Gifted Ed
Colin Dellow
--
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!3405!106!Colin.Dellow
Internet: Colin....@f106.n3405.z1.fidonet.org
Gary Moore
CD> on things that we can gert by without. People are
CD> living without necessities due to the goverments
CD> taxes. Its time to start cutting out some things which
CD> aren't vitally important. These kids will still be
CD> able to find work.
Would you suggest that they be hitched to a plow?
Do you beleive students with learning disabilitys, should receive any special tutoring? If not, will they find "work"? What kind of "work"? When our governments do finally get budets under control,what then? Will we write off the generation that had the bad luck to inherit a debt that they did not create? Have you read enough messages in this section to understand that being "gifted" can be as much a disability as an asset? Perhaps not. I should tell you that in Calgary, Canada we have a gifted education p
rogram and it costs VERY little more and in many ways less than regular class rooms. It does not have computer labs, guest speakers, regular field trips..etc. In stead the program uses a different concept of teaching students outside the regular courses. Students are encouraged to work at their own usually accelerated speeds. Does this sound familiar? Perhaps before you suggest that Gifted ED programs be cut, you should take a little less for granted and educate yourself on what exactly Gifted ed classes a
re.
I look forward to your response.
Gary Moore
K12 TAG Moderator
CD> --- Maximus 2.01wb
CD> * Origin: DarkSide BBS [Dawson Creek, B.C.] (1:3405/106)
CD> PATH: 3405/106 134/49
--
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!134!189!Gary.Moore
Internet: Gary....@f189.n134.z1.fidonet.org
Ben Peoples
D*mn right we shouldn't cut gifted spending! I'm a gifted
student, For the science fair we have to do an experiment, so, isn't that
the science fair? In the "normal" science class, one kid is showing off
a menu program he copied out of a book for the *SCIENCE* *FAIR* (that is
emphysized if you didn't notice).
:| Ben (P.O.'d at whoever started
this tread);
--
Ben Peoples Internet e-mail: bpeo...@netcom.com
The StoneHenge Group
DRAGON!
>I feel that the government is spending too much money on things that we can
>gert by without. People are living without necessities due to the
>goverments taxes. Its time to start cutting out some things which aren't
>vitally important. These kids will still be able to find work.
In this high-tech world? You looked at the homeless/jobless rates lately?
An education is a must for a good job these days. More & more I'm regretting
not finishing my degree (bs) as I find jobs that I'm qualified for by
EXPERIENCE but can't get because they REQUIRE a degree.
BTW, its obvious that you GERT by, but my 2 Gifted kids need to do more
than GET by. Cutting education is NOT the answer to lower taxes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
DRAGON!
/\_\/_/\
| 0\/0 |
| -- |
\| |/
| | 0
()() o WHAT THE DRAGON! SAYS IN NO WAY REFLECTS THE
\ * OPINIONS OF WHERE THE DRAGON! WORKS! SO THERE!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheila King
-> gert by without. People are living without necessities due to the goverments
-> taxes. Its time to start cutting out some things which aren't vitally
-> important.
-> These kids will still be able to find work.
Colin,
Excuse me, but I think that's a very shortsighted point of view. In this
technological age, with our global economy, and the need to be more efficient
and productive, we cannot afford to waste or use inefficiently ANY of our
resources, even human ones. We NEED to develope all of our students to their
fullest potential, so that they can be leaders, find cures for cancer and AIDS,
help lead our economy, etc...
To cut funds on gifted ed, and have these students develope to less than their
full potential is like shooting oneself in the foot.
Sheila
coming to you from Diamond Bar, CA (in Los Angeles County)
--
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!103!315!Sheila.King
Internet: Sheil...@f315.n103.z1.fidonet.org
Bill Gollnick
BP> D*mn right we shouldn't cut gifted spending! I'm a gifted
BP>student, For the science fair we have to do an experiment, so, isn't that
BP>the science fair? In the "normal" science class, one kid is showing off
Dear Ben.. I agree with you 100% about the gifted programs. My daughter
just entered the gifted program down here in Sarasota, over at Pine
View. Over the Christmas break, we moved into a new 16.5 million dollar
new facility, and if you ask me, it's still not enough for the leaders
of our country during the next century. I'm sick of hearing all of the
grips and complaints , and trying to bring my daughter, and others like
her, down to the middle of the road students that the liberals are
stiving for. You all deserve the best that society can give you.
Right????? Bill
OLX 2.2 Schools
--
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!30033!5.0!Bill.Gollnick
Internet: Bill.G...@p0.f5.n30033.z1.fidonet.org
BRAD BROWN
SK>-> gert by without. People are living without necessities due to the goverme
SK>Excuse me, but I think that's a very shortsighted point of view. In this
SK>technological age, with our global economy, and the need to be more efficien
SK>and productive, we cannot afford to waste or use inefficiently ANY of our
SK>resources, even human ones. We NEED to develope all of our students to their
SK>fullest potential, so that they can be leaders, find cures for cancer and AI
SK>help lead our economy, etc...
SK>To cut funds on gifted ed, and have these students develope to less than the
SK>full potential is like shooting oneself in the foot.
Sheila, Do you think that a Gifted program costs any more per student
than the traditional curriculum? If so, where does the cost come from?
Do the teachers get paid more, more equipment purchased?
If it is a case of the same money per student focused toward an
accelerated educational process, who can complain?
* SLMR 2.0 *
Amrit Chauhan
>Sheila King wrote:
> SK>->I feel that the government is spending too much money on things that we c
> SK>->gert by without. People are living without necessities due to the goverme
> SK>Excuse me, but I think that's a very shortsighted point of view. In this
> SK>technological age,with our global economy, and the need to be more efficien
> SK>and productive, we cannot afford to waste or use inefficiently ANY of our
> SK>resources,even human ones. We NEED to develope all of our students to their
> SK>fullest potential,so that they can be leaders, find cures for cancer and AI
> SK>help lead our economy, etc...
I agree with you on the necessity to develop all of our students to their
fullest potential, but I think you're being shortshighted. Read on..
> SK>To cut funds on gifted ed,and have these students develope to less than the
> SK>full potential is like shooting oneself in the foot.
The problem I have with gifted ed is that it is pulling the "cream of the
crop" from a system of education that needs these students to act as
motivational leaders to the other less motivated students that fall victim
to the tradtional system of education. Why is it that we insist on giving
students that function "well" in traditional education all the breaks by
changing the system that they are a part of, but we refuse to change the
"regular" system to meet the needs of the students that are suffering
through it? Sure, there are students that are more inclined to function
well in the traditional paradigm, but look what we give them. We give them
the opporunity to work in groups, to do individual work, to do things that
are realistic, etc. Yet, we just keep forcing the rest of the student body
to sit through lecture after lecture after lecture where they don't learn,
where they don't get motivated; why? Isn't it clear that there needs to be
a change in education as a whole not a development of more programs for
"gifted" students? Students don't need to be tracked...they need to be
shown how to work together and how to motivate each other. This isn't done
in the present system, and I am in strong opposition to "gifted and
talented" programs for this reason alone. You've stolen all the hope from
the schools that have little to begin with by taking these students away.
It's wrong, unfair, and absolutely unacceptable.
I have a feeling that we're about to begin again :)
Shava Nerad Averett
>The problem I have with gifted ed is that it is pulling the "cream of the
>crop" from a system of education that needs these students to act as
>motivational leaders to the other less motivated students that fall victim
>to the tradtional system of education. Why is it that we insist on giving
>students that function "well" in traditional education all the breaks by
>changing the system that they are a part of, but we refuse to change the
>"regular" system to meet the needs of the students that are suffering
>through it?
This is probably not a resolvable question, but what the heck...;)
I was a T&G student in a "normal"-ish high school, although we did have
a good number of electives -- more than I think is normal in an average
high school. We had vocational programs for shop/mechanical, drafting,
business, and agriculture. We did not have a program for T&G students,
but we did have a couple AP courses.
This was not some urban "target" school, but a rural county district
school in north central Vermont. We didn't have a huge amound of money.
But it seemed to me that providing special programs for vocationally
tracked kids was very important. It didn't occur to me at the time that
there might be special programs for T&G -- I hadn't yet heard the term
when I graduated in '77.
But something I'd like to point out to the person posting above: There
was some very outstanding leadership demonstrated by natural leaders
in the vocational programs. There seems to be an underlying assumption
that T&G kids are somehow better leaders, or that less academically adept
children would benefit from their academic example. I think that this
is a poor assumption. A lot of us are just geeks (only a slight smiley
there, folks) and putting us in the company of "mainstream" kids just
causes the mainstream kids to react by showing how important it is to
never show that they are smart.
Unless we can also teach the main part of the student body that academic
excellence is to be respected, rather than despised, there is no gain of
"leadership" advantage to keeping T&G kids in there.
I am not saying that there are not socially gifted T&Gs. Some of us do
quite well. However, those who are socially adept usually exercise that
leadership in extra-curricular activities. School children are not
given the opportunity to display leadership in the classroom. The worst
thing a teacher can do to a kid is point out his/her talent as an example
to the class, no matter how socially adept that kid is.
This has more to do with the herd instincts of pubescent mammals, I suspect,
than it has to do with the school system. At best, it has to do with the
culture, and I hate to see people put the artifacts of culture at the feet
of the public schools.
I *remember* those days pretty well, and I see the undergraduates I work
with relating nothing to indicate that the social realities of high
school have changed in this area.
Regardless if T&G education benefits the T&G kids, I can hardly see that
removing those kids from the mainstream classes hurts the mainstream any
more than removing the business students, the agriculture students, or
whomever.
You are suffering from an illusion that there is something inherently
better about an academically excelling child, over one who excells in
mechanical aptitude. This is the kind of elitism that causes people
to make a wide *qualitative* separation between T&G and other vocational
programs, in their minds.
I invite you to reconsider this perspective.
--
Shava Nerad Averett sh...@unc.edu
/* all original materials (c)1994, Shava Nerad Averett, and have nothing
significant to do with the University of North Carolina, a mostly owned
subsidiary of the NC Legislature, a mostly owned subsidiary of NC DOT. */
BRAD BROWN
Excuse me, AMRIT, but I didn't write any of the material you quoted. Not
that I mind so ever much but someone might think that I am more lucid
that I really am.<g>
AC>The problem I have with gifted ed is that it is pulling the "cream of the
AC>crop" from a system of education that needs these students to act as
AC>motivational leaders to the other less motivated students that fall victim
AC>to the tradtional system of education. Why is it that we insist on giving
I had the misfortune of being a "gifted" student (I was the only
National Merit Scholar in the history of the school system and ranked
27th in the state for graduating high school students,) in a rural
school system that had no provisions for "gifted" students. Believe me,
you don't get to be a *leader* but a *punching bag* Do you really think
it was fair to me (and all of the other people smarter than me,) to be
forced to sit through an entire semester of biology when we completed
the entire text during the first week of school? Our ability to
assimilate information quickly is not our fault and we shouldn't be
punished for it.
AC>shown how to work together and how to motivate each other. This isn't done
AC>in the present system, and I am in strong opposition to "gifted and
AC>talented" programs for this reason alone. You've stolen all the hope from
AC>the schools that have little to begin with by taking these students away.
AC>It's wrong, unfair, and absolutely unacceptable.
So you're saying it's fair to force gifted and talented to wait on the
rest of the class while the instructor teaches at the pace of the lowest
common demominator? What's wrong with allowing each to be taught at a
pace that reflects their natural abilities? I can't imagine you
suggesting that we throw Special Education students into a regular
class and requiring that they learn at the pace of that class because to
do otherwise would be wrong, unfair, and absolutely unacceptable. What's
the difference if you do it to Gifted and Talented. In many ways,
they have similar needs for Special Education.
Looking at it as a statistical distribution, it doesn't make sense
to treat the tails the same way you treat the body of the distribution.
G&T is just the other end of the distribution from Special Education.
(No, not better, just different.)
Amrit Chauhan
> a...@mhs-server.bloomfield.k12.mi.us (Amrit Chauhan) writes:
> >The problem I have with gifted ed is that it is pulling the "cream of the
> >crop" from a system of education that needs these students to act as
> >motivational leaders to the other less motivated students that fall victim
> >to the tradtional system of education. Why is it that we insist on giving
> >students that function "well" in traditional education all the breaks by
> >changing the system that they are a part of, but we refuse to change the
> >"regular" system to meet the needs of the students that are suffering
> >through it?
> This is probably not a resolvable question, but what the heck...;)
Unfortunately, you're probably right...generally, when I start something,
I tend to go WAY overboard and drag it out forever. Hope you're ready
for the ride :)
> This was not some urban "target" school, but a rural county district
> school in north central Vermont. We didn't have a huge amound of money.
Who does these days :)
> But it seemed to me that providing special programs for vocationally
> tracked kids was very important. It didn't occur to me at the time that
> there might be special programs for T&G -- I hadn't yet heard the term
> when I graduated in '77.
Vocational tracking isn't what I'd consider "tracking" in any real sense.
The way I see it is simply giving students who are capable of productive
roles "in the field" the opportunities to fully use their talents. That's
not the same as tracking; it's actually quite a bit like having a career
resource center that gives students who want jobs, jobs. Most colleges and
universities have these departments, and I don't see any harm in doing the
same for k12 education as a whole. Do you recognise your vocationally
tracked programs back then as the same or similar to the T&G programs
currently in place? If so, why?
> But something I'd like to point out to the person posting above: There
> was some very outstanding leadership demonstrated by natural leaders
> in the vocational programs. There seems to be an underlying assumption
> that T&G kids are somehow better leaders, or that less academically adept
> children would benefit from their academic example. I think that this
> is a poor assumption. A lot of us are just geeks (only a slight smiley
> there, folks) and putting us in the company of "mainstream" kids just
> causes the mainstream kids to react by showing how important it is to
> never show that they are smart.
I'm not assuming anything about T&G children. However, from what I wrote,
I can see where that got miscommunicated. What I really meant to say is
that
the traditional educational system is really stuck on this process of
splitting children off into categories and compartments. The intended goal
is to provide teachers with a somewhat homogeneous group of children, with
regard to learning styles and "learning ability." This is supposed to make
it "easier" to "teach" children.
Okay, so let's take a look at what this does. Society has this habit of
splitting people off into "winners" and "losers." There's a hierarchy
which is inherently a part of our society. It results from this idea that
there are "better" and "worse." Instead of this, what I'd like is for
these
boundaries to break down and for people to stop this labeling process, this
funneling of children and people into roles that they may not be suit for
or
deserve.
I didn't mean to come off as saying that just because a child has been
termed
T&G that the child already has leadership skills. What I meant to say was
that instead of isolating these children, making them think that they're
different, making other students feel that these T&G kids are "better," we
should instead concentrate on using their talents for the betterment of
everyone's education. Sure, they may not be "natural" leaders, but any
child
with ANY talent can be empowered into a leadership role if the system
nurtures
such development. I would say most children funneled into T&G programs
have
this inept ability to memorize things; some of them have "true"
intelligence in
that they are able to draw large bodies of knowledge together and truly
connect things together. However, in my experience, T&G children are no
better
at this ability to "interdisciplinize" things (that's not a word, but it
communicates the idea :) than children in the traditional setting, unless
their particular T&G program fosters such skills.
While I agree that a student who is T&G labeled isn't necessarily a
"leader"
the school system should do more to make the "natural" abilities of that
student, and all other students, a part of the entire process of learning.
> Unless we can also teach the main part of the student body that academic
> excellence is to be respected, rather than despised, there is no gain of
> "leadership" advantage to keeping T&G kids in there.
No, this isn't what we need to be teaching the student body. We need to be
showing children how to be good followers and good leaders. We need to
empower them with the ability to demand a voice in the huge numbers they
are
funneled (I've overused that word, I know) into. It's not enough to get up
in front of them and lecture them. We need to foster communication skills,
the ability to interact with other human beings, inquiry and investigation
skills, the ability to look inside themselves and reflect on what it is
they
are, who they are, what they're doing, the purpose of their actions, etc.
This
is what we should be doing, not separating them into groups based solely on
objective data taken from a proven failing academic system.
"Academic excellence" can't be respected if it's not worth anything. There
is
a 14 year old boy whose parents are bent on sending him out of high school
as
fast as they possibly can. He's now a senior, but he has no social ability
what-so-ever. He cannot function in the "real world" yet his parents seem
to
think that he can. He is arrogant, immature, and simply unable to function
as
a productive member of our society. Yet, he will graduate before another
student who is only a sophomore that I feel is ready to face the world and
present his ideas and fight for change. He is ready to be a valuable
member
of our society, but why isn't he graduating? Because he doesn't have the
required "credits" to do so? I just can't understand why people don't see
the inherent dangers in pushing T&G children so hard in the wrong
direction.
Just because a child has the ability to defeat the system, the standardized
tests, etc. doesn't mean that child is intelligent and I will charge that
most
T&G children cannot relate to their peers nor do they have the ability to
communicate with ANYONE. These are just my own observations and the
patterns
that I've seen. However, the good T&G programs that show these children
how
to respond to change, how to function socially, etc. those are the
programs
that do give T&G children the opportunities that ALL students deserve. I
hope
my point is coming through.
> I am not saying that there are not socially gifted T&Gs. Some of us do
> quite well. However, those who are socially adept usually exercise that
> leadership in extra-curricular activities. School children are not
> given the opportunity to display leadership in the classroom. The worst
> thing a teacher can do to a kid is point out his/her talent as an example
> to the class, no matter how socially adept that kid is.
The way you look at education is not the way I look at it. I don't see a
teacher standing before the children saying "Oh, look at Bobby. He's so
smart.
We should all try to be like him." What I see is a school where there are
no classROOMS in the traditional sense. I see a school where children
mingle
with information and with each other. They see each other as equals first;
they learn to respect each other as people first. Then, they work together
to
get their respective tasks accomplished; to learn together. They learn to
become intelligent and to demand as much out of their education as they
possibly can. They don't memorize facts; they synthesize knowledge. It's
this synthesis that doesn't exist in the traditional system of education.
Why? Because everyone is so hung up on "swallow and regurgitate" fact
after
fact after fact. And if they're not, then they're forced to because the
people making the decisions are all stuck in the political machine that
grinds on without any concern for who it steps over.
> This has more to do with the herd instincts of pubescent mammals, I suspect,
> than it has to do with the school system. At best, it has to do with the
> culture, and I hate to see people put the artifacts of culture at the feet
> of the public schools.
Too late. It all needs to change. It all needs to change and it starts
with
changing one attitude at a time. Like yours, for example. Think about how
you have already classified yourself as "one of them." You use the pronoun
"us" above (two paragraphs above) refering to the T&G students. Why is it
that people are so hung up on grouping themselves off and see themselves as
different, so different that they can't adapt to other "groups." This is
the
same with racial divisions. People are forced to see the differences and
few people strive to find the similarities. That's what schools
do...divide
and conquer. That's how political institutions have so much control
because
people don't organize as one united group with similar beliefs. They let
little things get into the way of unity and then there is no unity and
nothing gets done. It's paralyzing to say the least.
> I *remember* those days pretty well, and I see the undergraduates I work
> with relating nothing to indicate that the social realities of high
> school have changed in this area.
They haven't, but I hope they don't change so that the "lower" children
learn
to respect the "higher" children. It's defeating, demoralizing, and I
can't
accept it as a solution to any problem. You want to know what I think the
fundamental problem with this country is? Self esteem. By dividing
people,
children no less, into groups of "winners" and "loosers" we have lost the
battle to build self-esteem in our children. They get so down on
themselves
so lost in the self-pity and then they begin to fit the label that has been
placed on them. Tell a child that he/she is stupid, then the child will
begin
to act stupid, and then eventually will believe he/she is stupid, and
finally,
the child will become stupid.
> Regardless if T&G education benefits the T&G kids, I can hardly see that
> removing those kids from the mainstream classes hurts the mainstream any
> more than removing the business students, the agriculture students, or
> whomever.
It does. An agriculture student is not seen as "better" than a "business"
student, at least not in a very subtle and hidden way. Some students like
business more than they like agriculture. However, the elitist attitude
that
separting "better" from "worse" that results from the separation of T&G
students from the "mainstream" is much worse than handing a child a gun.
What
happens is the child that doesn't "make it" will feel like he/she NEEDS to
make it. So, instead of concentrating on making the most and the best out
of the inherent beauty that child already has but won't recognise, that
child
may spend the rest of his/her life trying to be something he/she is not and
won't even take the time out to figure out what talent he/she DOES posses.
The push to make it into the "American Dream" kills so many dreams in the
process. Children are not machines nor should they be forced into the
failing machinery we have in our schools.
> You are suffering from an illusion that there is something inherently
> better about an academically excelling child, over one who excells in
> mechanical aptitude. This is the kind of elitism that causes people
> to make a wide *qualitative* separation between T&G and other vocational
> programs, in their minds.
I'm not suffering from anything. If you ask me, you're the one who has
suffered by feeling that you are SO different (my interpretation of what
you've said) from everyone else that you need a "special" place to function
well. That is sad indeed. What we need IS more qualitative analysis of
what's happening in education. All we have is objective...and that's just
not enough.
> I invite you to reconsider this perspective.
And I invite you to reconsider my position as a result...........
> --
> Shava Nerad Averett sh...@unc.edu
> /* all original materials (c)1994, Shava Nerad Averett, and have nothing
> significant to do with the University of North Carolina, a mostly owned
> subsidiary of the NC Legislature, a mostly owned subsidiary of NC DOT. */
/* I take it you program in C? Great language :) */
Amrit
--
-- Amrit Chauhan acha...@math.macalstr.edu (612) 696 - 7272 --
-- --
-- The teacher who walks in the shadow of the temple, among his --
-- followers, gives not of his wisdom but rather leads you to the --
-- threshold of your own mind. - Kahlil Gibran - 1923 --
Amrit Chauhan
> AC>brad....@acg.uu.holonet.net (BRAD BROWN) wrote:
> Excuse me, AMRIT, but I didn't write any of the material you quoted. Not
> that I mind so ever much but someone might think that I am more lucid
> that I really am.<g>
Sorry, but I wasn't following this thread so I had to respond to something
inside your response. I apologize if this causes any undue harm :)
> AC>The problem I have with gifted ed is that it is pulling the "cream of the
> AC>crop" from a system of education that needs these students to act as
> AC>motivational leaders to the other less motivated students that fall victim
> AC>to the tradtional system of education. Why is it that we insist on giving
> I had the misfortune of being a "gifted" student (I was the only
> National Merit Scholar in the history of the school system and ranked
> 27th in the state for graduating high school students,) in a rural
> school system that had no provisions for "gifted" students. Believe me,
> you don't get to be a *leader* but a *punching bag* Do you really think
> it was fair to me (and all of the other people smarter than me,) to be
> forced to sit through an entire semester of biology when we completed
> the entire text during the first week of school? Our ability to
> assimilate information quickly is not our fault and we shouldn't be
> punished for it.
Read my recent post to Shava. I think you'll see that this is not what I'm
after at all. I, first of all, don't think biology should be taught with
a textbook. So, right there is the first problem with what you're
saying...
as it deals with me anyway.
I understand this thing with being a *punching bag* but I think that's the
fault of the system not the children in it. Face it, if the system
separates
you, then you're not going to be treated equally because that's the whole
reason the system has separated you in the first place! That's why I don't
believe in separation. Maybe in the traditional, current system separating
children with various "learning disabilities/abilities" is the best
solution.
But I don't even agree that the current system works, so I don't think it's
the best solution for anyone. The system needs to be reformed and "people
like
you" need to be integrated into the "mainstream." I really hate talking in
these terms because they go counter to everything I believe...*everything*
Read my other post.
> AC>shown how to work together and how to motivate each other. This isn't done
> AC>in the present system, and I am in strong opposition to "gifted and
> AC>talented" programs for this reason alone. You've stolen all the hope from
> AC>the schools that have little to begin with by taking these students away.
> AC>It's wrong, unfair, and absolutely unacceptable.
> So you're saying it's fair to force gifted and talented to wait on the
> rest of the class while the instructor teaches at the pace of the lowest
> common demominator? What's wrong with allowing each to be taught at a
> pace that reflects their natural abilities? I can't imagine you
> suggesting that we throw Special Education students into a regular
> class and requiring that they learn at the pace of that class because to
> do otherwise would be wrong, unfair, and absolutely unacceptable. What's
> the difference if you do it to Gifted and Talented. In many ways,
> they have similar needs for Special Education.
What I'm saying is that it is NOT fair to force "talented" students to be
seen and feel DIFFERENT. They are not fundamentally different from other
children. They still need the same things. They need to be loved, to be
accepted, to be a part of their own world with other other children.
That's
not what T&G programs do. They separate into better and worse and then the
kids in T&G programs complain when they "grow up" that they are socially
inept, or maybe they don't know enough to complain but others can see it
and
then THEY complain. It raises some tremendous concerns for me when I see
such things happening. Children need to be children; they don't need to be
grouped off like cattle each branded with a different label, and only those
with the same brand can work together. This leads to the hierarchy that I
was talking about in the previous message.
> Looking at it as a statistical distribution, it doesn't make sense
> to treat the tails the same way you treat the body of the distribution.
> G&T is just the other end of the distribution from Special Education.
> (No, not better, just different.)
THANK YOU. You're right...not better, just different. BUT, that doesn't
mean that there is a necessity to separate you from the system. The system
should intead be changed to accomodate you and everyone else. There should
be one homogenous system working for a hetrogeneous population of children.
How? Turn it over to the children and let them figure out what they want.
Here we go again..."How can you possibly turn it over to the children?"
Trust
me, you can. I've done it, and it works. Let 'em do what they
want...they'll
learn it. It's all about letting go of the fear that children are
helpless.
They're not..they're just different.
Brian Harvey
> School children are not
>given the opportunity to display leadership in the classroom. The worst
>thing a teacher can do to a kid is point out his/her talent as an example
>to the class, no matter how socially adept that kid is.
>
>This has more to do with the herd instincts of pubescent mammals, I suspect,
>than it has to do with the school system. At best, it has to do with the
>culture, and I hate to see people put the artifacts of culture at the feet
>of the public schools.
I can see how the typical school experience might lead people to this
conclusion, but I've seen enough good classrooms to know that the hatred
of intellectual leaders by other kids is NOT human nature, and isn't even
a necessary part of growing up in our culture -- although the culture
doesn't help much.
Here are a couple of examples. When I was studying for my teaching
credential they took us to visit the San Francisco classroom of
Alexis Aquino, who was then teaching K-3, all in one room. At first
glance the room seemed very disorganized, with kids running from one
corner to another and no central focus. But in fact at any moment
most of the kids would be hard at work. The way she organized things
was that each kid had a folder, and at the beginning of the week she
put that kid's assignments for the week in the folder. At the end of
the week, the kid would return the completed work to the folder. It
was up to the kid to organize what to do when. There were a few
scheduled activities, e.g., she'd read a story out loud at the same
time every day, but mostly those were optional. Kids spent plenty of
time fooling around and playing cards, too.
What made this relevant to the current topic is that the mixture of ages
torpedoed the usual expectations that everyone would be at the same level
in every subject. It seemed perfectly natural that you might study math
with one friend and reading with a different friend, and play cards with
a third. Also, it was part of the routine of the class that more advanced
students in a given topic (which usually, but not always, meant older
students) would help out their less advanced friends. There was absolutely
no resentment about this, because nobody was being compared to anyone;
there was no arbitrary standard of second-grade (or whatever) performance.
I was astonished to watch two kids, for example, working on multiplication
of two-digit numbers; one of them had learned how to do it, and the other
just didn't have a clue, so the first one was helping him. The astonishing
part was that the kid who didn't understand wasn't the least bit afraid!
He wasn't doing any of the usual school kid defensive stuff about pretending
to understand, or throwing a fit because better-bad-than-stupid, etc. He
was cheerfully confident that he'd understand soon, with his friend's help.
I saw lots of small examples like this in the day we spent there.
The other example I like to talk about is from my own high school teaching
experience. I used to run a computer lab in a suburban public high school.
In 1980 we got a PDP-11/70 computer that we used as a timesharing machine
running Unix. We had an academic Unix source license, so kids could hack
around with the system software, and in fact they did a lot of software
development, some of which is actually still in use elsewhere. I didn't
give grades -- the computer courses were pass/fail. That meant that I
didn't have to give standard assignments, so each kid could work on anything
at all. We had an enormous range, from kids who just did word processing to
Unix kernel hackers. Again, the more advanced kids would take on proteges,
because everyone had a strong sense that we needed to train new experts to
keep the place going after the old ones graduated. Because there was no
absolute standard, no grades, no holding anyone up to ridicule, the experts
were respected rather than resented. (Occasionally some kid would start
acting arrogant, and of course *that* was resented, but it never lasted long
because the kids themselves didn't *want* to be resented, and there were
always good examples of kids who were idolized for being both brilliant and
helpful to others.)
By the way, neither of these was a "gifted program," but both had the
flexibility to ensure that gifted kids weren't bored. But my main point
wasn't about whether or not to separate the gifted; rather, it's that
a good school environment can really pretty easily teach kids to respect
each others' various gifts.
Matt Purkeypile
-> motivational leaders to the other less motivated students that fall v
-> to the tradtional system of education. Why is it that we insist on g
-> students that function "well" in traditional education all the breaks
-> changing the system that they are a part of, but we refuse to change
-> "regular" system to meet the needs of the students that are suffering
-> through it? Sure, there are students that are more inclined to funct
-> well in the traditional paradigm, but look what we give them. We giv
-> the opporunity to work in groups, to do individual work, to do things
-> are realistic, etc. Yet, we just keep forcing the rest of the studen
-> to sit through lecture after lecture after lecture where they don't l
-> where they don't get motivated; why? Isn't it clear that there needs
-> a change in education as a whole not a development of more programs f
-> "gifted" students? Students don't need to be tracked...they need to
-> shown how to work together and how to motivate each other. This isn'
-> in the present system, and I am in strong opposition to "gifted and
-> talented" programs for this reason alone. You've stolen all the hope
-> the schools that have little to begin with by taking these students a
-> It's wrong, unfair, and absolutely unacceptable.
->
-> I have a feeling that we're about to begin again :)
I also agree with this. Why is it that we treat only the gifted
specialy? Has anyone ever thought that maybe our system does not pick
out some of the 'gifted'? I know some people who are very intelligent
but are not considered 'gifted' this is because they are not good
friends with teachers, or the do not try as hard in class because it
bores them to death!
What we need to do is to totaly redisign our education system. We
need to make a system that modivates students and teachers to try to do
their best.
I atended public schools for nine years (grades K-8) and know what
the system is like. Some people complain about to much money being spent
on the 'gifted' but at the school I attended the gifted program was just
a little book that you didn't have to read. The only reason that they
had this book is because it was required by law. But then agin that
school was trash...
Right now I am going to a private school. The reason for this is
that the public school was so bad. I am in the 10th grade and I like the
way that they teach here. They try to get everyone in the class to work.
But still in some classes I get the same old lectures.
'Gifted' education should be taken into prespective. Although they
should be given the chance to excel it should not be at the other
students expense. There should also be a better way of finding the
'gifted'. I agree it is time to change the system.
--
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!349!1001.0!Matt.Purkeypile
Internet: Matt.Pu...@p0.f1001.n349.z1.fidonet.org
BRAD BROWN
BH>flexibility to ensure that gifted kids weren't bored. But my main point
BH>wasn't about whether or not to separate the gifted; rather, it's that
BH>a good school environment can really pretty easily teach kids to respect
BH>each others' various gifts.
Could there have been some self-selection involved? maybe parent
selection in the first case? i.e. that is were the students randomly
assigned to the class or did some selection process exist?
Do you think there could be a way that several tracks could be
established where the information is presented at difference paces and
the students could self-select participation as opposed to being placed
in a particular program?
Even in your first example of the free-form K-3 class, there had to be
knowledge injection into the class. Are you suggesting that the
knowledge be presented to those students that are ready for it, and then
those students serve as (part?) of the conduit for getting the knowledge
to the other students? Reflection indicates that a similar mechanism
functioned in my *traditional* education, although certainly not to the
extent you suggest would be desireable.
BRAD BROWN
AC>> that I mind so ever much but someone might think that I am more lucid
AC>> that I really am.<g>
AC>Sorry, but I wasn't following this thread so I had to respond to something
AC>inside your response. I apologize if this causes any undue harm :)
Certainly nothing permanent. (oh no, my ego's damaged and I can't get
up!)
AC>Read my recent post to Shava. I think you'll see that this is not what I'm
AC>after at all. I, first of all, don't think biology should be taught with
AC>a textbook. So, right there is the first problem with what you're
AC>saying...
AC>as it deals with me anyway.
No problem. re: biology, my bio teacher was hired as a coach for the
womens sports first, teaching chem, physics, and bio was a very evident
secondary consideration. He was an BS Ed. Teaching *with* a book was
problematical, teaching with out one would not have been possible.
AC>I understand this thing with being a *punching bag* but I think that's the
AC>fault of the system not the children in it. Face it, if the system
AC>separates
AC>you, then you're not going to be treated equally because that's the whole
AC>reason the system has separated you in the first place! That's why I don't
AC>believe in separation. Maybe in the traditional, current system separating
AC>children with various "learning disabilities/abilities" is the best
AC>solution.
The system didn't separate us. There was no independant indication by
anyone regarding T&G, etc. I just wasn't very successful at camouflage.
(I graduated third of 27 in spite of getting 6 D's my sophmore year.)
AC>THANK YOU. You're right...not better, just different. BUT, that doesn't
AC>mean that there is a necessity to separate you from the system. The system
AC>should intead be changed to accomodate you and everyone else. There should
AC>be one homogenous system working for a hetrogeneous population of children.
AC>How? Turn it over to the children and let them figure out what they want.
AC>Here we go again..."How can you possibly turn it over to the children?"
AC>Trust me, you can. I've done it, and it works. Let 'em do what
they want...they'll learn it. It's all about letting go of the
fear that children are helpless. They're not..they're just
different.
Tell us more. How do you do something like this? ...with 50%ile
teachers? (are there such things?) How did you do it?
Brian Harvey
>Could there have been some self-selection involved? maybe parent
>selection in the first case? i.e. that is were the students randomly
>assigned to the class or did some selection process exist?
Well, in my computer lab the kids were definitely self-selected, but
I don't think that invalidates the point, because every kid is
interested in *something*. The K-3 kids were random, I believe.
Ms. Aquino did tell us that kids who transferred into her class in
later years had much more trouble getting their work done than the kids
who started with her in Kindergarten, apparently because the transfer kids
had learned the habit of relying on adults to organize their time.
>Do you think there could be a way that several tracks could be
>established where the information is presented at difference paces and
>the students could self-select participation as opposed to being placed
>in a particular program?
Sure. Computers (my field of expertise) can help with that sort of thing.
But I'm not sure I see the point -- what makes for a gifted program isn't
more advanced material, but rather, a more independent style of work, I
think. And I think that that's good for everybody, at any level.
>Even in your first example of the free-form K-3 class, there had to be
>knowledge injection into the class. Are you suggesting that the
>knowledge be presented to those students that are ready for it, and then
>those students serve as (part?) of the conduit for getting the knowledge
>to the other students? Reflection indicates that a similar mechanism
>functioned in my *traditional* education, although certainly not to the
>extent you suggest would be desireable.
There were lots of sources of knowledge, in both of my examples. There was
occasional traditional front-of-the-room teaching, although not much of
that; there was plenty of one-on-one student-teacher interaction; there was
a library of reference books in the room; there were kids with varying
degrees of expertise. Exactly how any particular kid learned any particular
thing isn't necessarily pre-planned; sometimes it just happens. Once in my
computer lab, three kids came to me and asked me to teach them all about a
particular programming topic (how to do linked lists in C), and we picked a
time when we could all do it and had a little informal class, which lasted
about four meetings before they were satisfied that they all understood it.
But there were also occasional questions that I didn't know anything about
myself, but some kid did. And about 400 times every day a kid would ask me
some detail question and I'd say "look it up!" :-)