|
0 members (),
340
guests, and
46
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,428
Member
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,428 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,299 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,299 Likes: 2 |
Well, we could say "smarter than most other people" or "much faster learners" or ""really really smart," but the problem is probably less the term than the overall negativity that gets directed at smart kids/people.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 978
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 978 |
I hate the word gifted. I say "clever" because it's less exclusive and tends to offend fewer people (ie most kids are clever sometimes). Clever is a word that includes the entire range. It's like saying "hungry" instead of "peckish" Vs. "ravenous."
Last edited by CCN; 01/14/13 11:36 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856 |
I prefer the term "exceptional," because this term describes their unique abilities, personalities, and challenges all in one concise package.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181 |
I have a few observations:
1. One is GT programs in general. If schools simply taught kids at a level appropriate to their needs, there would be no need for GT programs.
2. Okay, so GT programs exist right now. Let's talk about that: these programs are supposed to serve gifted kids, not kids who are bright and get As. Gifted kids often don't get all As and their learning needs are very different from those of the general population. Putting non-gifted kids into these programs dilutes or destroys their ability to help the kids they're supposed to serve.
3. Personally, I'm tired of these articles that dump blame on gifted programs. I'm sorry if the diversity isn't what some people want, but it's not the fault of the kids who passed the test. They didn't write it. They just took it. Why are they always the first ones to be dumped on ("They're all white /Asian!") or punished ("Let's get rid of that elitist program!")?
There are so many ways that this situation could be handled (pacing based on ability and no gifted programs, or gifted programs in each school that pull from the top 2% of that school, etc. etc.). Personally, I think that people (especially educators) don't want to admit that some kids are just better at learning than others, and until that changes, so will the status quo and all this handwringing.
An enormous percentage of the population isn't cognitively gifted, and allowing educators to make themselves feel better by pretending that half the class can be in a gifted program is lying, and everyone knows it. I suppose this is what happens when status is the most important issue in an school system.
Which is why the GT program at our district gets a vote of "Epic FAIL" from me-- when you ID 30% of your students as "GT" then I'm sorry, but I'm not drinking the KoolAid that says that you can adequately serve a PG kiddo like my DD with that same "system."
It's fluff and it's about labeling so that high-entitlement parents feel like they're "in the club."
Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 735
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 735 |
The NYT runs these articles seemingly every year but changes which school they are bashing. And it's possible to do this because there are a number of schools in the city which have gifted and talented programs in the same building as gen Ed programs. There are 3 real problems which these inflammatory articles both highlight and mask. 1) poor communities have fewer gifted programs now that they are based on testing. To fix this, testing needs to be for all 4 year olds not just parent selected ones. 2) improvements to schools with gifted populations comes from the money parents raise - the implication is that this means gifted schools get more than gen Ed, and especially gen Ed in poorer areas. But that isn't entirely true - the gifted schools, especially the city wides have to make up the money that is cut from them because "they don't need it" and because there are fewer title one kids getting federal money. But 3) is the biggest frustration - there will always be different ability levels. Solve the problems of access to good teaching, accommodate for troubled family life, provide all the money you want - there will still be kids who learn faster and want to learn faster and deeper. Let them!!!
Just my two cents!
DeHe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181 |
I prefer the term "exceptional," because this term describes their unique abilities, personalities, and challenges all in one concise package. Yup. Students with "exceptionalities." Covers everything outside of the mainstream needs, really, which is precisely why (IMO) gifted ed ought to = "special ed." It is "special" ed, and gifted students need those differentiations every bit as much as kids with other learning challenges do. I think if more programs called it "special ed" along with the coursework for kids with learning difficulties, this would make it a lot less 'desirable' and a lot of this kind of thing would go away. Frankly, I'd be perfectly happy with the "special ed" label if it met my DD's needs, and all of the parents of HG+ kids that I know would be, too. It's only the MG or not-quite-MG parents who wouldn't be cool with that. And you know, maybe that indicates that it's not about NEEDS, so much as it might-- just maybe-- be about 'status' instead. Well, sorry, but I don't think that tax $$ ought to pay for parental ego trips.
Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,007
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,007 |
Yup. Students with "exceptionalities." Covers everything outside of the mainstream needs, really, which is precisely why (IMO) gifted ed ought to = "special ed." It is "special" ed, and gifted students need those differentiations every bit as much as kids with other learning challenges do. Maybe asynchronous would be a good word. (1) It's true. and (2) Who wants their kids to be asynchronous? I mean, that word just *sounds* weird and totally uncool. Like it involves math or something icky like that.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856 |
I prefer the term "exceptional," because this term describes their unique abilities, personalities, and challenges all in one concise package. Yup. Students with "exceptionalities." Covers everything outside of the mainstream needs, really, which is precisely why (IMO) gifted ed ought to = "special ed." It is "special" ed, and gifted students need those differentiations every bit as much as kids with other learning challenges do. In my state (LA), the G/T program is considered to be on equal legal footing with special ed. The reaction was predictable: http://www.nola.com/education/index.ssf/2009/09/post_1.htmlConcerned that money dedicated for disabled children is being used for gifted and talented services, the Louisiana Association of Special Education Administrators has recommended that gifted and talented education no longer be part of special education. It said these students should be placed in regular classrooms where all students are afforded the same learning opportunities.
"We question the ability of anyone to prove that a student with a 4.0 GPA needs special education services because his educational performance is significantly affected, " Susan Vaugn, the association's president at the time, wrote in a March 4 letter to the Louisiana Department of Education. "Rather, we believe that all students should have the opportunity to be challenged by curriculum and instruction that pushes them to reach their potential." It's fun how she doesn't even notice her self-contradiction.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 978
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 978 |
I prefer the term "exceptional," because this term describes their unique abilities, personalities, and challenges all in one concise package. Yup. Students with "exceptionalities." Covers everything outside of the mainstream needs, really, which is precisely why (IMO) gifted ed ought to = "special ed." It is "special" ed, and gifted students need those differentiations every bit as much as kids with other learning challenges do. Yes. Or maybe even "differentiated ed." That's what it is... differentiated from standardized curriculum. It doesn't matter if it's below or above, a curriculum mis-match is potentially problematic and can be helped with differentiation. From a parent's perspective, it would make it a lot easier too. No more "elitism" judgment from the parents of the typical kids. One of the nice things about our district's GT programs is that they're not called "gifted" programs (they come with a district gifted tag in the child's file, but the other parents don't see that).
|
|
|
|
|
