Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums THINKING BIG About Gifted Education Gifted and the Personalized Learning Movement

Indeed!

Unless of course the description is designed to get us to see one thing when we think we may actually be seeing another: dis-empowered, shallow skim-the-surface learners memorizing on demand and engaging in group-think rather than learning to appreciate resources which are outside of current mainstream thought.

Possibly a good question to ask may be: A benefit to whom? Like peeling an onion, there may be layers of answers to this.

The sale of collected data is big business. Some may benefit financially.

Researchers may delve into collected data to examine trends, as well as specific performance by demographic, benefiting their institutions with grant funding and possible scoops on breaking news of patterns found in the data.

While there may be the potential to benefit some children depending upon the influence of research in bringing about certain changes in strategy, policy, or practice... there is also the potential to limit future opportunities for many children, by applying an ideology which seeks to "ration" opportunities (such as the opportunity for human interaction), creating equal outcomes for all.

When DS9 was in fourth grade, they offered participation in a pilot program to the high achieving kids in the class. His teacher was very surprised when I refused, after all I had been the one pushing for SSA and more differentiation for him - so why refuse?
I tried to explain that
a) I did not want him to spend more time in front of a screen than he already did, which was hard enough to limit as it was, that
b) I wanted him to interact with people in school, being taught or discussing, that c) there wasn't much value in his being offered the regular 5th grade math curriculum in fourth grade since while it would have been better than nothing to be able to go to a fifth grade classroom, truly customised math instruction for him would have been way beyond the fifth grade curriculum, that
d) if I desperately wanted fifth grade instruction for him, I could have opted for another grade skip, that
e) I did not see why one ought to sign up for an online fifth grade instructor based in another state if there were loads of perfectly fine fifth grade math teachers in the middle school right next door, and one excellent one who happens to be his own father, and
f) I did not want my kid to be a guinea pig for a movement to take control over curricula and modes of instruction away from a (generally excellent) state system and from teachers and put it in the hand of corporations.

I do not think she got it.

They are trying to put one over on us - as if the only solution to kid needing differentiated instruction, or readiness grouping, or "working at their own pace" is having one huge corporation deliver instruction via screens.
For instance - not a huge Montessori fan here, but it does work, has worked for a hundred years, with actual people, manipulatives and books. Go figure.

Well said!

Without getting political, but merely trying to name the economic system which may be emerging or re-emerging through recent handshake agreements between government and the education industry: Corporatocracy? Fascism?

In my district, and in yours, participation was optional. I agree there are dangers, but I may try to opt in next year, reasoning "are matches dangerous, when the house is already on fire." Maybe you live in New York state, I don't think most people would describe California as "a (generally excellent) state system". Though it depends on your district.

Perhaps our benefactors the Davidsons would have an informed opinion on this notion (is personalized learning helpful to gifted... is gifted "losing" and is personalized learning then a pragmatic fallback strategy for our movement), having developed learning software last century, and then becoming philanthropists for gifted.

I got a rapid and informative reply from a state official viz.

Thank you for contacting the California Department of Education (CDE) with your question about the GATE funding. With the current Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) which took effect in 2014, GATE in California is under local control and all California Education Code related to GATE has been repealed http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/gt/lw/. It is now up to local governing school boards to set all policies related to gifted education including whether to offer a GATE program and how to allocate funding to support it. The CDE plays no role in monitoring or compliance for gifted education. Nor do we keep records about which school districts offer GATE programs.

Are GATE programs really meaningful in a serious way? We have no experience of them in our house, not having sent our kids to public schools until the eldest reached high school and joined a wonderful dual enrollment program.

That said, most of what I've read here and heard locally about these programs is that they're pullouts that run for a couple to a few hours per week, with content that's mainly extra stuff, rather than a focused program that's moving in a cohesive way, such as, "We're going to read books like Robinson Crusoe and The Arabian Nights. We'll discuss them in class and you'll learn how to write a short paper."

So if my information is correct, how well do these programs actually serve very intelligent children, compared to a program that moves more quickly or delves deeper? Or one for older kids that allows access to college classes?

I'm not saying that it's a good thing that California is dumping gifted programs. I'm just questioning the way the current ones are structured.

I think gate means different things in different places. My DS is in a gate program and everyone has cognitive ability over 98th percentile and it's full time. The district buses kids from all over the district to the elementary that houses the program.

I followed up and California government continued to be helpful, noting that we... can access numbers of GATE students in DataQuest for 1998-99 through 2008-09, the last year that CDE collected such statistics. Here is the link http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/ and the subject for the search would be “enrollment”.

This would really only be to draw a graph proving or disproving my hypothesis or interpretation that gifted is "losing" in California.

Yes, even when GATE programs were funded, were they based on native potential or on achievement. Some districts still have them, there are still a couple magnet schools (e.g. Merman) but it will be harder to collect statistics going forward, since there is no centralized source.

Personally, I'd like to at least have a GATE program. Only then can we start second-guessing it.

Wow! That's great. Really super. Around here, it's one one of those pullout things. Though that's better than where I went to school, where they tested us, welcomed us to the program, and then gave all the money they got for gifted students to another program. Which seems to bring us back to the thread about 1000 school districts in California and using the GATE money for band uniforms.

I think it really depends on the teacher in these programs.