

Federal rules leave gifted kids behind - tokenadult
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/65330407.html

======
amohr
I think the big question mark here is what are we supposed to be accomplishing
with our education system? Are we going for equality or maximum output?

To get more total productivity out of graduates, there's a huge crop of low-
hanging fruit in the form of unchallenged gifted students.

If we're aiming for equality, then we have to rely on a cultural motivation to
get the above-average students to go out of their way to challenge themselves.
As a once gifted student myself, I find this to be highly unlikely.

~~~
electromagnetic
My question has always been, why is the US dropout rate at ~30% country wide,
but Canada has a figure marginally above 10%. What is the social norm that's
having a huge effect on these children's ability to stay in school?

This isn't mentioning that even American institutions recognize that Canadian
children are better educated. Even the sports scouts who hand out college
scholarships say that while American students need an 80% to apply, Canadians
only need a 60% because the educational standard in Canada is higher. How can
a country consider its education system even passable, if the standard of its
high school graduates with 100% is worse than any Canadian kid on the honour
roll?

~~~
tokenadult
_why is the US dropout rate at ~30% country wide, but Canada has a figure
marginally above 10%._

Source for those figures? Are we sure that the school-leaving age is the same
in both countries?

------
techiferous
Excellent article. This is a very real problem.

I taught for a while in a private school, so I had more control over my
curriculum and methods. Even so, one of my regrets is that I didn't work with
my gifted students enough. My lesson plans were aimed at the middle--and also
were exceptionally well-suited for those with learning disabilities. However,
my gifted students were left unchallenged. (The irony is that I was a gifted
student in school.)

In my case, the cause was not enough time. I've never worked so hard in my
entire life as when I was a teacher (it doesn't even come close to
programming). There was never enough time to get everything done, so some
things slipped through the cracks. What would've helped me is fewer preps and
sticking around longer (I left teaching after three years).

~~~
pmorici
Is it? Most education money comes from state and local governments [
<http://www.nsea.org/CORE/SchoolFunding.htm>
<http://www.mnbusiness.com/mng/front.html> ] This article is discussing
federal standards of which it claims determines 60% of a school's _federal_
funding which is less than 5% of a school's total funding. Not only that but
in the schools I went to as a kid they always took the "gift" kids out of
regular class a couple times each week to challenge them above and beyond.

The crux of this article is the following paragraph,

"This fact is demonstrated by research recently released by the Fordham
Foundation. Tracking students over seven years in fourth-grade reading and
eighth-grade math, the study revealed that low-achieving students (those in
the bottom 10 percent) were progressing in reading at five times the rate of
high-achieving students (those in the top 10 percent), and at three times the
rate in math."

I see two problems here. One, there is nothing to compare this to other
periods of history so this disparity could have been happening prior to the
NCLB act and two it stands to reason that when you are particularly talented
at something already improvements will come in smaller increments where as
when your are at the low end large leaps of improvement are relatively easy to
achieve. With sports like running this is certainly true and it strikes me as
a paradigm that would also hold true for academic achievement.

NCLB may well be of suspect value but I don't think this article presents a
convincing argument.

~~~
CWuestefeld
_This article is discussing federal standards of which it claims determines
60% of a school's federal funding which is less than 5% of a school's total
funding._

That may be true (although at least here in NJ it varies widely from school to
school). But that doesn't drive the conclusion that the federal influence on
the disposition of money is proportionate.

It's conceivable, and I think even probable, that state and local governments
are willing to throw considerable portions of their own money in to chase
those federal dollars. There's no reason to think that they won't use
inefficiently a big chunk of their budget just to extend it by that additional
federal chunk.

I base that on (1) the willingness of states to follow all sorts of other
federal guidelines in a quest for funding (speed limits, drinking age, etc.)
without questioning their importance for each individual state; and (2) my
opinion that despite the lip service of the NEA the rest of "the education
lobby", their primary motivation is to build and solidify their power base and
individual member benefits, rather than to serve students.

(I agree with your criticism of the logic comparing achievement by low
achievers vs. high achievers.)

------
patrickgzill
Be interesting to segment off the "bell curve" of IQ into the small lower and
higher segments, and the large middle segment, and then be able to find the
amount spent per student.

My guess would be that spending on getting the lower-IQ into "middle"
performance would be far higher than what is spent on helping the higher-IQ
advance even further.

------
chrischen
Not just gifted kids, but kids who simply learn differently, are being
underserved.

I think there are so many more poor performers that they have hogged all the
attention. So we've been attacking the problem of poor performers, and
assuming everything else is working fine.

~~~
onoj
I agree. Though you only need one or two "difficult" children in a class for
them to take 60% of a teachers time. The pigeon-holing of children in
categories is also irksome. I never met an "all-round" genius, and currently
schools are not set up to perform to strength. There is no rule saying that a
child cannot be in grade five maths and grade two reading at the same time.
University is set up with more flexibility, why not school?

~~~
tokenadult
_There is no rule saying that a child cannot be in grade five maths and grade
two reading at the same time._

Exactly. First dividing children into groups with age as the main
consideration plays havoc with many aspects of school administration. Schools
don't have to be organized with age-segregated grades, and probably shouldn't
be.

<http://learninfreedom.org/age_grading_bad.html>

------
imraj
To me it is baffling that while there is a revolution in many ways of life,
the education system still seems to be following the long established norms
for the most part. Use of laptops and presentations are just different
mediums, the philosphy behind imparting knowledge needs to be looked at. I
would like to live in a world where I am able to pick up knowledge on say
latest advancements in the M-theory within weeks or months, but years at a
university :)

------
onoj
Leaving aside whatever "gifted" means, why bring additional challenges to
people who are ahead of the curriculum? It frees them up to explore being
people. Having the freedom to create your own challenges is much more
important than some misguided attempt by control freaks to monopolize your
time.

~~~
Kadin
> It frees them up to explore being people.

This was not my experience. Granted, it was a while ago, and I'm not sure I'd
call myself "gifted," but being ahead of the rest of the class certainly
didn't get you any time to do interesting things -- it got you a pile of
busywork and angry glances from the teacher for being such a pain in the ass.

I doubt things have changed much; if anything, due to increased
student:teacher ratios, I suspect they've gotten worse. I don't have any kids
but if I did, I'd be far more concerned about a particularly bright one being
wrecked by public school than I would a special-needs one who lagged the rest
of the class.

~~~
onoj
I guess my point was more along the lines that "gifted" is a very undefined
quantity and in my experience people who excel at class work are average in
life. Also that given our education system, the best and brightest do not
become teachers, thus any sort of "gifted" program is going to be for muppets
by muppets. Given it is pretty much that already the news article has nothing
to offer.

------
maarek
Perhaps this is an indication that a single, all encompassing program is
impossible to fit to every student. Perhaps a range of programs could be
offered, and students and their parents could chose the education program that
fits their needs best. A choice in education, if you will.

