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

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.

There is a ton of research on this.

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

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.