need for inclusion is the biggest reason young people fall into bad circlesWhat a Disgusting comment
New York is in uproar over push to ax gifted programs. This school is doing it anyway
- Thread starter ogc163
- Start date
Secure Da Bag
Veteran
It’s unclear to me how the system is “keeping them out”.
Is the screening exam itself biased against minorities in some way?
... and how exactly is lumping all kids together better for society than cultivating those who show greater aptitude?
Nose spiting face...
Yes the article is unclear about that. But the fact still remains those kids are being kept out. So society only cultivating only certain groups of kids is good for society how? Especially in this era of inequality of: wealth, income, and resources.
Copy Ninja
Superstar
What a dumb idea.
If the criteria is academics then what's the issue? The reality is not every kid out there cares about their education and those kids create environment that are not conducive to learning.
These programs take high achieving students and put them in environments where they can really be pushed. Forcing these kids in classrooms where the fukkups are gonna be acting out is a disservice to higher education. It's derailing these kids getting ready for college.
If the criteria is academics then what's the issue? The reality is not every kid out there cares about their education and those kids create environment that are not conducive to learning.
These programs take high achieving students and put them in environments where they can really be pushed. Forcing these kids in classrooms where the fukkups are gonna be acting out is a disservice to higher education. It's derailing these kids getting ready for college.
There have always been inequality of wealth, income and resources. There always will be. However it is not the case that only rich kids get into GAT programs. Doing away with GAT programs or specialized schools is well meaning social engineering, and ultimately wrong.
The fact is we aren't getting the best out of most of our children, but every child's best isn't the same either.
Smoking With Cigarettes
Superstar
I think they should do like Florida test all second graders, and let the chips fall where they may.
As long as the process is fair, i dont care what the results are.
As someone who went through the GP in Florida you should rethink that first post breh. I dont know how they do in New York but down here Gifted was the biggest waste of time. Only thing I developed was an extraordinary talent for skipping mandatory meetings and never getting in trouble for it. Gifted is lip service if you don't have an educstor who knows how to teach the course. It was cool when I was young but when you get to Middle and High school it's largely a jokeSeems like we are moving away from cultivating our best and brightest, in favor inclusion
Edit: Not for axing it completely but everything that I did in gifted from age 12 up felt like schools were tryna cover their asses and appear like they were doing something with us
Can't believe how many posters are missing the entire pedagogical point of this whole thing. Did you not read the article?
There are still those who hang on to the "gifted students deserve their own classrooms" shyt, which isn't surprising considering how many of the researchers were those students. But the primary research claiming gifted programs work is 30+ years old. The more recent, comprehensive research strongly supports the claims that gifted students don't particularly benefit from gifted programs and other students suffer when they are pulled out. Look at Finland. One of the top-performing systems in the world if not the best. They do zero tracking. None. All the students do all the same shyt together, even the disabled ones, and they perform at the best rates in the world.
Gifted programs are a scheme to re-segregate classrooms and divert extra funding away from the other kids. High school isn't a place where you're developing cures for cancer no matter who you are, it's not necessary to make some special curriculum for "special" kids. EVERY classroom should be strong.
There are still those who hang on to the "gifted students deserve their own classrooms" shyt, which isn't surprising considering how many of the researchers were those students. But the primary research claiming gifted programs work is 30+ years old. The more recent, comprehensive research strongly supports the claims that gifted students don't particularly benefit from gifted programs and other students suffer when they are pulled out. Look at Finland. One of the top-performing systems in the world if not the best. They do zero tracking. None. All the students do all the same shyt together, even the disabled ones, and they perform at the best rates in the world.
Gifted programs are a scheme to re-segregate classrooms and divert extra funding away from the other kids. High school isn't a place where you're developing cures for cancer no matter who you are, it's not necessary to make some special curriculum for "special" kids. EVERY classroom should be strong.
Last edited:
Seems like we are moving away from cultivating our best and brightest, in favor inclusion
Can the four of you point to evidence that gifted students are actually hurt by not being in gifted programs? It's a tool for segregation and a way to kiss-up to the most involved parents. LOL at "social engineering" as if segregated certain kids out into their own special classrooms isn't "social engineering."
Error - Cookies Turned Off
Last edited:
TheBigBopper
Banned
challenge the commonsense premise that high IQ children will not fulfill their full potential by remaining in classes that are too slow for them, brehs.
you should slap yourself for even suggesting such dumbass nonsense. Not all segregation is bad.
"not all segregation is bad"
Like I said, "read four decades of research that disagrees with your intuitive assumptions".
Or how about looking at the countries that have done it:
Even the Wall Street Journal of all people had to give props: What makes Finnish students so smart?
Poland showed similar results - its students performed far better after tracking ended.
If the class is "too slow for you", then something is already wrong. What does "too slow" even mean? Classroom activities should be engaging at any speed, when you claim something is "too slow", it indicated you're already assuming a teacher-centered content-delivery model that belongs with the horse-and-carriage era. Modern curriculum with any degree of competence are focused on discovery activities, group projects, interactive lessons, material that challenges the entire classroom. If all you getting out of school is the teacher explaining shyt slowly in front of the class, you already lost.
Quick life lesson. Almost none of the material you learn in high school matters for shyt. You can go 10 times as fast as me and learn 10 times as many facts, and it's all meaningless. Hell, even in the gifted program most of the stuff you learned at that age is probably wrong or misleadingly simplified anyway - that goes for science, history, literature, all of it. What matters isn't how "fast" you go or how "many" things you learn, it's whether or not you learn to think right, be creative, solve problems, work with other people, express your ideas, listen to others, etc. And you can do all that no matter what the skill level of your classmates is.
Last edited:
TheBigBopper
Banned
Think that New York is gonna radically revamp its educational model brehs. Finland and Poland aren’t comparable examples."not all segregation is bad"
Like I said, "read four decades of research that disagrees with your intuitive assumptions".
Or how about looking at the countries that have done it:
Even the Wall Street Journal of all people had to give props: What makes Finnish students so smart?
Poland showed similar results - its students performed far better after tracking ended.
If the class is "too slow for you", then something is already wrong. What does "too slow" even mean? Classroom activities should be engaging at any speed, when you claim something is "too slow", it indicated you're already assuming a teacher-centered content-delivery model that belongs with the horse-and-carriage era. Modern curriculum with any degree of competence are focused on discovery activities, group projects, interactive lessons, material that challenges the entire classroom. If all you getting out of school is the teacher explaining shyt slowly in front of the class, you already lost.
Quick life lesson. Almost none of the material you learn in high school matters for shyt. You can go 10 times as fast as me and learn 10 times as many facts, and it's all meaningless. Hell, even in the gifted program most of the stuff you learned at that age is probably wrong or misleadingly simplified anyway - that goes for science, history, literature, all of it. What matters isn't how "fast" you go or how "many" things you learn, it's whether or not you learn to think right, be creative, solve problems, work with other people, express your ideas, listen to others, etc. And you can do all that no matter what the skill level of your classmates is.
Like I said, I went to an under-performing public school every year of my life all the way through 12th grade. No gifted classes ever. And it took months for me to start kicking the ass of the same kids who went to the best California and New Hampshire private schools and New York and Philly gifted public schools. All that extra stuff has very little to do with your future life outcomes so long as you get opportunities and drive.
True. I just don't like that social engineering.
I think we all agree all schools should be made better. But that small amount of specialized schools isn't holding back the school system as a whole.
Last edited:
In California children are chosen for GATE classes based on their standardized test scores. These test are taken by all students.
The GATE classes are taught by specially trained classroom teachers at an accelerated pace.
In high school the gate program offers gifted students college courses.
I’m not against Mooks suggestion to make this the baseline, but i think the results would be... undesirable.
I never felt segregated from the rest of the student body, and dont buy that argument for a second.
From what i can tell the problem in NY is accessibility. Simply test every student and let the chips fall where they may.
From Wikipedia:
Justification[edit]
Researchers and practitioners in gifted education contend that, if education were to follow the medical maxim of "first, do no harm," then no further justification would be required for providing resources for gifted education as they believe gifted children to be at-risk. The notion that gifted children are "at-risk" was publicly declared in the Marland Report in 1972:
Gifted and Talented children are, in fact, deprived and can suffer psychological damage and permanent impairment of their abilities to function well which is equal to or greater than the similar deprivation suffered by any other population with special needs served by the Office of Education.
(pp. xi-xii)[34]
Three decades later, a similar statement was made by researchers in the field:
National efforts to increase the availability of a variety of appropriate instructional and out-of-school provisions must be a high priority since research indicates that many of the emotional or social difficulties gifted students experience disappear when their educational climates are adapted to their level and pace of learning." [emphasis added][64]
The GATE classes are taught by specially trained classroom teachers at an accelerated pace.
In high school the gate program offers gifted students college courses.
I’m not against Mooks suggestion to make this the baseline, but i think the results would be... undesirable.
I never felt segregated from the rest of the student body, and dont buy that argument for a second.
From what i can tell the problem in NY is accessibility. Simply test every student and let the chips fall where they may.From Wikipedia:
Justification[edit]
Researchers and practitioners in gifted education contend that, if education were to follow the medical maxim of "first, do no harm," then no further justification would be required for providing resources for gifted education as they believe gifted children to be at-risk. The notion that gifted children are "at-risk" was publicly declared in the Marland Report in 1972:
Gifted and Talented children are, in fact, deprived and can suffer psychological damage and permanent impairment of their abilities to function well which is equal to or greater than the similar deprivation suffered by any other population with special needs served by the Office of Education.
(pp. xi-xii)[34]
Three decades later, a similar statement was made by researchers in the field:
National efforts to increase the availability of a variety of appropriate instructional and out-of-school provisions must be a high priority since research indicates that many of the emotional or social difficulties gifted students experience disappear when their educational climates are adapted to their level and pace of learning." [emphasis added][64]
But teachers need raises though...Sounds like we both agree public education in this country is a complete joke.
Not all segregation is bad... otherwise we would segregate murderers and pedos.
Absolutes are almost always wrong, not sure why that statement was so controversial to begin with.
Absolutes are almost always wrong, not sure why that statement was so controversial to begin with.