Do public schools really NEED gifted and talented programs? (placement, history, scores)

[Katiana]

Originally Posted by Momma_bear

If we give kids participation trophies we are telling them that they get an award for just showing up. Why should anyone get an award for showing up and participating in an activity that they chose?

Sometimes teachers and parents get so caught up in making Johnny feel good that they forget that the thing that makes Johnny feel good is ACTUALLY ACHIEVING SOMETHING. Telling Johnny he's great just for existing is detrimental to Johnny whether it's on the sports field or in the classroom.

We forget that it's ok to tell a child he is wrong or that he does not excel at (fill in the blank). Parents sometimes get so caught up in boosting Johnny's self esteem that they do projects so Johnny gets a good grade and complain to the teacher when Johnny doesn't get a good grade. I think this is all related.

This is also why it's good to have some objective way to assess kids for gifted programs. So many parents want to push their kids into gifted classes that the parents wind up having to do all the work to prove that their child actually belongs in the gifted program.

Well, I think kids should get a reward for "just showing up". A good work ethic is vital to succeed at a sport. No one is born with a natural born "talent" for gymnastics, soccer, etc. You have to go to practice, put in the effort. No one likes the "primma donna" who turns up for the big games, meets, whatever, and doesn't support the team. By the time they get to high school, there are rules about minimum practices attended and so forth to compete. And unless you're Shawn Johnson, the coach is not going to put you in if you're not a "team player".

As for "objective" ways to assess kids for G and T, keep in mind that only 2% of the population is truly gifted.

I hated coaching my youngest daughters soccer team when the league was all about "everyone is a winner" and "no score is kept". The five year olds KNOW how many goals they scored and how many the other team did. No one HAS to tell them. The kids are a lot smarter than most adults in many cases.

Good lord! You want to hit five year olds over the head about not being "good enough"? These kids are going to have many years to play competitive soccer. The "good" ones become apparent pretty fast, and get into the compeitive leagues.

[JetJockey]

I was in a G&T education program from 2nd grade through 6th. I absolutely LOVED my time in that program, because I was surrounded by people who actually wanted to learn. We did projects about the solar system, played games about ancient Egypt and sat around and discussed politics. In my elementary school (as well as others, I'm sure) knowledge and learning wasn't exactly celebrated... to be surrounded with kids around my age who were honestly interested in discovering new things was great, and if your child gets accepted into the program I highly recommend it. Even if the subject matter isn't great, it should instill a want and need for learning and that in itself is worth it.

[momof2dfw]

Originally Posted by evilnewbie

A gifted student doesn't mean a gifted adult... I have seen many gifted students end up being average middle-class adults... as to whether the state should spend "more" money... nope... if the parents want more for their gifted child/average adult, go ahead... splurge...


So basically your saying that ANY child should not be given much of anything when it comes to education be they gifted or average. I pay for the schools to operate thru my tax dollars. The kids getting the education in the system are capable of coming back to GIVE to their community be they teachers or business owners or just care about it. We NEED education in this country to rise up above what it is currently. I'm NOT a fan of NCLB! I'm not a fan of standardized tests that put a lot of pressure on teachers and students. It has taken the basics out of the classroom and thrown the kids out with it.



However, I will put in a caveat... I think public education system is incredibly flawed, they promote "universities" and "colleges" as the next phase of life.... it isn't the next phase of life is figuring where you fit in the whole scheme of the American economy... its nice to want every student to be a white-collar worker but that isn't realistic, America doesn't need the next 1 millionth get-in-line run-of-the-mill engineer... the schools should instead be focusing on our current and future needs and try to let students know what is needed now and in the future... especially what is needed in their community... if they need more factory workers then that's what should be pushed... if they need more farmers, electricians, plumbers, lawyers, doctors, pharmacists, etc... it needs to be more focused instead of "go to college and get any degree and I hope you make it"... next thing you know there are tons of college students that can get a job because they weren't given direction in life...

I'm actually a HUGE advocate of Vocational Training in the schools. One of the reasons why I am not a fan of standarized tests and NCLB is because it has taken vocational training/education out of the schools. Not every child is going to be able to attend college be it they can't afford it, don't have the grades, don't want to, get married/have a family too young, have other interests, etc. More kids just flat out dropout of school now because of the testing. Which pisses me off. I'm all for EVERY STUDENT getting the education they PERSONALLY NEED in order to be a productive member of society.

However, your thinking that one should base their schools curriculium on the needs of the immediate community are severely flawed. What is to day that a student is thrust into a program that is in dire need in their immediate area. In 2 years mom and dad are transferred to another area of the country where that skill/trade/profession is NOT in need at all.

Originally Posted by Katiana

Well, I think kids should get a reward for "just showing up". A good work ethic is vital to succeed at a sport. No one is born with a natural born "talent" for gymnastics, soccer, etc. You have to go to practice, put in the effort. No one likes the "primma donna" who turns up for the big games, meets, whatever, and doesn't support the team. By the time they get to high school, there are rules about minimum practices attended and so forth to compete. And unless you're Shawn Johnson, the coach is not going to put you in if you're not a "team player".


Good lord! You want to hit five year olds over the head about not being "good enough"? These kids are going to have many years to play competitive soccer. The "good" ones become apparent pretty fast, and get into the compeitive leagues.

If the program is run CORRECTLY then the team will not have a problem w/ a "star" person not behaving like a team player. My husband took over the eldest daughters soccer team at the request of the parents. We institutied rules of the team that spelled out the requirements for the team so that ALL kids that were on the team were treated FAIRLY! This was after the prior coach was "overlooking" the not so good players but was playing her "stars" all of the time that somehow never made it to practice. If your kid is on a team or in an organization that allows crappy behavior........ then that is what you will see. If your in an organization that is run properly then the kids will not mind not getting a "participation trophy" if they did not win first place.

I NEVER said that five year olds were "not good enough". I merely said that the kids KNOW THEMSELVES which team scored the most goals/points. No one has to tell them. This was REC SOCCER and no score was kept at all. Yet the KIDS DID KEEP SCORE IN THEIR HEADS! Even though we never won "1st place" our kids were happy to be there and the parents were very pleased with the team, how it was run, how their girls were treated which in turn makes them ALL ENJOY the experience even if they did NOT get a "trophy".

As I said, when a kid is given a trophy just for being there it doesn't mean much to them. Watch them win a trophy or an award for something THEY ACCOMPLISHED on their own and they are ELATED!

The whole "prima donna" thing is also to be blamed on the parents and how THEY treat their own child and those involved in that activity.

Originally Posted by JetJockey

I was in a G&T education program from 2nd grade through 6th. I absolutely LOVED my time in that program, because I was surrounded by people who actually wanted to learn. We did projects about the solar system, played games about ancient Egypt and sat around and discussed politics. In my elementary school (as well as others, I'm sure) knowledge and learning wasn't exactly celebrated... to be surrounded with kids around my age who were honestly interested in discovering new things was great, and if your child gets accepted into the program I highly recommend it. Even if the subject matter isn't great, it should instill a want and need for learning and that in itself is worth it.

EXACTLY!!! When kids are around PEERS that have the SAME interests as them and are just as eager to learn and explore it can make a HUGE difference.

[toobusytoday]

My kids were never in the gifted program, however, I think that ANY child would thrive if they are put into a small group setting, told that they were smart and challenged. I don't think that because one is "gifted" that they all have the same interests or abilities. In our district kids are tested in second grade for the gifted program. If they do well on the test on that one day, they are in the program through the 12th grade. Most of the kids that I know that are classified as gifted are not that swift, some are and for those kids I'm glad they have something to keep them interested.

For the truly gifted kids, I think enrichment is important, especially before High School. Once in High School the honors and AP classes and the ability to take some College classes are enough, IMHO.

[Oildog]

Back in the 80s my school had an Honors program in Math and English which I qualified for. I remeber being bored stiff in many subjects that didnt have an honors program, because of easy content and lack of discipline of the regular students. I started to skip out on some of those classes because of the slow pace. The G&T programs are not the ones that cost the school the most. Its the special ed students that are killing the school districts financially. One teacher can teach 25-30 G&T kids or regular students, But having 5 in a special ed class is huge because their disabilities are different, they often need 1 to 1 attention.

[momof2dfw]

Originally Posted by toobusytoday

My kids were never in the gifted program, however, I think that ANY child would thrive if they are put into a small group setting, told that they were smart and challenged. I don't think that because one is "gifted" that they all have the same interests or abilities. In our district kids are tested in second grade for the gifted program. If they do well on the test on that one day, they are in the program through the 12th grade. Most of the kids that I know that are classified as gifted are not that swift, some are and for those kids I'm glad they have something to keep them interested.

For the truly gifted kids, I think enrichment is important, especially before High School. Once in High School the honors and AP classes and the ability to take some College classes are enough, IMHO.

Again, this is not how it is done in our district with the G/T programs. They MUST maintain a certain grade in EVERY class. If they slip to a certain point they first get probation. If they can't pull it up they can't come back the next year.

[Katiana]

Once again, toobusytoday and I are on the same wavelength. My kids' ele school tested them in I think 4th grade for math acceleration (there was not a TAG program while they were there, though there had been before and after). My younger daughter was not considered good enough to be accelerated, but when she was in 7th grade she got a letter from the Rocky Mountain Talent Search inviting her to take the SATs, due to her math scores on her 5th grade standardized test! So this testing is not terribly objective. Fortunately, our middle school allowed kids, at the time anyway, to self-select an honors math course if they wanted, which she did. She stayed in that track through high school and took calculus senior year. I defintiely agree that by high school there are enough honors, AP, IB and other classes to accomodate most of the "gifted" students. In our district, students can even register to take classes at the local CC and/or the University of Colorado as well, if there is nothing offered at the high school that is appropriate.

[Katiana]

Originally Posted by Marlow

I think the question is really about how a school district should allocate its limited resources. If the resource kids, or the "average" kids aren't getting their piece of the pie, should the G/T program be cut, or the football program? Is there an orchestra or choir? Are they necessary? What about the administration--is it top heavy? Could the district do without two administrators and add two classroom teachers? These are choices district personnel and school boards have to make all the time.

I'm not sure why you've got the GT program in your sites, but I doubt if it's the sole reason that other kids and programs aren't getting the attention you believe they need.

For the record, I have a daughter in a magnet GT school and I'm thrilled that they have it. In kindergarten the teacher had her testing the other kids on their Dolch words. She enjoyed that, but I didn't think it was fair to her and knew it was just a matter of time until she got bored and started hating school. Also, while there are a few sort of "genius" kids at her school, most of them are there because they have very involved parents who did a lot of reading and talking to them and tried to get them ready for school and now stress the importance of school and making sure they do their homework. Why should they then have to sit through repetitious lessons for kids whose parents don't do that? We're all taxpayers.

Last things first, yes, we are ALL taxpayers. Now to skip up to the top of your post, the conundrum is just how to be all things to all people. I for one certainly do not advocate cutting the arts in schools. In our district, students pay to be on the sports teams, although the charges don't pay the whole cost of the programs. About 90% of the kids at my kids' high school did sports when they were there, you'd be talking about cutting a program that benefits a lot of students. Do the schools just exist for the "geniuses" as you call them, or for those with the super-involved parents, or do they also exist for those whose parents can't or won't devote all their time to their kids' schooling?

[Coldjensens]

We hated the GATE program. They were the classes withthe laziest teachers. The students were often hypercompetitive rather than mutually supportive (even in elementary school). our daughters came home from schools stressed out and crying regularly.

It was a struggle withthe district to keep them out of GATE, but we eventually prevailed. They got a fine education, tested in the top 95% ont he national tests, went on to do well in their high school, and successfully completed enough AP classes to skip a semester and a half of college. Getting them out of GATE was the best thing that we did in their early years.

[Momma_bear]

Originally Posted by Katiana

Well, I think kids should get a reward for "just showing up". A good work ethic is vital to succeed at a sport. No one is born with a natural born "talent" for gymnastics, soccer, etc. You have to go to practice, put in the effort. No one likes the "primma donna" who turns up for the big games, meets, whatever, and doesn't support the team. By the time they get to high school, there are rules about minimum practices attended and so forth to compete. And unless you're Shawn Johnson, the coach is not going to put you in if you're not a "team player".

Are you serious? You think a kid should get a reward for just showing up to do something that they chose to do? WHY? Showing up doesn't mean you have a good work ethic it shows that you were there.

When a child accomplishes something they should be rewarded. My son asked us to take him to a large wrestling tournament in Orlando (3 hours from home). When he was there he asked my husband if he could get a sweatshirt. My husband told him that if he won a trophy he could get a sweatshirt. He came in 3rd in his age/weight and won a trophy and got his sweathshirt. He shouldn't have been rewarded for just showing up.

BTW-he's a freshman in HS and he sat with his trophy for the entire 3 hour car ride home. I am sure a participation trophy would have been quickly discarded.

As a crazy sports mother I can tell you that yes, some kids have much more natural aptitude for sports than others. Hard work makes their skills better, but it's not enough to just work hard. You have to have talent also and those who acheive should be rewarded.