Anonymous wrote:I don't think that most schools are using IQ tests to decide who gets to take AP classes. In my district, AP is said to be for the top 25% of students, while GT serves around 10%. They also use standardized test results (achievement tests) to help decide which class a student should take, not "ability" or gifted testing.

The argument against ability grouping is that it's hard to move up once a student is placed in a "low" track, and minority or poor students are over represented in the low tracks.

They shouldn't be using IQ tests at all. Performance -- whether through subject-based testing or GPA -- should be the sole measure used if the goal of a public education system is to simpl to educate. In contrast, the "pro-gifted" people seem to be arguing that some students need something more out of public school than a track that meets their area of competency. Perhaps one of them could explain why.

I don't think that most schools are using IQ tests to decide who gets to take AP classes. In my district, AP is said to be for the top 25% of students, while GT serves around 10%. They also use standardized test results (achievement tests) to help decide which class a student should take, not "ability" or gifted testing.

The argument against ability grouping is that it's hard to move up once a student is placed in a "low" track, and minority or poor students are over represented in the low tracks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, so I read the article and can only conclude that we are all racist. Hispanic teachers identify more gifted Hispanics, but not gifted Black students. Black teachers identify more gifted Black students, but not more Hispanics. When more Black or Hispanic students are identified, there are less White students identified.

Not what the study said. At no point did it suggest that black teachers identify fewer gifted white students.

Straight from the study:

"The results from the model with the percentage of gifted students who are white as the dependent variable are shown in column 3 of Table 2. Schools with larger proportions of minority teachers are associated with less white representation in gifted programs (
p
< 0.01). A 10% increase in the proportion of either Hispanic or black teachers is related to approximately 4% or 3% drop in the percent of gifted students who are white, respectively."

Anonymous wrote:I think that actively trying to identify children as "gifted" is not where most school districts and parents should be focusing their time and energy on. I think the focus should be on having children learn good work habits, and having children focus on putting forth their best effort with everything they do. In life, that's what always matters the most. The vast majority of people become better by putting in the time and effort in whatever endeavor they choose. This is key to the Malcolm Gladwell "10,000 hours theory". You have to put the time and effort into things to become very skilled at something. Yes, some people may grasp things easier than others. This is expected because contrary to popular believe, all people are not created equal. We are all different and have different strengths and weaknesses.

Why do you think that's mutually exclusive from or somehow in conflict with G&T programs? I certainly don't.

"The answer to this disparity isn't to stop identifying kids who have special learning needs due to giftedness"

+million. OP, the conclusion you take from this article is completely inapt. The reason gifted testing, identification, and programming exists is to serve the needs of a certain group of students. This article says that the identification portion needs to be done better, which is old news for those involved in gifted education. Many - gifted kids with learning disabilities, gifted kids who are gifted in non-traditional ways (think music or art ability) - fall through the cracks, not because of their race. So the conclusion should be to work on doing a better job identifying kids for these programs, not denying these programs to those who need it.

And wrt to the suggestions that gifted programming precludes other students from AP/advanced tracked programs, that should not be the intent or result of a well-designed gifted program. Again, different sets of kids have different needs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:@12:00 There just aren't enough students functioning at the level you describe to merit an allocation of funds to meet their ostensible need for segregated classes. If an advanced class isn't good enough for them (which is what an AP class is), then too bad.

FYI, I don't think placing 110 IQ kids in the same class with 125-140+ IQ kids is a bad thing, as long as the 110 kids can make grade. Frankly, the super-efficient-while-performing kids can benefit from classes with kids who have to work hard to get the same grade. The empathy learned (assuming they're capable of learning empathy) will help them to get along later in life.

Well, it all depends on how many kids there are I guess. If you have 100 students to be divided into 5 classes of 20, it makes way more sense to me to have the top 20% in one class that can move faster, whatever the IQ break point might be, and that does not seem to be a poor use of the relatively modest funds needed to reorganize in this manner. But I sense you disagree with even that, although you are mostly talking about more extreme examples. I'm certainly not arguing that a 150 IQ kid should be provided one-on-one tutorials by the public schools.

Then we are closer in effect than you think. In practice, there is a problem with what a public school system is able to accomplish: no matter how accelerated the class, there will always be a few kids at the the top with more mental horsepower. And in order to justify funds, there must be some "good enough but better than others" at the bottom. There's not much you can do about that with limited resources; but perhaps there are creative options, like skipping grade levels or graduating early. If Doogie Howser can do it, then others might, too.

Well, it seems to me that many of the people who discuss gifted programs would oppose even the hypothetical I posited, as there are a lot of people who oppose any sort of ability grouping.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:@12:00 There just aren't enough students functioning at the level you describe to merit an allocation of funds to meet their ostensible need for segregated classes. If an advanced class isn't good enough for them (which is what an AP class is), then too bad.

FYI, I don't think placing 110 IQ kids in the same class with 125-140+ IQ kids is a bad thing, as long as the 110 kids can make grade. Frankly, the super-efficient-while-performing kids can benefit from classes with kids who have to work hard to get the same grade. The empathy learned (assuming they're capable of learning empathy) will help them to get along later in life.

Well, it all depends on how many kids there are I guess. If you have 100 students to be divided into 5 classes of 20, it makes way more sense to me to have the top 20% in one class that can move faster, whatever the IQ break point might be, and that does not seem to be a poor use of the relatively modest funds needed to reorganize in this manner. But I sense you disagree with even that, although you are mostly talking about more extreme examples. I'm certainly not arguing that a 150 IQ kid should be provided one-on-one tutorials by the public schools.

Then we are closer in effect than you think. In practice, there is a problem with what a public school system is able to accomplish: no matter how accelerated the class, there will always be a few kids at the the top with more mental horsepower. And in order to justify funds, there must be some "good enough but better than others" at the bottom. There's not much you can do about that with limited resources; but perhaps there are creative options, like skipping grade levels or graduating early. If Doogie Howser can do it, then others might, too.

Anonymous wrote:@12:00 There just aren't enough students functioning at the level you describe to merit an allocation of funds to meet their ostensible need for segregated classes. If an advanced class isn't good enough for them (which is what an AP class is), then too bad.

FYI, I don't think placing 110 IQ kids in the same class with 125-140+ IQ kids is a bad thing, as long as the 110 kids can make grade. Frankly, the super-efficient-while-performing kids can benefit from classes with kids who have to work hard to get the same grade. The empathy learned (assuming they're capable of learning empathy) will help them to get along later in life.

Well, it all depends on how many kids there are I guess. If you have 100 students to be divided into 5 classes of 20, it makes way more sense to me to have the top 20% in one class that can move faster, whatever the IQ break point might be, and that does not seem to be a poor use of the relatively modest funds needed to reorganize in this manner. But I sense you disagree with even that, although you are mostly talking about more extreme examples. I'm certainly not arguing that a 150 IQ kid should be provided one-on-one tutorials by the public schools.

@12:00 There just aren't enough students functioning at the level you describe to merit an allocation of funds to meet their ostensible need for segregated classes. If an advanced class isn't good enough for them (which is what an AP class is), then too bad.

FYI, I don't think placing 110 IQ kids in the same class with 125-140+ IQ kids is a bad thing, as long as the 110 kids can make grade. Frankly, the super-efficient-while-performing kids can benefit from classes with kids who have to work hard to get the same grade. The empathy learned (assuming they're capable of learning empathy) will help them to get along later in life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If an IQ 140 student and and IQ 110 student are both getting an A in a class, it is pretty obvious that the class is much too easy for the 140 IQ student or the grades are not meaningfully correlated to relative performance. I mean, if we can't agree on that we're not even speaking the same language here.

Yeah, then we ARE seeking different goals; but if an AP History class is too easy for the hypothetical high-performing student, then your goal should not to be found in a public school system. What you want is "Professor Xavier's School for Gifted Children." Perhaps as a matter of public policy a public-private charter could be established for such rare and gifted children, but I wouldn't want much of my public dollar devoted to it. There are probably plenty of private schools that would scholarship-in such little geniuses; but even so, the private school wouldn't have the appropriate classes to stretch out those kids, either.

FYI: I'm sure there are plenty of real 110-IQ kids who get A's in a public school AP history course. The hypo is not far-fetched.

I think you are missing my point. You suggested that grades are a good proxy for subject-matter performance and that most people would not object to that as a method for assigning students by ability, but offered a hypothetical that seems to me to cut the other way. If grades are not distinguishing between the performance of a 110 and 140 IQ student, they aren't a useful measure of "subject matter competency" that could assist in placing students in classes by ability. I mean, people who are opposed to ability grouping should just say so (as you did). That makes way more sense than pretending to do so.

I don't understand why you think the very gifted students should not have their needs met in a public school system to the extent possible. I don't think it would take much incremental money at all to improve the situation just by more explicitly grouping the students by ability and letting them move at their own pace. The arguments against that are political, not economic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If an IQ 140 student and and IQ 110 student are both getting an A in a class, it is pretty obvious that the class is much too easy for the 140 IQ student or the grades are not meaningfully correlated to relative performance. I mean, if we can't agree on that we're not even speaking the same language here.

Yeah, then we ARE seeking different goals; but if an AP History class is too easy for the hypothetical high-performing student, then your goal should not to be found in a public school system. What you want is "Professor Xavier's School for Gifted Children." Perhaps as a matter of public policy a public-private charter could be established for such rare and gifted children, but I wouldn't want much of my public dollar devoted to it. There are probably plenty of private schools that would scholarship-in such little geniuses; but even so, the private school wouldn't have the appropriate classes to stretch out those kids, either.

FYI: I'm sure there are plenty of real 110-IQ kids who get A's in a public school AP history course. The hypo is not far-fetched.

PPs, you are mixing raw intelligence with learning. They don't always go together. My son is probably "gifted" in the way the term is usually used - he was tested for learning disabilities and so we know his IQ, which is high. But he is also a sporty, goofy 8 year old boy who would much rather play baseball than read or do his homework. He'll go out and hit a ball for hours with intense focus, but won't put the same effort into academics. Some of his classmates will, and no matter what their IQ they are going to perform better in school. By all means give those kiddos the opportunity to work at a higher level than my son is willing to do!

And one of the reasons people have trouble with separate classes for separate performance levels is the old specter of tracking. I was "tracked" into low level classes in Elementary and middle school because I have dyslexia. I was thought to be quite stupid and unable to learn, and so they tossed me into the low level track. Didn't matter that I was super at some things and terrible at others - I was in the low track, and that was where I would stay. School sucked.

I think that actively trying to identify children as "gifted" is not where most school districts and parents should be focusing their time and energy on. I think the focus should be on having children learn good work habits, and having children focus on putting forth their best effort with everything they do. In life, that's what always matters the most. The vast majority of people become better by putting in the time and effort in whatever endeavor they choose. This is key to the Malcolm Gladwell "10,000 hours theory". You have to put the time and effort into things to become very skilled at something. Yes, some people may grasp things easier than others. This is expected because contrary to popular believe, all people are not created equal. We are all different and have different strengths and weaknesses.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If an IQ 140 student and and IQ 110 student are both getting an A in a class, it is pretty obvious that the class is much too easy for the 140 IQ student or the grades are not meaningfully correlated to relative performance. I mean, if we can't agree on that we're not even speaking the same language here.

+100

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If an IQ 140 student and and IQ 110 student are both getting an A in a class, it is pretty obvious that the class is much too easy for the 140 IQ student or the grades are not meaningfully correlated to relative performance. I mean, if we can't agree on that we're not even speaking the same language here.