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.
Is there any evidence that gifted programs benefit society? Do gifted people who went through such programs contribute more back to society than gifted people who did not?
The problem is the gift is all about the individual. Most often they are the only ones to benefit from the gift. Why does society owe them more when they were already born with more than the next person over?
I don't buy this at all. In fact, I think the article is basically challenging educators to prevent this from being the case. It is a rather elitist argument, but the point is that the best and brightest have an obligation to perform to the best of their ability to contribute to "progress". Its like when Spiderman says, "With great power comes great responsibility."
I think the midcentury notion of 'progress" has fallen out of favor, and maybe that's when this ethic of civic nobility was lost. Since then we've dumbed down jobs for efficiency, making workers less valuable, and even the engineers of these processes are siloed in their functionality.
On the one hand the argument is often made the US is not keeping up in math and science, so its easy to argue that we should train up our gifted students to boost our talent pool in these fields.
But the big picture critical thinking Murray is talking about is required less in many fields and so the "liberal arts/ classical education" model is less important. The question is, if he wants to train our best and brightest to be classic critical thinkers, where will they utlilize those skills?
Explain to me why gifted kids are 400% more likely to commit suicide?
I don't doubt this but could you please provide your source (if you have already, I apologize for overlooking your reference). I'm curious about the survey methods for obtaining this statistic...
We moved to a high-performing school district (with a highly ranked gifted program) and, unfortunately, there is also a high suicide rate (some of the other top districts in the state also have high suicide rates)... We have had quite a few community presentations on this.
Having lived in other towns, I feel the parents in my town (many highly educated/ successful themselves) put a lot more pressure on the kids to be high-achieving and get into the gifted classes, the AP courses, etc. This pressure comes from all over - their teachers, their parents, their peers, and the students themselves. My children feel the test pressure and worry every Fall that their scores won't be high enough for them to make the gifted program again. I try to reassure them that there are multiple avenues for pursuing an appropriate education. My kids are happy and challenged now but if the stress ever becomes too high, we will reevaluate our choices.
So, does that 400% rate accurately represent kids that are truly gifted? How is this giftedness measured (e.g. IQ tests)?.... Or, does it represent students who are labeled gifted by the schools but may, in fact, just be academically accelerated due to school, parental, or self pressure?
I'd be interested in looking at some research on the links between giftedness and/or academic pressure on depression/suicide rates.
I don't buy this at all. In fact, I think the article is basically challenging educators to prevent this from being the case. It is a rather elitist argument, but the point is that the best and brightest have an obligation to perform to the best of their ability to contribute to "progress". Its like when Spiderman says, "With great power comes great responsibility."
I think the midcentury notion of 'progress" has fallen out of favor, and maybe that's when this ethic of civic nobility was lost. Since then we've dumbed down jobs for efficiency, making workers less valuable, and even the engineers of these processes are siloed in their functionality.
On the one hand the argument is often made the US is not keeping up in math and science, so its easy to argue that we should train up our gifted students to boost our talent pool in these fields.
But the big picture critical thinking Murray is talking about is required less in many fields and so the "liberal arts/ classical education" model is less important. The question is, if he wants to train our best and brightest to be classic critical thinkers, where will they utlilize those skills?
I believe the education system should serve all children equally. Not some in excess at the expense of others. While I do support a tracked system to avoid a situation where some kids are held back because others are slower, I don't support spending extra effort on the gifted. I don't see a return on that investment. If one were going to make an argument for spending extra money and time on any one group it would be the average group. That's where you could make the most gains that would positively impact society.
Honestly, how many gifted adults do you know? Giftedness is relative to age and ability of peers. Few of the gifted will turn out to be gifted adults. Most will simply be first to the finish line but others will catch up in time. That makes anything extra you do with this group pretty much a waste. They don't give more back because they got more.
However, our current system actually penalizes them by putting them in the same classes with students who must track at a much slower pace. I don't think that's right either. In order for edcuation to serve everyone, we need to get students on tracks that fit them. What each student does with that education will be up to them.
I went through a "gifted" program. Sort of..Then it was called double promotion...It wasn't that I was an Einstien, just that the other kids were less motivated...I went from 5th to 7th grade and still carried a 3.+ average...It was my parents that gave me the ability and desire to learn. Yeah my teachers were all stumped about what to do, but my mom just suggested I do more work or larger "projects"
I have seen several versions of TAG and AIG programs and most are laughable. The kids are doing what they should be doing, maybe 1 grade above--BUT there is no real analytical skills being learned NOR is there any real in depth searching for answers. Just MORE work in the way of composition papers, and a higher grade level of math.
I went through a "gifted" program. Sort of..Then it was called double promotion...It wasn't that I was an Einstien, just that the other kids were less motivated...I went from 5th to 7th grade and still carried a 3.+ average...It was my parents that gave me the ability and desire to learn. Yeah my teachers were all stumped about what to do, but my mom just suggested I do more work or larger "projects"
I have seen several versions of TAG and AIG programs and most are laughable. The kids are doing what they should be doing, maybe 1 grade above--BUT there is no real analytical skills being learned NOR is there any real in depth searching for answers. Just MORE work in the way of composition papers, and a higher grade level of math.
I find the G&T crowd doesn't want to do analytical work. They also don't want more work. I teach two levels of chemistry and one of my higher chemistry courses has a disproportionate number of honors students. They complain about what they're learning more than my regular class. I hear whines of "What do we need to learn THIS for?" almost daily from them. One girl did this multiple times a day until I reminded her that she was suggesting I teach this class like I teach my lower chemistry class.
I find the higher level kids want the work to be easy and to look brilliant. They really don't want to work harder or think deeper. They just want a chance to shine (while doing the least amount of work). In two years, I've had, exactly, one student who wanted to go deeper and learn more. I've had multiple students who considered themselves brilliant but only really wanted a chance to show off without actually doing anything extra. I had one last year who, supposedly, was on directed study. Her final presentation looked like something she'd thrown togeter in an afternoon and she got mad when I didn't give her an A.
My younger daughter does want to go deeper...sometimes. Other times, she just wants to get away with the least work possible. She goes in spurts. Sometimes she jumps forward and sometimes she just levels for a while. For her, grade skipping has worked well.
Another reason not to have gifted programs. One of the things kids need to learn in school is how to function as part of a group in spite of their differences. How to take their own education into their own hands and make it work for them. If someone else is spoon feeding you your entire life, spoon feeding is all you'll ever be able to manage.
While I support things like advancing gifted kids into classes that are more of a challenge (so they don't grow up expecting everything to be easy), they need to learn how to challenge themselves as well and they need to learn their gifts don't entitle them to special treatment. If anyone is required to step up to the plate and take charge, it should be the gifted.
Yeah - why let research and facts guide your educational practice when you can mouth false platitudes instead.
UGH. You do love to just lump things together. Yes, I can do more with the G&T kids. The argument here isn't whether I can do more with them it's whether or not it's worth it to put the extra effort in to do so. In other words, we've moved on to a different argument!
Please keep the arguments straight. That's best done by not borrowing from other threads on other topics. Just because I CAN do something doesn't mean I SHOULD.
My previous arguments were that all kids deserve the same effort and that would require tracking. I was arguing against a system that holds some kids back because it's forced to pace with slower kids not in favor of special programs to push them even farther. Here we're talking about special programs that cost more and require more energy than we'd be giving the other kids. I'm, morally, opposed to giving some kids extra because they were born with more in the first place. However, I'm in favor of giving all kids equal amounts of education which would require a tracked system to serve all well.
Keep the arguments straight please. You just muddy the water dragging in statements made about other issues in other contexts into this one or any other debate.
As usual, sticking to debating the topic not the poster works best. Please stick to the topic at hand and leave my statements about other things where they belong, which would be within the context in which they were said. I shouldn't be wasting a post explaining the differences between my argument here and there. We're talking two different issues.
No, Ivory - your words in other threads don't just disappear because you changed where you are typing.
It is not I who have muddied the waters.
Your argument, bolded above, has no basis in reality.
Tracking is not giving every kid the same education - it is giving several different levels of education.
Ability grouping can do the same thing as cost effectively without the rigidity.
And self-contained classrooms for the gifted do even more, both academically and developmentally, without an appreciably greater cost - and often with an equal cost.
******
Teaching high ability kids at their levels works. And it produces more competent students for future work.
Look at the track record of the graduates of IMSA, NCSSM, and other such public schools.
Stop operating on assumptions, Ivory, and look at achievement. Look at graduation rates from high school, college, and grad school. Then look beyond it.
I think that fitting in with one's peers is a needed life skill for everyone. It's not about pretending to be someone they are not. It's about finding commonalities.
How much time do you spend with people who are within exactly one year of your age?
I believe the education system should serve all children equally.
No such thing.
It is a wise man who said that there is no greater inequality than the equal treatment of unequals. - Felix Frankfurter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler
Not some in excess at the expense of others. While I do support a tracked system to avoid a situation where some kids are held back because others are slower, I don't support spending extra effort on the gifted. I don't see a return on that investment. If one were going to make an argument for spending extra money and time on any one group it would be the average group. That's where you could make the most gains that would positively impact society.
Geez, this is one of those areas in which you contradict yourself - it's no wonder you want me to ignore them.
The whole reason you wanted to teach <s>wealthier</s> better students was that you could "make more of a difference." Now you are saying that more of a difference can be made with the average students!
So... you say "I don't see a return on that investment."
What would constitute such a return on it? How would you recognize it?
I've already noted that I see students in such programs getting involved more, as they get older, in the programs they were a part of as kids.
Clearly, that's not enough for you, so what would be?
And if you did, would you then change your mind about supporting such programs?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler
Honestly, how many gifted adults do you know? Giftedness is relative to age and ability of peers. Few of the gifted will turn out to be gifted adults. Most will simply be first to the finish line but others will catch up in time. That makes anything extra you do with this group pretty much a waste. They don't give more back because they got more.
Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.
A) I know many gifted adults.
B) No, the others don't catch up in time. That's a lovely story, but it sure isn't the truth.
and
C) If they are given more, more of them do give back more - unlike you, it seems.
No, Ivory - your words in other threads don't just disappear because you changed where you are typing.
It is not I who have muddied the waters.
Your argument, bolded above, has no basis in reality.
Tracking is not giving every kid the same education - it is giving several different levels of education.
Ability grouping can do the same thing as cost effectively without the rigidity.
And self-contained classrooms for the gifted do even more, both academically and developmentally, without an appreciably greater cost - and often with an equal cost.
******
Teaching high ability kids at their levels works. And it produces more competent students for future work.
Look at the track record of the graduates of IMSA, NCSSM, and other such public schools.
Stop operating on assumptions, Ivory, and look at achievement. Look at graduation rates from high school, college, and grad school. Then look beyond it.
Different contexts result in different arguments. Your dragging words from other contexts does not make them applicable here.
Please stick to the debate at hand and refrain from debating about posters. Thank you.
I'm putting you on ignore. I'd suggest you do the same.
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.
