Ideas of “Giftedness” Hurt Students

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Having two huge groups of students, one labeled "gifted" and the other labled "regular," does a huge disservice to all kids.

Absolutely. This is why the name was changed from GT to Advanced Academic Programs, to label the service and not the child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having two huge groups of students, one labeled "gifted" and the other labled "regular," does a huge disservice to all kids.

Absolutely. This is why the name was changed from GT to Advanced Academic Programs, to label the service and not the child.

I think you know exactly what was meant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having two huge groups of students, one labeled "gifted" and the other labled "regular," does a huge disservice to all kids.

Absolutely. This is why the name was changed from GT to Advanced Academic Programs, to label the service and not the child.

I think you know exactly what was meant.

Yes, I do. The "gifted" label is not a good idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having two huge groups of students, one labeled "gifted" and the other labled "regular," does a huge disservice to all kids.

Absolutely. This is why the name was changed from GT to Advanced Academic Programs, to label the service and not the child.

I think you know exactly what was meant.

Yes, I do. The "gifted" label is not a good idea.

Exactly, PP was only discussing the effect of labels. Call them team red and blue if you want. But placing kids into teaching groups based on tested ability can help both groups learn more effectively and efficiently.