I really dislike discussions framing the situation in this light, because the obvious answer is "both!"
I always prefer whatever can be done cheaply to help kids at both ends of the Bell Curve. Too often schools think spending money is the only answer to any problem, and so they don't think creatively about ways to help kids. I'd like more cheap, creative solutions at both ends of the curve.
Hi Kriston! Both ends of the bell curve do get money, but the article was about the imbalance of spending of funds. I just read somewhere (I'll see if I can find where) that often there is no money set aside for gifted, and when there is a GATE program spending is (at best) eleven times less than for the lower end of it. Also, unlike the lower end of that bell curve, some schools only can afford a limited number of GATE students and select the number and then no more. In contrast to all of the others being given federal funding with IEPs and special programs and tests.
I am interested in hearing what you have seen as cheap, creative solutions. Would you mind sharing what you have experienced or seen? Where we live now, gifted programs are very limited and often not available after elementary school.
I've been trying to help advise some friends, but there is little to no money available.
The teachers have 34-5 students in a classroom on average and acceleration isn't always enough, especially when you need them to accelerate to levels that are at middle/high school, even in a different town. We did experience this also previously in CA, but there was gifted funding and some really awesome programs that helped them become highly engaged and even take control independently in their education. Even then, for me, acceleration is just one part of gifted education, so again, I'd appreciate what you've seen or experienced.
Thanks for the input!
