Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

To the degree "giftedness" exists, I'm not sure what public schools should be doing with it other than placing the gifteds in their appropriate classes, along with all of the other kids performing at various levels.

That's what the whole issue is about. Whether and how schools should be allowed to do this. You do understand that many oppose even this, right?

I think the word "gifted" gets in the way of the practical discussion, due to the conceptual baggage that is extraneous to in-grade ability. If, instead, the discussion centered around placing students in classes appropriate for their level of performance, I don't see why anyone should have a problem with it, other than cost of doing it.

Those of you who like to discuss the word, "gifted," are probably hung up on the "baggage" I refer to in the sentence above, imo.

I disagree. It is the act of sorting by ability that many object to, particularly when it involves separate classes, whatever the words used to describe that process are.

I may be wrong, but my understanding of "gifted" testing is that it attempts to measure ability that is different than a high level of subject matter competency. If I am correct about that, then it's the test that rubs a lot of people the wrong way. I'll bet if students were placed in classes based on their subject matter performance, most folks would not have a problem with it.

IQ tests are a good comparable to our problem: Let's say someone scored a 140 on an IQ test and gets an "A" grade in AP History, while someone who scored a 110 on the IQ test could achieve the same "A" grade as the 140 in an the AP History class. From the perspective of the educator, both students should be in the History class, but if a barrier to entry was "giftedness," the 110 IQ would not be in the class. That disconnect strikes a lot of people as unfair, and hence they question the appropriateness of the "giftedness" discussion in public education.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

To the degree "giftedness" exists, I'm not sure what public schools should be doing with it other than placing the gifteds in their appropriate classes, along with all of the other kids performing at various levels.

That's what the whole issue is about. Whether and how schools should be allowed to do this. You do understand that many oppose even this, right?

I think the word "gifted" gets in the way of the practical discussion, due to the conceptual baggage that is extraneous to in-grade ability. If, instead, the discussion centered around placing students in classes appropriate for their level of performance, I don't see why anyone should have a problem with it, other than cost of doing it.

Those of you who like to discuss the word, "gifted," are probably hung up on the "baggage" I refer to in the sentence above, imo.

I disagree. It is the act of sorting by ability that many object to, particularly when it involves separate classes, whatever the words used to describe that process are.

Actually in Fairfax, it's a program for advanced academics, and they use a holistic approach to admissions. If you get a high test score but do not perform well in school, you do not get into the program. If you are an underrepresented minority, I would look into the Young Scholars. http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/fairfax-program-seeks-to-close-the-excellence-gap/2014/04/10/21711a80-a2f0-11e3-84d4-e59b1709222c_story.html

Anonymous wrote:Here's what goes on in Fairfax County. If you can prep to pass the test for "giftedness", thest test probably is measuring something other than giftedness.

Http://youngscholarscircle.com/gifted_placement

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

To the degree "giftedness" exists, I'm not sure what public schools should be doing with it other than placing the gifteds in their appropriate classes, along with all of the other kids performing at various levels.

That's what the whole issue is about. Whether and how schools should be allowed to do this. You do understand that many oppose even this, right?

I think the word "gifted" gets in the way of the practical discussion, due to the conceptual baggage that is extraneous to in-grade ability. If, instead, the discussion centered around placing students in classes appropriate for their level of performance, I don't see why anyone should have a problem with it, other than cost of doing it.

Those of you who like to discuss the word, "gifted," are probably hung up on the "baggage" I refer to in the sentence above, imo.

Anonymous wrote:

To the degree "giftedness" exists, I'm not sure what public schools should be doing with it other than placing the gifteds in their appropriate classes, along with all of the other kids performing at various levels.

That's what the whole issue is about. Whether and how schools should be allowed to do this. You do understand that many oppose even this, right?

The term "gifted" doesn't really fit the purpose of a publicly regulated school system anyway -- what you want to accomplish is to put kids performing at a particular level in any given subject into classes that meet their level in those particular subjects. You've got the high performing, target performing, and low-performing students. You don't need an "IQ" test to gauge high performance in school subject areas; instead, just give 'em a test in those subjects and then place the students appropriately. I don't know why, exactly, educators insist on making education so difficult. It's probably in large part a matter of money: they would have to spend salaries on low, middle, and advanced teaching staff. But somebody with a decent head ought to be able to figure out how to make the money work.

To the degree "giftedness" exists, I'm not sure what public schools should be doing with it other than placing the gifteds in their appropriate classes, along with all of the other kids performing at various levels.

Anonymous wrote:So, why aren't the people crying racism instead crying out for more minority teachers? Instead, they point fingers at the white teachers. And why aren't scores and grades used as straight identifiers instead of subjective teacher recommendations?

Because grades are largely meaningless for 7-8 year olds, which is generally when students are identified for G&T programs. There are quantitative assessments which would provide some indication, but if it was genuinely looking for "giftedness" it would be better to utilize psychological assessment, something teachers aren't really capable of doing so the schools provide standardized screening tests. At best teachers can identify advanced students who should be tested. In places like Fairfax and MoCo they offer the screening test for anyone who wants it.

The article is not what I was expecting from the title of this thread. I was labelled "gifted" and placed in 'special' classes for gifted students in the area (not in the US) for middle and high school. I don't think it made a lot of difference, to be honest. If anything, it made me believe I didn't need to work hard at anything. Looking back at my class and where they are now, there's very little difference between us and the others at the school. Some did exceptionally well, some fell by the wayside. I've come to believe that intelligence changes quite a bit over time, and that effort and motivation are far more important.

But race issues ... well, that's disturbing.

Anonymous wrote:So, why aren't the people crying racism instead crying out for more minority teachers? Instead, they point fingers at the white teachers. And why aren't scores and grades used as straight identifiers instead of subjective teacher recommendations?

To the bolded, just because you aren't aware of it, doesn't mean it's not happening. It's been a big issue in several school districts. Montgomery County comes to mind.

So, why aren't the people crying racism instead crying out for more minority teachers? Instead, they point fingers at the white teachers. And why aren't scores and grades used as straight identifiers instead of subjective teacher recommendations?

I just skimmed the article quickly, but it doesn't appear that the study attempted to control for, you know, actual giftedness. At least, there is no discussion of any such factor where the study explains the its control variables at pages 13-14. Grain of salt time.

Anonymous wrote:Here's what goes on in Fairfax County. If you can prep to pass the test for "giftedness", thest test probably is measuring something other than giftedness.

Http://youngscholarscircle.com/gifted_placement

I think some of these companies doing prep are selling snake oil. You can't actually meaningfully increase someone's IQ or cognitive ability through test prep. If anything it's probably more about acclimating them to the types of questions and maybe some strategies, which might yield some marginal gains... But you certainly will not see people going from 95 to 145.

Well I guess what we need to realize are that Asians followed by whites are intellectually superior to the rest, right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So how does explain the performance and being identified as "gifted" for Asians? I'm Asian and NEVER had an Asian teacher/prof until college.

Yes, and Asians are identified as gifted at twice the rate of White students.

The claim keeps being made that testing is rigged to benefit whites, yet that can not be the case when it's Asians who do best on testing. And clearly it cannot be "white" cultural bias or modeling either when many of the Asians scoring high on testing are 1.5 and 2nd generation whose parents were foreign born and who have had minimal acculturation to western "white culture" so I see it as a specious, intellectually lazy claim.

Here's what goes on in Fairfax County. If you can prep to pass the test for "giftedness", thest test probably is measuring something other than giftedness.

Http://youngscholarscircle.com/gifted_placement