0 members (),
179
guests, and
42
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
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,299
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,299 |
This was interesting as it relates to Finland having "no gifted classes." Unfortunately, The Wall Street Journal notes several times in the article that there are no gifted classes in Finland. This is misleading. There aren't "pull-out" type classes featuring Robin Hood, bugs, Egyptology, the culture of Japan, etc. But according to this report of gifted education in Europe, Finnish parents have the right to enroll their children in school early if they want. Many of the elementary schools are ungraded, which allows children to accelerate. But here's what I think is the key point, from the WSJ and my other reading: The education culture in Finland is one of excellence and intense individualization. Finnish teachers are expected to customize lessons for students. As the WSJ quotes one education expert saying, "In most countries, education feels like a car factory. In Finland, the teachers are the entrepreneurs." And they are good entrepreneurs. In Finland, teachers are trained extensively. They must have master's degrees, and 40 people apply for every job. They earn about the same as their American counterparts. But, through treating teachers like professionals, and only choosing the best, Finland has managed to get an excellent teaching corps capable of individualizing lessons for slow learners and quick learners alike.
Another note: Finland spends less per student than the U.S. does.
Unfortunately, I worry that people reading the WSJ article and looking to take away ideas for educational improvement in the US will only seize on the "no gifted classes" idea. That would be a shame. In an environment where the teachers are uniformly excellent, where individual lessons are customized and where acceleration is possible, you don't necessarily need specific gifted classes. But I don't see many American education reform efforts combining all these elements yet. http://giftedexchange.blogspot.com/2008/02/what-makes-finnish-kids-so-smart.html
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,840
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,840 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,299
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,299 |
As to his assertion that "at this early age IQ and other tests are not valid." Appropriate Age for IQ Testing By Inderbir Kaur Sandhu, Ph.D It is generally recommended that IQ testing for gifted children be done between age 5 and 12. Beyond 12, even the moderately gifted child is likely to encounter test ceiling effects. For the highly or profoundly gifted child, ceiling effects are in place on many measures which may begin as young as 8 (including the supplemental Stanford-Binet L-M). Research shows that for the average child, IQ test scores are reliable around age 8.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,815
Member
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,815 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,299
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,299 |
I want to address this last part Teaching should concentrate on the slow students and the so called "gifted" could assist the teachers with the slower classmates. The slower students can catch and even surpass the faster students, if given enough time. How does this sound? This is in essence saying that we should choose to educate some students and not others. It�s asking a student to do the teacher�s job, a job we require teachers to spend a number of years training for. We need to find ways to support at risk students that don't involve sacrificing another child's learning potential in the process. It is not okay to sacrifice any child's learning potential.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 970
Member
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 970 |
I am shaking my head, but cannot find the words to say how ridiculous this is...
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 466
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 466 |
Exactly, Inky. The first sentence in your quote from the original letter is the part that bothered me the most. Not only is one sacrificing the child's learning potential, one is also sacrificing on the altar of one's political agenda the child's chance at having real friendships with others in his or her class. The child who substitutes for/assists in a teaching capacity the teacher is never going to be treated as an equal by the other children.
minnie
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,231
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,231 |
To ask a child to go to school to "teach" other children instead of learning themselves, then ask them to assist an adult to perform a job meant for adults is clearly morally reprehensible and abusive.
I wonder if the person who has written the letter has ever read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair.
The assertion that it is okay to put children to work is deeply chilling, to say the least.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,145
Member
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,145 |
Yes, Inky. It sounds very good.
As for education in Finland, heck, I can totally get behind a 100% individualized learning program! Yes, let's do that! (But not at all because of why the letter-writer says to...)
Kriston
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,085
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,085 |
What...why... Okay: though the author of the letter put it all together in one form that sent sparks flying towards the computer of everyone that read this thread today; are we really taken back? I know we have heard all of these arguments before and sadly most from the professionals that teach our kids. (Just pointing out the obvious and besides I was not on earlier to jump in with my comments and I would be duplicating A LOT)
And Master of none: Thank goodness I was not drinking liquid at the time I read your post b/c it would have been all over my laptop. Thank you for your post and especially the famous 3rd grade reference!
|
|
|
|
|