>gifted kids do benefit from suitable gifted education
If you show me that other students don't benefit from suitable gifted education, then you'll have an argument. Claiming that treating children with gifted education increases their chance of success is obvious, but misses the point, does it not?
I can specifically remember back to when the TAG Math students (Talented and Gifted) were learning what negative numbers were. I kept hearing about them. I imagined what they might mean, how you use them. When I was finally introduced one year later, I was disappointed, you mean it's literally just subtraction? I could have done that one year ago. And same with all the other students in the normal math course, if they had the same level of attention and care.
The worst part was this: the students in TAG math had a student:teacher ratio of 10:1, while the normal math students had a ratio of 20:1. The remedial students had a ratio of 10:1, but the remedial teacher was from the special ed department, not a specialized math teacher that the TAG and normal students got. The TAG program at my school was praised, and the teacher acted as if she was doing God's work. Of course, she had children who were students at the school, and of course, they were in all of her classes.
Now, looking back on it, I realize how broken this frame of thinking is. Yes, students will benefit if you put them in an elite math course with more resources than other children. Other students will bare the cost. I think a better allocation of our time and money would be to spread resources evenly. If you really want to get ahead by one or two years, take summer classes in middle or high school. That way, the students bares the cost of the additional time and effort, and we can still evenly allocate resources so every eight year old gets the same opportunity.
How well do you think those students would fare if placed in normal class? Most of the normal people I meet either openly make fun of things I know or assume I'm full of shit for the volume of information I can pull out of things I've read. Most people also treat me as if I'm a geek because they wouldn't have a use for the things I remember.
You're thinking about this as if they're taking your resources. Let me turn this around for you. What if they aren't being given special treatment because they need the resources, but because they need an environment where the way they think is acceptable? How many of them would still show any talent or aptitude in normal class with normal classmates? Think about your reaction to negative numbers versus their own. Maybe gifted and talented classes aren't so much giving them more resources as they are giving them an appropriate education. Maybe it's about creating a safe environment for kids who tend to be more abstract to flourish.
They'd do fine, because for the most part, the students who were placed in TAG math were the same students whose parents were on PTA or whose parents had the time and self entitlement to go to the school and not so politely request their child be placed in the program.
The notion that gifted students need a special environment to learn is comical. If they're actually talented and gifted, they should certainly be able to learn effectively in the same environment as "normal" students.
Learning to read and do arithmetic is important in the 3rd grade, but it isn't as important as learning social and communication skills. I don't deny that there are gifted individuals among us, I'm advocating that we wait on trying to identify the gifted ones at least until puberty.
If you look at the biographies of the most esteemed scientists and mathematicians who contributed much to humanity's knowledge, many if not most of them had a chance to get special education, either through mentorship or gifted programs since they were in primary school or younger. The cases of Terence Tao, John von Neumann, and Albert Einstein are some that I know of for certain.
Another data point from a personal perspective: I was fairly gifted (though far less than the names I mentioned) and came up with the idea of limits in math on my own when I was 9 years old. I never got any proper mentorship and the development of my math skills and intuition was held back by the boring classroom materials and routine homework I needed to attend/finish. I did not have access to or even aware of any advanced materials I could learn from, and thus wasted several of the best years to develop those math skills and intuition.
The issue of resource allocation is complex and would take much research to get close to a proper direction.
I was just responding to this paragraph:
> Needless to say, I am also very skeptical of identifying gifted students at a young age. IMO society over-values so called natural talent, and trying to find that talent in an 8 year old is silly, with rare exception.
That reminds me of my own story regarding negative numbers. I was super young, maybe second grade (7, 8 yrs old?). Family friends had dinner with us, and their kids who were maybe 5 years older than me were talking about "negative" numbers. I was so disappointed when I realized the same thing you did.
You sound like you have an immense chip on your shoulder over this incident.
All kids would likely benefit from a better form of teaching than the conventional school methods. However if you get a classroom of gifted children and you add a non-gifted child, the non-gifted child likely won’t be able to keep up at the same pace. There’s something to be said about segregating children with similar learning abilities so that the pace of the classes are at good levels for everyone in the class.
I agree, I just don’t think it matters in the 3rd grade. Find the high performers in middle school and high school. If there are students that really need help earlier than that, or have learning disabilities they can either be pulled out, or given extra attention if possible, maybe a tutor. I’d lean towards a bit of extra attention. And yeah, it’s definitely a chip on my shoulder, it’s a motivator for me. When someone tells you you’re not smart, you can accept it or prove them wrong.
I disagree, I think school has a profound effect at an early age. Just like you experienced, but in a negative way, unfortunately. I'm happy you were able to turn it into a positive motivator instead of accepting the prognosis of obviously poor teachers.
My son is already reading at an advanced level and doing math while his classmates barely know the alphabet. He hates school because it's so boring. We are sending him to a class with similarly gifted children so that he won't hate school and will be challenged. Keeping him in a class where kids don't learn as quickly as he does would definitely be a disaster in this case.
If you show me that other students don't benefit from suitable gifted education, then you'll have an argument. Claiming that treating children with gifted education increases their chance of success is obvious, but misses the point, does it not?
I can specifically remember back to when the TAG Math students (Talented and Gifted) were learning what negative numbers were. I kept hearing about them. I imagined what they might mean, how you use them. When I was finally introduced one year later, I was disappointed, you mean it's literally just subtraction? I could have done that one year ago. And same with all the other students in the normal math course, if they had the same level of attention and care.
The worst part was this: the students in TAG math had a student:teacher ratio of 10:1, while the normal math students had a ratio of 20:1. The remedial students had a ratio of 10:1, but the remedial teacher was from the special ed department, not a specialized math teacher that the TAG and normal students got. The TAG program at my school was praised, and the teacher acted as if she was doing God's work. Of course, she had children who were students at the school, and of course, they were in all of her classes.
Now, looking back on it, I realize how broken this frame of thinking is. Yes, students will benefit if you put them in an elite math course with more resources than other children. Other students will bare the cost. I think a better allocation of our time and money would be to spread resources evenly. If you really want to get ahead by one or two years, take summer classes in middle or high school. That way, the students bares the cost of the additional time and effort, and we can still evenly allocate resources so every eight year old gets the same opportunity.
EDITS: spelling bear -> bare