Post a New Topic
Startup schools for 'gifted' emerge as state cuts public funding
Original post made
on Aug 31, 2012
As public schools reduce extra services for gifted children following state funding cuts, a few startup private schools and support networks have emerged locally with a broader definition of "gifted."
Read the full story here Web Link
posted Friday, August 31, 2012, 8:41 AM
2 people like this
Posted by lrm
a resident of Barron Park
on Oct 12, 2012 at 2:09 pm
High Achiever is NOT the same as creative or gifted....
A 'high achiever' is not 'gifted', necessarily.
Getting all 'A's' and figuring out 'what the teacher wants', is a 'bright child', but not necessarily gifted. This is the reason testing and academic performance alone are no longer the sole indicators. However, abstract reasoning, critical and divergent thinking, etc. are aspects of gifted. It is not a watered down, PC definition, either. It is a reality, if you live with a gifted child.
It's painful, counterproductive and bordering on abusive, to force your child to remain in an environment that is not an intellectual/cognitive or even emotinal match, developmentally speaking. Yet, we constantly hear that it is 'unfair' to the other kids, who are underperforming,to provide a developmentally appropriate environment for children who are 'ahead' of the curve.
It's insane. Truly. I've lived it-from public schools in the 'good districts' to charter schools to home schooling. And honestly, home schooling with a hybrid charter school is about the only hope for many parents, myself included.
I honestly feel like I am on another planet, when I read or hear people's perspectives that 'charter schools are elitist' or 'it's not fair to the 'other kids' to have advanced curriculum.'
Schools currently focus 90% of the attention on ensuring 'noone fails'. Meanwhile, many of our children are sitting through the days of the week each day, when they are ready to do math 2 grade levels above.
Yes, teachers cannot possibly be expected to teach so many levels at once. Yet, despite what you may think Stanford, et all are teaching, their training absolutely could be far more oriented towards doing exactly this. It would require a complete over haul in the way teachers [most, not all] think, and in particular in the way school districts run. Such a paradigm shift is not in the best interest of those who are training future cubicle workers, however.
Oh, and Standford's gifted campus classes? If i hear robotics and lego engineering one more time, I'll scream.
My 11 year old thinks it's funny that most of his high school aged friends are 'on their engineering track', b/c they have their entire lives planned out for them by t heir parents. They will work at such and such company, and yes, they will get straight A's. Sure. And they may do well on the SAT's. They will be 'successful' by many definitions. Does this really mean they are 'gifted'? Or just 'high achiever'?
There IS a difference. And it's one that all would do well to learn and understand. It's fabulous for them to success on their chosen path. Wonderful. Does not mean they will be divergent or creative thinkers. Critical thinking? Not necessarily.
Not understanding the difference between achievement and gifted, and assuming they both equal societal 'success', is not in the national interest, to be sure.
But...hey, let's continue along the socialist/social justice path, b/c it seems America can only focus on one thing at a time-it's always mutually exclusive, whatever the latest 'It' topic may be.
Why can we not allow a gifted child to move ahead, while also realizing many children are falling behind? This is not rocket science. It's multi-tasking.
On the same topic: This is done to the exclusion of recognizing gifted learners in minority and lower economic class groups, as well, I might add.....