I didn't quite say what i meant.
I am not advocating eliminating ability grouping. I am advocating eliminating advocating for ability grouping.
because it sounds so bad to the general public when people do it.
It ultimately hurts the cause of meeting the needs of gifted kids.
Some folks expressed surprise that ability grouping might be outlawed. I was trying to put that into historical context. Ability grouping was outlawed in many states in the 70s. but yet it still occurs if done carefully.
95%( or more) of the general public is not gifted. 99% are not highly gifted or whatever. It is easier for me to think in standard deviation or sigma. You are asking 99% to be interested in something that only affects 1% or in the case of 6 sigma even less. and you are asking them to pay for it with their taxes and you are saying their kid can't have it - no matter what.
School budgets are allocated by politicians. Politicians are elected presumably by the general public. Elitist gifted programs often don't fly in some locations for this reason. too few benefit. But in some areas where exceptionalities have been linked there is more support overall. then it is more about meeting all chilren where they are. (kind of like just in time learning, but for everybody not just the 1%)
But you have to be very careful. Words matter and language hurts.
Linking ability to human worth even subtley. hurts. especially if you are in agroup that society has said doesn't matter much.
The neuotypical and normal are afraid of the supersmart. thats why geeky kids get beat up not just because they are weak. Evoking the tendency in people to resent the gifted will not help gifted services. resources are sparse. they need to be spead a long way. Public opinion matters. gifted education took off after Sputnik when it was thought we needed smart people to beat the Russians to the moon. The public became more afraid of the Russians than the supersmart.
In contrast, No child left behind occured because so many really were. it was just poorly implemented by those with a politicall agenda. If it had a component for demanding learning and increased acheivement every year for all kids it could be tweaked for the gifted. but it was made with just a floor for expectations and no funding solely to meet political expediancies of seeming to do something.
Trinity i guess i underestimated levels and stuff. Iwas thinking all yspers were 4 sigma or above--way above. thats why i was confused about how abilty grouping would help unless you are in a big area. grade skips are completely different than grouping.
I have little confidence in testing. but I participated in a summer program once where gifted kids went to camp but were also studied one summer. everybody was over 145. There were a handful of kids that were way out there. I now consider myself to be 3 to 4 sigma. and these kids were easily 6 sigma or more. but the catchment area was enourmous. These kids didn't fit at all with the rest of us and they didn't seem to like one another either which struck me as strange at the time. But for me it was the first time i felt like i belonged somewhere. a member of a pack.
So i get the benefits of ability grouping i just don't think its ok to write off the bottom half. Maybe its my own baggage in thinking 3 or 4 sigma isn't all that smart...
I just don't think gifted education is going to get anywhere in the current political climate without linking to others with needs that are more prevalent. Also i think it may spring from my own issues of haveing a kid who is too gifted to get LD help and too LD to get gifted services when they are narrowly defined.
Many people are unhappy with our schools, and if all the dissatified only work for their own agenda nothing will change. We need "just in time schools" for everyone.
