Do public schools really NEED gifted and talented programs? (salary, geometry, GED)

[Ivorytickler]

Originally Posted by lkb0714

For bio, chem and phys, you need 30 of each with no introductory level or education course counting. It was very hard to get 30 in physics but they eventually counted my physical oceanography course so I just made it.

To me the 30 is sort of odd. I have gen chem 1& 2, orgo 1&2, biochem 1&2 and only have 28 credits. IMOP those classes are more than enough to teach any level of high school chem including AP.

I don't even know how many chemistry credits I actually have. They counted all of my chemical engineering courses as chemistry courses. I'd consider most of them physics.

I was suprised they gave me a chem major and not a physics major, however, I agree that what you have is plenty to teach high school chemistry. I've never even taken bio chem. As an engineering major, I took physical chemistry, reaction kinetics and thermodynamics. Stuff I'll never teach in high school. The biochem I could have used.

Here's something really stupid. I'm headed back to community college this summer to start work on a general science certificate. I'm considered too specialized for most districts to even interview me so I'm taking 100 level biology and earth science courses so I can qualify to teach all science grades 6 on up. IMO, it's a step backward but I'll never find a job before I'm ready to retire with straight chemistry, physics and math certs in Michigan. Most systems kick my resume out before a human looks at it because I don't have a DI cert. So, I'll be dissecting frogs this summer .

The really sad part is that even with 12 credits in biology, I'd be a lousy biology teacher. It's just not my thing. I like physical science.

[Charles Wallace]

Originally Posted by lkb0714

Wow. Literally no one in my school has an education bachelors degree. A couple of people have gone back and gotten masters or doctorates in education but that is it.

The school I worked at last had one person with an education degree out of the eight of us in the science department but he was much older.

Maybe its a state by state thing?

It might be. I wish they would do away with it as a degree altogether.

[lr00429]

i am from belmont middle school and they might cut up

[syracusa]

Originally Posted by acrylic

I was in a thing in elementary school called GATE...gifted and talented eduction. It was for, I dunno, smart kids. I don't think I really learned anything in that class that pushed my limits. One thing I remember is us discussing political topics. Back when I was in elementary school, the whole Clinton/Kosovo thing was going on, and we were talking about that. Really, did anything come out of it? Not really. Would I have come out any different by not being in that class? No. Only thing it did was make me feel like I was better than everyone else that wasn't in that class.

Again, a cross-cultural perspective if anyone cares to hear:
completely agree with acrylic. From where I stand, this segregation of children into gifted, average, and special looks exactly like what it sounds to be: a rigid social hierarchy sanctioned and encouraged by adults themselves.

You can talk all you want about how such segregation is about "appropriate placement" and about "children's specific abilities", etc. At the end of the day, children know it's about "smart, average and dumb".
Every child should have the right to be exposed to the same quality education and encouraged to aim as high as he/she can.

Maybe we should have all children exposed to the G/T experience and encouraged to reach THAT high. Of course, not all of them will; but how about letting them segregate themselves naturally instead of pigeon-holing them in the first place?

Super-gifted children don't have to be bored in class if they don't want to be bored. If academic standards were high to begin with, they would keep busy; and the "special needs" children would receive appropriate help so they can keep up reasonably; and while they may end up at the bottom of the class anyway, they will still have been exposed and challenged more by being in a regular class than by being kept in what amounts to a third class academic climate.

Other countries seem to function just fine with mixed classes ranging from down-right geniuses to academically impaired children. It's how life works.

Segergation by ability group, age group, race/ethnicity, lifestyle, interest group, political orientation and who knows what else is way more prevalent in the US than in other parts of the world. I am not convinced it is a good model. As someone else said, how about just raising academic standards to the gifted level for everyone, and let the others try to aim high as well even if we know they will not end up at the top, on average?
Some will surprise us though.

[magoomafoo]

Originally Posted by syracusa

Again, a cross-cultural perspective if anyone cares to hear:
completely agree with acrylic. From where I stand, this segregation of children into gifted, average, and special looks exactly like what it sounds to be: a rigid social hierarchy sanctioned and encouraged by adults themselves.

You can talk all you want about how such segregation is about "appropriate placement" and about "children's specific abilities", etc. At the end of the day, children know it's about "smart, average and dumb".
Every child should have the right to be exposed to the same quality education and encouraged to aim as high as he/she can.

Maybe we should have all children exposed to the G/T experience and encouraged to reach THAT high. Of course, not all of them will; but how about letting them segregate themselves naturally instead of pigeon-holing them in the first place?

Super-gifted children don't have to be bored in class if they don't want to be bored. If academic standards were high to begin with, they would keep busy; and the "special needs" children would receive appropriate help so they can keep up reasonably; and while they may end up at the bottom of the class anyway, they will still have been exposed and challenged more by being in a regular class than by being kept in what amounts to a third class academic climate.

Other countries seem to function just fine with mixed classes ranging from down-right geniuses to academically impaired children. It's how life works.

Segergation by ability group, age group, race/ethnicity, lifestyle, interest group, political orientation and who knows what else is way more prevalent in the US than in other parts of the world. I am not convinced it is a good model. As someone else said, how about just raising academic standards to the gifted level for everyone, and let the others try to aim high as well even if we know they will not end up at the top, on average?
Some will surprise us though.

While I agree with raising the bar in academics and teaching "ALL" students with the same academic standards, raising the bar to gifted standards for all students is setting many up to fail. Less than 5% of a student body is actually "gifted". To expect the other 95% to perform to that 5%'s abilities is disasterous. The majority of the mainstream students would fall further into the hole that they are already in thanks to programs that take educators time from the mainstream class. For those students who are "actually" gifted, the curriculum should be modified to decrease boredom in the regular class. Because there are far more mainstream students than gifted, it would be logical to adjust the smaller group than the larger. Less money, teacher time, stress on students ect...

[Charles Wallace]

Originally Posted by syracusa

Maybe we should have all children exposed to the G/T experience and encouraged to reach THAT high. Of course, not all of them will; but how about letting them segregate themselves naturally instead of pigeon-holing them in the first place?

Teachers don't decide who should be in GT or regular or special ed by random. Instead, they use test scores, grades, behavior, parent information, student information, and other determinants to make that decision. In short, students ALREADY "segregate themselves naturally" based on their inherent abilities, their performance in class, and their individual educational needs as determined by testing.

Super-gifted children don't have to be bored in class if they don't want to be bored.

I regret to say this, but this is simply not true. Imagine that you had your existing math skills. Imagine that you were put into a class of students who were busy learning fundamental multiplication. Imagine being given a sheet with about 100 problems at the level of "5x7" on it. Imagine this happening every day, with few or no days during which you learn anything. Why in the world would your justifiable boredom somehow be your fault?

If academic standards were high to begin with, they would keep busy; and the "special needs" children would receive appropriate help so they can keep up reasonably; and while they may end up at the bottom of the class anyway, they will still have been exposed and challenged more by being in a regular class than by being kept in what amounts to a third class academic climate.

That's true only to a point. The more distant someone is from the center, the less your statement is appropriate.

[khuntrevor]

I say eliminate them. Their peers need them, to learn from, a lot more than their parents need their egos boosted. If they are that far advanced, they can take classes at the community colleges.

[Ivorytickler]

Originally Posted by khuntrevor

I say eliminate them. Their peers need them, to learn from, a lot more than their parents need their egos boosted. If they are that far advanced, they can take classes at the community colleges.

We are headed that direction. The way schools are graded, you don't gain anything by expending effort on those already at the top. Your gains are made by pulling up the bottom. I'm surprised to find there's an 80/20 rule in teaching too only it's 80% of your effort goes into the bottom 20% of your class with very little to show for it.

As long as schools are graded on the number of students meeting the minimum standard, the focus will be on the bottom of the class. If G&T programs really mattered to Americans, we'd grade on %passing AND average scores. Throwing the average in there means that if you pull up anyone it counts in your scores. As things are now, only pulling up the bottom matters WRT your scores until high school when 11th graders take the ACT/MME that is.

[Charles Wallace]

Originally Posted by khuntrevor

I say eliminate them. Their peers need them, to learn from, a lot more than their parents need their egos boosted. If they are that far advanced, they can take classes at the community colleges.

This might sound good, but in many ways, it's worse.

Some CC classes are genuinely worthy of the name "college." In general (given that there are so many CCs and they vary widely in quality), classes used as "weed-outs" for majors such as an introductory biology class for would-be majors in bio, biochem, et cetera, do tend to be intellectually demanding and genuinely presented at the collegiate level.

That said, though, many CC classes are much less demanding than classes at the level taught at a decent (not even a spectacular) high school. For example, I recently took a CC class for recertification credit that was far easier than my own high school freshman course in that same subject. I'm serious.

What I'm saying here is that if a GT student were to take that option, s/he would genuinely have to pick courses carefully -- choose the ones that are "gateway" courses to majors and avoid any classes for nonmajors. Read Ratemyprofessors to look for those courses students ***** about on the basis of their being "too hard." Above all, realize that CC is really a YMMV proposition: Your mileage may vary.

[Marlow]

Originally Posted by khuntrevor

I say eliminate them. Their peers need them, to learn from, a lot more than their parents need their egos boosted. If they are that far advanced, they can take classes at the community colleges.

Since when is it a child's job to educate other children, at the expense of their own education?

My dd went to a neighborhood elementary school for kindergarten and then tested into a GT school. She knew how to read while other children did not know the alphabet. She flew through the "sight words" and the teacher had her testing the other students on their words. She enjoyed doing it, and I understood that it helped the teacher out, but it was really a waste of time for her. She also would do a week's worth of math homework on Monday so she wouldn't have to bother with it the rest of the week.

She has since been attending a GT magnet school and I wouldn't have it any other way. She stays challenged and isn't bored waiting for other kids to catch up. In our district the GT program ends after the 8th grade and kids can take go into the IB program if they want or take honors and dual (college) credit courses. But being in a GT program has been wonderful for her so far.