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.
The article explains how Common Core and standardized testing are interrelated and due to the Race to the Top federal funding program where 46 states accepted funding but must comply with common core, standardized testing requirements, and evaluating teachers based on test results.
Instead of providing segregated gifted and general education tracks, more New York City schools should take a schoolwide approach to gifted education, eliminating separate G&T tracks and incorporating identified students into mixed-ability classrooms. A number of New York City public schools, such as BELL Academy and Veritas Academy in Queens, already use the Schoolwide Enrichment Model, which Chancellor Carmen Fariña favors, to offer “gifted education for all” through academic enrichment tailored to each student’s strengths. New York City should expand these models, providing all students with appropriate academic challenges in classrooms that reflect the full diversity of each school.
I'm going to be attacked here, but gifted and talented programs have been under attack since the rise of mainstreaming special ed students. I'm not anti-special ed or anti-mainstreaming in all cases. But since local schools have to cover all special ed regardless of how expensive it is or how realistic the situation is, G&T has been left in the dark. I'd even say many above average performing kids have been ignored too.
I'm going to be attacked here, but gifted and talented programs have been under attack since the rise of mainstreaming special ed students. I'm not anti-special ed or anti-mainstreaming in all cases. But since local schools have to cover all special ed regardless of how expensive it is or how realistic the situation is, G&T has been left in the dark. I'd even say many above average performing kids have been ignored too.
It's not just mainstreaming special ed. It's the teach to the bottom mentality. In business there is an 80/20 rule that says that you get 80% of your results from 20% of your effort. Teaching also has an 80/20 rule but it says that you will spend 80% of your effort on the bottom 20% of your students. That doesn't leave much for the middle/top.
Well, let's be fair. If this girl had choices she probably just wouldn't take P.E. But, since America is so worried about fat kids they require it now.
Back in the old days it was a good thing to go to the library, now you can't. Mental health isn't understood well by a lot of people. This girl most likely suffers from panic attacks which would take up a lot of the coaches time if they tried to help her. That is why she has an IEP. Teachers don't have time to play therapy in a class of 20 to 30 kids. I'm sure she gets it after school so she can once again participate in state mandated P.E. in years to come.
One thing I've learned when judging others is that there is always a larger picture then the view that I'm getting.
I may be a little late in this discussion but none the less have a few comments.
My son tested into G&T and we spent a while in there but he was still ahead and a bit bored. Still not allowed to excel. He still ended up learning more at home, he did it on his own time because he likes it. Therefore when we moved recently and I didn't have a G&T program, I found he just supplements at home like he always did. Meanwhile getting A's in school. Easily.
For awhile we home schooled as well because of a medical condition. Still, he taught himself just fine through internet sites. I don't see him at a disadvantage like someone behind is. So I don't know if I agree with the idea of him missing out of anything anymore. He can easily fill any holes left by the school system in his own time. I didn't always think this, especially when he was young and the experts were insisting he needed more attention. I also notice that his social interaction is better in a regular classroom. I don't know if I believe that segregation of a certain group in school is beneficial. I think dealing on a one on one basis might be better for the kids. Gifted kids have different levels as well, and their personalities differ greatly.
I sometimes wonder if it would cost less and serve more if we just lowered the teacher to child ratio and allowed a more varied curriculum instead of gifted ed. My boy seemed to learn the most and have the most fun when his summer school teacher allowed him to teach those below his level. It was a win win for us. He loved it, and the kids loved learning from an age mate. He made some close friends and most of them were not gifted. I value the skills he learned from this. I no longer think gifted kids can't socialize with others like I was told early on.
I understand I will probably get a bit of a lashing for these comments and I too might have bashed myself earlier on, but, I have learned a lot. I don't have the same views as I did when my son was in early elementary education and found to be gifted.
I will say that without the teachers on board it can be hard for kids ahead of class but I think if we allow the teachers to vary their curriculum to include advanced students it might be a better approach. At least for us it has been.
I find it harder dealing with my child's medical condition in school than the fact that he is above grade level. I wish they would emphasize tolerance more, I think that would go a lot further. IMO, of course.
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.