| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Dom
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 4:54 pm Post subject: Resources Run Short For Gifted Students |
 |
|
In view of the fact that "quality education" existed when there were
no programs for "gifted students," I do not see how the current state
of pseudo-education in the U.S. is related to a lack of resources for
"gifted students."
=============================
courant.com/news/opinion/editorials/hc-
siegle0701.artjul01,0,4321064.story
Resources Run Short For Gifted Students
DEL SIEGLE
July 1, 2008
Being a gifted young learner should not mean you lose your right to a
quality education.
Unfortunately, the current system of accountability in education
epitomized by the federal No Child Left Behind Act creates an
environment in which the individual right to a quality education has
been all but revoked for bright students, particularly those from
underserved and disadvantaged backgrounds.
The increased focus on accountability carries some positives, namely a
much-needed change in educator behavior that has led to significant
academic progress for our lowest achieving students. But while our
political and education leadership should be proud of these gains, a
just-released national study says that NCLB's narrow focus on low-
achieving students causes educators to ignore high-performers.
If this trend continues, nothing less than our nation's future is at
risk.
According to an in-depth analysis of eight years of National
Assessment of Educational Programs data by the Thomas B. Fordham
Institute, an education think tank, low-performing students in the
bottom 10 percent have made encouraging gains in math and reading,
while the scores of students in the top 10 percent have remained
stagnant.
Perhaps even more alarming, a companion national survey by the
institute found that a majority of our teachers do not feel adequately
prepared to meet the special learning needs of gifted students, nor do
they feel encouraged to spend time working with high-achieving
students to maximize their potential.
While no one disputes that the nation has an obligation to support
struggling learners, doing so at the expense of high-performing
students — especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds —
perpetuates the cycle of inequality and results in continued
underperformance.
Instead of raising the bar high by demanding that every student excel,
we have instead lowered it to basic proficiency — focusing outsized
amounts of resources and attention on those at the lowest ends,
leaving behind an entire population of students whose needs continue
to go unmet.
Some in education policy circles adhere to an outdated and misguided
philosophy of "gifted children will do just fine on their own."
Research and experience, however, have proved that if high-ability
students fail to receive appropriate instruction and attention, they
lose interest in school, underachieve and even drop out.
The most vulnerable students are those high-achieving learners from
underserved and disadvantaged backgrounds whose families lack the
resources and ability to compensate for the national underinvestment
in gifted education.
Cultural, language and budgetary challenges, among others, have long
resulted in underidentification of gifted learners from disadvantaged
backgrounds. Continuing to neglect the needs of gifted learners will
only guarantee that those who are identified will see few or no
resources.
For gifted students, the first challenge most often begins when they
walk into the classroom. According to the Fordham survey, 64 percent
of teachers received little to no training in gifted education in
college, and nearly 60 percent have received no professional
development focused on gifted students. Until we commit to ensuring
every child is taught by a well-qualified teacher, little else will
make much difference.
In addition to teacher training, it's time for Congress and the
administration to enact legislation that ensures all students will
have equal access to gifted education resources and services. By
setting this standard, policymakers will tell educators that they are
not only encouraged but expected to focus on excellence rather than
proficiency alone.
Ultimately, the Fordham report sends a clear message that if we
continue the current course of action, we will inflict irreparable
harm on our nation's strongest learners, with negative repercussions
we can only imagine.
Del Siegle is president of the National Association for Gifted
Children and is an associate professor of education at the University
of Connecticut. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Bob LeChevalier
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 10:59 am Post subject: Re: Resources Run Short For Gifted Students |
|
|
Dom <DRosa@teikyopost.edu> wrote:
| Quote: |
In view of the fact that "quality education" existed
|
If it really did, it was only for a small subset of society.
| Quote: |
when there were
no programs for "gifted students," I do not see how the current state
of pseudo-education in the U.S. is related to a lack of resources for
"gifted students."
|
Easy. There are more kids to be educated, to a higher level of
expectation (and the level of expectation for the gifted students is
higher still), and education in general costs a lot more.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
lojbab@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Donna Metler
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 6:26 pm Post subject: Re: Resources Run Short For Gifted Students |
|
|
It's not that. 30 years ago, when I entered school, I was largely allowed to
go at my own pace in some areas, reading being a big one. No one tried to
make me work through the basal, and I remember being upset in 1st grade
because the other kids had their sight word rings and I didn't (a card was
put on the ring so the child could practice it, and when they learned it,
the word was removed and another added. Since I could already read through
the Dolch lists in their entirety, I didn't have a ring). Starting about 3rd
grade, classes were tracked, so you only had the "high kids" in a class, and
in that group, there were then furture high, middle, low groups. In high
school, there was a high honors track, which was largely math-science
focused, a college bound track, a general studies track (where many of the
kids went to college or at least CC, but you didn't get the "Academic
honors" statement on your diploma), and a vocational track.
Tracking is now considered to be inapprorpiate, mostly due to charges (often
founded) of racism, so the high kids would be spread out over all the
groups, expected to serve as models. The teacher is charged with getting
everyone up to grade level, so if you know a child will do well on the test,
there's no reason to focus on them. Better to focus on that "bubble kid" who
only failed by a few points and can easily be pushed over the boundary. Then
you add the kids who have extra legal rights due to an IEP, plus the group
who don't speak English well, but only get ESL as a pull-out, and it's easy
to see how high kids can be ignored. Even if there IS a GT program, it's
often a once a week pull-out, leaving the child bored and frustrated the
rest of the time.
My DD is starting pre-K in the fall at a private school. There is no GT
program or anything specialized. However, the school is Lake Woebegone. No
child is below average, because they do their own testing and look at past
records. There is no special education or ESL programming. What there is, is
relatively small class sizes and a lot of flexibility, an awareness that
children are children (recess and daily PE are included in the schedule even
in 8th grade and there's a lot of free play and time to explore in not only
preschool but primary as well), and a willingness to work with the child
where she is at the time. I believe the tuition is well spent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dom
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:45 pm Post subject: Re: Resources Run Short For Gifted Students |
|
|
On Jul 6, 1:59 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
| Quote: |
Dom <DR...@teikyopost.edu> wrote:
In view of the fact that "quality education" existed
If it really did, it was only for a small subset of society.
|
This claim runs counter to my personal experiences in the public
schools of the working-class cities of Everett, Somerville, Medford,
Malden, Revere, etc, Massachusetts! Under what pretext do you make
thsi claim?
| Quote: |
when there were
no programs for "gifted students," I do not see how the current state
of pseudo-education in the U.S. is related to a lack of resources for
"gifted students."
Easy. There are more kids to be educated, to a higher level of
expectation (and the level of expectation for the gifted students is
higher still), and education in general costs a lot more.
|
Unfortunately, there is overwhelming evidence that even "gifted
students" are being pseudo-educated today, despite the staggering
amounts that are being spent. My post at:
http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?forumID=206&threadID=485047
provides some information about the Quantitative Literacy courses that
have been introduced at some highly selective colleges. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Bob LeChevalier
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 1:01 am Post subject: Re: Resources Run Short For Gifted Students |
|
|
Dom <DRosa@teikyopost.edu> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 6, 1:59 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Dom <DR...@teikyopost.edu> wrote:
In view of the fact that "quality education" existed
If it really did, it was only for a small subset of society.
This claim runs counter to my personal experiences in the public
schools of the working-class cities of Everett, Somerville, Medford,
Malden, Revere, etc, Massachusetts! Under what pretext do you make
thsi claim?
|
Personal experiences in other public schools, coupled with knowledge
of the statistics whereby as recently as WW II, half the people in the
country did not graduate college, and in 1900, it was something like
5%. Even if every high school diploma represented a "quality
education", which it didn't, 5% is a small subset.
| Quote: |
when there were
no programs for "gifted students," I do not see how the current state
of pseudo-education in the U.S. is related to a lack of resources for
"gifted students."
Easy. There are more kids to be educated, to a higher level of
expectation (and the level of expectation for the gifted students is
higher still), and education in general costs a lot more.
Unfortunately, there is overwhelming evidence that even "gifted
students" are being pseudo-educated today, despite the staggering
amounts that are being spent.
|
Staggering amounts are NOT being spent. I calculated once that kids
spend something like 7-8% of their lives in schools and doing
homework. That would lead one to believe that we would spend 7-8% of
our GNP on the schools. That would be more than a trillion dollars.
We don't come close.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
lojbab@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Bob LeChevalier
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 1:39 am Post subject: Re: Resources Run Short For Gifted Students |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
| Quote: |
Dom <DRosa@teikyopost.edu> wrote:
On Jul 6, 1:59 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Dom <DR...@teikyopost.edu> wrote:
In view of the fact that "quality education" existed
If it really did, it was only for a small subset of society.
This claim runs counter to my personal experiences in the public
schools of the working-class cities of Everett, Somerville, Medford,
Malden, Revere, etc, Massachusetts! Under what pretext do you make
thsi claim?
Personal experiences in other public schools, coupled with knowledge
of the statistics whereby as recently as WW II, half the people in the
country did not graduate college, and in 1900, it was something like
*******correction ^high school
5%. Even if every high school diploma represented a "quality
education", which it didn't, 5% is a small subset.
|
| Quote: |
when there were
no programs for "gifted students," I do not see how the current state
of pseudo-education in the U.S. is related to a lack of resources for
"gifted students."
Easy. There are more kids to be educated, to a higher level of
expectation (and the level of expectation for the gifted students is
higher still), and education in general costs a lot more.
Unfortunately, there is overwhelming evidence that even "gifted
students" are being pseudo-educated today, despite the staggering
amounts that are being spent.
Staggering amounts are NOT being spent. I calculated once that kids
spend something like 7-8% of their lives in schools and doing
homework. That would lead one to believe that we would spend 7-8% of
our GNP on the schools. That would be more than a trillion dollars.
We don't come close.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
lojbab@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist |
lojbab@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
toto
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 7:47 am Post subject: Re: Resources Run Short For Gifted Students |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 16:01:25 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
<lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
| Quote: |
If it really did, it was only for a small subset of society.
This claim runs counter to my personal experiences in the public
schools of the working-class cities of Everett, Somerville, Medford,
Malden, Revere, etc, Massachusetts! Under what pretext do you make
thsi claim?
Personal experiences in other public schools, coupled with knowledge
of the statistics whereby as recently as WW II, half the people in the
country did not graduate college, and in 1900, it was something like
5%. Even if every high school diploma represented a "quality
education", which it didn't, 5% is a small subset.
|
Just to back Bob up:
http://nces.ed.gov/naal/lit_history.asp
Enrollment Rates
The proportion of young people enrolled in school remained relatively
low in the last half of the 19th century. Although enrollment rates
fluctuated, roughly half of all 5- to 19-year-olds enrolled in school.
Rates for males and females were roughly similar throughout the
period, but rates for blacks were much lower than for whites. Prior to
the emancipation of Southern blacks, school enrollment for blacks
largely was limited to only a small number in Northern states.
Following the Civil War, enrollment rates for blacks rose rapidly from
10 percent in 1870 to 34 percent in 1880.
However, in the ensuing 20 years there was essentially no change in
the enrollment rates for blacks and the rate for whites actually fell.
The beginning of the 20th century brought sustained increases in
enrollment rates for both white and minority children. The overall
enrollment rates for 5- to 19-year-olds rose from 51 percent in 1900
to 75 percent in 1940. The difference in the white and black
enrollment rates narrowed from 23 points in 1900 to 7 points in 1940.
Enrollment rates continued to rise in the post-war period for all race
groups. By the early 1970s, enrollment rates for both whites and
blacks had risen to about 90 percent and these rates have remained
relatively stable since then. In 1991, the enrollment rate for 5- to
19-year-olds was 93 percent for blacks, whites, males, and females.
While the enrollment rates for children of elementary school age have
not shown major changes during the past 20 years, there have been some
increases for younger students as well as for those persons attending
high school and college. The enrollment rate for 7- to 13-year-olds
has been 99 percent or better since the late 1940s, but the rate for
the 14- to 17-year-olds has exhibited significant increases since that
period. During the 1950s, the enrollment rate of 14- to 17-year-olds
rose from 83 percent to 90 percent.
Further increases during the 1960s and 1980s brought the enrollment
rate to a high of 96 percent by the late 1980s. The rates for 5- and
6-year-olds also rose, from 58 percent in 1950 to 95 percent in 1991.
Rates those of college-age doubled or tripled throughout the 1950 to
1991 period, with much of the increase occurring during the 1980s. In
1950, only 30 percent of 18- and 19-year-olds were enrolled in school,
compared to 60 percent in 1991. The rate for 20- to 24-year-olds rose
from 9 percent in 1950 to 30 percent in 1990.
Educational Attainment
The increasing rates of school attendance have been reflected in
rising proportions of adults completing high school and college.
Progressively fewer adults have limited their education to completion
of the 8th grade which was typical in the early part of the century.
In 1940, more than half of the U.S. population had completed no more
than an eighth grade education. Only 6 percent of males and 4 percent
of females had completed 4 years of college. The median years of
school attained by the adult population, 25 years old and over, had
registered only a scant rise from 8.1 to 8.6 years over a 30 year
period from 1910 to 1940.
During the 1940s and 1950s, the more highly educated younger cohorts
began to make their mark on the average for the entire adult
population. More than half of the young adults of the 1940s and 1950s
completed high school and the median educational attainment of 25- to
29-years-olds rose to 12 years. By 1960, 42 percent of males, 25 years
old and over, still had completed no more than the eighth grade, but
40 percent had completed high school and 10 percent had completed 4
years of college. The corresponding proportion for women completing
high school was about the same, but the proportion completing college
was somewhat lower.
During the 1960s, there was a rise in the educational attainment of
young adults, particularly for blacks. Between 1960 and 1970, the
median years of school completed by black males, 25- to 29-years-old,
rose from 10.5 to 12.2. From the middle 1970s to 1991, the educational
attainment for all young adults remained very stable, with virtually
no change among whites, blacks, males or females. The educational
attainment average for the entire population continued to rise as the
more highly educated younger cohorts replaced older Americans who had
fewer educational opportunities.
In 1991, about 70 percent of black and other races males and 69
percent of black and other races females had completed high school.
This is lower than the corresponding figures for white males and
females (80 percent). However, the differences in these percentages
have narrowed appreciably in recent years. Other data corroborate the
rapid increase in the education level of the minority population. The
proportion of black and other races males with 4 or more years of
college rose from 12 percent in 1980 to 18 percent in 1991, with a
similar rise for black and other races females.
*******************************
For the later part of this century the illiteracy rates have been
relatively low, registering only about 4 percent as early as 1930.
However, in the late 19th century and early 20th century, illiteracy
was very common. In 1870, 20 percent of the entire adult population
was illiterate, and 80 percent of the black population was illiterate.
By 1900 the situation had improved somewhat, but still 44 percent of
blacks remained illiterate. The statistical data show significant
improvements for black and other races in the early portion of the
20th century as the former slaves who had no educational opportunities
in their youth were replaced by younger individuals who grew up in the
post Civil War period and often had some chance to obtain a basic
education. The gap in illiteracy between white and black adults
continued to narrow through the 20th century, and in 1979 the rates
were about the same.
--
Dorothy
There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
The Outer Limits |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Pubkeybreaker
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 11:09 am Post subject: Re: Resources Run Short For Gifted Students |
|
|
On Jul 7, 4:01 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
| Quote: |
Staggering amounts are NOT being spent. I calculated once that kids
spend something like 7-8% of their lives in schools and doing
homework. That would lead one to believe that we would spend 7-8% of
our GNP on the schools.
|
This "calculation" is nonsense. At the very minimum you would need to
normalize your calculation to take into acount the *fraction of the
population*
represented by school age children.
And you have not given anything close to a convincing argument that
"amount of time spent on an activity" should equate to "spending
that fraction of the national budget on that activity". In fact, the
very idea is absurd. Learn some economics. e.g. Some activities have
very
high capitalization costs and low labor costs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Bob LeChevalier
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:51 pm Post subject: Re: Resources Run Short For Gifted Students |
|
|
Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybreaker@aol.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 7, 4:01 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Staggering amounts are NOT being spent. I calculated once that kids
spend something like 7-8% of their lives in schools and doing
homework. That would lead one to believe that we would spend 7-8% of
our GNP on the schools.
This "calculation" is nonsense. At the very minimum you would need to
normalize your calculation to take into acount the *fraction of the
population*
represented by school age children.
|
All people who survive infancy are school age children for part of
their lives.
But I misremembered, and it was only a bit more than 4% of K/12
education
Mean lifespan 75 years @ an average 16 hrs/day awake = 438,000 hours
13 school years @180 days @8 hrs/day school + extracurricular +
homework = 18,720 hrs
which with a $13.13 (2006) trillion GNP would lead one to expect
| Quote: |
And you have not given anything close to a convincing argument that
"amount of time spent on an activity" should equate to "spending
that fraction of the national budget on that activity".
|
I make no claims about "should". But I do claim that the amount is
not "staggering" if it is less than that fraction. Indeed, since I
would expect about $561 billion to be spent on K/12 education each
year.
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2008/expenditures/tables/table_02.asp
says the actual amount was $450 billion. Add around 10% for the
private schools, and the number is still lower than one would expect
for an activity with a "staggering" cost.
And given that education is seen by many as an "investment in the
future", if I were going to go into "should" I would think that we
would spend considerably MORE than a merely proportional amount.
The silliness of that claim is heightened by the fact that we spend
somewhere between $20K-40K per yr to house incarcerated prisoners
(depending on who is estimating) and that isn't counting the prison
construction costs). That does cover the prisoners 24/7, but its a
lot of money for people who sit in a cell and do nothing, and who are
not expected to be the driving engine of the future.
| Quote: |
In fact, the
very idea is absurd. Learn some economics. e.g. Some activities have
very high capitalization costs and low labor costs.
|
Yep. But the bottom line is still that we are NOT spending
"staggering amounts" on education.
On the war in Iraq, maybe. We spend a quarter to a third of the
amount spent on 60 million school children on the activities of under
200,000 people, and accomplish NOTHING. That is truly staggering.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
lojbab@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Herman Rubin
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 11:44 pm Post subject: Re: Resources Run Short For Gifted Students |
|
|
In article <qln0741t507oc8hi2311ru8kcond2gdnoc@4ax.com>,
Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
| Quote: |
Dom <DRosa@teikyopost.edu> wrote:
In view of the fact that "quality education" existed
If it really did, it was only for a small subset of society.
when there were
no programs for "gifted students," I do not see how the current state
of pseudo-education in the U.S. is related to a lack of resources for
"gifted students."
|
The programs for gifted students are jokes. One cannot go
"deeper" at an elementary level; it should be
Damn the teachers and administrators; full
speed ahead in learning.
Any child who can be a reasonable college student should
be out of high school by the age of 15; for the gifted,
before their teens.
| Quote: |
Easy. There are more kids to be educated, to a higher level of
expectation (and the level of expectation for the gifted students is
higher still), and education in general costs a lot more.
|
Not if students are grouped by ability and to some extent
background. We are suffering from the grade-a-year social
adjustment educators who took over about 75 years ago.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
dejablues
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 10:50 am Post subject: Re: Resources Run Short For Gifted Students |
|
|
"Herman Rubin" <hrubin@odds.stat.purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:g55lb6$1g4c@odds.stat.purdue.edu...
| Quote: |
In article <qln0741t507oc8hi2311ru8kcond2gdnoc@4ax.com>,
Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
Dom <DRosa@teikyopost.edu> wrote:
In view of the fact that "quality education" existed
If it really did, it was only for a small subset of society.
when there were
no programs for "gifted students," I do not see how the current state
of pseudo-education in the U.S. is related to a lack of resources for
"gifted students."
The programs for gifted students are jokes. One cannot go
"deeper" at an elementary level; it should be
Damn the teachers and administrators; full
speed ahead in learning.
Any child who can be a reasonable college student should
be out of high school by the age of 15; for the gifted,
before their teens.
|
Why the rush?
Age 15? That seems arbitrary.
Fifteen-year-olds vary widely in maturity levels, with males tending to be
less mature than females. I'd say that most young people aren't ready for
college until their early 20's, regardless of their IQ or high school
achievement.
Young academically gifted students might be able to handle the coursework,
but socially, they suffer.
| Quote: |
Easy. There are more kids to be educated, to a higher level of
expectation (and the level of expectation for the gifted students is
higher still), and education in general costs a lot more.
Not if students are grouped by ability and to some extent
background. We are suffering from the grade-a-year social
adjustment educators who took over about 75 years ago.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Beliavsky
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 7:24 pm Post subject: Re: Resources Run Short For Gifted Students |
|
|
On Jul 11, 1:50 am, "dejablues" <dejabl...@comcast.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Herman Rubin" <hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:g55lb6$1g4c@odds.stat.purdue.edu...
In article <qln0741t507oc8hi2311ru8kcond2gd...@4ax.com>,
Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Dom <DR...@teikyopost.edu> wrote:
In view of the fact that "quality education" existed
If it really did, it was only for a small subset of society.
when there were
no programs for "gifted students," I do not see how the current state
of pseudo-education in the U.S. is related to a lack of resources for
"gifted students."
The programs for gifted students are jokes. One cannot go
"deeper" at an elementary level; it should be
Damn the teachers and administrators; full
speed ahead in learning.
Any child who can be a reasonable college student should
be out of high school by the age of 15; for the gifted,
before their teens.
Why the rush?
Age 15? That seems arbitrary.
Fifteen-year-olds vary widely in maturity levels, with males tending to be
less mature than females. I'd say that most young people aren't ready for
college until their early 20's, regardless of their IQ or high school
achievement.
|
Students typically enter college at about age 18 in the U.S. The
students with good academic preparation and high IQs do have high
graduation rates. The graduation rates at the Ivy League schools are
pretty high, for example. I think they are pretty good at the flagship
state universities. So I disagree with you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Herman Rubin
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 4:06 am Post subject: Re: Resources Run Short For Gifted Students |
|
|
In article <a3t4741uru8f0h3e4gugav27dndqo9pasb@4ax.com>,
Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
| Quote: |
Dom <DRosa@teikyopost.edu> wrote:
On Jul 6, 1:59am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Dom <DR...@teikyopost.edu> wrote:
In view of the fact that "quality education" existed
If it really did, it was only for a small subset of society.
This claim runs counter to my personal experiences in the public
schools of the working-class cities of Everett, Somerville, Medford,
Malden, Revere, etc, Massachusetts! Under what pretext do you make
thsi claim?
Personal experiences in other public schools, coupled with knowledge
of the statistics whereby as recently as WW II, half the people in the
country did not graduate college, and in 1900, it was something like
5%. Even if every high school diploma represented a "quality
education", which it didn't, 5% is a small subset.
|
Half? It was nowhere near that. So what?
Do half the people in the country have the mental ability
to obtain a meaningful college degree? This is HIGHLY
doubtful.
What proportion of the people in the country have the ability
to take the college preparatory programs in the good high schools
before WWII?
Currently, a high school diploma means serving 12-13 years of
time with good behavior and POSSIBLY a modicum of learning.
Do you want a college degree to mean something similar? The
current college degrees have declined greatly in quality, and
the high schools are one of the causes of it.
"If we want everyone to have a baccalaureate, give them one
at birth, so the schools can educate those willing and able
to learn." This was expressed by good college presidents in
the '50s.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Herman Rubin
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 4:13 am Post subject: Re: Resources Run Short For Gifted Students |
|
|
In article <369ce2cf-3b79-496f-b0d9-dd54bac5aa01@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybreaker@aol.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 7, 4:01=A0pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Staggering amounts are NOT being spent. =A0I calculated once that kids
spend something like 7-8% of their lives in schools and doing
homework. =A0That would lead one to believe that we would spend 7-8% of
our GNP on the schools. =A0
|
Assuming that kids spend 20 hours a week in school, this
amounts to 12% of their time. The post-Sputnik recommendation
of the Compton(?) commission was that high school students
should spend 45 hours/week on academics. When confronted with
the "40 hour week:, he commented that they are working for
themselves. This is certainly not done now.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Herman Rubin
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 5:00 am Post subject: Re: Resources Run Short For Gifted Students |
|
|
In article <g56sac$545$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
dejablues <dejablues@comcast.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Herman Rubin" <hrubin@odds.stat.purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:g55lb6$1g4c@odds.stat.purdue.edu...
In article <qln0741t507oc8hi2311ru8kcond2gdnoc@4ax.com>,
Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
Dom <DRosa@teikyopost.edu> wrote:
In view of the fact that "quality education" existed
If it really did, it was only for a small subset of society.
when there were
no programs for "gifted students," I do not see how the current state
of pseudo-education in the U.S. is related to a lack of resources for
"gifted students."
The programs for gifted students are jokes. One cannot go
"deeper" at an elementary level; it should be
Damn the teachers and administrators; full
speed ahead in learning.
Any child who can be a reasonable college student should
be out of high school by the age of 15; for the gifted,
before their teens.
Why the rush?
|
What rush? We are talking about education, not racing.
| Quote: |
Age 15? That seems arbitrary.
|
I did not mean to pick an arbitrary age. This is my estimate,
and I think it somewhat high. If a good curriculum is put in,
it will be earlier.
| Quote: |
Fifteen-year-olds vary widely in maturity levels, with males tending to be
less mature than females. I'd say that most young people aren't ready for
college until their early 20's, regardless of their IQ or high school
achievement.
|
Fiddlesticks! If we must totally desocialize the schools to
get education, do it! Being "ready for college" should mean
"being capable of doing a good job with college material".
| Quote: |
Young academically gifted students might be able to handle the coursework,
|
They could, better than if they dulled down for years.
| Quote: |
but socially, they suffer.
|
See the above. Right now, they suffer both academically AND
socially. We force them to group with children of totally
different interests; even those of similar IQs can fail to
fit socially.
| Quote: |
Easy. There are more kids to be educated, to a higher level of
expectation (and the level of expectation for the gifted students is
higher still), and education in general costs a lot more.
Not if students are grouped by ability and to some extent
background. We are suffering from the grade-a-year social
adjustment educators who took over about 75 years ago.
-- |
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
106 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
