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.
Wow! Just wow! How do you know the waitress or stock "boy" (how demeaning is that for a job title?) won't one day want to go to college and become a brain surgeon? How do you know either one of them doesn't need algebra. Do you do those jobs?
Absolutely!
I graduated from high school with a whopping 1.67 GPA, became a waitress and then took a job in a machine shop. THEN I went to college and studied engineering and then teaching. The problem here is you don't know who is going to need what until they need it and you don't know what you'll be good at until you try so there is logic in having all students take courses like algebra and chemistry.
This is our schools first year with the G&T program. From what I am told, it is now a state requirement, we are in Montana. My concern is that we now have a program for the gifted and talented kids who, obviously are doing quite well as it is. We have special education and resource for the kids who struggle. What do schools have for the kids in the middle? The kids who aren't quite gifted but don't require resource or special education. These kids are just kind of floating through school not knowing exactly where they belong. Isn't this kind of "segregation" harmful to kids self-esteem? The emphasis seems to be on the kids in the special programs and not on the kids in the regular classroom. I agree that schools should have resource room available to kids who struggle but to have another program is ridiculus. Use the funds for the kids who need it most. For the record, one of my children qualified for the gifted and talented program but my husband and I refused to have him tested. We would rather see school funding used for useful programs not programs to boost parent "bragging rights".
My kids are in our public school's pull-out GT program. I fully agree with your premise that the kids in the middle often get forgotten in public schools. Though I would never pass up an opportunity for getting my kid into the GT program (assuming they are intellectually qualified and it's superior to the regular classroom), so that I could make some point about school funding. We also never "brag" about it. That would be offensive and my kids know they are no better than anyone else. They are just lucky to have particular skills that test well (e.g. math, vocab) and involved parents who know how to advocate for them.
Like many U.S. public school kids, they felt the regular classroom curriculum was not challenging enough and the pace was too slow. The classes were too large, the curriculum too watered down with little differentiation, and there were too many disruptive students who were being "mainstreamed". They were doing fine in the regular classroom, but why not enroll them in a program that is superior if they qualified? Their gifted classes are very small, challenging, with focused students, lots of additional resources, and more experienced teachers. So you bet I advocated/prepped them to get into this superior program. My job is to be the best parent for my kids. If my kids could benefit from some other special, limited resources, I'd fully advocate for that as well.
Do I think this is unfair? Yes, I do. I think there are many kids in the regular classroom who could really benefit from the advanced curriculum/resources/Masters-level teachers offered only to the GT students. However, those kids missed a sometimes arbritrary test score cut-off (e.g. they got a 94% on an IQ test instead of a 95%). Or, more often the case, they did not have parents who advocated/prepped for them to get into the GT program.
This is the big secret of our GT program. Savvy parents understand the process and prepare their kids for the entry tests. Every child IQ/assesment test out there has a prep book. Parents can hire private tutors OR pay $500 to have their kid tested by an out-of-town psychologist who administers IQ tests that are exactly the same as the school tests. This "test exposure," can greatly improve test results. You can even prep your kid on how to act in front of the testing psychologists (a teacher friend told me about these "tricks"). And often, there is only one entry point into the GT program (e.g. 3rd grade). Once you get in, you are in an advanced, resource-rich program until High School.
I think the GT entrance process is really subjective and can be a big scam. But I'll play this game for my kids to get into a superior FREE, long-term program paid for by my tax dollars. If they were not in this GT program, I would either choose expensive private school or homeschool (which I have also done).
Nowadays, competitive parents start early when prepping their kids for college admittance, sports, etc. and there can be positive as well as very negative consequences to this ("The Race To Nowhere" film covers this subject). But I have no regrets as my kids are very happy and well-adjusted and are now doing well in advanced middle school classes. I believe they are doing much better than if they had stayed in the regular classroom. But I wish many more kids were given the opportunities that my kids were given. Because I believe more kids should be given this opportunity, I often give up the "secrets" on how to get into our public school's elite programs (yes, they are "elitist"). And we happen to be in an affluent, top-performing school district. My spouse says I should charge parent consulting fees or write a book about all of this. I'll wait until all my kids are through the GT program though.
Just want to clarify that, of my 3 kids, 2 consistently test in the gifted range (top 5% in our district) while my youngest child (who, as the youngest, has really had the least amount of parent/preschool intervention/preparation) tests in the top 99.99% nationally on all tests. She is also the one who is most self-directed in her learning and just obviously "thinks differently and thinks faster" than everyone else. She is the top of her GT program and her gifted teachers provide her with an even more advanced curriculum. She is considered profoundly gifted and in need of a more specialized program.
My other two kids have really benefitted from the GT program, but they could probably have functioned well in a standard classroom with a strong teacher who had "ability groupings" or "differentiated work" for more advanced learners.
Since there are different levels of "giftedness" in multiple subjects, perhaps there is more of a need for even more specialized public GT programs (e.g. programs for the profoundly gifted or those gifted in other areas such as art, music, etc.) either within the classroom or as pull-out programs.
That's a lot of hate and taking things out of context - those with decent reading comprehension skills followed the thread and realized what I was referring to.
My attitude is not 'elitist', it is 'realistic'. In Germany, children are divided into three groups around the age of 10. Those who test well enough to advance to the Gymnasium, graduate at a level consistent with those who have graduted high school and completed two full years at college. Germans understand that not everyone is 'college material', while Americans seem to think that everyone can/should go to college.
The world needs waitresses. The world needs stock boys. Why force those kids to agonize over material (such as algebra, for example) that they cannot comprehend and will never need, vs teaching them to excel in an area it is POSSIBLE for them to excel in? In America, everyone thinks they're a 'superstar' - when really, they're just average. My ds constantly 'blows the curve', even in GT. He has natural gifts that need to be nurtured. He doesn't need spelling tests - 9 times out of 10, he just knows how to spell a word after hearing it - he doesn't need constant drilling of math problems. Once he's taught something, he's got it and is ready to move on. But there are limited resources in the system - and most of them are spent teaching and encouraging children of limited genetic resources. Our school system rewards mediocrity, and punishes those who excel. My kids got really upset this year when the rewards for "Most Improved" were free tickets to professional basketball and baseball games - they didn't come close to winning. Their initial scores on that test in particular were 97 and 100 - our neighbor was one of the winners. She got a 35 the first time and a 62 - she was gloating and bragging. I explained to my kids that they didn't need to feel bad - that girl may have 'won', but she still failed the test - rewarding failure. (I will be serving on the PTA board next year, so this will never happen again - the standards will be higher. You must actually PASS to even be eligible, and all those students receiving an 85 or higher will receive the reward as long as their grade doesn't diminish)
How awesome would it be if your auto mechanic spent 6 years (age 10-16) focusing on learning everything about car engines vs taking a year of Latin, a year of band and year of typing/Home Ec? Which mechanic, if you knew their backgrounds and education, would YOU choose to work on your car?
Why would you choose to waste the time and energy teaching/coaching a one armed boy to play baseball vs giving 10 kids with two arms the same shot for the same money? I know why - it's because if you spent the money on the 10 kids, then there wouldn't be reporters interested in printing a story that mentions the parents, coaches, town and school names.
"Years ago"... seems to be a theme here - "years ago, we didn't need GT programs". No, years ago, the need wasn't recognized. So, children who were advanced skipped a grade or two, because the teachers, average themselves, didn't understand the needs of an academically gifted child. They need different instruction, different methods. Most gifted programs are just average cirriculums, advanced 6-12 months ahead of average classrooms. These programs need to be personally geared to help challenge the truly gifted - and by their results, those who are not truly gifted, just slightly advanced over their peers, would be more easily identified. I'm so happy that my children's schools will be making those changes to their cirriculum next year!
Most schools though spend their resources, as I said, teaching those who will never (face it, some people just aren't capable) use or are even capable to fully understand, more than the 3 R's (reading, 'riting, 'rithmetic).
It's beyond ignorant to believe that we are all capable of the same things. Just because my son has a similar body type to Roethlisberger and knows the fundamentals of football, doesn't mean he's capable of being a world class athlete. It would be a waste of time and money to force him to drill everyday, while telling him he CAN and WILL be in the NFL someday.
And just because little Susie can sit up, use a pencil and learned to read, doesn't mean her parents should tell her she CAN and WILL attend college someday.
If people taught their kids to live in reality vs fantasy, maybe there wouldn't be so many entitled brats dropping out of college after a couple of years. Maybe they COULD get a bachelor's degree in 4 years instead of 5-6 (or more). That's a lot of wasted resources - because people don't want to face reality.
To be honest, schools don't need them. Society does. However, G&T programs (at the high school level which is, usually, where they are) don't create G&T people so you have to question their value. People either are G&T or they are not. To a large extent, cream just rises to the top. The question you have to ask is do you harm G&T people if you don't offer a G&T program. My personal take on this (as the mom of a, truely, gifted child) is no. I think one of the most valuable lessons my dd can learn is how to make her way in the world. How to see to it that her needs are met. I don't want her graduating from high school expecting someone else to cater to her. I'd rather she graduate knowing how to enrich her own education. If I let the former happen, she is limited by what others can teach her. If it's the latter, she is only limited by her own effort.
I disagree with the bolded statement. Gifted and talented people can be squashed down by inept teaching and schools. Many g/t kids actually drop out when the programs fail to challenge them.
G/t is NOT just academically above average and the kids can have lots of problems. You can be ld and be g/t. You can be aspergers or autistic and be g/t. Of course, those things require programs that are not only g/t, but helpful to any kids who are different.
Temple Grandin was gifted. If she had not had good mentors to point her in the right direction, she might be in an institution instead of working in a field where she is respected and considered outstanding.
I disagree with the bolded statement. Gifted and talented people can be squashed down by inept teaching and schools. Many g/t kids actually drop out when the programs fail to challenge them.
G/t is NOT just academically above average and the kids can have lots of problems. You can be ld and be g/t. You can be aspergers or autistic and be g/t. Of course, those things require programs that are not only g/t, but helpful to any kids who are different.
Temple Grandin was gifted. If she had not had good mentors to point her in the right direction, she might be in an institution instead of working in a field where she is respected and considered outstanding.
I'm not referring to kids who need special services. However, what is giftedness if it needs someone else to coax it out? What will happen to these, supposedly, gifted kids when they are on their own if they haven't learned how to self teach? The gifted need to learn how to be self learners. With the exception of the profoundly gifted, I really don't see the need for a G&T program beyond about 5th grade. My dd is quite capable of picking a harder topic and writing an in depth paper, picking a higher level book to read, researching a science topic on her own (She does need a science teacher capable of stearing her clear of misinformation on the web but one skill kids need today is the ability to differentiate a good source from a questionable source) or do more challenging math problems (most books have the odd answers in the back so she can self check. She does not need a separate program to enrich her education. She does that herself. IMO, that's a very good thing. I don't want her spoon fed. Her intelligence will be wasted if she's only capable of using it if she is spoon fed. She needs to find her own challenge.
That's a lot of hate and taking things out of context - those with decent reading comprehension skills followed the thread and realized what I was referring to.
My attitude is not 'elitist', it is 'realistic'. In Germany, children are divided into three groups around the age of 10. Those who test well enough to advance to the Gymnasium, graduate at a level consistent with those who have graduted high school and completed two full years at college. Germans understand that not everyone is 'college material', while Americans seem to think that everyone can/should go to college.
The world needs waitresses. The world needs stock boys. Why force those kids to agonize over material (such as algebra, for example) that they cannot comprehend and will never need, vs teaching them to excel in an area it is POSSIBLE for them to excel in? In America, everyone thinks they're a 'superstar' - when really, they're just average. My ds constantly 'blows the curve', even in GT. He has natural gifts that need to be nurtured. He doesn't need spelling tests - 9 times out of 10, he just knows how to spell a word after hearing it - he doesn't need constant drilling of math problems. Once he's taught something, he's got it and is ready to move on. But there are limited resources in the system - and most of them are spent teaching and encouraging children of limited genetic resources. Our school system rewards mediocrity, and punishes those who excel. My kids got really upset this year when the rewards for "Most Improved" were free tickets to professional basketball and baseball games - they didn't come close to winning. Their initial scores on that test in particular were 97 and 100 - our neighbor was one of the winners. She got a 35 the first time and a 62 - she was gloating and bragging. I explained to my kids that they didn't need to feel bad - that girl may have 'won', but she still failed the test - rewarding failure. (I will be serving on the PTA board next year, so this will never happen again - the standards will be higher. You must actually PASS to even be eligible, and all those students receiving an 85 or higher will receive the reward as long as their grade doesn't diminish)
How awesome would it be if your auto mechanic spent 6 years (age 10-16) focusing on learning everything about car engines vs taking a year of Latin, a year of band and year of typing/Home Ec? Which mechanic, if you knew their backgrounds and education, would YOU choose to work on your car?
Why would you choose to waste the time and energy teaching/coaching a one armed boy to play baseball vs giving 10 kids with two arms the same shot for the same money? I know why - it's because if you spent the money on the 10 kids, then there wouldn't be reporters interested in printing a story that mentions the parents, coaches, town and school names.
"Years ago"... seems to be a theme here - "years ago, we didn't need GT programs". No, years ago, the need wasn't recognized. So, children who were advanced skipped a grade or two, because the teachers, average themselves, didn't understand the needs of an academically gifted child. They need different instruction, different methods. Most gifted programs are just average cirriculums, advanced 6-12 months ahead of average classrooms. These programs need to be personally geared to help challenge the truly gifted - and by their results, those who are not truly gifted, just slightly advanced over their peers, would be more easily identified. I'm so happy that my children's schools will be making those changes to their cirriculum next year!
Most schools though spend their resources, as I said, teaching those who will never (face it, some people just aren't capable) use or are even capable to fully understand, more than the 3 R's (reading, 'riting, 'rithmetic).
It's beyond ignorant to believe that we are all capable of the same things. Just because my son has a similar body type to Roethlisberger and knows the fundamentals of football, doesn't mean he's capable of being a world class athlete. It would be a waste of time and money to force him to drill everyday, while telling him he CAN and WILL be in the NFL someday.
And just because little Susie can sit up, use a pencil and learned to read, doesn't mean her parents should tell her she CAN and WILL attend college someday.
If people taught their kids to live in reality vs fantasy, maybe there wouldn't be so many entitled brats dropping out of college after a couple of years. Maybe they COULD get a bachelor's degree in 4 years instead of 5-6 (or more). That's a lot of wasted resources - because people don't want to face reality.
First of all, I resent the implication that those of us who disagree with you have inadequate reading comprehension. Talk about elitist!
I have posted many times on here about my dislike of the German system, and of all the systems that track kids that young. Have you never heard of a "late bloomer"? There is some research that lots of boys (the group we are so worried about right now, in some cases rightly so) who really do not "knuckle down" until junior year in high school, at which time some of them are almost 17! My own younger daughter was considered unintelligent in elementary school, because she was quiet and shy, did not call a lot of attention to herself, which is something elementary teachers seem to go for (calling attention to oneself, although they sometimes call it "class participation"). I laughed when she was invited to take the SATs in middle school based on her 5th grade math scores on a standardized test. All those teachers who thought she was dumb, just b/c she wasn't talking to hear herself talk, were proven wrong.
I also completely disagree that not everyone is college material. I'm not talking about developmentally disabled students now; I'm talking about regular ordinary kids. I think virutally everyone can handle college work. Just look at some of the idiots we all know who have college degrees.
I hope your PTA board votes you down. You are being very mean-spriited with your attitudes about "most improved". Go buy your baby geniuses some basketball and football tickets, while you sneer at the kids who got theirs for working hard and improving.
I think my future auto mechanic ought to take college prep courses in high school so that s/he can go to college to become an automotive engineer if s/he desires a career change at some point in time. I would choose the auto mechanic who understood my car, something you don't get just from turning screws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler
I'm not referring to kids who need special services. However, what is giftedness if it needs someone else to coax it out? What will happen to these, supposedly, gifted kids when they are on their own if they haven't learned how to self teach? The gifted need to learn how to be self learners. With the exception of the profoundly gifted, I really don't see the need for a G&T program beyond about 5th grade. My dd is quite capable of picking a harder topic and writing an in depth paper, picking a higher level book to read, researching a science topic on her own (She does need a science teacher capable of stearing her clear of misinformation on the web but one skill kids need today is the ability to differentiate a good source from a questionable source) or do more challenging math problems (most books have the odd answers in the back so she can self check. She does not need a separate program to enrich her education. She does that herself. IMO, that's a very good thing. I don't want her spoon fed. Her intelligence will be wasted if she's only capable of using it if she is spoon fed. She needs to find her own challenge.
I do agree that once kids get to middle school, there are usually enough course offerings that a formal "G and T" program is not necessary. In fact, when my kids were in MS, that's how TAG (as our school called it) was handled. The kids just got bumped up to the next grade level in whatever subject, and when they had progressed beyond what the MS offered, they took courses at the high school. High school was the same, except they could take courses at the local university or the local community college.
Well said Katiana. I would also like to add to the whole "not everyone is college material" issue. Public schools have a grant available called GearUp (Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs). A fantastic program that starts junior high students on the path for college.
First of all, I resent the implication that those of us who disagree with you have inadequate reading comprehension. Talk about elitist!
I have posted many times on here about my dislike of the German system, and of all the systems that track kids that young. Have you never heard of a "late bloomer"? There is some research that lots of boys (the group we are so worried about right now, in some cases rightly so) who really do not "knuckle down" until junior year in high school, at which time some of them are almost 17! My own younger daughter was considered unintelligent in elementary school, because she was quiet and shy, did not call a lot of attention to herself, which is something elementary teachers seem to go for (calling attention to oneself, although they sometimes call it "class participation"). I laughed when she was invited to take the SATs in middle school based on her 5th grade math scores on a standardized test. All those teachers who thought she was dumb, just b/c she wasn't talking to hear herself talk, were proven wrong.
I also completely disagree that not everyone is college material. I'm not talking about developmentally disabled students now; I'm talking about regular ordinary kids. I think virutally everyone can handle college work. Just look at some of the idiots we all know who have college degrees.
I hope your PTA board votes you down. You are being very mean-spriited with your attitudes about "most improved". Go buy your baby geniuses some basketball and football tickets, while you sneer at the kids who got theirs for working hard and improving.
I think my future auto mechanic ought to take college prep courses in high school so that s/he can go to college to become an automotive engineer if s/he desires a career change at some point in time. I would choose the auto mechanic who understood my car, something you don't get just from turning screws.
I do agree that once kids get to middle school, there are usually enough course offerings that a formal "G and T" program is not necessary. In fact, when my kids were in MS, that's how TAG (as our school called it) was handled. The kids just got bumped up to the next grade level in whatever subject, and when they had progressed beyond what the MS offered, they took courses at the high school. High school was the same, except they could take courses at the local university or the local community college.
That's how our schools do it. My dd has been taking high school classes for the past two years. She's starting high school with enough credits to be a junior next year. When she runs out of classes to take at the high school, she'll be bussed to the local community college, if she wants. Right now she's thinking she'd like to just enjoy high school and I'm fine with that. Her intelligence won't go away just because she took a lot of electives in high school. Who knows, maybe more time to mature will help her in college. Anyway, it looks like my gifted daughter wants to be.......A CHEERLEADER ....for now anyway.
I did what I was supposed to. I gave her the option of pushing ahead but she doesn't want it. It's her life and her call. It's killing her dad though. She's been on the school boards radar for three years now (our district is very proud of the fact that several kids graduate with their high school diplomas and associates degrees at the same time every year). I think he's going to miss that. I wonder if he'll brag as much about her as a cheerleader . I'm just glad she's well rounded and NOT in a program that makes it difficult for her to slow things down a bit now that she feels that's what she wants.
Last edited by Ivorytickler; 05-01-2011 at 03:20 PM..
Not really. They can simply be the top students in their class. Even if they are bored most of the time.
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.
I graduated from high school with a whopping 1.67 GPA, became a waitress and then took a job in a machine shop. THEN I went to college and studied engineering and then teaching. The problem here is you don't know who is going to need what until they need it and you don't know what you'll be good at until you try so there is logic in having all students take courses like algebra and chemistry.
....for now anyway. 
. I'm just glad she's well rounded and NOT in a program that makes it difficult for her to slow things down a bit now that she feels that's what she wants.