does this exist? (New York, Brookhaven, Islip: for sale, crime, buy)

[nancy thereader]

That G&T program has been around for a very long time. My son who is 36 was in it almost from its inception. Now (among the many things I have done wrong) he says that was was too elitist and I should have allowed him to remain in the regular classes.

[OhBeeHave]

That's a valid concern, too. Some people believe that the program is elitist, others feel it complements the remedial classes offered the underperforming students.

When they're dealing with sub par students, help is expected, if not demanded.

When they're dealing with extremely bright students -- why shouldn't they be handled appropriately as well?

I'm sorry for getting off topic. I'll leave off on this so the OP can get the info s/he asked for.

[flowergarden]

[quote=OhBeeHave;7301016]You're new to the area and not in the 3V's so there is a little misinformation in your post.

The gifted program in the 3V requires testing in 3rd grade; the parents ultimately decide whether they want their children in the program or not. The testing will weed out the children who are ahead of the curve on some subjects but solidly at level in others.

It is a very small scale program. Considering that there are 125 children at 4th grade level in my daughter's school, only 3 went to Mount for the program. .02% -- That's hardly bleeding. There are children who could have moved but whose parents kept them in their home school. Around here, that is more the issue. Many parents would prefer the gifted program be available at each school so children aren't removed and sent elsewhere.


Thanks for giving more information OhBeeHave - This is really a whole different conversation - but still a fun one! Gifted is great, and there are children with IQ's in the 150's and 160's that really do require some unique teaching skills. My comment was geared mostly to the those kids that are in the 120 to 135 range. 120 to 129 is not considered gifted, but is considered superior IQ. A kid with an IQ of 128 whose IQ is built from a variety of scores that can range from 120 to 140, is not able to participate in "gifted" curriculum. Several of his scores in "math" or "language" could be very high, and he would benefit from gifted curriculum, but he's not eligible. That's why I think schools should level based on achievement and ability in reading and math - not on IQ. The pull out programs should be kept for kids with really high IQ's. The real secret though is that ALL children benefit to some degree or another from developing "higher level thinking skills". Gifted teaching is more than just teaching faster or more material earlier, it's about learning how to approach problem solving and think beyond the black box. That part of teaching needs to be added to the curriculum for all students. But that's just one person's opinion.

[flowergarden]

Originally Posted by nancy thereader

That G&T program has been around for a very long time. My son who is 36 was in it almost from its inception. Now (among the many things I have done wrong) he says that was was too elitist and I should have allowed him to remain in the regular classes.

I don't know you at all, however, this is what I plan on saying to my children when they say totally stupid stuff like that:

"Dear, children don't come with instruction books. We did the best we could with the knowledge we had at the time. You are now an adult and have the ability to make any decision you want for yourself. You can choose your own path because of our actions or in spite of our actions. Good luck and I love you."

[AndreaII]

Thank you, OhBeeHave, couldn't have said it better myself regarding the IG program. Really liked your example of the student with the 17 p. paper. That's very typical of that type student.

And to Flowergarden: I think you have the wrong idea about the IG program. These kids have IQ's 130+, and think and act very differently from the average kids, most of whom have IQ's in the 100 range, give or take. Leaving these extremely smart kids in an average classroom is the equivalent of taking an average thinking kid and forcing them into a classroom with slow/special ed. kids with IQ's in the 70's. That average kid would be bored to death and feel very out of it and burn out. And so, when there is a 30+ point difference between kids and how they learn, that's a cavernous difference. That's where the IG program comes in. And it's not just about the IQ either, these kids need to not feel like the classroom geek/egghead/nerd and separate from the rest in the class.

You said in your post you thought that by taking out the brightest thinkers, the other kids were losing out from that. It sounds like you think that average kids can "pick up" being smart through osmosis. A very unrealistic, idealistic way of thinking. Perhaps you're a proponent of heterogeneous classrooms; if that's the case, Three Village is not for you.

Both of my kids are former IG kids; they were never ridiculed for being smart even though that was always a possible pitfall (although I can remember that at the bus stop you could have heard a pin drop when the other parents found out about my kids), they had and have many friends - not all of their friends are "brains", but they do have other qualities that my kids lack, and my kids recognize the fact that being really smart is not the end all. I have to credit the IG program for keeping my kids on track, teaching them to become organized (something very smart kids usually never learn in the 7 years in primary - they just keep track of their assignment in their heads since there aren't that many compared to IG), well adjusted for the way they think, and most of all teaching them how to have the discipline to study - something, again, they would never have had to do in a regular classroom.

But when we're talking education, heterogeneous is definitely not the way to go; that will only succeed if you have a school district filled with only average thinking kids. There is no such thing as a district will 100% average. Heterogeneous teaching is a complete waste of time and disservice to the low end special ed. kids, the above average, the very bright, and the kids who have an special affinity for a certain subject or talent. Over the years, many arguments for heterogeneous classrooms have filled educational journals ad nauseum; they are mainly used by school districts in order to "sell" the concept to the parents so that costs can be kept at a minimum. The financial bottom line is the main goal of the heterogeneous paradigm.

In heterogeneous classrooms, for those out there who don't know what it's all about, the classrooms are packed with a headcount - it doesn't matter about the ability (or lack thereof) of the student. You have a classroom with every type student from the slowest (this includes "inclusion" - kids with severe disabilities) all the way up through Albert Einstein and everyone in between. In this way the district can maximize the class size and probably cut teachers and saving salaries.

Here's the part most people don't see coming; when you're not looking and keeping tabs on the school board, they will pass a new classroom maximum number and increase the number of students per teacher. The classes will increase from say 27 students to perhaps 32. Saving $. That's the real bottom line to heterogeneous teaching.

Hope this helped to fill in some of the blanks, Flowergarden. IG is a necessary program for the super smart, financially the district doesn't spend any extra $ because there is still the same number of classrooms, just a different configuration of the kids. And it helps the very bright kids out there become the Intel winners and the scholarship winners, etc. And maybe, who knows, someday one of them will find a cure for a life threatening disease. But if they're held back, that will never happen.

[AndreaII]

Originally Posted by OhBeeHave

There are children who could have moved but whose parents kept them in their home school. Around here, that is more the issue.

Just wanted to point out, there are some parents out there who will say their student made the program even though it's not true, just to save face. And will give you the excuse that they want to keep their kids at their home school, when they don't go to the program.

Years ago when my daughter was headed to Mount, I called up to find out how many kids made the cutoff for the IG program to see how large her class would be, it turned out to be 32, they were allowed to give out that info as long as students weren't named - the same number of kids who showed up for the program that year. All the other parents who said their kids got in were obviously lying; if I didn't have the exact number I would have believed the parents - they all seemed very convincing.

You can't believe everything you hear.

And when it comes time for your kids to apply for college, the same thing applies - much lying about acceptances to certain schools. Again, have to turn a blind eye to all of it.

[flowergarden]

Originally Posted by AndreaII

And to Flowergarden: I think you have the wrong idea about the IG program. These kids have IQ's 130+, and think and act very differently from the average kids, most of whom have IQ's in the 100 range, give or take.

I think you misread my post. I do understand gifted education - two of my 3 children have benefited from it greatly. I am a very educated parent concerning gifted education. My 3rd is not "gifted", although he is "close" and he is probably the strongest math student among them. We come from a school district that offered gifted supplemental education, but what they did best was level the kids early on based on achievement. Kids are a gradation of IQ's not just 130's and above and around 100. There are a slew of kids with IQ's in the 120's that may score high for verbal, but lower on the math elements of the IQ test, or vice versa. That 130 level is an arbitrary point that only becomes important when a 129 doesn't give you opportunities and a 130 does.

My point was that kids who perform at higher levels should be given opportunities to perform, not based on an IQ of 130 (what about the kid who is 129), but based on the fact that they perform in a certain subject area. So teach kids who achieve high in language arts above level and give them the benefit of a "gifted" approach (which benefits everyone). Level reading classes inside the classroom so kids who read at a 3rd grade level in 1st grade are taught at a 3rd grade level. Why is that tied into an IQ test? Teach kids who are ready for 1 or 2 years above math - teach it to them even if the ONLY have a total IQ of 128. I support heterogeneous class rooms with leveled groups functioning within that class room. I don't want bright kids to be bored, but I also don't want a kid with an IQ of 128 to not be given the same opportunity to excel as the kid with 131. There's just not that much difference between the two kids.

In elementary schools you can create leveled teaching environments within a homogeneous classroom. Small reading groups instead of whole class instruction allow a teacher to teach 2 or three reading levels. One hour a day, create math leveled math classrooms. Kids go to their appropriate math class based on their own person ability, not because they have an IQ of 140. Middle school is easy to implement leveled classes. On grade English is found in room 230, one level above (with a more creative gifted curriculum or teaching style) is found in room 240.

I also think that those kids that are in the 150 and 160s may need additional small group pull out instruction that does address their needs too. But, those kids can go ahead and write 17 page essays in their above level group instruction too.

You have only experienced one approach to gifted education. There are other approaches that work as well, without giving the feeling of elitism, without shutting out kids who can achieve and still meet the needs of the kids with an IQ of 100.

[OhBeeHave]

AndreaII

One person was my SIL -- whose daughter's home school was Mount; she tested and was accepted but SIL kept her out. My SIL is not one of those 'braggy' types -- she's very low key. I have no reason to believe she's lying. Another was a friend whose child is very bright, but on the young end of the class age and with some special issues. (Trying to be delicate.) She felt that the change would actually impact him negatively. Again, not the type of person who is about bragging.

Years ago when my son was in elementary, there were a few people who might have been doing what you've suggested. One such woman I know almost for certain was fibbing.

You've no argument from me -- there are definitely people out here who are all about appearances, and will say what they think everyone needs to hear in order to look good.

[OhBeeHave]

In elementary schools you can create leveled teaching environments within a homogeneous classroom. Small reading groups instead of whole class instruction allow a teacher to teach 2 or three reading levels. One hour a day, create math leveled math classrooms. Kids go to their appropriate math class based on their own person ability, not because they have an IQ of 140. Middle school is easy to implement leveled classes. On grade English is found in room 230, one level above (with a more creative gifted curriculum or teaching style) is found in room 240.

This is already done.

My daughter's K-3 classes broke down into ability based groups for subjects such as math, reading and writing.

Placing Jr HS/Middle School students with one skill level in Room 230, and more advanced in Room 231, etc. isolates children based on capability. It also leads to subtle 'in the hall' elitism. Children can be nasty.

Back in the day, the mini school bus had connotations that it carried physically disabled, and/or retarded children -- the bottom of the social hierarchy. It was referred to (I apologize for the crudeness, but I am being honest) as "The Tart Cart" or simply (but singed with venom) "THE Little Bus" If one's friend did something unacceptable within their circle, they made disparaging remarks about the bus the individual rode to school -- one of the ones above.

Placing the underperformers in their own classroom will someday morph into a tool or social ostracization. They'll use the room number, the teacher's name and warp into into something vile in an effort to insult one another.

AndreaII is acquainted with a retired teacher who my oldest child had for 3rd grade. That year, a special needs child (inclusion) was placed into her classroom. The child was highly disruptive and the teacher's skills were tested many times each day as she tried to get the class back on task each time the special needs child had a disruptive outburst. It was difficult for all of the students -- average, below and above. One thing I can recall is that none of the exceptional students were in her class that year. Why would that be?

With the advent of inclusion, I believe IG is even more important. Some inclusion students perform right alongside their peers, while others need more specialised assistance and can hold a class back.

Pulling out exceptional students for enrichment learning in each school would probably cost more money & benefits (yet another teacher who goes from school to school) while creating a dedicated IG class is merely shifting the student population.

[nancy thereader]

there are children with IQ's in the 150's and 160's that really do require some unique teaching

I would think that there are few than .05% of children who have IQs in this range.