quote:The model at the charter school where I'm the English chair is that all students, regardless of ability (including special ed, whoa) are in the same advanced classes (IB model). Auxiliary services are then provided to spec. ed. students. GT students, well, they are challenged in class, just like everyone else. And they tend to bring more mediocre students up, because the so-so kids get caught up in the discussions the GT kids initiate. It's a much better system. In fact, last year, by pushing my special ed students to read incredibly tough material (with significant support, of course), I got them to advance two grade levels in reading. All students need to be challenged, bottom line, no matter the extent of their "giftedness."
David, this sounds wonderful, but I think the reason it works is because of good teachers. It's because everyone is being challenged - no one is being brought down. Mainstreaming as practiced in most American schools is not like this.
I did in-school observations at a small rural elementary school with a teacher who raved to me about mainstreaming all the time. What I saw take place in her class, though, was that a little boy who was amazingly gifted in math sat through classes angrily doodling and constantly getting in trouble. He wasn't challenged and wasn't bringing everyone else up. Frankly, I think this teacher liked the concept of "mainstreaming" so much because it allowed her to teach what she wanted to teach and not have to deal with any hard stuff.
I was an elementary education major myself, with the intent of getting a masters in gifted education, but quit my school's program in protest of the dismal level of education that teachers were given. At my state university, which I assume to be pretty standard in terms of where our teachers get their educations, the material being taught, really excellent philosophy ans psychology, was watered down for the huge number of students who were in elementary ed because they thought it would be easy and they could play with kids. In "Math for Elementary Teachers," a course whose description led me to believe we'd be learning why math is taught the way it is, we had to spend three weeks doing long division because a group of women in the class "didn't get it."
I really hope programs like your charter school will set the example for public education, but the only way it will work is to improve the quality of education our teachers are getting.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can tell you that, despite a supposed theoretical (and legal!) impetus toward integrated, homogeneous classrooms, legal stipulations that special education students and GT students receive "services" (i.e., special treatment, attention, methodology, etc.) often results in districts' setting up Pre-AP classes (heh) in which (though these are theoretically open to all) the GT students are funneled and separated from the rest. A side-effect of this is that all the classes tend to become stratified, and problem students and those with undiagnosed needs end up in separate (if unlabeled) classes.
What is the motivation to set things up this way? Are parents unhappy with the idea of their gifted student being in a "regular" class? Is it a problem of budgeting or staffing?
And damn, you've nearly sold me on moving to Texas :X.
Posts: 1676 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's okay, Space. Everyone's different. Some people just hate certain things. The trick is to make it beneficial for them to learn (at least) the skills that you know they'll need one day, like balancing a checkbook.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: celia - Stop being so snarky. If you really thought Annie's post was inappropriate or offensive, call her on it in a tactful way. Being snarky only makes you look like you're lashing out about something that has nothing to do with Annie.
Uh, for the record, I *am* lashing out at something that has nothing to do with Annie. Of course, lashing out is really the wrong term since I'm just enjoying railing kat.
And really, my first two responses to Annie weren't snarky. I couldn't come up with a civil response but wanted to express that without having to be uncivil. I don't think Annie's post was intended to come across the way it did to me, but it did.
Annie, I'm sorry that isn't how it came across to you. I know the third one was pretty uncivil, I was kind of caught in the moment. I'll try to do a better job of leaving you out of the fights I start around you in the future.
I'm absolutly unapologetic in my responses to kat, however, so I get to retain my status as a bad person and a troll. Posts: 3956 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:What is the motivation to set things up this way? Are parents unhappy with the idea of their gifted student being in a "regular" class?
Yes. Many parents that I know are upset with bad experiences they've had with mainstreaming and won't settle for it.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:At my state university, which I assume to be pretty standard in terms of where our teachers get their educations, the material being taught, really excellent philosophy ans psychology, was watered down for the huge number of students who were in elementary ed because they thought it would be easy and they could play with kids. In "Math for Elementary Teachers," a course whose description led me to believe we'd be learning why math is taught the way it is, we had to spend three weeks doing long division because a group of women in the class "didn't get it."
Awwww...I'm sorry. I think that reflects more about the school's education program than Education in general, though. At Utah State, Education was one of those programs people had to apply to enter after they had had two years, and I had several roommates that never made it.
quote:I'm absolutly unapologetic in my responses to kat
It's sweet you're obsessed with me, but it's really not necessary. It's okay honey, I'll notice you anyway.
[ January 18, 2005, 04:37 PM: Message edited by: Lady Jane ]
Posts: 1163 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
True, PSI. I guess it's just opposite ends of the spectrum - you can have a child who wants to learn everything just for the sake of learning, and another who has to be specifically motivated.
I was just wondering/blabbing out loud because some comments earlier made me wonder when people shared stories of lazy groupmates. Obviously not contributing to a group isn't ok, but I wondered if....bah...I'll stop here 'cause I"m not making sense.
quote: All students need to be challenged, bottom line, no matter the extent of their "giftedness."
I think this is one of the best statements to come out of this discussion.
quote: Plus, we have small classes (18-22), really focused and prepared teachers, and parents who (by defintion) are more interested in their children's getting a better education that those of most kids.
Hence your school's ability to do this. I would say that parental involvement is the key to your charter school being able to function so well. It probably wouldn't have even existed if it weren't for parental involvement.
We've been talking a lot about being gifted in a classroom setting as compared to average or below average. But how are the kids affected by the parents? That has so much to do with it. Children of the same capabilities will appear very different in a classroom setting if one has supportive, education oriented parents and the other has 'school is free daycare' parents. Or worse.
My uncle has taught history and english in a rural, agricultural school. There are some not so few parents that could not only care less about the education their kids recieve, they actually see it as an imposition. Many of them only let their kids go to school until they can legally drop out.
I was suprised. I thought this was an attitude that had long died. But it hasn't, completely. And there are variations on it across the board.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I guess it's just opposite ends of the spectrum - you can have a child who wants to learn everything just for the sake of learning, and another who has to be specifically motivated.
See, I think it's a bit more complicated. I think some kids want to "learn" for the sake of learning, some want to learn for the sake of having people be proud of them for getting good grades, whereas other kids are only happy with having the best grades so second best isn't good enough and they won't try as hard.
All kids need a motivation to learn something, it's just simpler for some kids than others. For some kids the motivation of being the best is good enough, for some, knowing how to do something that other people is cool is enough, but for some they need to see the immediate usefulness of what you want them to learn.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's bad if the parents view school as daycare. It really gets scary when the district superintendent does. When we lived in Salt Lake City, there was a a snowstorm that was pretty bad, even for Salt Lake. The superintendent did not cancel class because too many parents who worked wouldn't have anything to do with their kids. Fortunately that super is gone, but not before she closed our school and drove us out of the district.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
In the middle of summer vacation, because I thought it was interesting.
My grandma, who was a teacher for 45 years, had a copy of it on he book shelf, and when she saw I was half done with it she gave it to me.
That is the sort of thing that gets you picked on, even by the teachers. None of them had ever heard of it, and when I brought it up at school (in private) my teacher made fun of me.
So I brought the book to school with me, and threw it on my teachers desk and said something like " Here, this is what I am talking about. It is over 15 years old by now, I am surprised you haven't heard of it by now." and walked away.
I read fantasy through all his classes after that, and he never made me put my book away again.
quote: Of course, lashing out is really the wrong term since I'm just enjoying railing kat.
Okey dokey.
As a casual observer, it seemed to me like you were attacking Annie for sounding poor me/conceited. I was surprised, and you DID seem caught up in the moment. My apologies if I misjudged the situation.
Posts: 7600 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Annie, I don't agree with your post because you didn't get straight A's. There was always that bit lacking. It is not anyone else's responsibility for you to be the best person you can be. And you could have striven to get higher standardized test scores. (If you had stellar test scores and I missed that, I apologize.) It was your choice to be content with only your GPA. I'm sure no one encouraged you to start your papers the night before. The worst they did was not punish you for it.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Irami, AJ is right - they are two separate things. I don' thave a problem with my student serving as a good example by being who she is. She is an intelligent, sweet-tempered child. She can be a positive role model for her peers and I have no problem with that.
I do have a problem with her being forced to babysit problem kids, and with her being used by the teacher because she is so tractable. She is being put into a situation she shouldn't. Instead of her being able to lead by example, she's being forced to lead other kids around by the nose. I say it doesn't really help either one.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
How the heck does that system work? I thought the most they could add was a half grade point. Also, not all college use the AP and honors weights.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some schools add one extra point for honors, and two extra points for AP. So if you get an A in an honors class, it's worth 5 points.
It's true that some colleges don't look at the weighted GPA, but they do notice whether you have a lot of advanced classes or not, so those honors and AP classes help, when you are applying to college.
Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:What is the motivation to set things up this way? Are parents unhappy with the idea of their gifted student being in a "regular" class? Is it a problem of budgeting or staffing?
And damn, you've nearly sold me on moving to Texas :X.
First off: hey, kiddo. Missed ya.
Yes, parents are "fed up," they say, with only the students with problems being serviced: they insist something be done to further challenge their kids (and given that a large majority of the parents of GT students are professionals and influential in the community [hrm], they are listened to). Most teachers, btw, are not trained in how to differentiate curricula for mixed groups, and so teach to the lower or higher kids exclusively.
As for your coming to Texas, we've already snared John Lieske (and Bob, if he's still here), so you come on. We'll set up a commune.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Damn. We really plotted for the Scopatz to be a naturalized Texan, too. Oh, well... the Poland invasion plans are still going forward, so that's one thing.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, I'm not on the 'puter very often, and this is a topic I'm very much into. I'll try to address things that were addressed to me. (I'm still on page 2).
Irami said: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- She's learning that when you sit still and keep quiet and do what's expected, the teacher takes advantage of you. What a wonderful lessson to pass along to our talented, intelligent, well behaved children. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think there is dignity in that.
This is making me mad, Irami. Are you advocating the position where people take advantage of you? You are asking small children to be saints, in a way that 90% of adults cannot manage to be. Nor should they. If we were all so patient and kind, then only the people who are into power and taking advantage of others would prosper. I'm all over teaching kids to have character, to be patiend and kind, but I am NOT into asking children to hide their gifts and be emotionally messed up in order to conform to society or uphold Irami's ideal of humanity. Not everyone shares your (apparently) masochistic value system.
Irami again: "I agree. Except instead of, "So asking them to explain the steps is asking them to do the impossible," I'd say, asking them to explain the steps is asking them to think about the leaps they have taken, which is a exercise that properly belongs in education."
This is standard practice among good educators, and ESPECIALLY in gifted programs.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
I had the good fortune to learn differentiation hands-on when I taught for a semester in England. In America, good teachers have always differentiated to some degree, but it hasn't been taught as a formal practice. Many "old school" teachers expect every child to work at the same pace, which frustrates kids at both the low and high ends. You, my dear, are not one of these teachers. You're one of the gems. Lately, differentiation to meet the needs of all students is coming more to the forefront. It seems we have to prove through all sorts of research that certain practices (which common sense ought to tell you work the best if you really care about kids) are effective before we teach them to teachers.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Irami again: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Not everyone -- child or not -- is suited to teaching. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not willing to commit to that.
Well, Irami, I am. Teaching is an art like many other professions. Not everyone is temperamentally suited for it, and not everyone has the training needed. You need to understand where kids are at mentally, socially, intellectually, and physically at the stage you are teaching. You need to learn what works and what doesn't. You need to know how to manage a classroom for optimum learning and minimum chaos. You need to be able to take care of yourself well, and not let the kids get to you. You need to stay sharp in your field of study. You need to be a parent figure, a mentor, and at the same time keep your distance. It is a job for someone with the Character you so highly espouse. And it's not easy. Not everyone can do it, and fewer can do it WELL.
It is unkind and unfair to ask an untrained and unprepared child to take on the responsibility for someone else's learning.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mack said: I understand that, but do/did you have that sense of entitlement? That you are inherently better and therefore can suck up all the resources and not feel bad about it at all? That the classtime is meant just for you?
Mack - I suppose some gifted kids might feel that way, especially if their parents fostered that attitude. But a lot of them seem to just feel relief, much the way I felt at Boot Camp. They finally fit in, and they can just be themselves in a safe environment. Gifted isn't "better"; it's "weird". In a gifted program, it's OK to be weird.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Saxy asks: "If a child asks to be in a gifted class, wants to be in a gifted class, yet does not have the appropriate test scores, should the state let that child in the gifted class?"
The answer is NO. The reason is because that child will not benefit from the program, and may actually experience more harm than good. A good gifted class has been designed to serve kids who are performing/capable of performing at a certain level.
The answer is YES, in some cases. Not all gifted kids test well, for a variety of reasons - learning disabilities, cultural bias in testing, conscious hiding of ability (this happens most often with girls, but boys do it too). For this reason, a gifted program should have a variety of methods for selecting students who would benefit from the program. Test scores are ONE data point, one indicator. There should be multiple indicators used. (Had to take a whole class on this)
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ladyday asks: "Jenny, what do you mean by "exit strategies?" When I saw your mention of that what jumped into my mind was that the ultimate goal of gifted and talented programs was to eventually have the student able to function happily in a “normal” setting."
Exit procedures are for those kids who are not benefitting from the program. There needs to be an appeal process, and conferences with the parents and student and administrators and teacher. It's all about finding the best environment for the student. Not every kid is going to benefit from the gifted program. Some of them find it too challenging and frustrating.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
"I’m just thinking out loud here. Some of you stated that being talented and gifted was a special need, so I think it makes sense to look at how special needs are handled. Can approaching gifted and talented programs from a “least restrictive” point of view work, or is being in an average classroom restrictive by nature? Are the special needs of talented and gifted students so severe as to require being pulled out of their classes and put in a small elite group? "
For some students, the average classroom IS restrictive by nature. These are the ones for whom G/T programs are essential. They cannot work to their potential, or even get close to it, without interventions of some sort.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
littlemissattitude gave a long response in which she claimed:
"I am sick and tired of people trying to make me feel guilty because I am what is generally called "smart" in our society. Because, frankly, that's all I've been hearing all my life.
Why am I, and other academically talented individuals, singled out? We don't expect the athletically talented to downplay their abilities. We don't expect the musically talented, or the artistically talented (with the exception of writers, sometimes, because that smacks too much of academics), or the musically talented, or the dramatically talented to downplay their abilities. But because my ability happens to be academic, I'm supposed to shut up and act like I don't know any more than anyone else, and to act like I like it that way.
Do I sound defensive? You bet I do. That probably has something to do with the fact that I've been put on the defensive about my one measly little talent - being good at academic things - all my life. And, frankly, I'm a little tired of it. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROCK ON, missy, rock on.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Irami again: "Because if one has to go, science is the least concerned with virtue. There are stories of good people who can't explain the chemical makeup of anything or think that plate tectonics is cookware, but they know the bible and I think they live good lives."
Ha, ha, ha, ha! Science is full of virtue. It teaches us to test what people say through logic, testing, etc. To not always take people's word for things. It teaches us to be curious, to observe, and to record. Science REQUIRES cooperation and communication between its practitioners. There are a lot of good things to be learned from science, some of them invaluable.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Irami for once: "-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If I am uniquely suited for something important in virtue of some gift or circumstance, I think there is a responsibility that goes along with that gift or circumstance. Maybe I've been overly influenced by stories of the good Samaritan, but this seems obvious to me, especially as we pass MLK day. "
And how can a gifted child best learn how to use his or her gifts? Not by sublimating them in childhood. The responsibility is taught through maturity and being able to USE the gifts. As kids explore their giftedness, they can learn what professions and pursuits they are best suited for. They can thrive and grow, and then contribute to the world in powerful ways. They aren't going to want to give back to a world that uses them as kids and forces them to go into hiding. They'll want to give, naturally, to a world that gives them permission to grow and learn at their own pace. And character education is usually considered extremely important in gifted programs. Gifted kids tend to be more morally sensitive than their peers. They care, a LOT, about their world and want to know what they can do to help. Give gifted kids their power, and they will do amazing things to help others.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Storm Saxon clearly states the goal of all gifted programs: "The goal here is for the child to reach his or her maximum potential, not to say, well, you've achieved X, now just sit there and shut up."
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ladyday says: "...learning things, accomplishing things, even if they were irrelevant...it felt good, it was like an addiction to me. And I'm willing to bet -lots- of people just aren't wired that way. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
posted
I have read bits and peices of this thread so forgive me what I say has alread been discussed. My friends and I have gone through the GT programs and are now taking honors and AP courses. I think it has done some very good things. We have found people with similar goals and backrounds whom we can relate to. We have also been challenged; which has been nice.
I do notice negatives. I do not know the "regular" kids. I have only had a handful of classes since elementary school that are not honors or AP. I have gotten to know some of the "regular" kids and I can see their merits. I realize that scoring below the 90 some percentile range on tests does not mean you are not worthwhile. Many, if not most, of the people in my classes have not managed to realize this. A rather elitist additude as developed among the GT kids that I know. I do not know how to prevent this. I would not want to be in the regular classes because the advanced ones are easy enough, but I also would have liked to have been exposed to the general population, not just the part that is like me.
Posts: 1015 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
Why the HELL do I have to fight so hard to defend gifted education? We have no qualms giving to the severely physically gifted, the severely intellectually disabled, the severely physically disabled, the artistically gifted, etc. Why is it such an "elitist" or bad thing to do what's best for kids who happen to be born with brains that work faster than the norm?
Am I bad person, to be held back or punished, for being born the way I am? Because that is how our society truly treats the gifted child. Gifted programs have to fight for 7 pages like this just to get a fraction of the funding spent on athletics or special ed or.... It's frankly disheartening.
It's like gifted people are given a mystique. What are you afraid of, Irami (using you as an example, judging by your posts)? Are the gifted kids going to hurt you or society if they are given an education that best meets their needs?
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Saxy asks: "If a child asks to be in a gifted class....
I find your reply really irritating for personal reasons. While I appreciate that you advocate a battery of tests, rather than just one, it still assumes a level of infallibility in testing the actuality and potential of most humans that I don't believe is possible. If you want to say that a child must have a certain proficiency in, say, English or Math before they could take a certain class, that I could understand. Some people will achieve that proficiency before others, but whatever the level a person is at, that doesn't freaking mean they are stuck there as knowledge and intelligence are mutable. There are physical, social and psychological issues that could be reasons for someone being 'stupid'. I believe, experience has shown me, that there are very few physically 'stupid' people in the world. Likewise, there are very few geniuses.
What I find really sad is the fact that there are parents out there who will believe those tests and settle for second rate leftovers for their child and not believe their child is gifted and not encourage their child to push to get into the best classes. Worse, given the difficulty many parents have in finding alternative education outside public schools, the child may be locked out of getting good teachers because of some tests.
You speak of harm that could befall a child if she is placed in a class that is too difficult. What possible harm could come to someone in that situation if there is a reasonably competent teacher in the classroom?
My irritation is not directed at you, Jenny. As I said, it's a personal issue for me.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Are the gifted kids going to hurt you or society if they are given an education that best meets their needs?
What Irami is afraid of is exactly what he's experienced: that not all the gifted kids will be correctly diagnosed, and that these misdiagnoses may be systematic for some groups, and therefore some groups will always be disadvantaged because they will not receive the opportunities to learn that the correctly diagnosed children will receive.
This is a perfectly legitimate fear. It acknowledges that some kids do learn faster than others and would benefit from more advanced instruction, but argues that there is a risk associated with misidentifying those children that makes it preferable to make no such distinctions at all.
I would prefer that we work aggressively to improve our ability to recognize the needs of each child than, in the interest of fairness, require that all children be treated in exactly the same way. But I also recognize that implicit in my approach is a form of idealism that may be as far removed from reality as Irami's own.
posted
I understand your frustration. One thing I have learned about gifted programs is that they are designed for very specific purposes. Some are designed for academically gifted kids (primarily reading and math). Some are designed to enhance creativity. But not all kids are going to benefit. A kid who is put in a G/T class and not benefit will have a terrible time - he or she won't learn anything if the pace is too fast and confusing. That child will benefit more from being in the regular classroom. One thing G/T educators must do on a regular basis is show how their programs are appropriate for gifted kids and NOT for kids in the regular program. There are indeed fundamental differences between gifted kids and "average" kids. Biological differences - they are truly wired differently.
The problem is that these differences are a continuum, not clear-cut. Schools must decide where the cut-offs are. That's when you get into trouble - at the fuzzy edges. The current "best practices" in selection procedures involve a matrix approach. Several different indicators are used, which may include IQ-type test scores, teacher surveys, parent surveys, student surveys, student work samples, interviews, etc. These results are then reviewed by a committee of G/T trained educators and administrators, without any personal information (a randomly assigned student number is used). The ideal is to include as many students as possible, keeping in mind that the G/T program is designed to benefit gifted students.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, do we not give treatment because we might misdiagnose an issue? Because there are fuzzy edges to dealing with human intelligence? We might misdiagnose kids with learning problems too, but we seek them out from a very young age and try to get them into programs as soon as possible. Doctors might misdiagnose an illness, but that doesn't mean they should with hold treatment or give up trying to find better ways to serve their suffering patients!
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, Tom, then that makes Irami's issue a personal one. More people are benefitted than harmed through imperfect identification procedures.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, I apologize if I misinterpret or misrepresent anyone's views. I really do love you all. You're just getting me passionate, because there are very few people who understand what gifted education is all about, and they are the ones who fight for the kids. There are so many attackers, and the sad thing is that they are usually very uninformed and uneducated about giftedness.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
*nod* I agree, Jenny; I'm playing Devil's Advocate here.
That said, what if it could be shown -- and it probably can -- that there IS a systematic misdiagnosis of a specific group, and therefore that group is institutionally disadvantaged relative to the rest of the population by the G/T program? Even if the G/T program is beneficial to a majority of people, is it moral if the cost of the program is that a disadvantaged group becomes even more disadvantaged as a consequence of its practice?
In other words, if you could teach seven out of ten kids better by ignoring the other three, and the other three have done nothing to deserve being ignored, is it still okay to ignore them in the interest of the greater good?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, this is a historical problem with G/T. G/T used to be very white bread. But there have been great strides made to remedy this situation. There are now IQ type tests that don't rely so much on cultural, linguistic, or socioeconomic status to identify gifted kids. And that's another reason to use a variety of selection methods beyond testing. Giftedness doesn't always show up in formal testing. Behaviors of giftedness, however, can be found, as can student products that demonstrate significantly advanced ability. And, too, gifted kids aren't always the "good" kids. Sometimes they're the wild ones.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:We have no qualms giving to the severely physically gifted, the severely intellectually disabled, the severely physically disabled, the artistically gifted, etc. Why is it such an "elitist" or bad thing to do what's best for kids who happen to be born with brains that work faster than the norm?
quote:We have no qualms giving to the severely physically gifted, the severely intellectually disabled, the severely physically disabled, the artistically gifted, etc. Why is it such an "elitist" or bad thing to do what's best for kids who happen to be born with brains that work faster than the norm?
I think what I'm trying to understand is exactly what is best for such children.
But I'll admit to having an axe to grind as well. I guess we all do. My frustration stems from seeing how the special education system works in my county, seeing it work well...but not being good enough in some way to use for gifted kids. What's wrong with every gifted child having an IEP that lays out the child's strengths and weaknesses and sets up individual goals for the child? What's wrong with parents, teachers, the "gifted and talented team," and the principal coming together and agreeing that this child will get special education X hours per week per subject, some in class and some out of class?
Why is there this fear perpetuated that if a special ed kid isn't in a classroom with typically developing children they will never cultivate the skills they need in this world? Why are the concerns completely opposite when talking about gifted children?
Posts: 1676 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why is there this fear perpetuated that if a special ed kid isn't in a classroom with typically developing children they will never cultivate the skills they need in this world? Why are the concerns completely opposite when talking about gifted children?
Maybe they want to keep the gifted children socially awkward so that they are more easily controlled and don't try to take over the world.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why is there this fear perpetuated that if a special ed kid isn't in a classroom with typically developing children they will never cultivate the skills they need in this world? Why are the concerns completely opposite when talking about gifted children?
Because typically, there is a much greater liklihood that a special ed kid will spend all (or most) of his/her time in a special education setting, whereas the majority of gifted children will typically spend a majority of their time in the mainstream program. The two situations aren't comparable, because the amount of mainstreaming that is currently present is so widely different for the two groups.
Posts: 196 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
