Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums THINKING BIG About Gifted Education Seattle Public Schools to end "tracking"

This somewhat old data from the NHES:1999 indicates that the average household income of homeschooling families at that time was not substantially different from that of nonhomeschooling families. The main differences appeared to be in single-income/two-parent households (for obvious reasons), higher parental educational attainment, higher number of children in the home, and ethnicity (more white), although the trends for ethnicity (in comparison to previous work) appeared to be shifting to reflect the general population more.

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/homeschool/chara.asp

One might speculate, though income per se does not appear to be that different, that the average homeschooling family might feel fewer effects from income insecurity, as there is still a backup plan of sending the schooling parent (who may be better educated than the average person, possibly with more marketable skills) to work, if need be.

Elsewhere on this forum, we have previously discussed free or extremely low-cost options for homeschooling (strictly from a curricular or educational experience perspective, leaving aside the important issue of impact on parental employment or earning potential).

I completely agree with this sentiment which is why I find removing tracking from public education so offensive and absurdly unfair.

It is precisely those of lower income/resources who will bear the brunt of this. While over time high intelligence may tend to be more often found in the children of upper middle class parents the minority of high IQ children whose parents lack the means, e.g. the children of first generation immigrants, will suffer the most from this policy for obvious reasons.

These are the very children that education should be targeting as education and hard work combined can help lift a family out of poverty and dependence on welfare programs. Assuming that the children are highly educable, of course.

I think that this policy is based on the unsound belief that all children are equally educable. So, the reasoning goes, to track means that the gifted children (who, the myth insists are only so because of parental income) are getting resources from the district that should be shared more equally. So the gifted kids are in truth getting nothing that NT kids could use.

The people implementing these policies are apparently ignorant, blind or both to the fact that the <98% percentile kids (allowing a bit less due to margin of error) will not thrive in a class aimed at >=98th percentile kids. Either that or they are very aware and seek to prevent lower income families' children from competing with their own in the future.

It just makes me sad but also not a little grateful that I have been lucky enough to (so far) provide my daughter growth opportunities outside of school.

That is what we do, but:

1/ I speak the language of my country fluently.
2/ I am well educated.
3/ I work hours that allow me to access the programmes which are all in the 3.30 to 5.30 Mon to Fri timeslot.
4/ I have 2 children 2 years apart.

If I was an immigrant,worked longer hours or erratic hours, was poorly educated myself or had more children it would be very difficult. If you are on the poverty line even getting to stuff is hard and even $2 per child adds up. And there are children whose parents are too wrapped up in tbeir own problems to care. We cannot and should not aim for equal outcomes but we should strive for equal access. If all children must go to school then all children should get to learn at school.

I believe my points must not have come across clearly. Or perhaps my data sample is skewed. In our area, there is a mix, but it tends to be a lot of families with gifted and or asynchronous kids.

First, I in no way am against homeschooling. We have considered it multiple times. (Funding a high performing district, sending our kids to a parochial school instead.) What I was trying to convey is a sense that it is becoming what a growing number of parents feel they must do to give their children an education at each child's speed.

Eventually, those children will be the adults with a better foundation for managing life in times of high-speed change (along with some of those who have been at private schools). Meanwhile, pretending to differentiate (difficult if not impossible in most systems as aeh described) instead of clustering, tracking or whatever term one uses to put together those at the same level doesn't deliver a fitting education for those in the public school.

We are well aware here of common negative effects of bad educational fit. I'm saying that those who will experience it as these programs disappear won't be those whose parents who can manage homeschooling or private school. Thus, a worsening situation for the children who deserve education at their levels and for society...

There's a consulting group, the DMC, that is infiltrating hundreds of school districts across the US offering expensive consulting services. It's all about academic return on investment, which is defined as how many students pass the state tests. Gifted students are already proficient so according to them, it's a waste of money to spend money on special programming. Here's what one of the leaders of this group says about g/t programs.

"Budget debates sometimes include the all-too-common refrain, “Mr. Smith strongly supports this program, so we can’t get rid of it” or “The teachers really like this program.” These considerations are not irrelevant to decision-making — especially since teachers might like certain programs because
they feel they help students. But, relying solely on such arguments does not serve students or the budget well.
Anecdotal evidence can be far off the mark, as it often confuses correlation and causation. Some programs, like Gifted and Talented, seem very successful because so many students in these
programs have high grades and test scores and matriculate to college at high rates. But many gifted students are likely to succeed regardless of such programs. The key is to figure out which programs contribute to student success; instinct
is usually not enough. In a world of tight resources, persistent achievement gaps, and rising expectations, a rigorous
system of academic return on investment (A-ROI) is a powerful lever to make the wisest use of limited funds."


https://secure.ccsd.net/internal/cm...mnt-council-calculating-academic-roi.pdf

Its all in the definition of "succeed , isn't it? If you measure against a arbitrary Definition of grade level proficiency, oh well, they all succeed, gt program or not.
Which is where we come back to the need fir actually teaching higher lwvel content.

You are right. If the system results in anyone who can get out getting out then those who can't will suffer. That does not mean you should leave your child to suffer it is just a fact of life.

Yep, they are already "successful" so no need to spend any money on them. I guess our kids are warm bodies in the classroom collecting tax revenue. We define success as learning and working to one's potential, they define it as passing the test. Our district admin actually referred to the students as "products".

This newly released research may be of some help to parents in attempting to change policy and practice to serve the needs of advanced learners: How can so many students be invisible?