Worried about the future....

[smkiya]

But in the real world, there's no credit and no grading. Late, or not, a project completed is a project completed. You'd even get paid MORE if it takes you longer. You might run the risk of getting laid off or not promoted, but in most cases if you have a good reason for being late, then your job is secure. Projects run into overtime all the time.

I sure didn't get a discount just because it took the guys working on my house 3 weeks longer to finish than they initially said.

Not really. On home construction projects, if you place "time is of the essence" in the contract, then they had better be done by then or you do get a discount.

Overtime is money lost by the company, productivity suffers, and so does their reputation.

 

[The Mystery Machine]

I'm not trying to make an example out of your DD, I totally agree with you when it comes to kids learning differently and being tested differently.

What I want to comment on is the state standard. What is wrong with setting a standard and saying, "you don't make the cut, sorry". As a general rule of thumb, the Honors classes have standards, you don't make the standard you don't get in. What is wrong with saying you must meet "gifted" standards that are "x" to take this class or participate in this activity. Again, I'm not trying to single out your DD I am merely commenting on the scenario as a whole.

IMO this is an area where we have gone off track. We set a standard, say a "gifted" category and then someone thinks an exception should be made because well their child might not meet the particular standard but they should still get a chance.

My question is why? They don't meet the prerequisites why should an exception be made? Why can't we have classes for different levels of kids. Not every child is a rocket scientist despite what their parents may think.

We are off track because common sense is no longer allowed to be used.

A HUGE HUGE HUGE bulk of students DO NOT belong in regular classes. Not just my dd but thousands of kids.

Setting up a standard that is pure garbage is not smart either. It is only based on BUDGET and MONEY and has NOTHING to do whatsoever with what is needed for the kids.

 

[Colleen27]

IMO this is an area where we have gone off track. We set a standard, say a "gifted" category and then someone thinks an exception should be made because well their child might not meet the particular standard but they should still get a chance.

My question is why? They don't meet the prerequisites why should an exception be made? Why can't we have classes for different levels of kids. Not every child is a rocket scientist despite what their parents may think.

The problem I have with the way gifted classes are often handled is that it is all about native ability, when in reality there are far more important factors involved. A hard-working kid with a 125 IQ is going to get more out of a gifted program than a slacker with an IQ of 140. And of course, the other issue is that too often those gifted programs are the only challenging content available, so if we draw a bright line with no exceptions we're likely leaving that hard-working kid with the 125 IQ in a classroom taught to the level and pace of average-to-slightly below students.

 

[Mkrop]

But in the real world, there's no credit and no grading. Late, or not, a project completed is a project completed. You'd even get paid MORE if it takes you longer. You might run the risk of getting laid off or not promoted, but in most cases if you have a good reason for being late, then your job is secure. Projects run into overtime all the time.

I sure didn't get a discount just because it took the guys working on my house 3 weeks longer to finish than they initially said.

Depends on the industry, many things are completely time sensitive and kids need to learn those lessons. And many bosses will not tolerate sitting down to allow for more time. Find a way to get it down or else.

My DH is in sales but many times he is bidding on contratcs with state facilities, that have very specific deadlines. If your proposal is not time stamped by the specified time, your proposal doesnt even get looked at. So his company loses potential business and he could be fired. THAT IS THE REAL WORLD.

We are not preparing our kids for the real world at all. We need to prepare them for success and failures, for homework even if it seems tedious, many aspects of a job are tedious and repetivive, we need to have deadlines, and the real world keeps score.

I am so frustrated that the quaterback of the football team in HS will get recognition for his great pass to win the game but the kids who excel academically can not have their accomplishments acknowledged!

 

[kamik86]

But in the real world, there's no credit and no grading. Late, or not, a project completed is a project completed. You'd even get paid MORE if it takes you longer. You might run the risk of getting laid off or not promoted, but in most cases if you have a good reason for being late, then your job is secure. Projects run into overtime all the time.

Sure I get graded... its called a performance review. They don't mark the scale with letters but if I took "Did not meet expectations" and called it F then went up the line to "Exceeded Expectations" and called it an A I could make a scale that looks alot like grades.

We just don't get our grades as often as they do in school because we should be able to evaluate ourselves by now.

Around here, gym has moved slowly but steadily away from competitive sports and towards more lifelong fitness type activities - walking/running, swimming, aerobics, etc. - with a focus on technique rather than being the fastest/best

I have no problem with this... however if your going to play basketball one day then they should keep score. If however your doing yoga then obviously we don't need to rank people on who did best but Yoga really wasn't designed to have a score... basketball was.

I still remember the first time I REALLY failed at something. I tried to get into a talent show in my middle school (which unlike my high school had real auditions) and didn't get in. It was then that I realized I wasn't always going to be good enough for everything I wanted to do without putting in alot of effort like I was at my acedemic classes. I would have hated to not learn that lesson until I got to college. I saw some people who didn't learn it until then and they struggled.

Much better to learn that if something is important to you, your really going to have to put in the effort to make it happen on something small like a 6th grade talent show then by not getting into the college you wanted (and in some cases the only one you even applied for because of course you would get in)

 

[smkiya]

Around here, gym has moved slowly but steadily away from competitive sports and towards more lifelong fitness type activities - walking/running, swimming, aerobics, etc. - with a focus on technique rather than being the fastest/best, and I think that's a smart move. Most kids, even those who are very active in team sports, won't continue to play competitive sports past high school or maybe college, and teaching more individual/adult fitness pursuits seems like the better lifelong lesson than basketball or <cringe> dodgeball. I don't think that's on the same level as not keeping score in expressly comptitive activities.

As far as class ranks go, my experience goes along with what Allison443 posted - it isn't a question of self-esteem at all, but rather that in competitive schools so many kids excel and there is so much focus on loading up on weighted courses for the sake of a better GPA that the rank really becomes meaningless as a means of comparison.

I like what I highlighted! That is great in that it also teaches personal achievement and setting goals. In these cases individual score keeping to measure the child's progress is still important. "This week you had a time of 4:32, next week let's beat that by 5 seconds.", etc.

 

[okeydokey]

I'm not trying to make an example out of your DD, I totally agree with you when it comes to kids learning differently and being tested differently.

What I want to comment on is the state standard. What is wrong with setting a standard and saying, "you don't make the cut, sorry". As a general rule of thumb, the Honors classes have standards, you don't make the standard you don't get in. What is wrong with saying you must meet "gifted" standards that are "x" to take this class or participate in this activity. Again, I'm not trying to single out your DD I am merely commenting on the scenario as a whole.

IMO this is an area where we have gone off track. We set a standard, say a "gifted" category and then someone thinks an exception should be made because well their child might not meet the particular standard but they should still get a chance.

My question is why? They don't meet the prerequisites why should an exception be made? Why can't we have classes for different levels of kids. Not every child is a rocket scientist despite what their parents may think.

There really is a difference between gifted and smart. My son's verbal IQ score was tested at 146 with a composite score of 138. He qualified for the program. My daughter's 128 was not high enough. She is smart, but there is a world of difference in the way their two minds work.

She is in middle school now and finally has some good choices about classes, taking advanced math and English, but in elementary school there really wasn't a good place for kids in her category, not gifted but above average.

 

[Colleen27]

we live right on the border of 2 districts-the one we are assigned to designates that to receive an A you can receive no less than a 94.0. the adjacent district's criteria for an A is a 92.5.

there are parents in our neighborhood who literaly make the decision to petition the schools for permission to let their kids attend the other district because they don't want their "little snowflake" to chance hurt feelings over not getting an A in a course due to the higher standards

Is it really about hurt feelings, or about the very real difference that a harder grading scale can make when applying to colleges, for scholarships, etc.? I know competitive colleges generally recalculate GPA according to their own standards, but there are a number of GPA based opportunities out there that don't take the time to look more closely at transcripts and for those the 93%-student from the "easier" school will be at a distinct advantage over the 93%-student from the "harder" school.

 

[mamacatnv]

We are off track because common sense is no longer allowed to be used.

A HUGE HUGE HUGE bulk of students DO NOT belong in regular classes. Not just my dd but thousands of kids.

Setting up a standard that is pure garbage is not smart either. It is only based on BUDGET and MONEY and has NOTHING to do whatsoever with what is needed for the kids.

I do not agree it is all about money. The amount of money this nation spends on special ed vs. gifted programs does not even compare. If it were only about money there would be a lot less for the lower kids and a lot more for the middle and upper kids. Its not just about money, its also about parents who cannot accept that their kid might be average or below average.

The problem I have with the way gifted classes are often handled is that it is all about native ability, when in reality there are far more important factors involved. A hard-working kid with a 125 IQ is going to get more out of a gifted program than a slacker with an IQ of 140. And of course, the other issue is that too often those gifted programs are the only challenging content available, so if we draw a bright line with no exceptions we're likely leaving that hard-working kid with the 125 IQ in a classroom taught to the level and pace of average-to-slightly below students.

This makes sense to me and you are right about the slackers vs. the workers, however statistically the high IQ slackers are slacking because they are not being held to a higher standard from early on.
They are sitting in classrooms with average and below average kids with a teacher who is trying to bring them all up to a certain level so that they all test well. The emphasis is on the lower kids, not the higher kids.

This concept of bringing up the weaker kids is prevelant in all areas that all the previous posters have noted; sports, academics, special programs, classes etc. Its all about making the kids all "feel" the same. IMO this is where we have gotten off track.

 

[smkiya]

The problem I have with the way gifted classes are often handled is that it is all about native ability, when in reality there are far more important factors involved. A hard-working kid with a 125 IQ is going to get more out of a gifted program than a slacker with an IQ of 140. And of course, the other issue is that too often those gifted programs are the only challenging content available, so if we draw a bright line with no exceptions we're likely leaving that hard-working kid with the 125 IQ in a classroom taught to the level and pace of average-to-slightly below students.

This makes sense to me and you are right about the slackers vs. the workers, however statistically the high IQ slackers are slacking because they are not being held to a higher standard from early on.
They are sitting in classrooms with average and below average kids with a teacher who is trying to bring them all up to a certain level so that they all test well. The emphasis is on the lower kids, not the higher kids. This concept of bringing up the weaker kids is prevelant in all areas that all the previous posters have noted; sports, academics, special programs, classes etc. Its all about making the kids all "feel" the same. IMO this is where we have gotten off track.

The slacker is the girl who would sit in class, never open a book, rarely study the material and come out with an A on the test. There are people who do not have to work/study as hard to get the same or much better results than people who do have to work hard. That's just the way it is.

 

[mamacatnv]

There really is a difference between gifted and smart. My son's verbal IQ score was tested at 146 with a composite score of 138. He qualified for the program. My daughter's 128 was not high enough. She is smart, but there is a world of difference in the way their two minds work.

She is in middle school now and finally has some good choices about classes, taking advanced math and English, but in elementary school there really wasn't a good place for kids in her category, not gifted but above average.

Good point. In many ways the smart (not "gifted") kids are the ones who suffer the most from our education system. Some schools have bucked the trend and still offer gifted programs but for all the kids that are in the middle, above average and smart, the programs are sorely lacking.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

My dd's school, and I'm sure many others, have eliminated competition for gym, everybody wins!

Why should there be competition in gym? It's gym. The point is to get exercise and learn about physical fitness, not win a game.

 

[smkiya]

Why should there be competition in gym? It's gym. The point is to get exercise and learn about physical fitness, not win a game.

True, and like a pp mentioned I believe individual fitness should be learned. However, they do play games like basketball, volleyball, tennis, etc. in gym. These are games, some people win and some people lose.

ETA - Winning and losing are important concepts to learn!

 

[mamacatnv]

The slacker is the girl who would sit in class, never open a book, rarely study the material and come out with an A on the test. There are people who do not have to work/study as hard to get the same or much better results than people who do have to work hard. That's just the way it is.

I don't understand the intent of your post?
Yes, sometimes this is the way it is but should this child not be encouraged to excel, to beat out their classmates and to sit on top?
Should they be expected to just hang out and not challenge themselves regardless of their ability? Why shouldn't they be encouraged to knock everyones socks off?

 

[smkiya]

I don't understand the intent of your post?
Yes, sometimes this is the way it is but should this child not be encouraged to excel, to beat out their classmates and to sit on top?
Should they be expected to just hang out and not challenge themselves regardless of their ability? Why shouldn't they be encouraged to knock everyones socks off?

That's exactly my intent. That's why they (should) have standards for the gifted program. The example I gave is of a child who is not challenged and benefits more from an advanced program than someone who had to actually work hard to get the same grades.

 

[mamacatnv]

That's exactly my intent. That's why they (should) have standards for the gifted program. The example I gave is of a child who is not challenged and benefits more from an advanced program than someone who had to actually work hard to get the same grades.

Thanks for the clarification, that is what I thought but I wasn't sure.
Our society does not want to see this type of child excel, especially if there is something extra involved be it extra attention in school, extra activities etc. Our society wants this child as an example to be treated just like the below average kid and IMO that is where we have a real problem.

This child should be given every opportunity to be the best they can be and if a bunch of envious parents and kids can't handle it so what, that is life. Unfortunately this is not the attitude we see these days and I think that is where we took a wrong turn.

 

[The Mystery Machine]

I do not agree it is all about money. The amount of money this nation spends on special ed vs. gifted programs does not even compare. If it were only about money there would be a lot less for the lower kids and a lot more for the middle and upper kids. Its not just about money, its also about parents who cannot accept that their kid might be average or below average.
This makes sense to me and you are right about the slackers vs. the workers, however statistically the high IQ slackers are slacking because they are not being held to a higher standard from early on.
They are sitting in classrooms with average and below average kids with a teacher who is trying to bring them all up to a certain level so that they all test well. The emphasis is on the lower kids, not the higher kids.

This concept of bringing up the weaker kids is prevelant in all areas that all the previous posters have noted; sports, academics, special programs, classes etc. Its all about making the kids all "feel" the same. IMO this is where we have gotten off track.

No it is not about my kid and a "label". I could give 2 hoots what "label" she is.

She was going INSANE in her english class this yr.

She sucked it up last yr because we were not going to worry about the stupid gifted label and classes. And her teacher was able to make the class challenging for her.

Now this yr., they are super imposing the government mandated workbook on them. They have English for 90mins everyday. She can do the "mandated work" in a quarter of the time. She was in a challenge class, but it was still to slow for her. The teacher tried to make her work more "challenging" but it was not working out.

So my dd had to at least try to get out of the class to save her sanity. The gifted english teacher already knows my dd and would have taken her long ago if it was not for "the missouri LAW of 132" with the gifted program.

My dd needs the class and it is not about a "label". There is a difference and I hope you can see that.

 

[luvsJack]

True, and like a pp mentioned I believe individual fitness should be learned. However, they do play games like basketball, volleyball, tennis, etc. in gym. These are games, some people win and some people lose.

ETA - Winning and losing are important concepts to learn!

Winning and losing should be taught while playing on a team. In a gym class the hope is that the students learn about physical fitness and learn to enjoy doing something active. Too much competition can take away a kid's joy in doing some of these physical activities.

 

[Magpie]

I'm a HUGE supporter of congregated gifted programming. But I think it's impossible to compare a gifted program in one district with a gifted program in another. We actually have several different varieties in our district.

The first gifted program my daughter attended was in Grade 1. It was purely based on IQ score, and the cut off was very high (99.95th percentile or higher). It was never intended to be a class for "high achievers". It was designed as a special education resource for children at risk.

As one teacher put it, "You know that kid who is the only one in the middle of a crowd who can't stop wiggling, and talking, and waving their arms around? Now imagine having a whole classroom full of these children!" The energy levels were extreme, and in general a studious child would not do well.

Not to mention, the teachers were not allowed to accelerate their students at all or give them advanced work. They had to stay on track with the curriculum. So that first year the teacher didn't teach math - she gave the kids puzzles and challenged them to create their own games instead. Other courses were similar. They taught the kids to play recorder instead of teaching them to read. The main benefit for my daughter wasn't educational, it was social. That, and having teachers who understood that she wasn't ADD or hyperactive or a freak.

The second gifted program my daughter was in was also score based, but the cut off was much lower. It was just 95th percentile or higher, and this score could be earned on achievement tests as well as on IQ tests. As a result, my daughter found herself in a class full of high achieving, seriously academically driven Asian kids. (There was one year when she was actually the only little white girl in the class.)

It was a different experience, better in some ways, worse in others. The advantage to being in a class of high achievers is that there's a culture of excellence. That's good for my slacker kid! The disadvantage is that it's harder for her to find "like minds" than it was in her first program. She didn't have a friend for the first few years, though she wasn't disliked by anyone. She just wasn't interested in the same things they were. In grade 5, her classmates wanted to play tag at recess. My daughter wanted to talk about the books she was reading. She was lonely for a few years.

I think our high school gifted program is the best yet. There's still that group drive to achieve, but it's easier to find friends with similar interests. There's so many great clubs and activities! Basically, so far, high school seems to blend the strongest aspects of both programs.

So, I can't speak to ALL gifted programs everywhere. I think the ones we have served (and continue to serve) us well. I imagine it's not so good in other school districts, though.

(Gifted/LD is another issue altogether!)

 

[smkiya]

Winning and losing should be taught while playing on a team. In a gym class the hope is that the students learn about physical fitness and learn to enjoy doing something active. Too much competition can take away a kid's joy in doing some of these physical activities.

The same could be said about academic learning too. Striving for an "A" takes away the "joy" of learning the material. So everyone gets the same grade. What happened to challenging yourself to do better if you didn't do well? "Ok, I didn't win this time, what can I do to improve for next time."