Maybe she actually does know, but doesn't know she knows because she uses the label "truly gifted"?
20 years times 20 students = 400 total students. She said she knew less than a dozen "truly gifted" students. 3% of 400 = 12.
Perhaps her district uses only achievement tests for GT placement?
Naah... I think clueless is a good label here.
Well, I was trying to think charitably and assumed that perhaps while she was SAYING "gifted" she may have actually
intended "highly gifted (+)" students versus "bright and advantaged" students, and been conflating the two things.
That is, that
most "gifted" children identified by schools and placed in gifted programming the way a lot of us have seen it (that is M.O.S., in-class differentiation, weekly pullouts, projects, etc) doesn't really do much that ALL students wouldn't just as readily benefit from, and the label is mostly about parents and not their ideally intelligent (aka "bright high-achievers, not 'gifted' ones") kids.
So let's suppose that she has, as classroom teacher and school administrator known approximately 300 students annually... (that's a rough estimate since we do not know when she transitioned from classroom teaching @ 20-35 students annually to as many as 1000 or more as an administrator)...
well, my math suggests that 0.001 (20 years) (300 students)= 6 students. Assuming that she's in a district like mine, with a LOT of high-achieving kids and terminally-degreed parents (among whom one might legitimately expect an enrichment of high cognitive ability)... supposing that one doubled that value.
Voila-- 12.
While I think that the writer's rhetoric is obviously unfortunate, I also think that her point (while abrasively made) is perhaps somewhat valid. "Gifted" programming all too frequently....
isn't about serving that kids that genuinely NEED it.
