Gifted Bulletin Board

Welcome to the Gifted Issues Discussion Forum.

We invite you to share your experiences and to post information about advocacy, research and other gifted education issues on this free public discussion forum.
CLICK HERE to Log In. Click here for the Board Rules.

Links


Learn about Davidson Academy Online - for profoundly gifted students living anywhere in the U.S. & Canada.

The Davidson Institute is a national nonprofit dedicated to supporting profoundly gifted students through the following programs:

  • Fellows Scholarship
  • Young Scholars
  • Davidson Academy
  • THINK Summer Institute

  • Subscribe to the Davidson Institute's eNews-Update Newsletter >

    Free Gifted Resources & Guides >

    Who's Online Now
    0 members (), 130 guests, and 29 robots.
    Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
    Newest Members
    the social space, davidwilly, Jessica Lauren, Olive Dcoz, Anant
    11,557 Registered Users
    December
    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 31
    Previous Thread
    Next Thread
    Print Thread
    Page 8 of 14 1 2 6 7 8 9 10 13 14
    Joined: Feb 2013
    Posts: 1,228
    2
    22B Offline
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    2
    Joined: Feb 2013
    Posts: 1,228
    Originally Posted by ultramarina
    Quote
    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.

    Huh? I don't understand what you're getting at. I keep "using the term" because that is the term used for my daughter's program by everyone, including the school board. A magnet draws students from around the district because of its special qualities. In our case, we have a GT magnet that is a school within a school. You have to have an IQ over 130 to get in, but anyone from the district with that number can apply. Selection is by lottery with preference to students with a sib already at the magnet. I have no idea why the terms gifted and magnet would be mutually exclusive. It's a well-known concept, not an oxymoron. I'm not understanding what you are getting at--sorry.

    Okay this really is a side issue, but my statements are based on my local conditions.

    Last edited by Lewis; 11/06/14 10:46 AM.
    Joined: Mar 2014
    Posts: 387
    C
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    C
    Joined: Mar 2014
    Posts: 387
    Magnet schools have been set up as part of school desegregation agreements (as in St. Louis) more broadly I understand them to be any public school with a specialized curriculum that attracts students from an entire school district. So "gifted magnet" makes perfect sense to me.

    Joined: Feb 2010
    Posts: 2,640
    Likes: 2
    B
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    B
    Joined: Feb 2010
    Posts: 2,640
    Likes: 2
    Although there has been some research supportive of de-tracking, there has also been research finding it has negative effects, for example the paper discussed in the thread Tracking in the Era of College Prep for All.

    The value of tracking depends on
    (1) what subjects are tracked, and at what grade level
    (2) whether good, distinct curricula are used for all tracks
    (3) how well students are chosen for tracks both initially and later on
    (4) the range of student ability
    (5) the evaluation criteria used

    and other factors. The question is probably not "Is tracking good?" but "Under what conditions is tracking good?".

    Joined: Apr 2013
    Posts: 5,261
    Likes: 8
    I
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    I
    Joined: Apr 2013
    Posts: 5,261
    Likes: 8
    Quote
    There is a ton of research on this.
    Just looking for the research which informed your statements. There are many articles which emphasize one point or another apart from the context of the research.

    Quote
    Good research? That's a worthwhile question, as ever.
    Precisely.

    Joined: Feb 2013
    Posts: 1,228
    2
    22B Offline
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    2
    Joined: Feb 2013
    Posts: 1,228
    Originally Posted by ultramarina
    Indigo, I'd try Google Scholar. I don't know if you have university library access, however. There are lots of articles about this. I've read them in the past for work. It is, of course, a political subject, as are many education topics.

    As I say, I don't necessarily agree with the antitracking POV but I consider it very reasonable to look at the data, and some does seem to show that tracking can create issues. Now, is that the fault of ability grouping as a concept or poorly done ability grouping? That's another question. But I have to have concern for kids who were "tracked" early, are stuck in that track, and could achieve more. What if it were your own child? Some of our 2E kids could easily get "tracked" into a low-achieving group. In fact, it's been discussed here on the board. Parents get up in arms about it because they feel the child is being denied opportunity.

    I think part of what needs to be thought about is something GT advocates don't love to think about: ability is not as fixed or as easily determined by a test as we might like. A child might test high as a preschooler due to an enriched environment and struggle later in a high track. A child may test low due to being ESL or 2E but be capable of more. I know some gifted kids who are not motivated and prefer to focus on other things, and some bright-not-gifted kids who are highly motivated and can cope with having a lot asked of them. All these children may be poorly served by a rigid tracking system. In HS, a friend of mine transferred from another district and was put in the "average" track because that's wht my high-achieving school did with new kids. She was gifted in science but it took two years before the school relented and moved her up to AP. That was a waste of her time and ability.

    I don't regret having been tracked as a child, but I saw its negative effects as well. If we do track and group, we have to be open to changes in children's skills and abilities. But many parents would fight their child being "demoted" tooth and claw. (FTR, I was demoted in math out of the accelerated track and into "high average." It was likely the right choice, and my parents were dismayed but did not protest.)

    A lot of this information about the complexities of ability grouping is very old news, and I would expect that people on this forum are generally well aware of the issues and have thought deeply about them. Life is complex, and sometimes things that are important and worth doing are difficult and complicated. We all already knew all that.

    The question is how do you optimize learning over a population of children with a huge variation in learning capacity, subject to constraints of practicality (e.g. budget constraints in teacher student ratios). A very simple obvious effective method is to group students by ability/achievement and deliver to them an education tailored to their current level. Sure, there are many complex issues, but the benefits of ability grouping, in terms of optimizing learning, are so huge, that this is what should be done, and there are no grounds for not doing so. Ability grouping is by a huge margin the single most effective way to optimize learning. Nothing else comes close. There is really no alternative.

    But the anti-tracking advocates in the links mentioned in this thread,
    http://nepc.colorado.edu/newsletter/2013/05/options-tracking
    http://www.ascd.org/publications/bo...-Is-and-How-to-Start-Dismantling-It.aspx
    have absolutely no interest in improving education by improving the implementation of ability grouping. Instead they advocate a scorched earth policy of systematically eliminating every trace of ability grouping.


    Joined: Aug 2010
    Posts: 3,428
    U
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    U
    Joined: Aug 2010
    Posts: 3,428
    Perhaps I misattributed your views because you are opposed to magnets, but not gifted schools. OK, but I don't get the denial of the very existence of GT magnets.

    Quote
    Sure, there are many complex issues, but the benefits of ability grouping, in terms of optimizing learning, are so huge, that this is what should be done, and there are no grounds for not doing so. Ability grouping is by a huge margin the single most effective way to optimize learning. Nothing else comes close. There is really no alternative.

    These are very sweeping statements. If we want to demand backup, where is yours that this is true?




    Last edited by Lewis; 11/06/14 10:47 AM.
    Joined: Apr 2013
    Posts: 5,261
    Likes: 8
    I
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    I
    Joined: Apr 2013
    Posts: 5,261
    Likes: 8
    Quote
    Magnet schools... any public school with a specialized curriculum that attracts students from an entire school district. So "gifted magnet" makes perfect sense to me.
    Great post. Thanks for taking the time to describe and define this. This concept of a gifted magnet is similar to my understanding as well, although a magnet might also attract students from outside a district.

    Taking time to define words and their usage, developing a common vocabulary for purposes of a discussion at hand builds a solid foundation for mutual understanding.

    While some unfamiliar with this approach may see it as nitpicky, it is often beneficial to take a step back and discuss definitions, to see if people are talking about the same thing. Often they are not.

    ETA: Magnet Schools, by U.S. Department of Education, September 2004
    Quote
    Magnet Terminology. Any general discussion about magnet schools requires some clarification of terminology. In addition to different terms being used in different districts, the same terms are sometimes used to mean slightly different things from one district to another. The term magnet program, for example, is used in a variety of very different ways.

    Joined: Jun 2012
    Posts: 144
    B
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    B
    Joined: Jun 2012
    Posts: 144
    Originally Posted by Bostonian
    Although there has been some research supportive of de-tracking, there has also been research finding it has negative effects, for example the paper discussed in the thread Tracking in the Era of College Prep for All.

    The value of tracking depends on
    (1) what subjects are tracked, and at what grade level
    (2) whether good, distinct curricula are used for all tracks
    (3) how well students are chosen for tracks both initially and later on
    (4) the range of student ability
    (5) the evaluation criteria used

    and other factors. The question is probably not "Is tracking good?" but "Under what conditions is tracking good?".

    I mostly agree but what if the political realities of school systems mean that tracking if implemented widely will tend to not adhere to such controls and instead more often devolve into segregation? I don't have a pat answer to that fear but its what I personally struggle with when I'm reading various positions on the subject.

    Joined: Feb 2010
    Posts: 2,640
    Likes: 2
    B
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    B
    Joined: Feb 2010
    Posts: 2,640
    Likes: 2
    Originally Posted by BenjaminL
    Originally Posted by Bostonian
    Although there has been some research supportive of de-tracking, there has also been research finding it has negative effects, for example the paper discussed in the thread Tracking in the Era of College Prep for All.

    The value of tracking depends on
    (1) what subjects are tracked, and at what grade level
    (2) whether good, distinct curricula are used for all tracks
    (3) how well students are chosen for tracks both initially and later on
    (4) the range of student ability
    (5) the evaluation criteria used

    and other factors. The question is probably not "Is tracking good?" but "Under what conditions is tracking good?".

    I mostly agree but what if the political realities of school systems mean that tracking if implemented widely will tend to not adhere to such controls and instead more often devolve into segregation? I don't have a pat answer to that fear but its what I personally struggle with when I'm reading various positions on the subject.
    The political reality I fear is that lots of policymakers want the educational system to produce equal results by group, making even soundly implemented tracking impossible.

    Last edited by Lewis; 11/06/14 10:49 AM.
    Joined: Oct 2011
    Posts: 2,856
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Oct 2011
    Posts: 2,856
    Originally Posted by Bostonian
    My point is that when you group or track or have academic competitions, afterschools will crop up, catering heavily but not exclusively to the children of immigrant parents.

    I agree, but you forgot to add wealthy parents.

    Page 8 of 14 1 2 6 7 8 9 10 13 14

    Moderated by  M-Moderator 

    Link Copied to Clipboard
    Recent Posts
    Gifted Conference Index
    by ickexultant - 12/04/24 06:05 PM
    Gift ideas 12-year-old who loves math, creating
    by Eagle Mum - 11/29/24 06:18 PM
    Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5