Post from your cache thread.

[Rabrrrrrr]

Sorry everyone.

I meant this for GD, since we already have a thread like this going here in the lounge.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3868991

[Sannum]

1. I agree.

Years ago, I was placed in a class that was below my level. It became so easy, I started to blow things off and I became very depressed.

I have a math learning disability but I have always been advanced with other subjects. I was told that I did not qualify because I did not "excel in other subjects". This is Texas public school, so it is not a surprise. I ended up homeschooling for the rest of my school career. History and art classes were at museums and c-span, Math was while helping my mother with accounting. English was the hundreds of books I checked out of the library that were considered too "inappropriate" for public school. I would not have changed anything. I was very fortunate. Though the school it was done through was a fundie church school, I had a blast writing science essays and screwing with the administrators heads. I wish I had those phone conversations on tape:P.

[WindRavenX]

2. Absolutely

I rotted in middle school and was miserable because all the classes were too effin' easy.
I was challenged in elementary school with the TAG program that allowed me to develop artistically, scientifically (the TAG program got me into science- I would NOT be the biology and science freak I am today without this introduction), and scholastically. I was EXCITED to learn.
Then in middle school everyone was at the same level and it sucked. I acted out. I was depressed.
But in high school, they again had an advanced program and I took college classes at the University of Oregon and AP classes in High School.
I would not be the scholar I am without the introduction of science to me with the TAG program. These things are NOT mainstream curriculum, and it is quite possible that I would never have gotten into science without the TAG program.

[Skittles]

3. gawd I hate that label GIFTED

I just despise it.

[WindRavenX]

5. why?

NT

[Skittles]

9. I think it is OK to have accelerated programs for kids

but to label THOSE kids "talented and gifted" renders the assumptions that other kids are NOT "talented" or "gifted" which can absolutely not be true. Very often the "talented and gifted" have been offered the tools necessary to achieve their goals whereas other kids have not. It's not right to label kids like that.

[Maddy McCall]

12. And many so-called "gifted" children are no brighter than their...

peers. They just happen to have mothers or aunts who are teachers.

[WindRavenX]

13. I don't think it implies that

I can certainly see that, but to me, in this era where intelligence and love of learning is seriously mocked, I almost feel as if the kids should have a title like that...
Of course, that's the optimist in me and I know this is not the reality of the situation...most kids get in easily and simply to please their parents.

[Skittles]

17. sorry

too many kids who have advantages get into these programs - I think it stinks. Let the schools exist but don't call them TALENTED AND GIFTED; it insults many.

[Maddy McCall]

8. I've seen many a "gifted" student be brought down in their...

first year of college. Even saw one complain to a colleague of mine, after she received an F for the semester, that she was "always in gifted in school."

He told her, "Gifted doesn't matter here. Either you make the grade or you don't. And, in your case, Ms. Smith, you earned a 57."

[Skittles]

14. yeah - it's all relative

I remember when they ranked us in high school - I did very well but I wondered how many of my peers would have done as well after being yanked out of school thirteen times to move - it's just not right to label a kid TALENTED and GIFTED - in fact, it is insane.

[Maddy McCall]

4. But it's so easy to get into gifted.

At the public school here, there are four different criteria. All the child has to do is pass two of them. Only one is an "IQ test." The others involved such stuff as teachers evaluating the kid on things like "community involvement."

At the public school here, you find that 90% of the children in "G&T" are related to the teachers and administrators. It seems the main criterion to be in GT here is "who you know."

So, segregate them and tell them that they're special. They'll find out soon enough--probably in their first freshman college course--that the fact that mom's a second grade teacher won't help them at all.

[WindRavenX]

10. From what I've heard

It has indeed gotten easier to get into the gifted classes. I dislike this because I think a lot of this is simply to make the kid feel "special" or have the parents feel better about themselves.
Genuine, accelerated classes and programs for outstanding young students is a good thing.

[Maddy McCall]

15. I am telling ya, it's purely political here.

They can exclude the ones (who are gifted) that they don't want in gifted, and include ones who shouldn't be in gifted.

I know one child who tested overwhelmingly gifted at a university testing center. At the school, he missed by "one point."

[Rabrrrrrr]

18. Bowing your head is a sign of respect for your host - Abby is right

[Rabrrrrrr]

6. Whoops, sorry everyone - I thought I was posting this in GD

Here it is:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3868991

[GirlinContempt]

7. I just went to a school

that didn't have manditory class hours, and worked my way through quickly. :shrug:

[mitchum]

11. Yes (along with the Learning Disabled)

Society is set up for the average and mediocre (shop, eat your Cheez Doodles, and watch American Idol)
Those on the two ends of the spectrum are shafted.

[Rabrrrrrr]

16. John Carpenter's "On Golden Pond" with Kevin Spacey and Iman

[Rabrrrrrr]

19. Was it even close to accurate, historically speaking?

[punpirate]

20. I would agree with most of it...

... except for the notion of segregating kids for extended periods of time. Most kids who have exceptional talents have a difficult enough time adjusting, and leaving them amongst themselves for too long doesn't accomplish another important part of schooling--adjusting to others--and problems arising from that can overwhelm the implicit advantages in such targeted training.

The other problem I see with segregating kids for the purposes of developing their unique talents is that it may channel them towards being idiot savants, at least in a cultural sense. I know plenty of highly intelligent people whose educations were so deficient in ethics, the humanities, the arts, that they were missing much of the import of their work and their decisions about the work they did.

But, clearly, very bright kids left to their own devices in all-in-one classrooms are wasting their time. Boring them to tears only wastes their talents, especially at the K-8 level. Conversely, preparing brains to do just one thing very, very well also denies the kids their childhood and their humanity.

As with most things, moderation and balance is probably required--perhaps half time in regular classrooms in some subjects, and half time in intensive, challenging study.

[Rabrrrrrr]

21. Wow, I changed the subject of this thread like 22 minutes ago

and you still got it?

Anyway, I agree with you - I don't want to run the risk of doing what Russia did, pulling the kids out and giving them just the one focus for their lives.

I suggest merely the advanced classes for the kids who can handle them, and more than likely even the gifted kids will have their "regular" classes. I sure as hell would have stayed in "regular" gym, and "regular" orchestra, even if I could have done "advanced" in everything else.