I knew gifted programs tend to be bad, but can you clarify what you said? I'm aware that gifted programs do put children on pedestals, and that's like, Really Bad™, but I want to understand the problem with gifted programs in more depth.
- Most importantly, the way that cutoffs for gifted programs and "tracking" in school work never makes sense. It is arbitrary almost literally 100% of the time and often based on the outcome of a single placement test. It is not just easy to corrupt with politics, it is known to be rife with politics (e.g. the school never changes the placement tests and certain teachers are supplied with the answers so that they can teach kids to pass the test). So the point is: we're usually sorting children on the basis of
nothing that has anything to do with the child's own self. Or, well, actually: Zip code, parental income, skin color, assigned sex.
- Next, the entire historical conception of giftedness and IQ was developed in order to justify the American caste system (see Zip code, income, skin color, assigned sex). I am saying this as a former K-12 educator who was very interested in gifted education and taught honors courses. I have not been able to find a single book on giftedness that legitimized "gifted education" as currently conceived.
- Third, you could still try to argue that "laning" is good for top students. It generally isn't. Not only does it give them a fixed idea of their abilities, which is poison for the long haul, it also teaches them to be afraid of hard work, because that's what "normal" students do to succeed.
- Fourth, content of gifted vs. normal courses typically isn't that different. This is because of the first point: gifted kids struggle with many of the same things that "normal" students do.
- Fifth, I never want to hear a kid joking about how they're "in the stupid class" again, which I must have heard almost every day when I was teaching.
- Sixth, virtually all countries with functioning educational systems
do not lane students for as long as possible, say until age 16, and
try to lower barriers of entry to education. In other words, effort pays off without being restricted by
arbitrary barriers to progress.
- Example of six: in the TIMSS (Third International Math and Science Study) the lowest scoring Japanese public school student did better on the test than the highest-scoring American student. This is because resources were put into quality teaching, as opposed to segregated classrooms.
- Seven, yeah I said it, segregation. Why is anyone surprised that one lane of students performs worse than the other and knows less, if the teachers feel free to put on a video and tune out? And this is in the wealthy school districts. Why are we unconcerned about how laning began around when "separate is equal" ended? Similarly: the explosion of private high schools in the 60s? Regardless of one's opinions on the virtue of laning, this should ring a lot of alarm bells. And yet.
OK, that was a rant. If people wanna argue with me you can start a thread.