quote: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?
Read my post above, the one that explains why I was not gifted enough for the split class.
I was an 11 year old developing ulcers, for gods sake! I had nightmares that kept me up all night. All my life I had been told that if I learned to apply myself I could do anything, but when faced with advanced math I folded up...I couldn't do it no matter how hard I tried, and I just couldn't keep up. It didn't matter that I was the best reader....at that point I was tested at a 4th year college level...or that social studies came so easy. I couldn't hang in there, and I felt like a failure because of it.
That is what happens when a borderline kid gets in over his head....I didn't learn a damn thing form it.
As far as being disadvantaged by not being in these classes, we are forgetting something....basic skills are still being taught in the mainstream classes, and that is enough to advance if someone really wants to.
It would be a shame if all schooling was determined like this...if the really smart ones were the only ones allowed in schools..but that isn't the case. School is open for everyone here in the US, and the gifted programs for the most part go to those who work hard enough to deserve being in them. Sure, there will always be those who waltz even through these programs due to their natural ability, but that is true for everything, including sports, not just of education.
We don't force people to deny their talents in other areas, and if we did it would be a shame...so why is it always OK to do that to people who are good at studying and schoolwork?
I am in favor of these programs, because without them we are screwed...even with them the rest of the world is outpacing us in many areas of education. Without them we would only be making the problems worse.
quote:I am in favor of these programs, because without them we are screwed...even with them the rest of the world is outpacing us in many areas of education. Without them we would only be making the problems worse.
What are you basing this on? SAT scores? Or is this just what everyone says? Let's keep in mind the differences between schooling systems.
quote: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?
I don't see that there is anything wrong with that. The problem I see is that we are limiting it to the gifted children, that however isn't a problem that can be solved within the system we have. Individual attention would benefit every student, due to resources we have to limit it to those that the general instruction cannot adequetly meet the needs of.
quote:There are now IQ type tests that don't rely so much on cultural, linguistic, or socioeconomic status to identify gifted kids.
This is really part of the problem with gifted programs, the testing to get in. This working well is so very depending on the teachers suggesting the student for testing. This will fail everytime that a horrible teacher is there. In my elementary school, I had 2 in 5 years (the one with the duct tape problem I mentioned earlier, and one who was suspended for shouting in a child's ear). I can't say how it is elsewhere, but if the numbers are similar, the whole idea is a farce.
-----------------------
Irami, I would be interested to hear what you believe the purpose of school is. I'm beginning to suspect that it differs in some key points from what the average seems to be here. (I'd actually be interested to hear this from anyone, but Irami in particular, although this maybe a topic for another thread.)
Posts: 1621 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My point is that on a variety of tests the rest of the world has been outscoring us for years, particularily in the math and science areas. I know there are differences in the schooling, and I don;t thnk their way is always better than ours, but the gifted programs are a way of improving the output of our schools particularily in those areas.
I also think that most schools in the USA have plenty of oppertunities for students in the mainstream classes to learn, and College prep and AP classes fit in to that nicely.
In my schools anyone whith a B or higher could enroll in the college prep stuff for the next year...or they could get special premission from the teacher.
posted
I honestly don't remember what the requirements were for getting into honors classes at my high school. I think it had something to do with passing the previous class with a C or better. I think I may have taken a math placement test, but nothing else. I'm pretty sure that a student can also get in with teacher permission. I estimate that at least 1/3 of my graduating class took honors courses in some subject, or courses well beyond the basics required for a diploma (molecular cell biology, for instance, wasn't honors exactly, but functioned like an honors class because only the science enthusiasts took it).
Someone made a comment about class size, Kama, I think. It's a good point, but the honors classes at my high school were just as large as all the other classes, sometimes larger. I doubt class size is as important as the good teachers, fast pace, and more engaged classmates.
Before you crucify me for my insensitivity over that last comment, let me explain a few things. Because the honors/advanced classes were largely self-selected, they tended to be full of the students who enjoyed learning for the sake of learning, at least at my high school. Gifted students aren't necessarily more attentive; rather, the honors classes filled with attentive students. So if you went to a school where you had little control over whether you took honors classes, or your child does, that proves nothing about you, or your child.
Anyhow, being in class with engaged students made it easier to get together to study and learn things from each other. And it made the classes way more fun. It was an amazing rush to finally be with other people who thought learning was cool, who asked interesting questions, who were willing to talk about science and math and literature outside of class, even if it wasn't going to be on the test. Mainstream the gifted kids if you must, but you have to allow them at least one opportunity during class time to be with others like them. I'm convinced it's vital for their social development.
When the subject of "smart" people comes up, it's good to consider the theory that there may be many different types of intelligence. I happen to be logical/mathmatical and verbal/linguistic smart, which generally translates to success in the classroom. That doesn't make me superior or inferior in any way to those who are (unlike me) body/kinesthetic or interpersonal smart, which translates to success in other areas of life.
We need to recognize, encourage, and validate whatever talents a child may have. All children should have a chance to excel at the things they are good at. And yes, that means that the piano virtuoso is not forced to spend his lesson teaching the brilliant math student how to play a scale, or watching her learn. It means that the brilliant math student is not forced to spend her class time teaching the piano virtuoso how to add fractions, or watching him learn. (I use these as examples, not to say that all musicians hate numbers and all math-lovers are tone-deaf). They may *choose* to help each other *on their own time*, and that is a wonderful and worthy thing to do. But they should not be *forced* to sacrifice their progress in their area of talent to help the less talented, or worse, to make the less talented feel better. And when I say "less talented" I mean "less talented at that particular thing," because everyone has a talent of some kind. All of us have our own knack, so to speak, even if we're not sure what it is yet.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't realize that the different types of intelligence thing was still considered a theory.
Jenny, many many excellent comments, and thank you. I'm a bit passionate about the whole thing, too, but I don't have the perspective you have to be as articulate about this as you have been. So, thank you.
posted
"Why the hell do I have to fight so hard to defend gifted education?"
In my own opinion, it's because of the way gifted programs are handled at many schools. (I'm talking elementary school here) A lot of people feel putting so much emphasis on test scores at such an early age and seperating kids physically is a bad idea. I can't say I completely disagree with this. Older kids seem better equipped to deal with differences between "honors" and "regular" classes. If the program isn't run correctly, then you can effectively stratify the "gifted" children and the "average" children.
Stratification isn't a good thing in elementary school, where children are forming the basis of their social interaction education. It isn't a good thing when their forming their sense of self. If the program is bad enough, you can end up with one group of children with enormous egos who consider themselves "gifted" and another group of children who end up with low self-esteem and consider themselves dumb. I think this happens because bad programs set up an expectation that there is no average - there is only gifted and dumb.
Of course, I'm speaking more from the perspective of a parent whose child is not considered gifted. I'm the parent of a boy who in second grade told me he wanted to take a bomb and blow up the school because he hated it so much. Why? Because he struggled, and when he struggled (and the unthinking teacher passed out papers so that everyone could see everyone else's grades) and received "F" papers back, he was mocked and called names by the children with better grades. If that kind of behavior was already happening when the gifted kids weren't pulled out of the classroom, I shudder to think about the things that would have occurred had they been. I don't see that as being good for either group of children. (FYI my son is doing very well now. We did a lot of work on self-esteem and a lot of extra work at home)
But, I do feel that gifted children should not be held back from learning to their potential. However, in my opinion it would be best if all learning is handled in the classroom with minimum time out. And this is speaking from the perspective of a person who was considered "gifted" in elementary school.
Anyway, those are my thoughts. Please don't take this to mean that I don't support good gifted education programs - because I do. But I think the concerns I stated are what holds a lot of people with "average" children from supporting gifted education.
quote:If the program is bad enough, you can end up with one group of children with enormous egos who consider themselves "gifted" and another group of children who end up with low self-esteem and consider themselves dumb. I think this happens because bad programs set up an expectation that there is no average - there is only gifted and dumb.
In my own personal experience, it was the gifted kids who ended up with low self-esteem because it wasn't cool to be smart, and we were mocked incessantly for it (and I'm thinking from about 3rd grade on--I can remember the first time that someone made fun of me--really made fun of me--for being in the gifted program). I know this isn't the same experience that everyone else has, but the only times I was ever socially comfortable was when I was in gifted, and later, honors and AP classes, in which it was OK to be good at school.
It seems to me that, even if everyone is kept in the same class, the stratification will still occur. The only benefit to having different classes is that gifted kids get the benefit of showing themselves without being mocked, and average kids get to do their thing without always having to compete with that "one little snotty know-it-all who can't shut up during class." I would think that it would help the self-esteem of average kids not to have to compete with the know-it-alls.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good points, Megan. It is interesting how our individual experiences color our opinions on this. See, I had the complete opposite experience you described while growing up. I was *never* made fun of for being smart - so I guess I was pretty lucky.
But, I found your comment about the "know it alls" really thought-provoking. The funny thing is, kids like that bothered me even in my honors classes in high school. There were always a few in every one of my classes who thought that classtime meant a continous dialogue between themselves and the teacher and no one else. I have to admit that after reading the post earlier by Hobbes I thought, "Man, I sooo would have hated being in class with him."
I'm still not sold on the idea of seperation, but I'm always willing to listen. I was just trying to give an honest answer to Jenny's question, and I think honesty is important here. If gifted teachers don't know why some parents don't support gifted education then the problem never gets solved.
quote:Because he struggled, and when he struggled (and the unthinking teacher passed out papers so that everyone could see everyone else's grades) and received "F" papers back, he was mocked and called names by the children with better grades. If that kind of behavior was already happening when the gifted kids weren't pulled out of the classroom, I shudder to think about the things that would have occurred had they been.
I tested into the gifted program in 3rd grade, and in 4th, 5th, and 6th was transferred to a gifted-only class in a different school down the street that had the gifted classes, the regular classes, and the special needs classes. There were generally 3 regular classes for the 1 gifted class. Since we were completely segregated from the other students except for recess, I don't think there was much of a chance for the regular students to feel any sort of pressure about the difference. I know that on our end of it, we were only barely aware that our class was different from the 3 normal classes, it seemed like any other school where the 4 fourth-grade classes would be taught by 4 different teachers. I can't see why it would have been any different on the other side, it wasn't like we had a big sign that said "This is the Gifted Class!", we were just "Mr. Wing's Class".
I'm sure that some of the parents were aware of and upset by the difference in the classes, but I really don't think the students were, until maybe late 6th grade, when we all started to realize that there was something different about our classes. Had we all been mainstreamed through the three grades, the differences in aptitudes would have been painful and inescapable for both the over-achievers and the average kids. By separating the gifted kids, everyone was allowed to work at their own level, without constantly being shown how they stacked up against the others.
Edit: I meant to add that post-elementary school, we were all mainstreamed into regular classes for the two years of junior high. The experience was so bad for me that I've repressed most of my memories of it, but I do remember being spit on at one point by the other students. I spent most of the two years by myself in the library whenever I could.
posted
I should have clarified. When I talk of seperation, I mean seperation for part of the day (eg half day mainstreamed and half day in gifted classes). I think that sets up the kind of potential problems that I spoke of. Physically pulling gifted children out of the regular classroom for part of the day to send them to the "special gifted class where they get to do fun and challenging activities while the regular kids have to keep ploddding along at their boring old math work" is what I worry over.
posted
Space Opera, I totally agree. Had I taken the test earlier, I would have been in the pull-out programs in 2nd and 3rd grades, and I am eternally relieved that I wasn't. Complete separation, while it has its own problems, is a whole lot better than rubbing everyone's noses in the differences between students.
Posts: 1681 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I forgot to add that (in my mind) the kids' old school in Kentucky had a great program for gifted kids that didn't involve pulling them out of the classroom for part of the day. First of all, they one mixed class for each level (1/2, 2/3, etc. - the rest of the classes were just 1,2,3, etc.). Secondly, they had a program available to everyone after school. It was a special club that offered the typical challenging activities and projects. The notice was sent out to all parents, and in the notice it stated that there would be homework for the club involved. Boy Opera, of course, upon hearing that, opted not to join.
space opera
edit: Bad spelling in a gifted classes thread - now that's funny
[ January 20, 2005, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: Space Opera ]
Posts: 2578 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Article on PE in schools. Looks like it is on the way out.
Most of the people I know hated PE. Even if they were extremely athletic and were involved in an extra curricular sports.
I don't think it should be gotten rid of in the curriculum because of the obesity crisis but it appears that most gym teachers don't have the knowledge that Personal Trainers have that would enable kids to make healthy lifestyle choices about their own exercise.
In chemistry class showing a few gory chemical burn pictures tends to get kids pretty conscious of lab saftey. Why not show a couple of decaying hearts after autopsies of overweight people etc. Might get them more concerned about their own health.
Of course I'm imagining a far more individualized PE than actually exists. One where kids would be allowed to choose between various activites, even if just simply walking around the gymn for the entire period.
posted
I’m bothered by the idea that people who are for mainstreaming are against gifted education and don’t want gifted kids to reach their full potential. I’m leaning toward mainstreaming because I think it’s a good idea for kids with special needs (and I’m including special education kids and talented and gifted kids in the “special needs” label). I think it could work and I think it’s fair.
Maybe I’m living on my own planet of idealism. I have happy visions of average kids seeing t&g kids reading a book and trying it themselves, and the t&g kid made brave because the special ed kid is willing to raise his hand in class. And then everyone holds hands and sings . I –do- have something to base it on though, both my own experiences in gifted and talented education and my daughter’s experiences in special education.
But I don’t want to turn a deaf ear to what the “other side” is saying :\.
quote:Complete separation, while it has its own problems, is a whole lot better than rubbing everyone's noses in the differences between students.
:\. If we can expect special ed kids to cope, and even thrive, in general education situations, why can’t we expect that of t&g kids?
Posts: 1676 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Every one of my siblings and I have both high IQ and some kind of learning disability/ processing disorder. I am amazed at how many of the kids in my "gifted" classes also had problems with one thing or another of this type. But no attention is paid to this in the program we were in; you're either "special needs" or "gifted", and they have to focus on one or the other. Only two out of four of us were diagnosed. My sister and I were not. She got through college (with a break in the middle for a psychotic break), barely, and then went back to a dead-end job with a fairly useless (to her) degree in something she didn't want to do, but finished just to get it over with. I never made it to college; I was so frustrated with school, I worked instead, then ended up married with a baby, and it will be a long time before I go, if ever. My other sister and my brother were identified as "special needs" as well as gifted. My sister was put in the "gifted" program, and is doing okay, but became so frustrated she eventually dropped out of college after scraping through the program in HS and has never gone back and finished. (She's 34 now, and has been trying to finish a piece at a time, but it's very hard on her.) My brother was put in the "special needs" program, and has picked up the behaviors of other kids in class, and throws chairs and stuff because the work is so dumb, he can't bear it. (He has other problems as well, but I see not being challenged, ever, as a large part of it.)
I have friends who have gone through similar situations, too. I see this as a problem that could be addressed by mainstreaming, but only with a very good teacher. The kids who are "both", not "gifted", "special needs", or "neither", also need to be addressed when planning educational programs.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't like personal stories, and I hate arguing from there but,
My parents are nice people, but there is a lot that they don't know, and this isn't one of those deals where the older I grow the smarter I realize my parents are. This is just how it is. I learned from other kids, and when you learn from other kids, you can't afford to take your ball and go home. Sure, I was picked on for as many reasons as you can imagine, and maybe the first lesson I learned was, "Even if they are picking on you, take the good stuff from them," For example, the kid who calls me nigger is the same one who knows how to read well, I forget the nigger part and ask the kid how read. But usually it was something more intangible than reading.
I'm not eager to underestimate the importance of cross-teaching at this level, and the subtle ways that this cross-teaching occurs. And to degrade that exercise because some kids are bored betrays and inadequacy in our priorities.
posted
Then there is the maximizing the kid's potential. I'm not sure what that means or how important that is. Potential for what, long division?
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No. If you're not pushing yourself, you don't learn how to learn. I think Annie already addressed this.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There seems to be some sort of thoughtless pushing, pushing for the sake of pushing, or pushing for the sake of aquiring data, that is going on.
I think we are going to fall at the base to a difference in priorities.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Space Opera, thanks for explaining things from your point of view. I agree that our experiences dramatically color our view of things. Like Megan, I experienced teasing at the hands of the "average" students. I'm really, really, sorry that your son isn't being treated well. No child should ever have to deal with that. The teacher really ought to make it more difficult to see other students' grades, and the students should know better than to mock other people.
It sounds like the situation at Zeugma's school was good: there was a separate gifted class, but it really wasn't labeled as such. After-school clubs are also great.
Ladyday, I think your idea would work great in a more flexible environment than a typical classroom. And Irami, I agree that it's an excellent philosophy to learn from everyone around you. Here's the problem: I don't think most children are mature or perceptive enough for this to be effective. As long as it is uncool to be smart, the things associated with being smart are going to be uncool as well. As long as the special ed kids are seen as inferior or weird, they will be avoided, not imitated. I applaud you, Irami, for finding the good in the midst of a lot of negativity. But not every child can do this, and this could result in the kids at the extremes of the bell curves getting hurt. In my opinion, the risks outweight the benefits. I acknowledge that this opinion is largely due to my experiences.
quote:If we can expect special ed kids to cope, and even thrive, in general education situations, why can’t we expect that of t&g kids?
That's a good point, although I wonder whether putting special ed students in general classes is the best thing for them. The one borderline special ed student that I did know well was also pretty marginalized socially.
quote:There seems to be some sort of thoughtless pushing, pushing for the sake of pushing, or pushing for the sake of aquiring data, that is going on.
It's more like learning for the sake of learning. And most gifted students aren't interested in memorizing a pile of facts and formulas--that's actually the problem with regular classes. Ideally, all classes should emphasize concepts and reasoning rather than just facts, but I've found that honors classes do a better job. Understanding as much as possible is just as worthwhile as any other pursuit. I find truth, beauty, and joy in the realm of science and math.
Maximizing your potential, or rather working toward that goal since it can't be attained, is a vital part of learning to be true to yourself. It's not about picking up a skill-set so you can be successful, it's about doing the things you enjoy doing. It's the dignity of doing the best you can with what you are given. It's about using your gifts for the good of all humans.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
A piano virtuoso is taught outside of school. When in school, they do the same thing in music class as everyone else. Why couldn't there just be a GT after school program?
Posts: 1015 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do piano virtuosos really do the same things in music class as all the other kids? Are they told to play down to the other kids' level? Or do they play as well as they know how to, and earn the hatred, jealousy, and teasing of the other students?
Posts: 1681 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Having all the kids in the class be tolerant towards one another would be best, but if we could do that then we wouldn't have just had an extra long weekend.
posted
Ideally, we would live in a world where people, even children, are in an environment where those who need help get it, all children are taught what they need to know and those who wish to learn more have opportunities to do so, and everyone, even a child, is loving, tolerant, and supportive of others.
I don't live in that world, do you?
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
In life people are separated by class, profession, education, intellegence, and many other things. I know that children are mean. I think it is better to help children be tolerant then it is to separate them. Intolerant children become intolleant adults. I don't think it is such a bad idea to make children from all walks of life coexist in a classroom.
Posts: 1015 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except that when you do that, the persecution gets worse outside the classroom, at least in some cases. *knows from experience*
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
We're not talking about separating children from each other completely (at least, not in most cases). Kids in gifted classes still have opportunities to be with other kids in most cases, both in and out of school.
And that is opening a whole other can of worms, there.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are things that all involved can do to make things work inside and outside of the classroom.
Edit to add: Usually it is not completely, but it often might as well be. Putting a child in a different class is emphasizing the differences not the similarities between students. I think it is important for students to realize how many things are similar.
I know that is another can of worms. I wasn't going to go there, but Hobbes started it. *points*
posted
I think the whole issue of putting gifted kids in a class by themselves versus mainstreaming and just releasing them during certain classes or certain times of the day is really problematic.
On the one hand, I think the ideal is to have kids of all abilities interacting as much as possible. After all, the world - as someone pointed out earlier, I think - is made up of all different kinds of people with all different kinds of talents and abilities, and we all need to be able to interact successfully with as many other people as possible. (Even though I'm the one who doesn't always play well with others, and I probably need more private time than most people. )
However, besides growing up as a "smart kid" (and I sigh at this point as I write that), I also grew up with a speech impediment - I had a lisp - and was in speech therapy all through elementary school and my first year of junior high. That meant being pulled out of class once or twice a week for an hour at a time. This was very evident to the other kids in my classes, and was just another reason for me to be singled out for abuse.
So I can see problems with both ways of handling the problem, and I really don't know which way is best, although because I had a generally positive experience in a gifted program that had us in a separate classroom for the whole day, I would probably say that that isn't the worst way to go about the whole thing.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Honestly, if you've got an elementary school where kids spend all day in one classroom, how is a self-contained gifted class going to be that upsetting for the non-gifted classes? As long as you don't make a big fuss about the class being different or better, how are the kids in the normal classes going to get the idea that they should feel inferior? They won't have Johnny Smartass sitting next to them getting straight A's while they're getting C's, they won't have to listen to him give book reports on material that's years ahead of where they are.... all they'd know is that they were in Mrs. X's class, surrounded by students that were all more-or-less at the same level, and that these other kids were in Mr. Y's class. When they all went out to recess, they wouldn't see any test scores or book reports, they'd all just be kids, with a reasonably healthy amount of kid socializing and bullying going on.
Posts: 1681 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What if the guy in the cubicle next to you gets a promotion after a month while you stay in the same job for 10 years? What if the guy in the cubicle next to you is reading War and Peace when your favorite author is Dr. Suess? What if the guy next to you is reading Dr. Suess when you are reading War and Peace? These are all things people should be able to deal with.
Posts: 1015 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like the idea of a reasonable and healthy amount of bullying. Like, for serious. That's just awesome.
Posts: 3956 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I hate to bring this up, because there's no tactful way to say it, but I will do it anyway.
It never really occured to me that I was in one of the "smart" classes until I was in fourth grade. I mean, I knew I got to go do the "gifted" activities and I knew I was smart, but it never occured to me that the kids were put in classes specifically because they were "smart." Then I noticed (it's terrible to say this) that almost all my classmates were white, along with all the kids in one other class, and most of the others were black. I lived in Georgia, so white people were pretty much the minority. But that was my first clue something was going on. Then, I noticed that the kids in the "smart" classes had white teachers, and all the other teachers except one were black.
I was starting to be confused.
I asked about it and got basically no conclusive answer, but this was when I learned that the classes were determined by scores on the ITBS and the kids that did the best went into one class, second best into the next class, and so on. Now, I knew that there was no way that the white kids just happened to be smarter than the black kids, but this was the first time I really began to realize that something was rotten in the state of Georgia.
Skin color wasn't the only thing that seperated us. We were also seperated by income. Most of the kids in my class were rich and most of the other kids were poor. There were a couple of rich blacks in my class and a couple of poor whites, of which I was one, but we were basically homogenous.
My point is that there are ways to tell something is up on the playground.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tolerance and being able to accept differences are lifeskills that should be taught from a young age. How can you someone who as a child pretty much only had been with people like him/her to become tolerate and accepting of differences as an adult? These ideas seem easier to teach to people when they are young.
Posts: 1015 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Absolutely. But that doesn't mean forcing kids to be in a classroom where they are not challenged, and/or subject to lots of teasing just for being smart.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh, yup, they should be teased for normal healthy things like economic differences. That's the real value of a person.
Posts: 3956 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm... in my experience, it's the majority kids who do the bullying against the minority kids. So if most of the class is of average intelligence, the 2 or 3 smarter kids will be bullied. If most of the class is white, the black kids will be bullied. If most of the class is poor, the rich kids will be bullied if they're dumb enough to let on that they're rich.
In my elementary school, the poor kids were the ones doing the bullying. Is that what you mean by teasing because of economic differences? :-)
Posts: 1681 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems like there are better (in the long run) ways to stop teasing then to seperate people.
I think there are ways to make sure that everyone is at the right level (or above) w/o seperating. Good teachers are one solution. Having afterschool programs for those who are ahead and behind is another.
Posts: 1015 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
)
