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.
Maybe sex education should spend less time having girls learn how to put condoms on cucumbers and educate them a little about normal sexual body functions !
Sorry about the jargon. TMR = Trainable Mentally Retarded. These are students who are trying to learn self-help skills, such as feeding themselves and tying their own shoes. Some of them can function well enough to do simple chores like clearing tables, but others are wheelchair-bound and cannot use language to communicate.
I was also unclear about who was not taking care of their hygiene--it is the parents. The girls have no concept of what normal body functions are--they do not know that they are having periods. The boys have trouble refraining from masturbating in class. These are children who cannot usually learn how to read or write at all. So the process of having them sit through a standardized test is ludicrous at best. But that is required under the current law.
I have an old friend who is a teacher in a low socio-economic neighborhood with low performing test scores. She goes above and beyond her duties as teacher to help these kids receive a good, decent education. Only a few parents show up to parent-teacher conferences. We were out shopping one day and she picked out 3 coats for boys. I asked her who was she buying those for because she has 3 girls. She was buying them for students that had been wearing thin sweat jackets in the rain. She says most of her students have so many issues at home. One of her kindergarten students informed her one day that her dad had gotten shot last night. This is what many of these students are dealing with. I don't have the answers but how can student like these learn (even with all the help) under these circumstances? I think they need to find some other way for teacher's to be evaluated because it would not be fair to teachers that teach in these types of schools. As a matter of fact no teacher is going to want to even teach at these types of schools because they know eventually they will lose their jobs.
Could they somehow measure that a child is "growing" on their own curve like they do for babies/toddlers?
My kids are both very short and fall almost below the standard growth charts used by the doctors. BUT they are following their own curve so because it has a nice constant shape they are not worried that something is wrong with them medically.
Could that be applied to children in an educational capacity? At the beginning of the year they showed competency in math at this level and now they are up to here? That way they aren't really compared to others but it is individually based?
I agree with the social problems being forced onto the educational system as a big issue--I don't think it is the teacher or school's job to fix these problems. I think it is easy to do so because they spend the majority of their time at school.
Perhaps we do like they do in other countries? Track kids into certain schools based upon academics/testing in middle school. Have more technical/practical trade schools. I realize not everyone is meant to have advanced degrees. Mechanics, cosmetology, plumbing, basic computer/customer service skills instead of forcing geometry onto people who don't have the interest or ability to understand.
Could they somehow measure that a child is "growing" on their own curve like they do for babies/toddlers?
My kids are both very short and fall almost below the standard growth charts used by the doctors. BUT they are following their own curve so because it has a nice constant shape they are not worried that something is wrong with them medically.
Could that be applied to children in an educational capacity? At the beginning of the year they showed competency in math at this level and now they are up to here? That way they aren't really compared to others but it is individually based?
A reasonably good thought, but here are a few problems with that thought.
1. You would need to establish each and every child's competency in each subject at the beginning and end of each year. The beginning of the year test would allow you to measure progress as evidenced by the end of the year test.
This would cost incredible sums of money to increase the number of standardized tests. An additional downside would be that you would have teachers doing nothing but 'teaching to the test'. Test prep, strategies, etc. You would be able to measure results, but at the cost of actually giving the kids a good education.
2. What do you do about adding in factors for home environment? If a school is in a wealthy area, parents are going to be buying books for their kids, taking them to museums, and hiring tutors. In an inner city area, kids are going to be more worried about getting their next meal. Sure, extreme examples perhaps, but to hold teachers in all areas to the exact same performance standards, when the home environments of their students is going to vary widely, is not really fair.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alise007
Perhaps we do like they do in other countries? Track kids into certain schools based upon academics/testing in middle school. Have more technical/practical trade schools. I realize not everyone is meant to have advanced degrees. Mechanics, cosmetology, plumbing, basic computer/customer service skills instead of forcing geometry onto people who don't have the interest or ability to understand.
Terrible idea. Did you know what you wanted to do when you were 12? Do you really want to have somebody determining children's careers for them before they hit puberty?
What if the kid has an off day when the tests are done?
What if the kid's parents are going through an ugly 2-3 year divorce when these decisions are made, but then the situation clears up, and the kid can perform?
I know several people who dropped out of high school and have gone on to successful post secondary careers. Several with bachelors degrees, a couple with masters degrees, and one with a doctorate holding a faculty position at a university. Making decisions for a kid about their career when they are very young is simply immoral.
A reasonably good thought, but here are a few problems with that thought.
1. You would need to establish each and every child's competency in each subject at the beginning and end of each year. The beginning of the year test would allow you to measure progress as evidenced by the end of the year test.
I would suggest every two years with a process for parent/student appeals if they feel the student needs to be re-tested earlier, including mid-term for a significant reason. The individual re-tests could be supervised the same way Gifted or SPED tests are, as most school districts have a way to account for that in-house. If they don't, they should.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbrains
This would cost incredible sums of money to increase the number of standardized tests. An additional downside would be that you would have teachers doing nothing but 'teaching to the test'. Test prep, strategies, etc. You would be able to measure results, but at the cost of actually giving the kids a good education.
Not if there were no penalties to kids falling wherever they fell on the curve -- if we used the tests as diagnostics (there should be other tests that assess if the students have learned the material their diagnostic suggested they were capable of learning at a low, average, or high rate). The problem is we aren't using standardized tests correctly. We're counting on one test to be both diagnostic and demonstrative. You need two different kinds of tests, and all students shouldn't be learning the same material or being given the final tests on the same material.
For example, at the IS I work at abroad, we have "Entry" tests that are essentially "Level" testing (Diagnostic) to place the children in a class. We also have such tests throughout the year to see if they're in the right class. Then, we have "Term Tests" -- which are standardized exams geared towards the standards, essentially seeing if both teachers and students are doing their jobs in the classroom. I teach the highest class of my grade level at the school (essentially all Gifted kids); my kids aren't given the same test as the lowest class (some SPED, some just slow to English acquisition). It wouldn't be fair if they were!
Would it cost some money to implement such things nationwide in a giant country like the U.S.? Yes. Would it be worth it? Probably.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbrains
2. What do you do about adding in factors for home environment? If a school is in a wealthy area, parents are going to be buying books for their kids, taking them to museums, and hiring tutors. In an inner city area, kids are going to be more worried about getting their next meal. Sure, extreme examples perhaps, but to hold teachers in all areas to the exact same performance standards, when the home environments of their students is going to vary widely, is not really fair.
Exactly. That's why measuring students individually and even tracking them makes sense. Now, you'll have some kids with sudden at-home factors that cause them to drop, but it'll be incidental, rather than full-scale.
Teachers shouldn't feel stressed or pressed to avoid these populations, which is what happens now. It really isn't considered "a good idea" to teach "these" kids (so sad!) because if they can't measure up, the teacher is judged. Really, teachers should try very, very hard to get these students up to grade level. They should. But if the students are already 3-4 grades below (as is true by the time they're in HS often), and the teacher gets them to just below grade level in a year? That's a miracle and should be celebrated! That should be noticed more than the teacher who keeps the rich, highly ranked school on-par. At the same time, the second teacher shouldn't be penalized that there's not much improvement for her students to make.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbrains
Terrible idea. Did you know what you wanted to do when you were 12? Do you really want to have somebody determining children's careers for them before they hit puberty?
What if the kid has an off day when the tests are done?
Then, you allow the kid to be re-tested.
I agree we shouldn't be picking their careers, but most countries require you know by HS if you want to go to college or learn a trade. Even the U.S. did historically. So, having students enroll in these programs would make sense. Three main types: high-level prep schools with strict entry requirements (definitely college bound), mid-level academic schools with necessary prep for some colleges but also a range of electives (essentially what we have now without the vocational or AP/Gifted type programs---students could still go to lower-tier colleges and community colleges and build upon their degree), and vocational schools that teach the beginning of a trade. Options 2 and 3 should be open to all kids, but the students should have the choice. Stripping away vocational education from the schools has been a big mistake, in my view.
Most students have decided what they're going to do (Re: College) by age 14. This is just allowing them to assert it. Of course, we would need to build in options to change tracks if there was a significant change.
Also, SPED would have to be accounted for. I think ELL students should be tracked into the 2nd type of school, but others tracked by their ability/interests. Many would need to be in the vocational schools, sadly, or continue in their own separate programs. (Those who don't earn mainstream degrees now anyway.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbrains
What if the kid's parents are going through an ugly 2-3 year divorce when these decisions are made, but then the situation clears up, and the kid can perform?
I know several people who dropped out of high school and have gone on to successful post secondary careers. Several with bachelors degrees, a couple with masters degrees, and one with a doctorate holding a faculty position at a university. Making decisions for a kid about their career when they are very young is simply immoral.
And those people still could. If they dropped out of HS and went on, then they went through a G.Ed/Testing option, which shouldn't be taken away.
I think the poster makes a good point. Many countries have a tiered system: Australia, France, and Japan all do. The U.S. used to have vocational schools as well. We're basically doing this anyway, at our best schools. They did it when I was a kid---I went to a large school (2800 kids), so luckily they could have all 3 rolled into one. I literally didn't see the mainstream kids or the vocational kids all day. I saw the kids in my college-bound track. We had different teachers. Usually we even chose different electives, as we chose the foreign language, AP, and other college-credit electives that no one would select unless they were building a resume for college. Smaller schools can't do it all, so programs get cut (both vocational and college prep). There's nothing wrong with tracking kids---it allows them all to get work at the appropriate level for them and allows the teacher to better craft lessons (there's still going to be diversity of ability regardless, but it shouldn't be a mile wide).
Last edited by halfwaygone; 06-20-2010 at 06:02 AM..
I agree we shouldn't be picking their careers, but most countries require you know by HS if you want to go to college or learn a trade. Even the U.S. did historically. So, having students enroll in these programs would make sense. Three main types: high-level prep schools with strict entry requirements (definitely college bound), mid-level academic schools with necessary prep for some colleges but also a range of electives (essentially what we have now without the vocational or AP/Gifted type programs---students could still go to lower-tier colleges and community colleges and build upon their degree), and vocational schools that teach the beginning of a trade. Options 2 and 3 should be open to all kids, but the students should have the choice. Stripping away vocational education from the schools has been a big mistake, in my view.
Most students have decided what they're going to do (Re: College) by age 14. This is just allowing them to assert it. Of course, we would need to build in options to change tracks if there was a significant change.
Also, SPED would have to be accounted for. I think ELL students should be tracked into the 2nd type of school, but others tracked by their ability/interests. Many would need to be in the vocational schools, sadly, or continue in their own separate programs. (Those who don't earn mainstream degrees now anyway.)
And those people still could. If they dropped out of HS and went on, then they went through a G.Ed/Testing option, which shouldn't be taken away.
I think the poster makes a good point. Many countries have a tiered system: Australia, France, and Japan all do. The U.S. used to have vocational schools as well.] We're basically doing this anyway, at our best schools. They did it when I was a kid---I went to a large school (2800 kids), so luckily they could have all 3 rolled into one. I literally didn't see the mainstream kids or the vocational kids all day. I saw the kids in my college-bound track. We had different teachers. Usually we even chose different electives, as we chose the foreign language, AP, and other college-credit electives that no one would select unless they were building a resume for college. Smaller schools can't do it all, so programs get cut (both vocational and college prep). There's nothing wrong with tracking kids---it allows them all to get work at the appropriate level for them and allows the teacher to better craft lessons (there's still going to be diversity of ability regardless, but it shouldn't be a mile wide).
1. The US is not "most countries". Some countries, e.g. England, are going more our way, being more, rather than less, flexible. I am extremely opposed to the school imposing tracking that will affect the student's futures at such a young age. Some students, especially, according to the research, some males, are "late bloomers".
2. I disagree that most students have decided regarding college by age 14. 14 year olds are still quite immature, compared to kids a few years older. They are still greatly influenced by their families re: these kind of decisions. If no one in the family attended college, and the family doesn't value college education, the kid may think at 14 that s/he doesn't want to go to college. Some families are certain that they can't afford to send their kid(s) to "good" colleges, not knowing what scholarship options there are out there. I am completely opposed to vocational education in preparation for a future occupation for young high schoolers. I am a firm believer in the dignity of work, but who wants to be slotted into a low-level occupation for the rest of their life, by age 14? One example that is frequently given in these arguments is CNA (Certified Nurse Assistant). As an RN, I can tell you, I would not want to spend my career being a CNA. There is nothing else in nursing that you can prepare a high school student for. All the rest of the nursing careers (LPN, RN) require education beyond high school, and the CNA credits don't transfer.
3. So we should emulate the Aussies, the French and the Japanese? I agree we can all learn from each other, but I don't think it matters what other countries are doing. We need to prepare kids for our economy, not theirs. In the US, vocation ed has moved to the community colleges in many cases. I think all students should get an "academic" HS diploma. The retirement age is being pushed up. Women can no longer count on years of being a "stay-at-home" homemaker. People are going to be working for many years. Everyone should have the foundation for furthering their education.
4. Well, not so much, everywhere. At my high school, 40+ years ago, and my kids' high school of 5 years ago, all kids took PE, music, art, other electives together. This is how it is in the "real world"; you interact with all kinds of people.
5. I think all kids should be challenged as much as possible. I'm all for AP and honors classes being open to anyone who wants to try them.
When I say going to college. . . I mostly mean they must've made the decision if they're going to a to make applying to college a priority because by 9th grade (8th grade, really, for students who are truly going to apply to competitive colleges) everything counts. It's on your transcript. It's permanent. Colleges consider it. I don't think the middle level of schooling would keep them out of all college programs, but those two groups of kids have different high school needs and shouldn't be forced into the same classes. There should, of course, be some mobility between systems (as I said) because, as you mentioned, some kids are late bloomers. Hey, it happens, but it can be accounted for. Re-testing each year (or every two years) and upon appeal.
I would imagine a system where all those programs as still academic diplomas that could allow one to get into a CC (i.e. everyone still has to learn how to read, write, follow the scientific method, and do basic algebra), but why have kids pay extra money for a CC for purely vocational programs when some of those skills can be taught at the HS level? That's not preparing them for the economy. Those schools would still teach reading, writing, and math, but it'd be more focused to the needs of their students. I would imagine the first option: Geared towards harder-to-get-into colleges/top scholarships. Second option: Maybe college, maybe not, but still good for not terribly competitive schools. Third option: Community colleges or vocational programs. No one is "left out" of college if they want to, but they get to develop their own skill sets. All kids aren't the same. Too many kids who shouldn't go to college are force-fed the college nonsense (EVERYONE doesn't need to go to college). I'm not saying we should pick kids careers for them a la The Giver, but really, what's happened is vocational has been stripped away from schools, gifted and talented programs have been stripped away from schools (not all on either count, but many can't afford it) and we teach almost entirely to the middle. It doesn't work.
In theory, I'm all for AP and honors classes being open for everyone, but I've found that can't be true due to resources. No class can be. (At my school, there were waiting lists. At the school I taught at, we couldn't afford to have them.) Besides, when you have kids who read at a 6th grade level, you really think it's a good idea for them to take AP English with kids reading at a college level already? That's just an exercise in frustration. Those kids need their own class, so that the teacher can bring up that reading level rapidly, starting where they are and moving with them. Tracking leads to more effective instruction.
Quote:
So we should emulate the Aussies, the French and the Japanese? I agree we can all learn from each other, but I don't think it matters what other countries are doing. We need to prepare kids for our economy, not theirs. In the US, vocation ed has moved to the community colleges in many cases. I think all students should get an "academic" HS diploma. The retirement age is being pushed up. Women can no longer count on years of being a "stay-at-home" homemaker. People are going to be working for many years. Everyone should have the foundation for furthering their education.
When they're beating us in test scores, maybe. We should certainly take a broader view and look for solutions.
We aren't preparing kids for our economy. We aren't preparing kids for much of anything. Don't get me wrong: Some good teachers are, but the system isn't.
Here's the thing: I've never wanted any of my students to aspire to have no goals or skills, and I value education, but the business of higher education has become a bit much. I wonder how much is done to dumb HS down just so that higher education can bleed students dry later. Not everybody has to go to college. Why make them pay for the degree? Let them see what they like in vocational programs in high school, if they're more interested in that than college, and then they can still change their minds later, if they want, but they might be introduced to something worthwhile in the meantime, where regular academics aren't doing enough for them.
Studies have shown that vocational programs can: (1) keep kids from dropping out of school, (2) give kids self-confidence, and (3) reduce 'at risk' behavior, like drug use and gang association. Not magically, and not all the time, but they are valid, good programs. Of course, they need to be supplemented by courses in core subjects, but by building a program around them, the subjects could be tailored. For instance, teaching a construction vocational school with social studies courses in Microeconomics, particularly those focused in running a contractor's business, math courses more geared towards business accounting (not the lame Family Math courses my mother took that just taught you how to balance a checkbook, though not a bad skill), science courses where concepts of physics are related to construction, and language arts courses where they learn how to write bids and resumes and read industry materials, as well as a basic grade-level curriculum, would benefit some students a lot more, I think. The key is you have to get enough students with the same potential interests to fund it, which is why moving to a more "magnet by skill" system would be needed.
Believe me: I'd love to fund everything everywhere. Heck, I'd even vote for taxes to be raised (by A LOT more than most people) to do so. That isn't going to happen. Ever.
Last edited by halfwaygone; 06-20-2010 at 09:35 AM..
1. The US is not "most countries". Some countries, e.g. England, are going more our way, being more, rather than less, flexible. I am extremely opposed to the school imposing tracking that will affect the student's futures at such a young age. Some students, especially, according to the research, some males, are "late bloomers".
England is "going our way"? How do you figure? They track and entrance to college is based primarily how well you sit your nationally required entrance exams. That is not like our system at all.
Quote:
2. I disagree that most students have decided regarding college by age 14. 14 year olds are still quite immature, compared to kids a few years older. They are still greatly influenced by their families re: these kind of decisions. If no one in the family attended college, and the family doesn't value college education, the kid may think at 14 that s/he doesn't want to go to college. Some families are certain that they can't afford to send their kid(s) to "good" colleges, not knowing what scholarship options there are out there. I am completely opposed to vocational education in preparation for a future occupation for young high schoolers. I am a firm believer in the dignity of work, but who wants to be slotted into a low-level occupation for the rest of their life, by age 14? One example that is frequently given in these arguments is CNA (Certified Nurse Assistant). As an RN, I can tell you, I would not want to spend my career being a CNA. There is nothing else in nursing that you can prepare a high school student for. All the rest of the nursing careers (LPN, RN) require education beyond high school, and the CNA credits don't transfer.
You seem to be working under the idea that vocational school = low paying job. Plumbers, electricians, marine mechanics can all make significantly more than many college degrees or even RNs. Second, the majority of children who are going into vocational programs are those that are struggling with the college prep course work common to all schools these days. So, why shouldn't they be encouraged to become adept in a field they can succeed in?
You are acting as if once a child is tracked they never get out of it. Even in countries like Australia and England, children are offered the opportunity yearly to test up to the next track. What is wrong with that?
Quote:
3. So we should emulate the Aussies, the French and the Japanese? I agree we can all learn from each other, but I don't think it matters what other countries are doing. We need to prepare kids for our economy, not theirs.
There is no longer any such thing as OUR economy vs THEIR economy. We are in a global recession and if we cannot get back some of our high level success particularly in math and science than we will all end up as a service industry not to just Australia and Japan but India and China as well.
Quote:
4. Well, not so much, everywhere. At my high school, 40+ years ago, and my kids' high school of 5 years ago, all kids took PE, music, art, other electives together. This is how it is in the "real world"; you interact with all kinds of people.
Just to play devil's advocate, no you do not. When I worked in research most of the people I interacted with on a daily basis where pretty far above average just due to the nature of the field. There are likely many other examples of this as well.
Quote:
5. I think all kids should be challenged as much as possible. I'm all for AP and honors classes being open to anyone who wants to try them.
If you cannot meet the requirements to get in should we still let in kids and just let them fail? Should we slow the class down so the can pass and the kids who actually belong there are no longer challenged but are bored to tears?
You are ignoring a harsh reality. People are different. Some have higher intelligence, some are better at sports, some are middle of the road all the way around. That is fine. Would you force varsity football teams to play kids who really want to play but cant? Presumably not. Then why would you do that to the high end classes?
But when you completely level the playing field you make it so no one gets to shine.
I teach in a school for gifted students. Even at that level it is obvious who is truly gifted and who got in through grade inflation. There are children in my school who are working harder with less success than any child should have to. For many of them I can see that it is crushing them but their parents just do not want to hear that it is too hard for them. In fact, many of the parents complain that we should make it easier despite the fact we are an academic school for the gifted. Their children could go back to their home high schools, take honors and AP classes and shine like the bright children they are. They would also go one to be very successful I am sure but their parents will not acknowledge that their child is not the smartest of the smart and that is sad all the way around.
1. The US is not "most countries". Some countries, e.g. England, are going more our way, being more, rather than less, flexible. I am extremely opposed to the school imposing tracking that will affect the student's futures at such a young age. Some students, especially, according to the research, some males, are "late bloomers".
2. I disagree that most students have decided regarding college by age 14. 14 year olds are still quite immature, compared to kids a few years older. They are still greatly influenced by their families re: these kind of decisions. If no one in the family attended college, and the family doesn't value college education, the kid may think at 14 that s/he doesn't want to go to college. Some families are certain that they can't afford to send their kid(s) to "good" colleges, not knowing what scholarship options there are out there. I am completely opposed to vocational education in preparation for a future occupation for young high schoolers. I am a firm believer in the dignity of work, but who wants to be slotted into a low-level occupation for the rest of their life, by age 14? One example that is frequently given in these arguments is CNA (Certified Nurse Assistant). As an RN, I can tell you, I would not want to spend my career being a CNA. There is nothing else in nursing that you can prepare a high school student for. All the rest of the nursing careers (LPN, RN) require education beyond high school, and the CNA credits don't transfer.
3. So we should emulate the Aussies, the French and the Japanese? I agree we can all learn from each other, but I don't think it matters what other countries are doing. We need to prepare kids for our economy, not theirs. In the US, vocation ed has moved to the community colleges in many cases. I think all students should get an "academic" HS diploma. The retirement age is being pushed up. Women can no longer count on years of being a "stay-at-home" homemaker. People are going to be working for many years. Everyone should have the foundation for furthering their education.
4. Well, not so much, everywhere. At my high school, 40+ years ago, and my kids' high school of 5 years ago, all kids took PE, music, art, other electives together. This is how it is in the "real world"; you interact with all kinds of people.
5. I think all kids should be challenged as much as possible. I'm all for AP and honors classes being open to anyone who wants to try them.
Tracking is still the BEST way to educate kids--unfortunately it has gone by the wayside because too many parents get their undies in a wad because their "special snowflake" should be it the top track regardless. As long as movement is allowed in those tracks, it isn't an issue as well as allowing kids to be in different tracks for different subjects. If a child is a 'late bloomer" they can still benefit from a track and quite honestly, late bloomers are VERY rare--more the case is that kids finally buckle down and start doing the work.
Yes, kids DO need to decide which route they MOST LIKELY will go by 14 because that is when most kids enter high school. If a 14 year old thinks they may want to go to college they need to start on the college track in high school right away. That doesn't lock them into going to college, just prepares them to go. It is much more difficult for kids to start out on a general track and try to move up later then it is to start kids on an advanced track and back down later. Our high school does this right--they allow kids with a C average in middle school or better to apply for the honor's track. They then get recommendations from teachers and if they get the nod, they can apply for the honors track. If they get to high school and find the honor track too difficult, they can move down but at least they get the chance to try. Once they get to sophomore-senior year, they can sign up for whatever classes they want. The AP/College in School and the Post Secondary classes our schools offer are open to anyone, but it is rare to find someone that can't handle those classes sign up for them.
Just to play devil's advocate, no you do not. When I worked in research most of the people I interacted with on a daily basis where pretty far above average just due to the nature of the field. There are likely many other examples of this as well.
You are ignoring a harsh reality. People are different. Some have higher intelligence, some are better at sports, some are middle of the road all the way around. That is fine. Would you force varsity football teams to play kids who really want to play but cant? Presumably not. Then why would you do that to the high end classes?
But when you completely level the playing field you make it so no one gets to shine.
I teach in a school for gifted students. Even at that level it is obvious who is truly gifted and who got in through grade inflation. There are children in my school who are working harder with less success than any child should have to. For many of them I can see that it is crushing them but their parents just do not want to hear that it is too hard for them. In fact, many of the parents complain that we should make it easier despite the fact we are an academic school for the gifted. Their children could go back to their home high schools, take honors and AP classes and shine like the bright children they are. They would also go one to be very successful I am sure but their parents will not acknowledge that their child is not the smartest of the smart and that is sad all the way around.
You are SO right. You do not work with people from all walks of life in the real world. Yes, you interact with them but you don't always work with them.
I think the worst thing that has happened to our school are the parent that don't get that not every child is #1. There is ALWAYS going to be someone smarter than you, get over it. There is this whole movement of everyone's child having to have "the best" but what is "the best"? I also agree that very, very few kids in Gifted and Talent programs are truly gifted, bright yes, gifted NO. My DS just graduated with an amazingly gifted student. He tested out of all high school math by 8th grade and was taking specially designed math programs from the state University (actually math profs from around the country because he was SO far beyond any student they had even in college). That kid is GIFTED. The other valedictorian from their class was BRIGHT but worked hard for his grades. He certainly wasn't gifted (well he is a very gifted singer).
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.
