Why (traditional) gifted education doesn't make sense

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But does the school wide model work?

I think the answer to that necessarily depends on what you are asking. What do you mean by "work"? Isn't the point that different educators have different goals for gifted and enrichment programs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But does the school wide model work?

I think the answer to that necessarily depends on what you are asking. What do you mean by "work"? Isn't the point that different educators have different goals for gifted and enrichment programs?

It definitely doesn't work for those whose goal is to segregate.
I don't know of any long term studies correlating test score increases, if that's what matters to you.
To me, it seems great. Kids get exposure to new challenges. And it's completely flexible. I like it.

[Anonymous]

Can someone spell out for me what gifted programs DC schools offer? I know there are magnets like the School without Walls but am not clear on the rest of what's available and how it differs by school, especially in middle school.
I'm a MoCo mom but we've been considering a move back into the cityt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The DCPS approach (Schoolwide Enrichment Model) at the schools that it has been established at (according to their website) Ross, Hardy, Stoddert, Eaton, Murch, Stuart-Hobson, Kelly Miller, West, Johnson, and Sousa seem to be in line with the more "for all" approach advocated by Jay Mathews and supported by the research he mentions that shows that it is nonsense to use a random IQ line to decide if a kid should or should not be included in special programming.

What's nonsense is DCPS' Schoolwide Enrichment Model where parents aren't well-heeled. Good luck finding real challenge for a bright, well-prepared and disciplined kid in DCPS period outside Ward 3 after after around 2nd grade. This is changing, at least at EotP schools like Ross, Brent and Maury, but slowly and mainly with PTA funds in upper middle-income enclaves.

Social promotion at every DC Public ES and MS (but BASIS), a refusal to support test-in programs before HS, and HS test-in programs at Walls and Banneker coming as too little too late ensure that results aren't impressive when compared to those in similar-sized cities. Under this enrichment paradigm, you never get more than a sprinkling of HS students who emerge as elite college material outside Upper Caucausia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone spell out for me what gifted programs DC schools offer? I know there are magnets like the School without Walls but am not clear on the rest of what's available and how it differs by school, especially in middle school.
I'm a MoCo mom but we've been considering a move back into the cityt.

There aren't gifted programs in DC schools. The best you can do is find a school where there are few FARMs kids, or go the charter language immersion route with lottery luck, unless you live in the Oyster-Adams District.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But does the school wide model work?

I think the answer to that necessarily depends on what you are asking. What do you mean by "work"? Isn't the point that different educators have different goals for gifted and enrichment programs?

It definitely doesn't work for those whose goal is to segregate.
I don't know of any long term studies correlating test score increases, if that's what matters to you.
To me, it seems great. Kids get exposure to new challenges. And it's completely flexible. I like it.

Come on, the bone-headed DC model aggresively segregates by race and class, without segregation as the goal. Most white families who start in DC public flee long before HS for lack of challenge and peer groups parents see as desirable, and few Asians will touch the system from the get go. There are 150 Asians in all DCPS and 300,000 in the burbs.

[Anonymous]

So then the question becomes what to do to make certain that those students who are gifted (high performing, whatever) are also moving ahead each year? I was placed in gifted classes in 2nd grade (though that wasn't the term they used) Honestly, I don't remember taking a specific test for it, but my brother (who is a year older) and I were both placed the same year. We were essentially a school within a school. Middle school was a magnet school for all gifted/advanced students. If I were to guess we were placed based upon our performance on a national standardized test along with teacher recommendations (There were some students who weren't in our classes in elementary, but were in middle school). There should be a way to provide a program that allows flexibility- students can enter at any point along the line. And there should also be a program similar to what MoCo has- a GT/LD program for students who may excel some areas academically, but have a learning disability (autism spectrum, ADD, dyslexia, etc.) and need additional supports. The program for advanced children should not simply be have them tutor or be given an extra work packet.

[Anonymous]

I think the problem with gifted discussion is what are we looking at- kids who with a lot of parental supports are academically advanced? Or are we looking at a very small spectrum of people that have very large working memory capacity, high IQ and drive to learn? Lots in the first category and that may require pull outs to meet their needs and can differ quite a bit in terms of math and English arts. The second category most likely is not well served by any public system especially the lower grades.

Personally I would like to see an initiative in DC like what they have started to do in Fairfax and focus on kids that seem to have some pretty high performing capacity at low income schools and get serious enrichment to those kids. Having grown up in inner city schools they are more common than is appreciated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But does the school wide model work?

I think the answer to that necessarily depends on what you are asking. What do you mean by "work"? Isn't the point that different educators have different goals for gifted and enrichment programs?

It definitely doesn't work for those whose goal is to segregate.
I don't know of any long term studies correlating test score increases, if that's what matters to you.
To me, it seems great. Kids get exposure to new challenges. And it's completely flexible. I like it.

Come on, the bone-headed DC model aggresively segregates by race and class, without segregation as the goal. Most white families who start in DC public flee long before HS for lack of challenge and peer groups parents see as desirable, and few Asians will touch the system from the get go. There are 150 Asians in all DCPS and 300,000 in the burbs.

your post is racist and untrue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Eh, I think they are worthwhile. I have a 152 IQ and was truly, truly bored in class in elementary school, despite having been moved up a grade. Gifted classes were wonderful -- but I can't imagine most kids having the attention span or ability to do most of the work we did in those classes. We did things like write computer programs and decrypt encoded messages when I was 8 years old. I just don't know if that sort of stimulation is required for kids who are having trouble with multiplication tables and spelling. It's like asking a normal person to run a marathon -- it's a challenge that people in top condition can take on, not exercise for everyone. I am sure this will be an unpopular opinion, and I'm sure not every gifted program was as rigorous as the one I was in.

Anyone can run a marathon with training. It's not something special. Humans are built to run distances. We evolved as harassment hunters.

Your metaphor fails.

[Anonymous]

I can't stand adults who spout what their IQ is. Ridiculous. You might as well just tell us what your annual income is, that would be more relevant to your success in life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh, I think they are worthwhile. I have a 152 IQ and was truly, truly bored in class in elementary school, despite having been moved up a grade. Gifted classes were wonderful -- but I can't imagine most kids having the attention span or ability to do most of the work we did in those classes. We did things like write computer programs and decrypt encoded messages when I was 8 years old. I just don't know if that sort of stimulation is required for kids who are having trouble with multiplication tables and spelling. It's like asking a normal person to run a marathon -- it's a challenge that people in top condition can take on, not exercise for everyone. I am sure this will be an unpopular opinion, and I'm sure not every gifted program was as rigorous as the one I was in.

+1

I can't stand Jay Matthews. He is consistently wrong on educational issues.

I've been following the comment thread, and he just complimented someone who suggested that the gifted kids should "stay with all the other kids and help the kids that needed extra help."

Ugh, that is just so very, very wrong, yet Matthews and many others keep suggesting it. It is *not* the responsibility, job or burden of one kid to fix another kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh, I think they are worthwhile. I have a 152 IQ and was truly, truly bored in class in elementary school, despite having been moved up a grade. Gifted classes were wonderful -- but I can't imagine most kids having the attention span or ability to do most of the work we did in those classes. We did things like write computer programs and decrypt encoded messages when I was 8 years old. I just don't know if that sort of stimulation is required for kids who are having trouble with multiplication tables and spelling. It's like asking a normal person to run a marathon -- it's a challenge that people in top condition can take on, not exercise for everyone. I am sure this will be an unpopular opinion, and I'm sure not every gifted program was as rigorous as the one I was in.

Anyone can run a marathon with training. It's not something special. Humans are built to run distances. We evolved as harassment hunters.

Your metaphor fails.

Not the pp but what you've said is not technically correct, many modern humans do not optimal joints or bone geometry for that level of endurance running, also huge swaths of ancient humans lived on coasts and waterways and didn't necessarily rely on harassment hunting. Also, there is no level of "training" in any legitimate educational sense that will take someone from 100 IQ to 152 IQ

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh, I think they are worthwhile. I have a 152 IQ and was truly, truly bored in class in elementary school, despite having been moved up a grade. Gifted classes were wonderful -- but I can't imagine most kids having the attention span or ability to do most of the work we did in those classes. We did things like write computer programs and decrypt encoded messages when I was 8 years old. I just don't know if that sort of stimulation is required for kids who are having trouble with multiplication tables and spelling. It's like asking a normal person to run a marathon -- it's a challenge that people in top condition can take on, not exercise for everyone. I am sure this will be an unpopular opinion, and I'm sure not every gifted program was as rigorous as the one I was in.

+1

I can't stand Jay Matthews. He is consistently wrong on educational issues.

I've been following the comment thread, and he just complimented someone who suggested that the gifted kids should "stay with all the other kids and help the kids that needed extra help."

Ugh, that is just so very, very wrong, yet Matthews and many others keep suggesting it. It is *not* the responsibility, job or burden of one kid to fix another kid.

Please. If Matthews actually believed that, he'd have done so with his own children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But does the school wide model work?

I think the answer to that necessarily depends on what you are asking. What do you mean by "work"? Isn't the point that different educators have different goals for gifted and enrichment programs?

It definitely doesn't work for those whose goal is to segregate.
I don't know of any long term studies correlating test score increases, if that's what matters to you.
To me, it seems great. Kids get exposure to new challenges. And it's completely flexible. I like it.

Come on, the bone-headed DC model aggresively segregates by race and class, without segregation as the goal. Most white families who start in DC public flee long before HS for lack of challenge and peer groups parents see as desirable, and few Asians will touch the system from the get go. There are 150 Asians in all DCPS and 300,000 in the burbs.

your post is racist and untrue.

Which part? The part about whites fleeing? Watkins, DCPS' biggest elementary school, has long been around one-third white in first grade and less than 10% white by 5th. By 8th grade at Stuart Hobson, you're down to not even 5% white in a catchment area that's 2/3 white. The part about Asians avoiding DCPS? 150 Asians in the entire system, mostly in Upper NW? Count 'em. Let's stick with the facts, shall we?