Do public schools really NEED gifted and talented programs? (textbooks, credits, student)

[Ivorytickler]

Originally Posted by hsw

Would argue today's K-12 education wastes too many resources on teaching non-job-related stuff to masses who struggle w/basic math, business English, stats, economics, etc...and wastes resources for far too much glorification of sports and arts....but could level similar criticism vs Harvard and other lib arts colleges which have curricula and job skill prep that haven't changed materially in past 50yrs, despite dramatic advances in tech, finance, Net, etc of past 25yrs

Also would argue (based on anecdotes of today's most successful <40yo engineers and financiers) that any K-12 education, public/pvt, is hopelessly overshadowed by what smart, ambitious kids learn at own family dinner table and from own self-learning, esp in a Net era when so much data, virtual stock portfolio games, imagery, etc is easily available for near-free anywhere

Aside from risk of violence of today's mediocre public school dts b/c of kids (and their parents) who don't seek an education/job skills, many high-powered kids prob prefer an anonymous, mediocre public K-12 where they can easily fulfill the academic reqmts; focus on own reading to prep for college/career; avoid social engineering nonsense (e.g., community svc, etc) of many pvt schools; and obtain ample college credits via AP and part-time college courses, etc, to enable finishing undergrad in 2-3 yrs to get a damn $100K+/yr starting job...which is what smartest kids at Wharton Finance and Stanford CompSci have done for at least past 15yrs

My experience is what the "gifted" really want is easy A's so they can get into the college of their choice. I really don't see them looking for extra challenges. They'd be pissed if I demended it of them. They don't seem to think more should be expected of them because they're gifted. In fact, they complain to me about how much work the honors and AP teachers make them do. They just want the credit and the scholarship.

I also agree that we're mediocre. We have been for some time. Our objectives are very low. Lower than they should be. We're too afraid to fail someone. We say we want to raise the bar but we also want kids to pass. Passing wins.

BTW, my gifted dd has already added up all the college credits she'll have when she graduates. She knows what side her bread is buttered on. She's going for the highest grades to get a scholarship. She challenges herself more than I see kids in my classes challenging themselves but she's only 12. Time will tell if she still does at 17.

[Ivorytickler]

Originally Posted by Charles Wallace

You probably have not seen one for a number of reasons.

1. Gifted education, unlike special education, is mandated only on a state-by-state basis. My state, for example, chooses to do very little.

2. An IEP usually addresses special needs. In some states -- I believe Pennsylvania is one -- there is a gifted IEP, known as a gIEP, but those are relatively rare.

3. In some cases, it is appropriate to mainstream a gifted child. As you know, there are levels of giftedness. The gifted kids who are mildly gifted do quite well in a regular class. They find the material challenging, but not overwhelming. They are able to be class leaders, academically speaking. The further you get from that point, past what Ellen Winter refers to as "socially optimal giftedness," which I believe she puts at 150, the less appropriate this placement becomes.

In short, it works a very great deal like special education. Many special education children can and should be mainstreamed. Some cannot be because the fit is too different.
You would not consider the extra effort the school went to in order to reasonably accommodate your daughter "extra"? Also, I'm curious -- for those parents who reasonably believe that multiple grade skips would not help, what would you consider to be "extra" in their case? I notice you have not yet addressed my hypothetical example of the nine-year-old in a previous post.

Some certainly do. Some do not. In some cases, as I'm sure you're quite well aware, parents have been told explicitly, "Stop teaching your child at home; it makes it difficult for next year's teacher." Some teachers resent it -- and make their resentment quite well known -- when gifted kids "go beyond that." I have used this example before, so please forgive me for my repetition, but in one case I know of quite well, the child entered first grade reading quite fluently -- her favorite book was apparently Ovid's Metamorphosis, although I tend to doubt she understood more than just the plotline and the pretty words. When she "read too fast" for the reading group into which she was placed, she was admonished by the teacher, and then when she still read too fast, she was paddled for insubordination. One anecdote does not equal a data set, of course, but this is not the only example. Whether it is the norm or not, I cannot say -- but I do suggest this to remind you that it is not always as easy to do as you say.

Finally, let us say that we are dealing with a supportive set of parents and a teacher who doesn't mind that Roberto knows algebra when he's in third grade. What, exactly, is that teacher going to teach our buddy Roberto? Why should Roberto practice addition with regrouping with the rest of the group and to what purpose?

Roberto should practice addition with regrouping simply because he may not have had enough practice earlier. One thing that has never bothered my dd was having to do work she already knew how to do. It was just a quick check mark and done. She seems to think not having homework and being able to persue her own interests at home is it's own reward but she's kind of silly like that .

One problem with kids who are ahead is you don't know that they learned everything the right way and you don't know that they didn't skip over any parts. I don't think review hurts them. I also don't think it's necessary for Roberto to be doing algebra in 4th grade unless that's what Roberto likes to do in his spare time. Just because Roberto has done all of arithematic doesn't mean he's developed the abstract reasoning skills needed for algebra. The Peter principle applies to students too. It is quite possible, while done with arithemetic, Roberto, may need to wait until he catches up developmentally to where he is academically.

I've seen this over and over in my dd. Once she starts a subject, she finishes quickly but that doesn't mean she's ready to go on. I've posted before about her learning curve being a step function. She takes a major leap where it seems like she just absorbs everything and then stagnates for a while. She's waiting for the next leap. It comes when it comes. I've come to the conclusion nothing we or the school can do can make them come any faster or slow them down. This is her academic devlelopmental curve.

At the moment, she may be a little over her head. She's in honors algebra a grade up but, unlike in the past, is now requiring that things be explained to her. She gets it if explained and demonstrated but she's not doing her usual where she gets it on her own. I'm thinking she's a little shy of the abstract reasoning skills (but she has superior logical reasoning skills so she holds her own) she'd need for algebra which is, normally, taught in 8th grade here (remember she should be in the 6th grade). I think many normal kids haven't developed these skills by 10th grade let alone 8th.

Just because you can read on a 9th grade level doesn't mean you're ready to read on a 10th grade level. Dd#2 was reading on a 9th grade level in 3rd grade but her choices of reading material and what she needed for research for what she was doing was well below that level so she didn't move up for a while. It wasn't until she started needing things written to a higher level that she took her next leap. Now she's beyond high school. I'm willing to bet she won't take another leap in reading ability until she needs college level material. Just because you can do something doesn't mean there's a reason to do it right now. To force her to read college level material when she doesn't have the interest or the need would only serve to thwart her love of reading. I don't care that my daughter who can read on a high school level chooses to read books like The Vampire Academy. I don't think she has to do to the next level now just because she's already finished the last level. She'll decide when it's time just like Roberto should decide when it's time for algebra. You'll know when he starts doing it on his own.

[jps-teacher]

Originally Posted by Ivorytickler

Like it or not, society has decided what is worthwhile to be taught in school. It's what we put on the tests. Note, that we don't have different versions of the tests for gifted children. We have no standard for them. That is telling.

Note that AP exams are different tests for higher ability students. About 15% of public school students got a 3 or better on an AP test.

Throughout the country, thousands of 7th graders take a test in a "talent identification" process to determine eligibility for certain private programs.

Oddly enough, many states have explicit standards for an evaluation of gifted.

You really, really need to actually learn the topic about which you are offering such strong opinions.

[DubbleT]

?

Originally Posted by Ivorytickler

My experience is what the "gifted" really want is easy A's so they can get into the college of their choice. I really don't see them looking for extra challenges. They'd be pissed if I demended it of them. They don't seem to think more should be expected of them because they're gifted. In fact, they complain to me about how much work the honors and AP teachers make them do. They just want the credit and the scholarship. If that were the case, wouldn't the gifted be happier in non-gifted programs? Surely it's easier to get those A's if they are competing with average students, than when competing only with other gifted students?
In the case of my son, the 'extra challenge' came from competing with kids that were working at or above the same level in the gifted program.
Strangely my son's classes were not about faster, or harder, or more work. In fact it seems like his classes were more about doing the same types of things, in class, that your DD does at home in her free time.

I also agree that we're mediocre. We have been for some time. Our objectives are very low. Lower than they should be. We're too afraid to fail someone. We say we want to raise the bar but we also want kids to pass. Passing wins. Our objectives are very low, maybe because of this sentiment: "Public education is about educating the public to the standards that the public has set not about individualizing education."

I know you're basing many of your thoughts on your own life experiences, but I have to say I think your experiences are somewhat atypical.

[Aconite]

Originally Posted by jps-teacher

Except that mom is, too, all protestations aside - all of her anecdotes, all of her chosen company... mom may live on the proverbial river in Egypt, but 'typical' she is not, except with regard to her attitude toward teaching gifted kids.

I'm pretty uncomfortable assessing intellectual capacities of people online, as a rule--particularly when they are in a better position to self-assess to the contrary. Were it that easy, Drs. Wechsler, Stanford, Raven, et al would have wasted their efforts.

[Aconite]

Originally Posted by Ivorytickler

As to your throwing under a bus analogy....cream rises to the top without help. I had working parents. I came from an underprivilidged back ground. My high school didn't even have a college prep track let alone a gifted track. Didn't stop me from going to college, graduating at the top of my class and rising above my birth and I'm not even gifted. In fact, I can go you one further, it was decided in 5th grade that I'd never amount to anything and, from that point forward, nothing was expected of me. It wasn't until my ACT scores came in that they realized the label was wrong (not fantastic scores but, certainly, not the score of a D+ student who is not very smart). Yet here I am with two masters degrees.....imagine that. Intelligence doesn't go away because no one offers you a custom education. Imagine what I could have done if I were gifted.


Do you realize how many geniuses have grown up without a special track for them and excelled? It's not unusual for the gifted to rise above their element.

Whether my dd has a gifted program or not, I expect she'll succeed. She was born with the right stuff. Barring severe trauma, neglect or abuse, I expect she'll do just fine in spite of her environement. Her sister, OTOH, will do well because of her environment. She's more like me. What her environment will do for her is get her ready for college after graduation instead of waiting like I did. She won't need to wait because she won't need the added maturity to compensate for her upbringing and lack of education.

Sorry, nothing posted here convinces me that gifted tracks are necessary at all. I've given many reasons why they are not from the fact that kids spend 3/4 of their waking time out of school to the fact that a student can choose to go deeper on their own. Teachers don't have to go deeper for my dd. She does it by herself. Now, her sister, would have to have the bar raised to get there but she's not gifted.

C'mon...you know you can say it: "the plural of anecdote is NOT data".

[buffy888]

Originally Posted by Ivorytickler

Roberto should practice addition with regrouping simply because he may not have had enough practice earlier. One thing that has never bothered my dd was having to do work she already knew how to do. It was just a quick check mark and done.

One problem with kids who are ahead is you don't know that they learned everything the right way and you don't know that they didn't skip over any parts.

Hopefully Roberto will actually have a teacher who had coursework or professional development in gifted education and/or differentiated instruction who knows that these issues would be addressed by curriculum compacting.

[Charles Wallace]

Originally Posted by Ivorytickler

Roberto should practice addition with regrouping simply because he may not have had enough practice earlier.

HE KNOWS ALGEBRA.

One problem with kids who are ahead is you don't know that they learned everything the right way and you don't know that they didn't skip over any parts. I don't think review hurts them. I also don't think it's necessary for Roberto to be doing algebra in 4th grade unless that's what Roberto likes to do in his spare time. Just because Roberto has done all of arithematic doesn't mean he's developed the abstract reasoning skills needed for algebra. The Peter principle applies to students too. It is quite possible, while done with arithemetic, Roberto, may need to wait until he catches up developmentally to where he is academically.

Okay, again.

HE KNOWS ALGEBRA. It is not an issue of whether he is "ready." The fact that he is capable of doing it now demonstrates he is capable of doing it now.

[Charles Wallace]

Originally Posted by buffy888

Hopefully Roberto will actually have a teacher who had coursework or professional development in gifted education and/or differentiated instruction who knows that these issues would be addressed by curriculum compacting.

I would certainly hope so. However, it's been my (admittedly limited) experience that many elementary teachers are not prepared to teach algebra -- and many may not be good at the subject themselves.

The other issue is that although Teacher A may be great at algebra, gifted education, and curriculum compacting, Teacher B may be seriously angered that Roberto came into her class the next year down the line already having mastered that curriculum.

[jps-teacher]

Originally Posted by Aconite

I'm pretty uncomfortable assessing intellectual capacities of people online, as a rule--particularly when they are in a better position to self-assess to the contrary. Were it that easy, Drs. Wechsler, Stanford, Raven, et al would have wasted their efforts.

You have a good point on the first half, though I confess to being more comfortable with it largely from experience. (I grant a point she made earlier that she could be lying through her teeth about everything, but either way, I would at least say "based upon the profile she's presented on line..." this is the scoop.

I will also note that self-deprecating women/girls, with regard to intelligence in particular (though not only), are the norm rather than the exception - a pattern I have seen repeated at gifted conferences, programs, and in direct contact. It didn't matter what standardized scores, performance evaluations, or anecdotal evidence was presented, their self-identity was untouched. I am not at all convinced they are in a better position to self-evaluate. (Or as Ivory has pointed out, many people are deceived by experience.)

Here's my take on the bolded section:
1) Drs. Wechsler and Raven did not have access to the internet. If they had, perhaps they might have something different to say about it. Dr. Stanford... we'll just skip him. (Dr. Binet, OTOH, fits with the other two.)

2) Roeper and Silverman did a fascinating workshop in which each of them met with a child to do an intelligence assessment - one using the tools of the trade and the other her judgment based on interaction. When they were done, they compared notes.

The two of them came out with nearly identical conclusions.

3) There is a huge gap between my saying "oh, she is most definitely gifted, based on the evidence presented," and my saying "she has an IQ of 137, with a Verbal/Performance split of 144/130; her subtests are..."

Ballparking an answer/a range is a skill, but it does not obviate the need for formal testing for a host of reasons. Not least among those reasons is that even if Dr. Roeper can do every time what she did, that does not mean that everybody can, or even more than a few.

Further, even she would grant that the reason she can do what she has done is a combination of years of experience with the chance to build on the work of those who went before her.