Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums GT Research Ignore ACT Reading and Science scores?

This IS relevant to the discussion when you describe classes in diversity, and to some extent, even social justice, as fluff. When teachers don't understand the lives of their students, they can't teach them effectively. Period. Only in a very homogenous, well educated community can a teacher effectively meet the needs of students without some solid understanding of cultural relevance and social barriers to acheivement. I completely agree that it is neither appropriate nor acceptable to close the acheivement gap by allowing gifted students and other high achievers to stagnate. However, I also think that gifted students from low socio-economic backgrounds (particularly when they are also second language language learners or students of color) get routinely overlooked, dismissed and/or mid-identified as students with ADHD or EBD issues *because* white, middle class teachers too often view students through the filter or their own cultural expectations and experiences. I find that underidentification and misidentification horrifying, and as much a product of a cultural differences between staff and students as of the actual barriers these students might bring with them to school.
And I would argue that it is short-sighted to sacrifice collaboration and mentoring of new teachers for an idea that appeals to some. Teaching is a non-profit, tax-payer funded profession. When you start talking about merit-pay you are talking about making teachers compete for a very limited piece of the pie--a pie that will not increase no matter how hard everyone works. There is no additional profit to generate if everyone works harder, there are no billable hours, there is no client base to expand. Finding what works in our classrooms is not about subject knowledge, it is about figuring out how to effectively instruct students from many different backgrounds and experiences in subject knowledge. Collaboration and idea sharing is critical to the progress we are able to make. In the last couple of years I've worked hard to develop a more effective way to meet the needs of students with strong literacy skills. Should I have kept those innovations to myself to make sure that I get the "credit"? I didn't. I love to share ideas with my colleagues. Not only do I find it exciting to have someone else react positively to something I have developed, but I also appreciate the opportunity to improve and refine my work based on their feedback and reactions.
I have worked with adults who carefully guard their successes and who put their name on everything they generate. Often, what they have generated is a refinement of an idea shaped by multiple people in the field, but they are quite willing to claim credit for themselves. Most likely they are the people who will be "rewarded" in a merit system, but often they are not the best teachers, just the best at marketing themselves.
Yes, there needs to be a certain level of competency and knowledge in the classroom, but there is a big difference between knowing and teaching. I've always found the old adage that "those who can't do, teach" to be absurd at the K-8 level. While very strong subject knowledge may be almost enough at the highschool level, and fully enough when teaching high ability, motivated students, my history degree means very little when I am trying to teach a student how to be a learner at the K-5 level.
Neither brilliance nor subject mastery equate to an ability to teach. In the program I went through, students had to have a top GPA to be admitted. While it allowed me into sail into the program, I have found it to be a poor tool for selecting effective teaching candidates at the elementary and early middle level. I am not suggesting that teachers don't need a base level of intelligence and subject knowledge, but I do not find it at all alarming that they aren't top scorers on GREs. There has been a lot of sifting and winnowing before adults even get to a point where they would take a GRE, and I doubt very much that overall GRE scores would be a strong indicator of teacher effectiveness, at least at the K-8 level. The GRE does not measure many of the skills that make a teacher great.
Actually, I had posted in response to that earlier in the thread, but somehow my response vanished into the ether (I hate that). I would say this:
For most students, a teacher at the K-8 level with reasonable but not stellar GRE scores is not going to create a problem. However, I do believe that we often have the wrong people assessing students for giftedness in specific subjects, and I believe that when it comes to recognizing early giftedness in specific areas, we need to find a way to bring subject masters into the process--not master educators necessarily, but people who understand the subject with the kind of depth that allows them to recognize brilliance even where there are "gaps". I believe that it takes someone with enough understanding of the subject to really get at the depth of a student's thinking, especially since that thinking is likely to be somewhere outside of the box. I'm not sure how that would work in practice, but I am not impressed with our current assessment methods and think that most educators are better equipped/trained to recognize bright high achievers than they are to recognize gifted learners.

It�s not that what you�ve said is controversial. I will acknowledge that my response was emotional, but it was also based in my beliefs and experiences, and I stand by what I've said. While your response suggests that you were looking for meaningful debate, your initial post did not raise questions for discussion. Instead, it contained a number of blanket statements that maligned teachers "as a group" as being not intelligent enough for their jobs; as being afraid of evaluation; and of demanding something you feel they do not deserve.
If you are looking for honest discussion and debate about our education system, I am more than willing to have that discussion. I am both a fierce advocate and a fierce critic of K-12 education in this country, and I do not shy away from discussions that challenge educational systems, methods or practices. Both in and out of my workplace, I am frequently one of the people raising those challenges (which nets me more than my fair share of both positive responses and eye rolls when my hand goes up at a staff or committee meeting). I will, however, acknowledge that my final comment was unnecessarily snarky. For that I apologize.