Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Learning Environments More inclusive "GT" classes in middle/high schools

This study found no such thing, because, 8th graders.

To be fair, we're talking about very different populations and strategies here. Sorting students into quartiles is very different from specific services for the right tail of the distribution curve. The top 1% would still be ill-served in a class for the top 25%.

True; I just assumed that the study was done right - comparisons were done inside each school. (This would be so absurd, or disingenuous, if these comparisons were done across schools - this actually made me laugh.)

They are even worse served in the class of top 100%. (I'd take top 25% now.)

(I do agree that ideally the course for the top 1% should be different from the course for the top 25%.)

To clarify: I do not think 22B meant literally 'Harvard' and 'Podunk' - these were just quick labels meaning to point out that it is absurd or disingenuous to compare across schools.

So it is not known whether their comparison is valid/makes sense or not.

That reminds me of what my kids heard from one of their current teachers - while she teaches several GT 6th grade classes, she would be hard pressed to find enough kids to fill even one "real" GT class.

Your high school GT system is just wacky. How the heck can it be GT if you are taking Algebra II as a high school senior. In our district, you can't be on the GT math track unless you have taken Algebra I and Geometry in middle school. The lowest GT math course in high school is Algebra II, which is only available to freshmen.

I can see that this thread has veered into a discussion regarding tracking and SES factors. Regardless of what the various research concludes, at the end of the day, we are most concerned with the effect on our own kids. I can see how tracking could harm those in the lower ability/achievement levels, which is why I did not make a big fuss when my kids' elementary school eliminated the stand-alone pseudo GT class for reading/language arts. Interestingly, they kept the stand-alone pseudo GT class for math/science, probably because they could not even pretend that it would have been workable from the teachers' end. Anyhow, all the GT kids were equally distributed into three of the six 5th grade classes, which each have three differentiated "groups." Notwithstanding the "differentiated" instructions my kids supposedly received in their group during a small fraction of class-time, it was obvious to them (or so they volunteered this information to me) that the curriculum and expectations were inferior to prior years.

It was my understanding that you considered gifted magnets a political ploy to manipulate test scores and student demographics.

I'm not one for conspiracy theories. Are there problems with the current educational system? Sure. Do GT students sometimes have a hard time because some think they are "fine" and need no attention? Yes. I'd like to mention here, though, that my son, who is not in the magnet yet, has received quite a lot of individualized attention and differentiation, all teacher-driven. He is extra work for them and they do it even though they do not have to. I was moved by a recent conference with his teacher where she expressed compassion for him, an understanding of how class is for him, and a desire to help him.

That is not correct. That was not your understanding.

I have simply said that in our area, the term "gifted magnet" is a meaningless oxymoron. The terms "gifted" and "magnet" are mutually exclusive. There are plenty of "magnet" schools (self contained) in our area. There are plenty of "gifted" schools (within gen ed) schools in our area. But there is absolutely no way such a thing as a "gifted magnet" school could ever exist in our area.

I don't understand why do you keep using this term "gifted magnet". Most people involved in education in our area would get major cognitive dissonance seeing those two words put together like that.

This is where anti-tracking "research" does real damage. The schools probably believe the "research" that the gifted kids need to be spread around so that they can sprinkle their magic gifted pixie dust on all the less endowed students. But the gifted kids have got better things to do than sitting around being starved of education. They need more advanced instruction, that the average and below average kids cannot benefit from. They need to be in separate classes receiving separate educations.

The anti-tracking advocates have done some very deceptive "research". For example they claim to have "demonstrated" that there is little benefit to ability grouping, and more benefit to mixed ability groups, but their trick is to make this comparison when everyone is forced to do exactly the same on-grade level classes. They conveniently ignore the huge benefit the higher ability students would gain from much higher level classes (and the lower ability students would be better served with lower level classes).

It is easy for us to see through these tricks, but the damage is done anyway, and many school fall for it, and separate the gifted kids, instead of grouping them together and providing advanced instruction. The anti-tracking advocates are relentless in their goal to totally dismantle ability grouping, and they are being very successful at it.