Dude's point is well-taken there. As long as we see this as a 'zero sum game' in which ANY resources directed at students in the 99th percentile are "diverted" from "those poor children" at the 1st percentile, this isn't going to change. At some point we need to step back and ask which is the better investment in the long run-- and admit that even if it IS a zero-sum game, maybe we're not calculating the opportunity costs correctly.
I agree. I also agree with Indigo that the problem is about attitude.
IMO, the best way to educate HG+ kids is to give them their own schools with teachers who are degreed in the subjects they teach and have had a lot training in the needs and capabilities of gifted kids. Sending HG+ high schoolers to community colleges is another approach for older students.
I can see that it's difficult for an elementary classroom teacher to meet the needs of a kid with an IQ north of 140. Lots of kids to be dealt with, the threat of losing funding or your job if the low performers don't pass a high stakes test, and, honestly, the teacher may not really know what to do. It makes more sense to me to let the kids attend their own schools. But the cutoffs would have to be numerical and not based on fuzzy things like teacher recommendations.
I know that LAUSD has a set of K-12 schools for kids with IQs over 145. That's a pretty high cutoff, and confines the students to the HG+ crowd. Does anyone here have experience with them? Do the kids move through material faster? Etc.?
