Val,
I tend to agree with you. Old-fashioned ability grouping would solve a lot of problems. Every step of the way a child either can or he can't. He either knows or he doesn't know. These things are easily determined without the need of an "IQ" test.
I agree completely.
There shouldn't be a single "gifted" kindergarten class. Instead there might be one section for students who arrive functioning at about the second-grade level, two sections for those who arrive functioning at about the first grade level, a dozen sections for average kids, and then a few sections for kids who are behind the curve and need to be taught such things as letter recognition and print orientation. Getting students properly placed might take a couple of weeks, but it would be well worth the effort. [/quote]
In theory, I agree, but in practice, parents would hothouse their kids into working above grade level to get them into the higher-level kindergartens. this is what happens now with test-prep mania over ERB testing in New York. This is why I was thinking about open admissions (but no dilution of standards). Non-gifted kids just wouldn't be able to keep up.
Ability grouping in the non-gifted kindergarten classes (and other grades) would address the needs of all the other learners, from bright kids who aren't gifted to kids who are below average. But, yes, there could be a K classroom that has reading/math/whatever groups for kids who are a year above grade level
I guess this is part of my fantasy school (still needs a lot of work on the details).
Val
