I agree with the comments above that if school gifted programs were less “fun” and more “academic” there may be fewer sore feelings about not being included. I would not cry if the whole “pull-out system” were replaced with early entrance, ability grouping (not tracking), subject acceleration and grade skips. Separate schools for 145+ would be ideal also.
I wouldn't cry either. I'd cheer. I would also cheer cross-grade ability grouping, multiage classrooms, and chances for children to "prove themselves in" to all the gifted offerings, if they are self-motivated and can do the work. I would cheer widely availible pre-testing so that no child has to spend time pretending to learn what they already know, or skills they already have, and compacting the curriula based on the pretesting. I would also cheer US children being expected to learn material that is percieved to be "too difficult" here, but is commonly learned by children in other countries, particularly 2nd language studies in the elementary schools.
Most of all, I would cheer schools allowing kids to try things that are difficult enough that they have to work to learn them well, and have the have the thrill of achievement after struggle.
When my DS was 3, and crying about me having to go to work and leave him in daycare, I developed this answer to his question of why?
"People work for 4 reasons -
1- to make money
2- to help other people
3- to use their special gifts
4- to grow inside"
I added that in my case, I was helping to change the world because I had trained for a job that was unthinkable for women while I was growing up.
"Grow inside" was my shorthand for developing areas of weakness of all kinds and building character.
I think that children go to school to:
1- grow their friendships
2- to have a larger circle outside the family
3- to use their special gifts
4- to grow inside
I think any successful school will have to address all these needs.
Smiles,
Trin
