What should be cut first?

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Here is the link to the Time article......

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1653653,00.html

An article that favors "geniuses"..which is even a much more minute part of the population than gifted....

Of course that would be the brightest article to research the rights of the handicapped and the costs it requires to educate one.

Interesting that the article opens with the story of a young girl who's IQ is part of the top one-tenth of a percent of the population.

I'm thinking from sheer numbers--it is obvious why so "little" is spent on the gifted.

Also--her plight would be easier if she were permitted to enroll for her academic equivilancy versus her actual age. But that's not a budget issue. That's a school policy issue.

The system failed Annalisee, but could any system be designed to accommodate her rare gifts? Actually, it would have been fairly simple (and virtually cost-free) to let her skip grades, but the lack of awareness about the benefits of grade skipping is emblematic of a larger problem: our education system has little idea how to cultivate its most promising students

With this article--I envision the casting aside of those less fortunate in society--which is pitiful and not bright at all.


Also it is important to note--"gifted" and "genius" are two completely different terms and the article focuses on those who meet "genius" standards and it really isn't about gifted kids at all.

To suspend special ed and tools to teach those at a disadvantage ( and not clinically "retarded" as the article puts it)--to instead help 0.1% of the population--isn't right and it is a step in the direction of communism.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I adamantly reject your position but admire your dedication to it.

Because I think monies towards the gifted child should at least EQUAL the per child expenditures of the disabled.

NO disabled child should trump the gifted child's rights... EVER.

Hmmm...so that Annelise can learn quantum physics--my son shouldn't have speech? Or a dyslexic is given therapy to facilitate learning to read.

Very odd and the ADA would disagree.

And it probably is equal when you compare numbers--b/c not all those who require services are "retarded" and deficient. They just need tools to facilitate learning.

The article is ignorant and lacks backing to really investigate the cause of why so much needs to be spent on "special" education.

Money doesn't doesn't have to be "equal" for the opportunities to be fair and equitable.

 

[nuttylawprofessor]

I adamantly reject your position but admire your dedication to it.

Because I think monies towards the gifted child should at least EQUAL the per child expenditures of the disabled.

NO disabled child should trump the gifted child's rights... EVER.

I am gifted, and I disagree with you. G/T programs do not have near the expense of special ed. And that's okay with me. Joe's need for services to learn how to take care of his life skills completely trumped my desire to study college algebra my senior year of high school. Joe needed that help. I could wait until college to get to my algebra. You see, once the education system gets you to a certain level, the rest it can offer is gravy. Joe needs a lot more to get to that base level. In fact, he may never get there. Equality is more than a dollar amount.

But mentally disabled alone--roughly 18-30% of the population has a mental disability compared to teh top 3% of the population that is generally considered gifted.

This is actually incorrect. The same percent of the population is above and below average. That symmetry continues out to each standard deviation above and below average.

 

[daughtersrus]

I think severely mentally challenged children (in my opinion )- do not belong in school. If they are unable to read, do math, spell, learn etc - WHY exactly are they in school?

Some are there to learn to feed themselves so that the taxpayers don't have to pay for someone to do that for the rest of their life.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I am gifted, and I disagree with you. G/T programs do not have near the expense of special ed. And that's okay with me. Joe's need for services to learn how to take care of his life skills completely trumped my desire to study college algebra my senior year of high school. Joe needed that help. I could wait until college to get to my algebra. You see, once the education system gets you to a certain level, the rest it can offer is gravy. Joe needs a lot more to get to that base level. In fact, he may never get there. Equality is more than a dollar amount.



This is actually incorrect. The same percent of the population is above and below average. That symmetry continues out to each standard deviation above and below average.

Actually--I posted before reading the article--the article I guess was referring to those labeled as...very disabled in the mental arena. I was looking for a stat considering all mental disabilities--and not all fall into the lower standard deviation.

So you are correct.

However, it doesn't change the fact that far more than the clinically the "r" word--utilize services at a much greater percentage than the gifted or genius students that exist in the student population.

It would be expected that those who have deficiencies far outnumber those with excellent proficiencies that put them into those higher deviations.

There are kids with excellent IQ's that place them into the upper portion of the population, but may have a learning disability such as dyslexia or a speech deficiency, or maybe they are deaf or blind.

So what's more important--placing them in gifted, or facilitating their disability?

If they don't sign the advanced rocketry class to the deaf kid b/c they refuse to higher an interpetor--what then?

Interesting quandry when we realize that there is the reality that some gifted/genius kids are actually disabled as well. Failing to accomodate their disability would make it difficult for them to learn anything--then they've been duly punished. The gifted kids got funding, but they can't use it b/c they can't access it.

 

[cats mom]

This is actually incorrect. The same percent of the population is above and below average. That symmetry continues out to each standard deviation above and below average.

I'm guessing she used 3% since most gifted & talented programs that I'm aware of start the identification process by adminstering a standardized IQ test (OLSAT in my district) Kids are automatically GATE identified if they score in the top 3%

Of course in my district kids can also qualify via teacher/principal recommendation. Thus why the GATE program at DD's elementary school is full of educators' kids.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I'm guessing she used 3% since most gifted & talented programs that I'm aware of start the identification process by adminstering a standardized IQ test (OLSAT in my district) Kids are automatically GATE identified if they score in the top 3%

Of course in my district kids can also qualify via teacher/principal recommendation. Thus why the GATE program at DD's elementary school is full of educators' kids.

I used whatever came up in my search--and in that case it was a website regarding gifted programs.

Hmmm...wonder why educator's kids would qualify for gifted just b/c mom or dad is a teacher....do you know?

Also--we aren't talking about kids "above average and below average--

Gifted isn't all kids above the mean--
And "deficient" kid aren't all below the mean.

As you state--it is a specific scoring on the IQ test--and it is a small percentage that score high enough to be above it.

Mentally "R"--based on the article--was referring to IQ's below 55.


Okay--googled this IQ stuff:

IQ Range Classification

140 and over Genius or near genius
120-140 Very superior intelligence
110-120 Superior intelligence
90-110 Normal or average intelligence
80-90 Dullness
70-80 Borderline deficiency
Below 70 Definite feeble-mindedness


Classification IQ Limits Percent Included
Very Superior 128 and over 2.2
Superior 120-127 6.7
Bright Normal 111-119 16.1
Average 91-110 50
Dull Normal 80-90 16.1
Borderline 66-79 6.7
Defective 65 and below 2.2

Source: http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/IQBasics.aspx


The important thing about Special Ed and Services--outside of superior intelligence....there is children in all categories have need for services.

 

[nuttylawprofessor]

I used whatever came up in my search--and in that case it was a website regarding gifted programs.

Hmmm...wonder why educator's kids would qualify for gifted just b/c mom or dad is a teacher....do you know?

Also--we aren't talking about kids "above average and below average--

Gifted isn't all kids above the mean--
And "deficient" kid aren't all below the mean.

As you state--it is a specific scoring on the IQ test--and it is a small percentage that score high enough to be above it.

Mentally "R"--based on the article--was referring to IQ's below 55.


Okay--googled this IQ stuff:

IQ Range Classification

140 and over Genius or near genius
120-140 Very superior intelligence
110-120 Superior intelligence
90-110 Normal or average intelligence
80-90 Dullness
70-80 Borderline deficiency
Below 70 Definite feeble-mindedness


Classification IQ Limits Percent Included
Very Superior 128 and over 2.2
Superior 120-127 6.7
Bright Normal 111-119 16.1
Average 91-110 50
Dull Normal 80-90 16.1
Borderline 66-79 6.7
Defective 65 and below 2.2

Source: http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/IQBasics.aspx


The important thing about Special Ed and Services--outside of superior intelligence....there is children in all categories have need for services.

There are different statistics for special education funding. The statistics used in Time regarding special education services were not for all special education services. In other words, the figure did not account for things like interpreters and accommodations for physical disability for an average or above-average student. The figure was for spending for the bottom 8% of the IQ curve. It's very disproportionate, but it does not offend my sense of equality.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

There are different statistics for special education funding. The statistics used in Time regarding special education services were not for all special education services. In other words, the figure did not account for things like interpreters and accommodations for physical disability for an average or above-average student. The figure was for spending for the bottom 8% of the IQ curve. It's very disproportionate, but it does not offend my sense of equality.

Gotcha now.

As I said, when they first posted it the quote, I didn't have the whole context.

Equality isn't always about an even split number when it comes to making things accessible for all.

THe article was flawed though. While it was comparing to the two deviations for funding--the article focused heavily on those in the top 0.1%--but no mention of the "less gifted' gifted folks. They spoke of the special school--on the college campus, where the kids would not be outcast and could work at a much more mentally appropriate pace that would put my own college education to shame. I was gifted--not to that extreme.

I don't see how the author could justify a thesis when he/she went to such a minute portion of the population.

 

[IDoDis]

The definition for gifted in my state (and many others) involves an overall IQ of 130. Some states allow students with scores that are lower. I remember a student moving into the class with my DD who came from another state and her IQ was 117. Once the girl's re-evaluation came up she had to be retested in this state and she no longer qualified as being gifted.

On a side note, a big pet peeve of mine is when gifted teachers put in their signature on email letters, "Jane Doe, Teacher of the Gifted." Aaaaaaaaaahh! I just can't stand that for some reason. Seems very pompous.

 

[mnrose]

I don't get the need to treat the gifted like special snowflakes. They will function in society unlike an impaired child who struggles to learn how to read.

If it is one or the other, the gifted students don't "need" such programs.

Your blood can boil--but it is elitist to think that such needs are more important than children who need extra tools to learn.

And yes--*gifted* here, as is my child.

I think you miss my point. For the same dollars, programs specifically for the gifted can be created. It costs NO MORE than a regular curriculum, it just needs to be done. Instead, it's swept under the rug or dismissed as being irrelevant. Any area with a reasonably high population has enough children who qualify as gifted (and for the sake of argument since, let's just say an IQ above 130...we could even talk specific test if you want...but we'll be general) to create a special program for them. I'm not talking about 1-2 hours of pull out instruction per week (as is the norm many places) but a program that is entirely provided at an accelerated pace. My children's school serves about 70 kids, some from out of state (they come here because there state offers nothing similar) and some from other countries (we had one family move from Hong Kong). It costs no more. The funding is entirely the same as any other school child in the area receives.

It's not an answer to grade advance these children. It's ridiculous in some cases. We have a 6 year old in the school (not my child) who does chemistry and physics at a 10th grade level. You really think it's appropriate to slide this child into a high school? And a book or two here or there isn't going to cut it for a kid like that. My son does high school algebra. He's earning high school credit now (he's 10). The beauty of having a program like ours is that he gets to socialize with kids his own age, even though he's doing the work of a child 5-6 years older than he is.

I'm not saying the needs of these children is MORE important than special needs children, only that their needs should be considered AS important as those children--heck, I'd be satisfied if my children's needs were considered AS important as the general population (all children are entitled to instruction at a level appropriate to that child!). It is you who are being elitist by deeming some children more important than others. Not me.

 

[cats mom]

Hmmm...wonder why educator's kids would qualify for gifted just b/c mom or dad is a teacher....do you know?

The loophole that allows for placement by recommendation, even without a qualifying test score, tends to favor those who know how the system works and/or who have connections. Can you see how teachers might fall into both those categories?

 

[shelly3girls]

I firmly believe that costs could be cut if children were grouped by ability. If over achievers and gifted kids were grouped together it would not cost more to educate them to their level. Although special ed students often need specialized classrooms, children who are a little behind or have mild disabilities (a significant number in our district) could be taught together instead of having numerous support teachers.

I also think it is time for some teachers to get a reality check. We have a local district threatening to strike b/c they are not getting a big enough raise in their new contract. In addition the district wants them to start contributing a minimal amount to the health care cost of family members (all teachers still get benefits free). Given the state of the economy and the pay cuts and freezes throughout our country I think these teachers are completely unreasonable. The average salary (before benefits) in our district is mid-70,000's. Sorry, but everyone I know works 9-10 hour days and are seeing cuts. Teachers need to realize pay raises just aren't in the budget this year.

 

[IDoDis]

The loophole that allows for placement by recommendation, even without a qualifying test score, tends to favor those who know how the system works and/or who have connections. Can you see how teachers might fall into both those categories?

Not so in my state. I think more teacher's kids get screened because their parent teacher knows what to look for, therefore, more qualify. A child must have an IQ of 130 or above to qualify -- period. There does tend to be more teachers' kids who are in the gifted programs but not for that reason -- at least not here. The qualifications are very strict. 130 is the minimum IQ to qualify and the student is tested by an outside tester. He/she must first pass a screening at the school, but then goes through several hours of testing at a testing location that is not in relation to the school.

http://www.education.vic.gov.au/studentlearning/programs/gifted/highpotential/iqtesting.htm

IQ range: 130–144
Qualitative description: Moderately gifted
Incidence in the population: 1 child in 40 children to 1:1,000

IQ range: 145–159
Qualitative description: Highly gifted
Incidence in the population: 1:1,000 to 1: 10,000

IQ range: 160–179
Qualitative description: Exceptionally gifted
Incidence in the population: 1:10,000 to 1: 1 million

IQ range: 180+
Qualitative description: Profoundly gifted
Incidence in the population: Less than 1: 1 million

 

[taylor3297]

On a side note, a big pet peeve of mine is when gifted teachers put in their signature on email letters, "Jane Doe, Teacher of the Gifted." Aaaaaaaaaahh! I just can't stand that for some reason. Seems very pompous.

Being an ex teacher for the academically gifted, my principal required me to put my job title after my name. He said it was so the parents would know which of their child's teacher I was. In middle school, a child could have 8 different teachers at one time.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

It is you who are being elitist by deeming some children more important than others. Not me.

ADA is not "elitist". It prevents the able body and able minded from saying too bad so sad and that is how your earlier post came across.

The 6 year old you post--again....likely in the top 1/10th of a percent of the population. To go leaps and bounds to cater to her at the EXPENSE of a disabled child is wrong and you can spell it however you like--but it is snobbery, elitism and against the law for accessibility.


I agree that if it can be done, they should do things for the gifted--but when the "hypothetical" scenario is "which do you cut if you could only pick one"--disabled kids deserve a chance each and every time.

Nowhere am I saying that a gifted program is not necessary. But I can't figure out how grown adults would compromise and group special needs kids as "worthless".

I never implied nor insinuated that a gifted child is worthless or that such programs should be eliminated. (actually earlier, I stated that to do something for them wouldn't cost much at all--as it stands most gifted programs try to do "extras" versus doing something more with existing curriculum.)

And as as side note--public/private group education was never intended to be so specialized for each kid. It is standardized.

This is why parents have great difficulties when their child is exceptional in any way and just like the physical school building should be able to accomodate a wheelchair, the school MUST accomodate special needs kids who need extra assistance to get the education that is required by law. Anything less is non-ADA compliant and in hypothetical land--their needs come before the "extras" that benefit other kids who do fine or way more than fine with the regular curriculum.

It is no more "elite" than other issues that the ADA requires across the country.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Being an ex teacher for the academically gifted, my principal required me to put my job title after my name. He said it was so the parents would know which of their child's teacher I was. In middle school, a child could have 8 different teachers at one time.

I can see her point though....

But if you were a Math teacher--you'd say "Math Teacher".

You wouldn't say "Teacher of Arithmetic"

My gifted teacher would just list her area: G.A.T.E.

 

[Disneyrsh]

.

 

[LuvOrlando]

If it's in our best interests as a society to help ALL children reach their best potential how exactly is it ok to treat one group as less relevant than another.

Being trapped in a mind that is unable to reach it's potential without assistance beyond the average is bad on both sides of the spectrum. If no-one around you can reach you what difference does it make if your IQ is 50 or 180? Isolated and alone is isolated and alone, there is no difference.

For those of you who think gifted kids aren't special needs too did you stop to consider that locked in one of those young minds might be the cure to Autism, Alzheimer, Cancer, or some other major advancement for human kind? What if the child who is destined to find a therapy to genetically prevent Leukemia is stuck in a lower income housing project somewhere with no access to a gifted program. Is it ok to let him or her just exist and take that potential to their grave unfulfilled? Are you proposing that they should be neglected because average is good enough? Really, what about doing your best? If one kids' best is tying shoes and another kids best is Calculus at 13 shouldn't both be applauded, don't both deserve the tools to reach potential?

Do you really think it is less painful for a parent to watch their child act out out & turn to bad behaviors because school is too easy than it is when it's too hard.

Personally, I think both sides of the spectrum deserve our attention and it's a very bad idea when parents are forced to choose sides because then all reason disappears from the conversation. If you tell a gifted kids parents his or her kid doesn't matter you are going to get exactly the same reaction as if you said it to a struggling kids parents... seems reasonable to me.

Out of all the things that should be cut the very least is education. I would take to the streets and make the into Administrators pariahs before I let that happen here. After all, isn't the point of our eduction system educating children... when did the point become about saving teachers jobs?

I think the infighting among parents should end and eyes need to turn to the schools themselves and how they are running themselves into the ground unaccountable to anyone or anything ... I think there is way more fat there than meets the eye.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

This makes my point perfectly. You better hope to hell that Janie had a damn good education when she saws into your skull to save your life.

You've missed my point entirely--and this is what they do in China. Works so well for them. Why not try it here?


As for special snowflake--far more children then those with IQ's of less than 70 receive services. To deny all of them so that Janie can be Doogie Howser is extreme.

And Janie after all--may just prefer to be something other than a brain surgeon.

Again--this is all regarding a hypothetical scenario. But the ADA doesn't require that Janie learn chemistry at age 6.

There are tons of children in teh school system that require accomodation. Only a fraction of them are mentally retarded.

Being blind, or deaf, or dyslexic, or even having autism, does not mean you are retarded and worthless.

It is not the crab scenario you describe. It's survival of the fittest, and our country's mandated education policy does not work that way.