Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't doubt that Aries' comments on tracking are based on current educational theory and research. However, as a parent, I suppose I'd be one of the bad parents who likes exclusion. My child is just finishing 8th grade at a Cobb County middle school (Mabry) where she's spent 3 years in AC classes for all her core academic subjects, not by my request but by the school's placement.
In my childhood I was skipped 3 grades, and although I excelled academically among the much older kids, I had a pretty miserable and lonely adolescence. My daughter started school in Canada, where progressive educational thinking is firmly entrenched, and as a consequence there is no standardized testing, no tracking, lots of doubtless valuable attention to special needs and no attention at all to the gifted. In first and second grade I think my daughter spent most of her school time coloring, since kids who finished their work quickly were supposed to do coloring until everyone got done. And this despite my deliberate effort to avoid teaching her to read before first grade, in hope of averting her being too bored at school.
AC classes have kept my daughter with her age group (much better socially) while providing her with a reasonable degree of intellectual challenge. She has commented that 8th grade French class is rather tedious, despite an excellent teacher, because it moves through the material slowly compared to her AC classes.
AC kids are not very segregated. The majority take just one or two AC classes, not a full slate. Classes like physical education, art, music and foreign language have no AC offering.
I guess the proper theory is that pullout programs, like the Target program in elementary school, are better for gifted middle-schoolers. But honestly, as a parent, much as I want to be right-thinking, I didn't find Target all that much more valuable than coloring.
Alright Rainy...yes, there is a problem with many so-called "progressive schools" not meeting the needs of the gifted child. This is a problem as well.
I know you had your experience in Canada, but a good school (a good middle school!) should be meeting the needs of gifted children as well.
Non-tracking/non-exclusion and meeting the needs/challenging gifted children/high achievers are not mutually exclusive. Unfortunately, many people still think you cannot have both.
I know because I have attended/studied in schools, observed schools, and most importantly, taught in schools that can and have done both.
I'm about to give up the good fight...the problem that people don't realize is how this system (tracking) hurts +95% of middle school students (there are other problems as well).
Outside of the infant years, the highest rate of human growth and development happens during early adolescence.
A lot more attention is being given to the importance of education and school for years 0-4 (Pre-K, Pre-K for 3 year-olds and 2 year-olds, Early Start, etc.), but nearly-equal attention needs to be given to years 10-14. Middle school/Intermediate schooling is still placed on the back burner...an afterthought behind the elementary and high school years.
Non-tracking/non-exclusion and meeting the needs/challenging gifted children/high achievers are not mutually exclusive. Unfortunately, many people still think you cannot have both.
I know because I have attended/studied in schools, observed schools, and most importantly, taught in schools that can and have done both.
Becoming a parent makes most of us, I think, pretty single-minded about putting the best interests of our child - as we see them - first. So what you write may well be true, but I haven't seen it for myself. From what I have been able to experience personally, tracking looks better than not-tracking, for kids who are intellectually ahead of the pack.
I am grateful for my child's blessings and I really don't think the educational system should revolve around her demographic. Public education ought to serve all sectors of the population fairly. But when it's my child, I can't help noticing when non-exclusion doesn't look too beneficial to her. I suspect that meeting the needs of the high achievers in a mixed classroom takes skills that not all teachers have. I didn't know that parents of the gifted typically push for AC classes, as you report, but perhaps this is why. Parents perhaps have more confidence that their kids will get something out of AC.
My spouse was, I think, a talented kid who was bored at school, became the class cut-up, and subsequently dropped out of high school. Neglecting the gifted is not at all risk-free. And our society really needs those people to develop their capabilities and put them to work in science and engineering, the arts, politics.
Becoming a parent makes most of us, I think, pretty single-minded about putting the best interests of our child - as we see them - first. So what you write may well be true, but I haven't seen it for myself. From what I have been able to experience personally, tracking looks better than not-tracking, for kids who are intellectually ahead of the pack.
I am grateful for my child's blessings and I really don't think the educational system should revolve around her demographic. Public education ought to serve all sectors of the population fairly. But when it's my child, I can't help noticing when non-exclusion doesn't look too beneficial to her. I suspect that meeting the needs of the high achievers in a mixed classroom takes skills that not all teachers have. I didn't know that parents of the gifted typically push for AC classes, as you report, but perhaps this is why. Parents perhaps have more confidence that their kids will get something out of AC.
My spouse was, I think, a talented kid who was bored at school, became the class cut-up, and subsequently dropped out of high school. Neglecting the gifted is not at all risk-free. And our society really needs those people to develop their capabilities and put them to work in science and engineering, the arts, politics.
You're right, Rainy, on two points:
1. There are many teachers/educators who do not have the skills to to meet the needs of all students in a mixed classroom...this is a major problem. More of a problem because instead of putting qualified teachers in these situations, whole programs are scrapped or done away with because people do not have the skills to implement them. A school may have the greatest program/policy/model in the world--however, if you do not have the educators with the wherewithal to implement, it really doesn't matter.
2. It is impossible for a parent to be objective about their own child! That's why the educational system can be so useful (if utilized properly): A teacher/educator is skilled professional in child/educational development who is able to give an objective adult view on a child. The problem is that schools and school systems have so easily bowed down to parental pressure in the last several years--knowing full well that all parents are overly-subjective about their own children (very well should be!). However, public education will never be adequate if we continue to try and please every passing whim and fancy of parents who are overall good people, but are largely not trained/skilled professionals in education.
*Another point...it is true, we must cultivate the gifted part of the population. However, it won't mean a thing if the other 95% of the population is totally left out in the cold (Note: the truly gifted is well below 10% of the population...when they expanded the gifted requirements in the 1990's, many students are designated gifted when they are really just above-average. There is a big difference).
1. There are many teachers/educators who do not have the skills to to meet the needs of all students in a mixed classroom...this is a major problem. More of a problem because instead of putting qualified teachers in these situations, whole programs are scrapped or done away with because people do not have the skills to implement them. A school may have the greatest program/policy/model in the world--however, if you do not have the educators with the wherewithal to implement, it really doesn't matter.
2. It is impossible for a parent to be objective about their own child! That's why the educational system can be so useful (if utilized properly): A teacher/educator is skilled professional in child/educational development who is able to give an objective adult view on a child. The problem is that schools and school systems have so easily bowed down to parental pressure in the last several years--knowing full well that all parents are overly-subjective about their own children (very well should be!). However, public education will never be adequate if we continue to try and please every passing whim and fancy of parents who are overall good people, but are largely not trained/skilled professionals in education.
*Another point...it is true, we must cultivate the gifted part of the population. However, it won't mean a thing if the other 95% of the population is totally left out in the cold (Note: the truly gifted is well below 10% of the population...when they expanded the gifted requirements in the 1990's, many students are designated gifted when they are really just above-average. There is a big difference).
"A rising tide lifts all of the ships."
Thanks, Aries, you seem very fair and objective about parents.
About gifted identification - I usually try to avoid the term "gifted", at least in application to my own child, because I really don't know what the criteria of giftedness are, or should be. Like all the children in Lake Wobegon, she's above average, anyway.
I've felt very well served by Cobb County's educators, so far. They welcomed us warmly, rallied from their surprise that our daughter had no grades or standardized test results from second grade in BC (a policy which I think is fine, by the way) and offered to test her for giftedness "just in case". I said no thanks, I thought she'd have enough challenge adjusting to the new environment, etc., and I didn't want to add extra stress. Her third grade teacher was great. At the end of third grade, a notice came home asking for our permission to test her for giftedness and subsequently another notice asking for our acquiescence to enrolling her in Target. At middle school, we anticipated she might be placed in one or two AC classes, but it turned out to be all, and she has been happy and successful there.
This leaves me feeling that parents should trust the system to discern what's right for kids, because this has worked just fine for my child. But perhaps I am an unusually lucky parent.
I'd like to see that rising tide for all young Georgians. The idea of that is good in NCLB, although the implementation may be not be getting it right.
Thanks, Aries, you seem very fair and objective about parents.
About gifted identification - I usually try to avoid the term "gifted", at least in application to my own child, because I really don't know what the criteria of giftedness are, or should be. Like all the children in Lake Wobegon, she's above average, anyway.
I've felt very well served by Cobb County's educators, so far. They welcomed us warmly, rallied from their surprise that our daughter had no grades or standardized test results from second grade in BC (a policy which I think is fine, by the way) and offered to test her for giftedness "just in case". I said no thanks, I thought she'd have enough challenge adjusting to the new environment, etc., and I didn't want to add extra stress. Her third grade teacher was great. At the end of third grade, a notice came home asking for our permission to test her for giftedness and subsequently another notice asking for our acquiescence to enrolling her in Target. At middle school, we anticipated she might be placed in one or two AC classes, but it turned out to be all, and she has been happy and successful there.
This leaves me feeling that parents should trust the system to discern what's right for kids, because this has worked just fine for my child. But perhaps I am an unusually lucky parent.
I'd like to see that rising tide for all young Georgians. The idea of that is good in NCLB, although the implementation may be not be getting it right.
I hear you, Rain.
But, to be clear, NCLB is the worst thing for public education!
When I mention the "rising tide.." statement, it's more about how innovative, creative, challenging strategies should be used for all children...not just the gifted.
But, to be clear, NCLB is the worst thing for public education!
When I mention the "rising tide.." statement, it's more about how innovative, creative, challenging strategies should be used for all children...not just the gifted.
We agree on that. I thought NCLB seems like a bad thing, in practice. Just that the idea of doing right by every student seems right.
We want a place where the people are people oriented, and not where we have only see neighbors when the garage door opens.
Based on this, I'd say Decatur and Candler Park fits the bill, but Dunwoody, no.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
