Do public schools really NEED gifted and talented programs? (GRE, med school, architecture)

[Wisteria]

lkb0714: What G/T program inside a school is completely separate? It normally consists of a couple of specialized classes and than mainstream or honors/AP level for the rest.

And its still more cost effective to give them some specialized time in school than to pay the entire tuition in a school outside the district. Even in the relatively small school I taught at before the one I am at now, there are no G/T teachers but rather teachers who have a separate prep for one or two classes for G/T students and the rest the middle kids. How is that not more cost effective than taking that $16k out of the school entirely? Then the majority of that students per pupil costs goes to the main pot.

Ivorytickler: Seriously, given the low percentage of students we are talking about, what makes more sense? Paying to send them to a school that specializes in gifted students or creating a whole separate program for them within the school system? Unless you're talking a huge school system that has significant numbers of gifted children who can be grouped in one building, it's probably the former.

Wow, you two are really going at it! It's interesting to follow your posts, however, you're basically along the same lines. You both seem to agree it's nice to have something for gifted kids, yet, at the same time, you both acknowledge that the programs are small, and not a big part of the school.

Both of you are smart, and dedicated -- that's apparent. I'm not even sure what you're arguing about at this point -- it's become so confusing. Maybe you could exchange phone numbers or something and talk to each other. Seriously -- I've spoken to people from C-D before! I have a feeling both of you have similar ideas about these G&T programs, but at the same time have varying differences that it's hard to see how similar your lines of thought are.

Why can't you guys find something to agree on because you're two different people, and I doubt if on C-D you're going to have the chance to align yourselves with what you do agree with.

From what you've both said, you agree that there are "gifted" students. You both agree that they need some extra -- whatever. You both agree that some of the really smart people don't "make it" in this world in spite of being very smart.

I assume that both of you have children in the gifted programs, and maybe they just vary wherever you are.

The reality is that there is the Bell Curve and some people are technically smarter than others. However, if you look around, in the end, it comes down to more self-motivation, social support within the family, and opportunities outside of school. I didn't think the gifted program at our school was worth it -- but maybe others did. It was a bunch of field trips and, yes, most of the kids ended up in AP classes, but so what? Lots of kids who weren't in the "gifted" program did, too.

I do know of a couple of very intelligent, gifted people who never made it, are total failures in life, but they have the ability for higher thinking but something else is missing. One of them is smart and (as is typical for this kind of group who finds criminal activity more "fun") is a con person. And proud of it! I know another guy who is a cancer researcher and brags about his IQ -- why, I don't know, but my guess is because he's furious that his ex-wife is an M.D. and he's only a Ph.D. researcher and he gets paid less! Every time he'd say he had a 170 IQ and then rant about his lesser-paying research job, I'd wonder "Why didn't he just get an M.D.??" He and his wife ended up divorced and he is a bitter man.

Brains don't always make it so that a person is either happy or successful. I have (and have to admit am sometimes envious of) seen very average (I mean, not real quick) people who have very stable lives, have routines, either have some education, or none, and are happy. On the outside, they do seem more adjusted. Many very smart people have more options because they can use their intelligence for more things, but maybe they just don't have the social skills, or get bored easily, or have a more natural inclination to use their smarts for illegal activities. I remember a guy I knew who was "gifted" and he had spent time in jail. He chillingly said to me once, "Do you know what kind of criminal is the worst kind? SMART ones!" He admired those very bright sociopaths and made it very clear that jails were filled with those. Creepy, yes, but unfortunately, true. Not all criminals are dumb.

There are always two sides of a story, and although it appears initially that you two are on opposite sides of the fence, I think you have a lot more you agree with than don't. I'm not even sure anymore what you two are squabbling about. You're both smart, you both agree with giftedness, you both want opportunities for the gifted, and you're both in different places, so things are just different for each of you. But, basically, you both agree that gifted kids should have opportunities to use their minds. How a school district decides to do that is up to the school.

Some people are truly gifted -- it is a minority -- but in spite of all the opportunities one might have, they still may not shine above the rest. Their gifted minds are not seen, and their actions are mundane to the world. Perhaps they use their minds in creative ways to entertain themselves. And there are average people who have made it just by being self-directed and pushing themselves -- it's probably harder for them, and in a way, they almost deserve more credit because they had to work more to get to where they are.

I think this whole topic merely underlines the difference in people, period. Gifted or not, opportunities or not, there are other variables that come into play for each person.

You two are never going to totally agree on this topic, it's obvious by now. I feel like it's a theatrical sketch I'm watching. I've got to give you both credit, though, you are two strong-willed women!!

I'd say that both of you have made excellent points on this subject, and I also don't think you'll convince each other of your own point of view..... You have made this an interesting discussion, and I have no idea how in the world you will make the other see what each of you intensely believe. But...if you look closely, you're both more alike than not. You're both smart, you're both passionate, you're both educated, and you both are in support of gifted kids. The reality is, though, that even gifted programs will never "make" a child a success as an adult. I think that is really the bottom line, and you're both pushing each other on that issue of the programs in schools. Ivorytickler has a program in her school; lkb0714 is familiar with them (although it sounds like she is in research but not in a school right now). You both agree to helping gifted kids.

I just think that you are two very smart women and your own kids will benefit from that more than a program. Programs are nice, but they don't replace a caring parent. And programs don't follow you through life. Your kids are lucky to have such passionate and determined parents. You have made this an interesting thread, yet I have a feeling you have a lot more in common than not. Maybe just programs for girls is the way to go -- you two (and believe me, I have my own things, and so do my women friends) show just how hard women will work to get something done!

Got to give you both credit! Two smart women going at it. In person, you two might actually like each other! Now, that would be interesting - you meet and become friends! Good luck to both of you!

[lkb0714]

Originally Posted by Wisteria

; lkb0714 is familiar with them (although it sounds like she is in research but not in a school right now). You both agree to helping gifted kids.

Not exactly. I teach at a public school for gifted children in science and I am a researcher in oceanography/marine science.

As for Ivory my issue remain that she thinks the G/T kids do not need any help nor are deserving of it.

[Wisteria]

lkb0714: Originally Posted by Wisteria View Post
; lkb0714 is familiar with them (although it sounds like she is in research but not in a school right now). You both agree to helping gifted kids.
Not exactly. I teach at a public school for gifted children in science and I am a researcher in oceanography/marine science.

Ikb0714: As for Ivory my issue remain that she thinks the G/T kids do not need any help nor are deserving of it.

Okay, I didn't realize you were teaching right now. It sounded like Ivory said she has a gifted child, so I would think she'd be in support of some programs, too -- at least it seems she originally stated that, but, frankly, I'm not going to go back and read all the posts. (**Okay, I did go back to the beginning of where you and Ivory started bantering -- and I see what you're saying. However, it does sound like a district problem where she is. And she has a kid who was "bumped up." Although she states that she has not seen gifted kids drop out of school -- well, statistically, of course it would be lower, as they are a lower statistical amount in a school. However, I DO know of gifted kids -- who were also "delinquent" and dropped out -- so it does happen, only I think she is talking about her school, and kids she knew were "gifted." It sounds to me like her argument -- and I may be wrong -- is about making sure all the kids get an education, and not catering to the gifted ones -- but again, I have a hunch it's a district issue in her school.)

The point is even if you have gifted programs, they are idealistic and maybe they help some kids, but once they're adults, those programs don't usually have a big effect -- then it is up to the individual, not a program. You both bring up good points, and maybe it would be best to explore the schools, themselves. Personally, I don't think the "gifted" programs are a be all and end all, but they're nice if you can do it. In my day -- I'm a lot older than you two -- either kids skipped a grade, or there were three levels of programs: regular high school with minimum requirements; Regents classes for those who had the ability to be college-bound; and gifted kids, who often transferred out and went to actual existing gifted schools -- which no longer exist where I am from. Education, in general has declined so much from when I was in school -- or my parents, for that matter -- my mother graduated high school at 15 only because she was in a one-room classroom -- yes, they did exist -- and she listened to the classes taught in the other grades (rows) and she kind of got three years all in one just by eavesdropping! So, it's a real mixed bag nowadays.

I don't think our school spent much on the programs -- I do think they're pretty cheap (unless it's a private school exclusively for the gifted, but I think many of those have gone by the wayside over the decades). It seems I recall (of course, we're in California) that some of the "classes" were held on the school lawn! And I think they also had "consultant" teachers who came in to give the Honors and gifted classes (on the lawn or in an empty room). There are ways to get around it all. Thinking outside the box is imperative.

But both of you are in different schools, so it's got to vary by district. If Ivory is worried about overcrowding in some classes, then the district can be approached by teachers and see if there is a compromise -- maybe after-school programs that don't impact the amount of kids in classes. In your school, it sounds like it's worked out fine. I just think that you're both so passionate, and I do believe you both believe in assisting the gifted, that maybe the major difference is in the schools, thus, your opinions vary on your individual experiences. It'd be interesting to see what you both thought if you visited each others' schools.

You bring up an interesting point -- and hearing both of you speak about why there should or shouldn't be programs, it does sound like it's coming back to an issue of providing a good education for each child -- not that each type of child should not be educated. I actually think there is some common ground here.

Both of you seem very intense about this topic, and it may be a way to start a national program to bring attention to both education and the gifted. I'm really serious. It's one thing to banter back and forth on a board, but with high passions and strong beliefs, I think you both could create an organization that would benefit all schools and kids. Sure, it'd be an effort, but on the other hand, it could be worth it.

At any rate, you both sound pretty smart, and that is what I like about women -- they really defend their points of view, and yet they protect others. It's not surprising women are the ones who bear children (no, folks, no thread on that, please!!! ). Women are strong in mind and perseverance, and most women I know will work until they drop for something they believe in. You both support that point. Education in America does need repairing, and we need more people like both of you who could join together and make those changes. I believe you both have so much to offer.

It's been interesting hearing all these sides of this issue.

[Ivorytickler]

Wisteria,

You have my stance correct. Nice but not needed is my vote for G&T programs. My pet peeve is when they have them but don't fill the classes which results in more kids crammed into all the other classes. It's hard enough teaching 28 kids in a class. I don't need 30 and the 28 kids in my class don't need 2 more to compete with for my attention.

I have no desire to call anyone. I come here for the entertainment and to let off steam. Sometimes, focusing on a stupid debate whose outcome has no bearing on the realworld whatsoever will work just fine, lol.

Ivory

[Ivorytickler]

Originally Posted by lkb0714

Not exactly. I teach at a public school for gifted children in science and I am a researcher in oceanography/marine science.

As for Ivory my issue remain that she thinks the G/T kids do not need any help nor are deserving of it.

No, I don't believe they are entitled to it. They are no more deserving of a program that caters to them than the next child and a program that caters to a child who, say, can't read, will probably have way more impact on that child's life and on society than a program for a gifted child.

Your school is exactly what I said should be. A separate school that caters to those students who need more than the average classroom can give. What I don't want to see is a separate program that results in other classrooms being even more over crowded to accomodate small classes in the G&T program. That disadvantages the many for the few and that's just not right. Regular ed kids don't deserve less because Johnny has an IQ of 150. Just send Johnny to a specialty school.

[lkb0714]

Originally Posted by Ivorytickler

No, I don't believe they are entitled to it. They are no more deserving of a program that caters to them than the next child and a program that caters to a child who, say, can't read, will probably have way more impact on that child's life and on society than a program for a gifted child.

Your school is exactly what I said should be. A separate school that caters to those students who need more than the average classroom can give. What I don't want to see is a separate program that results in other classrooms being even more over crowded to accomodate small classes in the G&T program. That disadvantages the many for the few and that's just not right. Regular ed kids don't deserve less because Johnny has an IQ of 150. Just send Johnny to a specialty school.

My school is a rarity and in most places cannot exist (I live in one of the wealthiest and most densely populated places in the nation). But hey as long as there is a football game to raise moral who cares about the top 1% who are bored to tears.

Oh course they are entitled to an education that meets their needs. That is the definition of public school. Entitlement.

And for the last time, the reason schools make a G/T program in house is because its CHEAPER than sending them out of district. Have you ever worked in a public school? Because you seem to not understand how the funding works in the slightest.

Beyond that I am done with this conversation. You are willfully ignorant and cannot seem to conduct honest discourse. You ignore everything that pokes holes in your so called "points". I have said my piece.

[Ivorytickler]

Originally Posted by lkb0714

My school is a rarity and in most places cannot exist (I live in one of the wealthiest and most densely populated places in the nation). But hey as long as there is a football game to raise moral who cares about the top 1% who are bored to tears.

Oh course they are entitled to an education that meets their needs. That is the definition of public school. Entitlement.

And for the last time, the reason schools make a G/T program in house is because its CHEAPER than sending them out of district. Have you ever worked in a public school? Because you seem to not understand how the funding works in the slightest.

Beyond that I am done with this conversation. You are willfully ignorant and cannot seem to conduct honest discourse. You ignore everything that pokes holes in your so called "points". I have said my piece.

The problem is, you're talking only 1% in a publically funded program. Actually, I would think it's cheaper to not have a G&T program at all since it would serve so few students. Whether or not it's cheaper to pay tuition to another school would depend on how many students you're paying it for. 1% of the kids in my dd's high school is 20 kids across 4 grades. Hardly enough to warrant a separate program, which is why they pay tuition to either the local community college or a magnet school when there is a need they cannot meet though honors courses or grade skipping. The cost to have one teacher teach 5 kids in each grade is way beyond what tuition to a G&T magnet school would cost for the same 20 kids. You'll have to explain why it would be cheaper to have the program in house. Here the state monies brought in by 5 students wouldn't pay the teacher's wage. Now, as I've said before, if you fill the classes, who cares what level they're taught on. The cost is the same as long as you're not buying extras for the G&T class.

I currently work in a public charter school, so yes, I've worked in a public school.

[NCyank]

Originally Posted by Ivorytickler

What percentage of a student population would need to be considered gifted to make a separate G&T program necessary in a school?

I'm curious as to how far down the IQ range people define giftedness. It's the top 1% here but I know of districts that simply channel the top 1/3 of their students into honors programs. This, of course, is a watered down "gifted" program because they include many students who are not gifted.

Well now you are talking about something a bit different. It's true that most G&T programs are not for the truly gifted. However, the regular classes are the new remedial classes and so the 'G&T' classes do serve a purpose for a greater population of students, despite their misleading labeling. Considering the continuing dumbing down of standard curriculum I'd say that these types of 'watered down' G&T programs are essential if we intend to maintain any sort of academic competitiveness.



Given the choice, I'd rather see funding $$ sent toward the top than the bottom. At the bottom there are kids who have limited potential, limited desire and limited parental support. Excluding those with mental disability, there is nothing stopping the bottom students from rising up but their chances for success is less...even if they receive extra resources. You just can't push water up a hill, time and resources trying to accomplish the feat are time and resources wasted. We've effectively dumbed down a generation or more of students in a failed attempt to raise up those at the bottom.

It's ridiculous to say to the gifted and/or high achievers, "let them go elsewhere" and then criticize home education and deny vouchers, leaving private schools (often prohibitively expensive) as the only 'legitimate' schooling alternative. There are many school districts where people have been going elsewhere when their needs are not being met...they are leaving failing schools, moving out of the district if necessary and look what is left behind. Is THAT what you really want all of the schools to look like? In those schools it is well demonstrated that focusing on those who need help the most doesn't work well for the whole.

[Ivorytickler]

Originally Posted by NCyank

Well now you are talking about something a bit different. It's true that most G&T programs are not for the truly gifted. However, the regular classes are the new remedial classes and so the 'G&T' classes do serve a purpose for a greater population of students, despite their misleading labeling. Considering the continuing dumbing down of standard curriculum I'd say that these types of 'watered down' G&T programs are essential if we intend to maintain any sort of academic competitiveness.



Given the choice, I'd rather see funding $$ sent toward the top than the bottom. At the bottom there are kids who have limited potential, limited desire and limited parental support. Excluding those with mental disability, there is nothing stopping the bottom students from rising up but their chances for success is less...even if they receive extra resources. You just can't push water up a hill, time and resources trying to accomplish the feat are time and resources wasted. We've effectively dumbed down a generation or more of students in a failed attempt to raise up those at the bottom.

It's ridiculous to say to the gifted and/or high achievers, "let them go elsewhere" and then criticize home education and deny vouchers, leaving private schools (often prohibitively expensive) as the only 'legitimate' schooling alternative. There are many school districts where people have been going elsewhere when their needs are not being met...they are leaving failing schools, moving out of the district if necessary and look what is left behind. Is THAT what you really want all of the schools to look like? In those schools it is well demonstrated that focusing on those who need help the most doesn't work well for the whole.

That I can actually agree with. I think G&T programs serve the high end non gifted students better than gifted students (remember I don't deal with the uber gifted so I am excluding them when I talk about this). I see them as challenging students who would not challenge themselves when you're talking about the top 25% of students. Problem is, not all schools let them in.

I've read that the top 10% do well in spite of their school situations but how the next 15% down fare depends very much on their school. (No data here, just things I've read over the years) and I believe this. I think you pull them up if you put them in more challenging programs. Also, including the top 25% means the program is full which means it doesn't cost more to run and you're not crowding other classes to make it happen.

I've said before, I am a fan of tracking. I'd love to see a low, medium and high track for, purely, selfish reasons. I'd rather have a narrower range to teach to. If I come in too high for the lower achieving students, I get rebellion. If I come in too low for the high achieving students, I get boredom and disruptions. Classroom management would be easier if I can target my audience better. It doesn't work well when I have to repeat things three times for the bottom third of the class while the top third heard me the first time.

Given that our objective is more kids passing the high stakes tests, IMO, tracking makes sense. We can even put more effort into the bottom of the class to try and pull them up. I wouldn't mind larger classes if they were the better performing students. I'd prefer smaller classes with struggling students.

One, very successful, district here divides their students in thirds and tracks them. Another, successful, district pulls the bottom third of the class for remediation and leave the top 2/3 for the teacher to teach.

My dd's schools just offer honors classes but anyone can take them. They also allow grade skipping and they pay tuition for more advanced students to take classes at the local community college. If she stays on track, dd#2 could take her entire junior and senior years at the community college. She can go much more in depth at the college level. What's really nice is she won't be alone. Pretty much any student with the ambition to work ahead can do this.

I actually would spend more on the bottom but not so much more that I disadvantaged the top. I do see teaching a student to read well enough to fill out an application and hold down a job as a greater good. What kind of future does a child have if they can't read or do simple math? I think, society, gains more if you remediate the lower kids. I also think you need to realize when you've bitten off more than you can chew. Not all students can achieve (lightening is going to strike me for sure, lol).

[Aconite]

Originally Posted by Ivorytickler

Also, you'll find that IQ is, somewhat, linked to major in college.

Okay, this rationale I have to hear.

:ulling up comfy chair and popping popcorn::