averge kids.
If you took the money that goes with a gifted child, and pooled it with the money that goes with other gifted children and put them all in one school in a district, you wouldn't be taking away from others to give them a higher education because you could fill the classes just like they filll the lower classes. IMO, it's critical you fill all of the classes and not allow a situation where one teacher has 15 kids while the next has 33.
Yes, gifted kids are part of society but they are not owed more than the next kid. Which child deserves more effort put into them? The one who is gifted and ahead of the curve already or the one who can't read yet? Which one's life will you impact more by helping them? Helping one of these kids helps the kid. Helping the other helps the kid AND society. If we teach the struggling child to read, maybe he won't become a criminal because he can't get job. I'm pretty sure our gifted child will find work without special classes.
BTW, I have a gifted child. I have two brothers who are gifted. I have three nephews and one neice who are gifted. I do not think they are owed something extra because they were born at an advantage. I don't think the system should stop them from moving up, if they wish but I don't think they need to be offered special classes in their honor at the expense of others.
Fortunately, they are all in very large school districts that can have classes on many levels and fill them so there are honors classes for them but I would not fault a smaller district (like mine) for not offering them on the grounds it takes away from other kids to offer them when you end up with those very small classes. Larger schools can find kids to fill the seats in those classes. I believe there is actually more benefit from taking an honors class for kids who are not in the top 10% than there is for the kids who are in the top 10%. Kids tend to rise to the challenge when you raise the bar. Ironically, it is my older daughter who would benefit most from honors classes because she's in the intelligent but not gifted category. Given extra challenges actually helps her increase her ability. However, again, I don't think the school owes this to her. The objective is an educated society and you have to put the money where it will do the most good towards attaining that goal. And again, she's in a district large enough that it's not an issue to offer honors classes. So she gets to take them, however, I would not expect any school to offer them to her at the expense of another student.
Last edited by Ivorytickler; 12-04-2009 at 04:07 AM..
There are magnet schools that are just for the gifted. There is an efficiency in grouping.
It would be great if there were magnets everywhere for gifted kids. We don't have that here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler
No, public education doesn't mean standard education. It means minimal or average education. It exists to make sure that society, in general, achieves a minimal level. Catering to those already at an advantage does nothing towards that goal, especially if done in a way that takes away from averge kids.
WOW. I do not see myself as providing a minimal education to my students. Each student in a public school is entitled to an appropriate education regardless of ability. That is the law, not my personal philosophy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler
If you took the money that goes with a gifted child, and pooled it with the money that goes with other gifted children and put them all in one school in a district, you wouldn't be taking away from others to give them a higher education because you could fill the classes just like they filll the lower classes. IMO, it's critical you fill all of the classes and not allow a situation where one teacher has 15 kids while the next has 33.
Gifted education is not higher than other classes. It is DIFFERENT from other classes. You are not taking anything away from other kids any more than you are when you provide special education classes to children who need it. In my state gifted actually falls under the same umbrella as other students with special needs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler
Yes, gifted kids are part of society but they are not owed more than the next kid.
They are owed an education that is appropriate for them, just like everyone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler
Which child deserves more effort put into them? The one who is gifted and ahead of the curve already or the one who can't read yet?
They both deserve the same amount of effort. That effort should be appropriate for the child and should focus on providing an appropriate education to the individual child. Each child deserves to have a teacher focused on his needs regardless of ability.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler
Which one's life will you impact more by helping them? Helping one of these kids helps the kid. Helping the other helps the kid AND society. If we teach the struggling child to read, maybe he won't become a criminal because he can't get job. I'm pretty sure our gifted child will find work without special classes.
You have some strange views for an educator. Not all slow kids are bound to be criminals and not all gifted kids are well behaved angels. I have a very mixed group of students in my classes (I teach music) and some of my nicest, most well adjusted kids are slow. Most of them are not bound for the life of a criminal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler
I do not think they are owed something extra because they were born at an advantage.
The law says otherwise. The law in this country ensures EVERY child a free, appropriate public education. It is not at the expense of another child, it is exactly the SAME as any other child. It is an education appropriate to them.
It would be great if there were magnets everywhere for gifted kids. We don't have that here.
WOW. I do not see myself as providing a minimal education to my students. Each student in a public school is entitled to an appropriate education regardless of ability. That is the law, not my personal philosophy.
Gifted education is not higher than other classes. It is DIFFERENT from other classes. You are not taking anything away from other kids any more than you are when you provide special education classes to children who need it. In my state gifted actually falls under the same umbrella as other students with special needs.
They are owed an education that is appropriate for them, just like everyone else.
They both deserve the same amount of effort. That effort should be appropriate for the child and should focus on providing an appropriate education to the individual child. Each child deserves to have a teacher focused on his needs regardless of ability.
You have some strange views for an educator. Not all slow kids are bound to be criminals and not all gifted kids are well behaved angels. I have a very mixed group of students in my classes (I teach music) and some of my nicest, most well adjusted kids are slow. Most of them are not bound for the life of a criminal.
The law says otherwise. The law in this country ensures EVERY child a free, appropriate public education. It is not at the expense of another child, it is exactly the SAME as any other child. It is an education appropriate to them.
You are, completely, missing the purpose of public education. It's not about individual education but, rather, the education of society. You put your effort where it serves society best. If an individual thinks they need something different, it's out there for them to go get, however, public education doesn't owe it to the gifted to grant them a different education because they are gifted. The aim of public eduction is attaining an educated society. The job is already done with the gifted. They are capable of doing it by themselves. The effort needs to go to the kids who cannot do it themselves. Not in giving even more advantage to kids who already are advantaged. Your argument is like saying the rich deserve more tax breaks because they NEED a higher lifestyle.
Yup, every child deserves an appropriate public education but appropriate doesn't mean specialized unless the child has issues spelled out in an IEP. Nothing extra is owed to the gifted. They are owed an eduction to the level that society has deemed public education should supply one. When they reach that level, the job is done. It is not of benefit to society (the public in public education ) to give them even more because they already have what public school was designed to deliver. At that point, the benefit to society is putting effort into a child who has yet to attain the minimum. You might keep them out of jail by doing so.
You are, completely, missing the purpose of public education. It's not about individual education but, rather, the education of society. You put your effort where it serves society best. If an individual thinks they need something different, it's out there for them to go get, however, public education doesn't owe it to the gifted to grant them a different education because they are gifted. The aim of public eduction is attaining an educated society. The job is already done with the gifted. They are capable of doing it by themselves. The effort needs to go to the kids who cannot do it themselves. Not in giving even more advantage to kids who already are advantaged. Your argument is like saying the rich deserve more tax breaks because they NEED a higher lifestyle.
Yup, every child deserves an appropriate public education but appropriate doesn't mean specialized unless the child has issues spelled out in an IEP. Nothing extra is owed to the gifted. They are owed an eduction to the level that society has deemed public education should supply one. When they reach that level, the job is done. It is not of benefit to society (the public in public education ) to give them even more because they already have what public school was designed to deliver. At that point, the benefit to society is putting effort into a child who has yet to attain the minimum. You might keep them out of jail by doing so.
Wow, I must have had a whole herd of teachers with attitudes like you because I didn't get ANY valuable experience out of my public schooling once I moved and got away from schools who had G&T programs let alone even had a clue what it was. I didn't even have the opportunity to take AP classes either. But I guess since my brother and I were already born with "the smarts" that we deserved to sit on our butts and be bored without any sort of challenges in school.
You are, completely, missing the purpose of public education. It's not about individual education but, rather, the education of society. You put your effort where it serves society best. If an individual thinks they need something different, it's out there for them to go get, however, public education doesn't owe it to the gifted to grant them a different education because they are gifted. The aim of public eduction is attaining an educated society. The job is already done with the gifted. They are capable of doing it by themselves. The effort needs to go to the kids who cannot do it themselves. Not in giving even more advantage to kids who already are advantaged. Your argument is like saying the rich deserve more tax breaks because they NEED a higher lifestyle.
Yup, every child deserves an appropriate public education but appropriate doesn't mean specialized unless the child has issues spelled out in an IEP. Nothing extra is owed to the gifted. They are owed an eduction to the level that society has deemed public education should supply one. When they reach that level, the job is done. It is not of benefit to society (the public in public education ) to give them even more because they already have what public school was designed to deliver. At that point, the benefit to society is putting effort into a child who has yet to attain the minimum. You might keep them out of jail by doing so.
So, if I am understanding you correctly, you believe that you are there to teach students to get to grade level no matter what their actual potential may be?
So, if I am understanding you correctly, you believe that you are there to teach students to get to grade level no matter what their actual potential may be?
So, if I am understanding you correctly, you believe that you are there to teach students to get to grade level no matter what their actual potential may be?
I believe that PUBLIC schools owe it to students to make sure they attain the minimum. Beyond that, they don't owe anything to a particular student. Public education isn't about individual students. It's about educating the public. Most of my effort goes to the kids struggling with the material not the kids to whom it comes easily. Could I do more with them? Sure but it would be at the expense of kids who are at risk of not making the minimum as things are set up now. Would I like to? Sure. It would be fun. It would be easy teaching. Is it realistic? Not the way things are.
The public has decided what we expect the average high school student to know. We decided it's good for society for them to attain this level. The objective of public schools is to get as many kids as we can, at least, to that level. Until everyone is at that level, you really can't justify giving more to the kids who got there first because this is PUBLIC education not individual education. We did not, as a society, decide that education should be individualized. We decided it should be standardized. We'd have to pay a lot more than we do for education if we wanted it individualized.
Now, there is what schools owe kids and what they do to have the least friction. It's a balancing act. My school is so small that offering honors classes creates more problems than it solves. It stops a handfull of honors kids and their parents from whining but results in over crowding in other classrooms which is the greater evil because many of those kids are in danger of not attaining the minimum let alone average.
In my daughters' schools, there are enough students that they can fill honors courses so there is no peanut buttering of extra students into other classroms. There the path of least resistance is to offer the honors courses to stop the honors kids and their parents from whining. Since it costs no more to offer the honors course (I'm assuming we do not spend more resources on these kids), it's transparent.
What I do not support is spending extra money on the gifted because they are gifted. I wouldn't support that anymore than I'd support extra tax breaks for the rich because they are rich. When you're born with an advantage, you are not owed more becuse of it. In fact, you probably should bear more responsibility for getting your own needs met because of it.
IMO, grade advancing is all the accomodation they really need. If they're above grade level, put them in the next grade. Why spend money to make a special class if you can't fill it to capacity when other classes are already overflowing?
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.
) to give them even more because they already have what public school was designed to deliver. At that point, the benefit to society is putting effort into a child who has yet to attain the minimum. You might keep them out of jail by doing so.