<p>post 80: applause!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>msudad, so would you then be in favor of not providing educational accomodations for any and all students? Should everyone get exactly the same thing? To carry it further, should high schools no longer offer different tracks or levels of coursework? No AP? No IB? No vocational?</p>
<p>and we dont really need college either do we for the majority of available jobs</p>
<p>“the function of school” is an interesting question. I would suggest baby-sitting and crowd-control as two important functions.</p>
<p>I thought meeting the opposite sex was one of my top 10 benefits. ;)</p>
<p>Hunt: Within the privacy of our family we sometimes use the term ‘stupid’ kids with no derogatory implications at all. We know that some stupid kids can be really nice people and some smart kids can be really loathesome (we have a separate thread for this here, no?). </p>
<p>BTW, the “stupid” people in public life are not always as stupid as they seem. </p>
<p>This reminds me of the quote from Forrest Gump: “Stupid is as stupid does”.</p>
<p>All I wanted was for my kid to learn something in school. I didn’t care whether it was a gifted program, subject or grade acceleration, enrichment within a classroom, or separate reading and math groups. It was disheartening to hear him say day after day after day, “I didn’t learn anything new today.” (Of course sometimes he was wrong, since he didn’t like learning to write, but he never, ever got pushed as hard as he could have been.) We don’t make good skiers stay on the bunny slopes because they aren’t old enough to tackle bigger hills, why do people think it’s okay in elementary school?</p>
<p>I repeat this story a lot in the hopes that it might help someone- even though I am probably easily tracked- because I think it is an unusual story.
My D was 10 weeks premature- born to a blue collar no education past high school couple. ( well I didn’t even graduate high school) no college degrees in extended family, except for one uncle.
She participated in a study through the university to track premature babies into school age.
Although I didn’t finish high school, I liked to read and she taught herself to read at 3.
This was fairly unusual but my theory was because of her gross motor delay, sitting activities were more rewarding.
( and plus she liked language)
When I approached the kindergarten teacher of the local elementary about what she could do, when the teacher was working with the other kids on letters and such, the teacher told me straight out to look for another school.
( I was not being combative, I was looking for reassurance)
Long story short, the only program she gained admittance to, that seemed a reasonable fit, was a private school who believed in experiential education and had small class sizes and mixed grades. ( and good finaid)</p>
<p>If we hadn’t bucked our families belief that we were too big for our britches in even looking at private schools, and if we hadn’t already had the info from the university about her divergent abilities we wouldn’t have considered private school and since she didn’t qualify for any public school enrichment program despite a 160 iq, she probably would have become frustrated and more frustrated.</p>
<p>THey need to think outside the box in developing programs for learners who want to go beyond what is supposed to be grade level curriculum in all areas including sports and arts.</p>
<p>Hunt, every kid has “special” needs. Once we accept that, and we accept that schools cannot meet all “special” needs, and once we accept that school should at least prepare kids for real life, intelligence testing for the purpose of finding one group to treat preferentially is less important than teaching them to function in the society they will be living in. </p>
<p>In other words, I would spend my scarce education dollars elsewhere than on “gifted” programs for the archtype CC kid who is so bored by English that he doesn’t turn in assignments (but who really might be, to use an out-of-date word, lazy) </p>
<p>I’d keep him in that class and instruct him to turn in the assignments, because sometimes life is boring, but you still have to perform. That will stay with you long after the characters in Silas Marner are forgotten.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is great preparation for life on the factory floor. Too bad that the factory is closing fast! I’ve always thought that two of the great American virtues is impatience and being easily bored. They (together with idleness, of course, which is another word for laziness) are the mothers of invention.</p>
<p>Marita, sometimes the greatest virtues are also the deadliest flaws. I know that my kids’ problems are very much embedded in their virtues. Makes it very difficult to separate.</p>
<p>Children who are advanced academically should have a curriculum at their level. It is a waste for them to have to spend their time doing busy work when they thoroughly know the subject. It is a problem at many schools that I know, that they cannot adequately provide for such children. It is rare, however, that you come across a child who completely and thoroughly knows
the material. Also even if they know the materials, there is a serious problem if they cannot turn in assignments, follow directions, keep a notebook, take notes, keep a calendar. Those skills are important for everyone regardless of IQ, if being self sufficient is a goal. I have seen too many kids who are too smart to do any of the above skills according to their parents,when the reality is that they don’t know how to do them. So what you often have are kids who would qualify for an advanced class if they would do the work, which is a big bugaboo since they just don’t. And enraged parents who say the work is beneath the child. We are not talking about the child who is truly far advanced and can and will do the work in an environment that does not bore him to tears, but children who are just bored if any part of the curriculum does not interest them. These kids outnumber the truly advanced kids by a lot. They are a problem we have yet to learn to address. It is a waste their potential because most of them do have the ability to high level work, but if it has to be selected and hand fed to them, it is not going to be a useful endeavor. They need to learn to do the mundane things if they are not able to do them. </p>
<p>I remember one young man who was truly brilliant, in streaks. Oh, how brilliant he was as an elementary school child. And middle school was such a waste, and he did poorly in high school because he was bored. Well, he did get into a college early without finishing highschool, and could not do the work at college either. He suddenly was not so brilliant. Kids with SATs much lower than his, who were plugging along were doing the work, but he could not. He was not used to having to read difficult material thoroughly, not just pick out what interested him. He rarely completed assignment, and that was just fine with the college, but if you don’t do all of the assignments in a difficult course, you may flunk that test and the course. He did not turn in those boring assignments for so long that he could not do them when he had to do so. This is unfortunately not a rare happening. Tragic in this case, because he dropped out of college and does not have a highschool degree either. When he gets one, it’ll be his GED. So this bright young thing, not only did not get through college, it looks like he is a high school dropout. The mother still goes into rhapsodies of how brilliant, gifted, talented, quick minded, etc he was. How he invented this, and discovered that and learned whatever all on his own. Well, he could not get through a year of college. He has problems with his checkbook and all other kinds of accounting as well.</p>
<p>I know this syndrome well, because I have kids who fit it. I do make them go through some factory floor exercises because I want them to be able to do this stuff if they have to. My oldest has organizational issues up the whazoo, but he knows that they are HIS problems which is a big first step in resolving them. Some of these kids don’t understand what it is they are missing, as smart as they are. </p>
<p>For all the years that we have had gifted and talented kids, you would think that the schools would know how to teach them. I find that many of the programs are not that beneficial and are there to satisfy the parents who want those kids recognized and tracked some way or the other. Fortunately, most of those kids are smart enough that they are going to do well anyways. But the ones who can’t toe the line, are really a problem that we really should be addressing. We have not gone too far beyond the old dunce cap and corner, and still have a lot of wasted intellect. But I think the waste is not because we are not teaching the right way, but we are not able to teach some of these kids the skills that they are lacking to do the mundane part of learning.</p>
<p>MSUDad, most programs for academically gifted children are at the elementary school level. This isn’t a question of keeping “him in that class and instruct(ing) him to turn in the assignments, because sometimes life is boring, but you still have to perform.” This has nothing to do with laziness. I think most would agree that educating kids is part of preparing kids for ‘real life’. Why is it wrong to try to prepare ALL kids in the best way possible? What is it that is preferential about providing academically gifted kids a program which is suited to how they learn? In our experience, there was no added cost to educating the kids in the program. Maybe it’s done differently where you live? Are there additional costs to your school board?</p>
<p>Ideally, we recognize that every single child has a unique set of gifts and talents and needs to progress at his or her own pace- fast, slow, or average, in reading, math, music, athletics. Ideally, therefore, we would have individual private tutors who teach exactly according to the needs of the child. This would ensure that every child learns every day and is neither bored nor overwhelmed. </p>
<p>Totally customized education. Who pays?</p>
<p>We recognize that every adult employed by school system has natural gifts and while some may have advanced degrees in areas not usually seen in our school system, from rigorous schools, we aspire not to show bias or favoritism, so we will financially reward a teacher whose students nominate her for national teacher of the year, who puts in long hours off the clock in order to achieve higher standards in her classroom, identically to a teacher whose students don’t have to work for their grades, arent’ prepared to move on and who is just putting hours in until retirement.</p>
<p>I also ask " Who pays"?</p>
<p>My daughter has had both kinds of teachers in the public school system
( and ironically, private school teachers receive lower pay than public- of course the money goes toward lower class sizes instead of teacher pay- something that we passed an initiative to do, however we allow school districts to allot more money for teacher pay and training, rather than for hiring, so the class sizes have stayed the same.)</p>
<p>I can tell you who pays.
The children who aren’t taught what they need to know to enter college or get a job.
The parents who have to hire tutors in order so that their children can reach grade level, so they aren’t held back * again* the next year.
The teachers who attempt to make up in their classroom, what the kids should have learned the year before.</p>
<p>The majority of students fall within a standard bell curve and are often challenged by the standard curriculum. Some within the curve can use a little more challenge, some less, but the majority of that group will do well enough to get through high school and furthur their education if so desired (and in high school the motivated kids can find plenty of challenging classes to take). The issue is the 3-5% (+/-) on each end of the bell that need individualized programs to assure them a resonable education. To hire a teacher for 3 or 4 gifted children doesn’t fly financially, so they fill the program with 25 students and suddenly the 3 or 4 who need help, are not getting it (and therefore dissappointed parents). The same is true on the other end of the spectrum. Every child that suddenly needs to be evaluated because a parent (not the teacher) thinks they should be doing better in school takes valuable resources away from the kids that really need the help. Public schools do the best they can with the financial resources they have, and if you are in a public school system you should recognize that as a reality. If your kids need help, hire a tutor or enroll them in a special classes. It is worth the investment.</p>
<p>cpt:</p>
<p>Everything you say is true. But whose fault is that that a child who is advanced becomes an underachiever and lacks the study skills to thrive in college? This is precisely the scenario that I sought to avoid for my S.
I personally don’t believe in the redeeming value of meaningless, repetitive work. I saw first hand the risk that a bored child would acquire bad habits but also become a disruptive presence in class because he could blow off the assignment in a fraction of the time it took the rest of the class.<br>
We were lucky that some–not all–teachers recognized that he needed to be radically advanced. Once he was, he never complained of being bored or being given meaningless assignments. If he had not been advanced, I doubt he would have seen the value of keeping track of due dates, turning assignments in, and so forth. In challenging classes, he actually wanted feedback and he performed much better than in the unchallenging ones.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But what characterizes a human, that makes it superior as a being compared to other animals? I thought it had a lot to do with cognitive function, the difference in the way we think…</p>
<p>“Ideally, we recognize that every single child has a unique set of gifts and talents and needs to progress at his or her own pace- fast, slow, or average, in reading, math, music, athletics. Ideally, therefore, we would have individual private tutors who teach exactly according to the needs of the child. This would ensure that every child learns every day and is neither bored nor overwhelmed.”</p>
<p>Obviously, that is an unachievable ideal. The fact that it is not achievable doesn’t mean, however, that we throw up our hands and say, well, let’s just try to find one size that fits most. Maybe we can’t have a hundred different teaching approaches, but maybe we can have ten, or six, or three, at least.</p>
<p>One of the things school teaches is how to learn when you are in a group setting. If you are tutored all along, it may be difficult to transition to taking notes and sifting through info from a group lecture or class. This is a skill you learn from school. That is something that is difficult to teach in a homeschooling setting, I know. My neighbors who homeschooled would take their kids to lectures to teach them notetaking techniques. When you go to college or to work, the lack of someone hovering over you can be a problem. Not all kids adapt easily. And you do have to teach some kids how to learn and they have to practice.</p>
<p>I came across an interesting paper on this very topic…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>web.syr.edu/~ryyeung/gcq.doc</p>