Equity and Gifted and Talented Students

Post Reply New Topic

The Injustice of ‘Equity’ by Christine Rosen for Commentary

You can't make all students intellectually equal,but you should have a system that does its utmost to maximise the potential of each child.That requires a holistic approach. One capable of teasing out the reasons why a student may not be living up to their potential.

I'm all for students being educated at their ability level and not how old they are. However that requires an education system better equipped to spot potential,and why it isn't being fulfilled.

Having said that I do readily accept that, comparatively speaking,things are significantly better than when I was at school from 1961-1975.There was very little help for the academically underperforming student back then.

This kind of 'equity' crap was going on during the 1960s, as well.  I think it was/is nothing more than a cost-cutting measure for cash-strapped school districts to avoid having to spend money on the 'accelerated' teachers and classrooms needed by intellectually gifted students.

I could have graduated a year or two earlier but for the fact that, in my hometown's school district, the only 'special' education funding involved buying a short bus to take the slower learners to and from school.

This does not help anyone and in fact punishes both the fastest and slowest students.

I remember this short story I read years ago about a dystopian society that made everyone equal in every way. How did it work? They made beautiful people wear props and makeup that made them look ugly. They made people with talent forced at gunpoint to do terribly. The intelligent got it way worse. They were given some dampening implant that would send a shock every thirty seconds to make sure their train of thought was constantly disrupted.

I wish they'd bring back tracking so that teachers didn't have to differentiate so much in each classroom. Students that could be ahead can resent the slow students. And I imagine the slower students may resent those more ahead in turn. And it should not be on those ahead to tutor/help those who are slower.

I do think it should be easier to switch tracks tho within such a structure. And that most subjects should be tracked individually vs assuming a child is always ahead, on-track, or slower for all subjects equally.

A maths classmate in the 4th form. It was for those who were seen as not being too good at Maths. My Achilles heel? Geometry. Probably at 'borderline intellectual functioning' level for it. At that point there was nothing to suggest my classmate was particularly intelligent. As you'll see he improved dramatically.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Tyrie

Our local elementary and middle schools are extremely diverse, and what they offered for GATE students was extremely limited. And ... none of the super bright students were held back by it.

I don't know all the buzz words, but there are teaching methods specifically designed to teach to multiple levels within one classroom. Motivated students might do independent study, or they might help other students. Both of my kids (including my ASD child) were often assigned to do the later, and it was something they found really enriching on multiple levels. For my ASD son, it forced him to find new ways of thinking and pushed him on his communication skills. You will never understand material better and deeper than when you've tried to find a new way to explain it to someone who isn't getting it the standard way.

Also somewhat similar to a yoga class where the instructor suggests different variations and students pick which one they want to try.

In middle school, the schools started to differentiate math.

In high school, students had the option of taking AP classes, which is obviously a differentiation.

With the young kids, a merged system can really, really work. I saw it. Once you get past all the assumptions and all the prejudices and actually see how it works with properly trained instructors (KEY: PROPERLY TRAINED), it's pretty cool.

And I'm speaking as a parent to two officially tested gifted kids.

PS - I also have to confess that worrying about kids being held back academically is sometimes (often?) a cover for discomfort with racial and economic differences. Wanting the best for your own child is socially acceptable in well off areas, regardless of politics, despite the fact that it inherently means a person has to be willing to leave someone else behind.

I passed the tests for "SP--Special Progress," which was what the "gifted" program was called in my junior high school in the 70s. But it was determined that I wasn't "mature" enough to be successful in the program.

I feel like there should continue to be enrichment programs for the "gifted." I also believe the "gifted" should learn about Gardner's notions of "multiple intelligences." And learn that somebody who might be inferior in physics could actually be superior in that this person could save your life through the knowledge of practical skills.

It doesn't seem like a big issue.

If a 10 year old can do Calculus, then she can take the high school Calculus class.

My high school even permitted students to take college classes while in high school.

We supplement our kids with home-schooling-like techniques. If I see my kids have an interest in something i try to stimulate it. My youngest is interested in electronics right now. We build a refrigerator using a thermo-electric cooling device - no gases to explode or poison us - but not as efficient as a regular refrigerator. We are trying to build an arduino robot now. I will buy educational dvds - and even books. The schools can only (and will only) do so much.

I have thought about this a bit with the gifted and talented program getting gutted and removed by De Blasio.

De Blasio is essentially taking the fastest ox and tying it to a wagon being pulled by oxen. That wagon will have to go at the pace of the slowest ox.

I am glad he will not be NYC's mayor any longer soon, though the new contenders leaves much to be desired.