Politics > Politics-USA > Not enough students test as 'gifted'? Just change definition and do more tests
| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Stan de SD" |
| Date: |
21 Jun 2005 10:25:31 AM |
| Object: |
Not enough students test as 'gifted'? Just change definition and do more tests |
Not enough students test as 'gifted'? Just change definition and do more
tests
Gifted individuals, those with an IQ of 125 or higher, make up only about 5
percent of the population, according to the Davidson Institute for Talent
Development. In the city of Davis, school officials are using dubious means
to boost the percentage of those considered gifted.
Two years ago, the Davis school board, concerned that not enough
African-American and Hispanic children were testing into the Gifted and
Talented Education (GATE) program, lowered the score for GATE
identification. That led to 35 percent of third-graders in Davis being
identified as gifted.
Trying to correct the absurd result, the board again tinkered with the
identification procedures. This still led to 26 percent of its students
being classified as gifted this year.
This month, the board is again wrestling with the issue of identifying
gifted students. But it does so not because of concern that 26 percent is
still more than three times the state average. Instead, it is because three
board members are concerned that those identified as gifted remain
predominantly white and Asian.
This misguided, feel-good insistence that all children are gifted somehow in
their own way fails the needs of those brightest young minds that the GATE
program is designed to address.
Laura Vanderkam, co-author of "Genius Denied: How to Stop Wasting Our
Brightest Young Minds," says, "If only the top 1 percent of students are in
the 'gifted' group, then it actually means something. If the top 25 percent
are in it, then you've made it so broad as to be meaningless, and not
helpful to the highly gifted in the group."
Such a meaningless quality seems to be exactly what several Davis trustees
have in mind. Martha West would prefer to see the GATE program dismantled
altogether and the money spent elsewhere. Jim Provenza favors a model where
classes offered to GATE-identified students would be available to any
student whose parents request it.
But according to James Delisle, a professor of education at Kent State
University in Ohio and a part-time teacher of gifted children in Ohio public
schools, such a "schoolwide enrichment plan generally fails to provide the
sustenance necessary to fulfill the complex lives of gifted children."
Beyond defeating the purpose of GATE, here's what the false sense of
equality advocated by the Davis trustees amounts to: telling parents that
"all our children are gifted" while refusing to challenge the brightest
minds by painting such nurturing as exclusive and elitist.
While the No Child Left Behind Act has rightly drawn attention to at-risk
groups often on the bottom of the achievement ladder, gifted children who
fall through the cracks go mostly unnoticed. Without a rigorous curriculum
that matches their ability to learn, gifted children are often diagnosed as
hyperactive or as having attention-deficit disorders. Research indicates
that up to 20 percent of high school dropouts test in the gifted range.
Closing the achievement gap of struggling students should not come at the
expense of our gifted and talented.
Equally misguided is the attempt to engineer racial parity in the GATE
program. Documents show the Davis school district has been busy cooking the
numbers. After rescreening and retesting 127 third-graders, the district was
able to boost the percentage of Latino and African-American students among
the GATE-identified.
But the truth is no amount of engineering or quotas will lead to real gains
for students. Real gains come only with true education reform. Where such
reform exists, minorities succeed, often in high numbers.
From the inner city of Oakland, each year students from the American Indian
Charter School qualify for the nationally noted talent search program
conducted by Johns Hopkins University. This is because Principal Ben Chavis
insists on a tough curriculum and maintains high expectations for his
all-minority student body.
Lowered standards and racial quotas cannot create gifted children, in Davis
or anywhere else. In fact, these policies are a recipe for mediocrity. To
boost minority achievement and meet the needs of gifted children, school
boards statewide would do better to follow the example of Mr. Chavis.
http://www.pacificresearch.org/press/opd/2005/opd_05-06-17xy.html
.
|
|
| User: "Cmd Buzz Corey" |
|
| Title: Re: Not enough students test as 'gifted'? Just change definitionand do more tests |
21 Jun 2005 01:50:32 PM |
|
|
Stan de SD wrote:
Laura Vanderkam, co-author of "Genius Denied: How to Stop Wasting Our
Brightest Young Minds," says, "If only the top 1 percent of students are in
the 'gifted' group, then it actually means something. If the top 25 percent
are in it, then you've made it so broad as to be meaningless, and not
helpful to the highly gifted in the group."
Such a meaningless quality seems to be exactly what several Davis trustees
have in mind. Martha West would prefer to see the GATE program dismantled
altogether and the money spent elsewhere. Jim Provenza favors a model where
classes offered to GATE-identified students would be available to any
student whose parents request it.
Like Charles Manson said in an interview when asked if he was crazy said
something to the effect of "Hell, yes I'm crazy, it used to mean
something to be crazy, but hell now everyone is".
The same thing is happing to all of society, we water down everthing to
make underachievers 'feel good'. Have you noticed that when you buy
clothes, what used to be small, medium and large has changed. Items
labled small are actually what medium size used to be, medium labled
items are what large used to be and large is what XX large used to be.
This is so the fatties can buy medium labled garments, which are
actually large and still feel good about themselves.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Not enough students test as 'gifted'? Just change definition and do more tests |
21 Jun 2005 02:50:36 PM |
|
|
Cmd Buzz Corey <me@that.ten> writes:
Stan de SD wrote:
Laura Vanderkam, co-author of "Genius Denied: How to Stop Wasting Our
Brightest Young Minds," says, "If only the top 1 percent of students are in
the 'gifted' group, then it actually means something. If the top 25 percent
are in it, then you've made it so broad as to be meaningless, and not
helpful to the highly gifted in the group."
Such a meaningless quality seems to be exactly what several Davis trustees
have in mind. Martha West would prefer to see the GATE program dismantled
altogether and the money spent elsewhere. Jim Provenza favors a model where
classes offered to GATE-identified students would be available to any
student whose parents request it.
Like Charles Manson said in an interview when asked if he was crazy said
something to the effect of "Hell, yes I'm crazy, it used to mean
something to be crazy, but hell now everyone is".
The same thing is happing to all of society, we water down everthing to
make underachievers 'feel good'. Have you noticed that when you buy
clothes, what used to be small, medium and large has changed. Items
labled small are actually what medium size used to be, medium labled
items are what large used to be and large is what XX large used to be.
This is so the fatties can buy medium labled garments, which are
actually large and still feel good about themselves.
Um, I don't think that's so they can "still feel god about themselves".
Not that simply, anyhow. I mean, which clothing line do you think
will sell more garments, the one which implicitly says, "Yeah, like
YOU could fit into this!" or the one which implies "Surprise, dear,
you're still a petite after all".
Free-market self-interested dishonesty at its purest.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cmd Buzz Corey" |
|
| Title: Re: Not enough students test as 'gifted'? Just change definitionand do more tests |
21 Jun 2005 10:10:59 PM |
|
|
Cary Kittrell wrote:
Um, I don't think that's so they can "still feel god about themselves".
Not that simply, anyhow. I mean, which clothing line do you think
will sell more garments, the one which implicitly says, "Yeah, like
YOU could fit into this!" or the one which implies "Surprise, dear,
you're still a petite after all".
Only she isn't "petite" anymore at all, but that "petite" label on the
extra large garment certainly makes her feel better.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wm James" |
|
| Title: Re: Not enough students test as 'gifted'? Just change definition and do more tests |
24 Jun 2005 12:13:02 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 19:50:36 +0000 (UTC),
(Cary Kittrell) wrote:
Cmd Buzz Corey <me@that.ten> writes:
Stan de SD wrote:
Laura Vanderkam, co-author of "Genius Denied: How to Stop Wasting Our
Brightest Young Minds," says, "If only the top 1 percent of students are in
the 'gifted' group, then it actually means something. If the top 25 percent
are in it, then you've made it so broad as to be meaningless, and not
helpful to the highly gifted in the group."
Such a meaningless quality seems to be exactly what several Davis trustees
have in mind. Martha West would prefer to see the GATE program dismantled
altogether and the money spent elsewhere. Jim Provenza favors a model where
classes offered to GATE-identified students would be available to any
student whose parents request it.
Like Charles Manson said in an interview when asked if he was crazy said
something to the effect of "Hell, yes I'm crazy, it used to mean
something to be crazy, but hell now everyone is".
Manson, even while the bottom of the human sewage scale, does have a
way with words.
The same thing is happing to all of society, we water down everthing to
make underachievers 'feel good'. Have you noticed that when you buy
clothes, what used to be small, medium and large has changed. Items
labled small are actually what medium size used to be, medium labled
items are what large used to be and large is what XX large used to be.
This is so the fatties can buy medium labled garments, which are
actually large and still feel good about themselves.
Um, I don't think that's so they can "still feel god about themselves".
Not that simply, anyhow. I mean, which clothing line do you think
will sell more garments, the one which implicitly says, "Yeah, like
YOU could fit into this!" or the one which implies "Surprise, dear,
you're still a petite after all".
Free-market self-interested dishonesty at its purest.
-- cary
That's true. They don't care what you call it as long as you buy it.
But it's not just clothes. The "Big Mac" is actually rather small for
a hamburger by today's standards. When it came out it was a large
burger because it had double the meat. But it has less meat een with
two patties than a Wendy's single or McDonald's Quarter Pounder.
Wendy's "Triple" has close to four times the meat of a Big Mac. And a
lotof places have a 1/3 lb burger as their smallest burger at twice
the meat of a "Big Mac". Lots of places don't have smal drinks,
only medium and large and "super size".
And all that might explain the difference in the clothing too. :)
William R. James
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
