> So is your opinion that such a program is not a good option for any student?
It is extremely hard to draw such broad conclusions. I do think on the whole G&T programs are a net negative- if only because they have drained so many resources from the vast majority of students. I think there is a reasonable middle ground to be had somewhere.
> Why not conclude instead that there should be good advanced programs, not like the ones you've seen?
I have seen quite a few advanced programs and I can attach various adjectives to them, and I think some were objectively good from the standard measure. I think the entire concept is flawed in a fundamental way though. All children will benefit from small class sizes, individualized lesson plans, encouragement to pursue their passions, etc etc. Its heartbreaking that we offer those services primarily to children who are academically exceptional.
> As it is, my child is coming to the conclusion that school is boring/easy and that she is smarter than her classmates
This is certainly a struggle. Do keep in mind that your daughter will take your cues to heart in how you interact with her schooling. Finding the challenge in the mundane is a skill I did not develop until I was much too old to take advantage of it.
> Worst of all, she's realizing that her teachers and principal don't actually care whether she learns anything. IMO, that's worse than the picture you paint.
Thats certainly not a good situation. I wish you the best of luck in addressing it however you deem best. As I concede above, its hard to paint with broad strokes; every child is different and will respond differently to identical situations.
> All children will benefit from small class sizes, individualized lesson plans, encouragement to pursue their passions, etc etc.
Class size has nothing to do with it. As I've mentioned above multiple times, this is not what we are after. It is also not necessarily something that these programs offer; the program I was in 30 years ago did not have small class sizes.
Equally important, evidence does not strongly support the theory that smaller class sizes improve performance. Most of the studies show no benefit or a small benefit but only for certain types of students (white/Asian, not URM).
Similarly, we're not looking for individualized lesson plans. Just let her do the regular math for a different grade level. No customization needed. I realize that would require matching up 'math time' for her class and another class, but this is a school with 7 classes per grade. There are many ways to make this happen (for her and for other students who could also benefit from above-grade-level instruction).
> I do think on the whole G&T programs are a net negative- if only because they have drained so many resources from the vast majority of students.
> Its heartbreaking that we offer those services primarily to children who are academically exceptional.
I'm curious where you're getting your numbers from. I work in education technology, and the common wisdom is that tons of money is spent on Title I schools and special education. I have literally never heard anyone claim that GATE is a lucrative market.
1) a lower student to teacher ratio
2) better, newer equipment
3) better, more experienced teachers
I've never talked to someone who didn't admit to those advantages, only argued about how important they were or how expensive they might be. I can imagine it isn't a cash cow for the industry because the number of students is small and most of the difference is in teacher pay per child.
Re snap class sizes having an effect on outcomes. This is extremely surprising to me. The last I looked (admittedly quite some time ago) it was essentially the only factor that has significant weight and was reproducible.
Well, you will need teachers who have mastered algebra themselves. Other than that, I don't see why they need to be better or more experienced.
The profs I had in college were never trained as teachers, nor were they particularly experienced at it. But they knew the material to the point that it was trivial for them.
> But they knew the material to the point that it was trivial for them
On the flipside this can make it harder for the teacher to relate to the students. In a university context of course, students have each other as equals.
> I'm curious where you're getting your numbers from. I work in education technology, and the common wisdom is that tons of money is spent on Title I schools and special education. I have literally never heard anyone claim that GATE is a lucrative market.
I went to a magnet school for high school. While we did have a decent amount of swanky equipment for labs, that was pretty much all donated or begged off of companies. That does comport with your tales that GT isn't particularly graced with extra funding.
> Its heartbreaking that we offer those services primarily to children who are academically exceptional.
It is far more heartbreaking seeing those resources wasted on the comparatively incapable. You can bring a student to math, but you can't make him/her learn. Moreover it guts both our national competitiveness and eschews meritocracy in favor of classism, where the have's can privately acquire those services.
I was once hired to photograph a teacher for a magazine or the like. It was a music class at about the 3rd grade level. There was a student in the class that clearly had no idea what was going on and just moaned the entire time. They had an aide that stayed with them the entire time and presumably the entire day.
I understand that as a parent you’d want to do what you can for your child to give them a normal experience. I’d probably do the same in their shoes. As a society we should probably place limits on that. As far as I could tell he was one step above “vegetable” and gained nothing from the experience and it took an insane amount of potential resources away from the rest of the students.
> All children will benefit from small class sizes, individualized lesson plans, encouragement to pursue their passions, etc etc.
You don't need any of that for a gifted program. You just need to teach more advanced material, and at a faster pace. There's no reason whatsoever it should cost more.
Heck, my freshman physics class in college had 150 students in it. It blew by high school honors physics in 3 or 4 lectures. I learned a crap ton in it. It was terrifying, but also exhilarating.
Well, perhaps this is true. I wonder how well it would work in a k-8 setting. I've never seen it implemented there like that.
Edit: I can think of a situation where I attended a different grade's math class. That was completely separate from the g&t program at the school, and I simply haven't considered it as part of that.
I understand that k-8 is different, I was just pointing out that small class size is not necessarily correlated with quality teaching. This is especially true as the kids mature.
I also doubt that it is even possible to reliably detect a gifted student before 3rd grade.
And lastly, a gifted program can be little more than just giving the 3rd grade gifted students the 4th grade curriculum. No extra money required. No magical teaching required.
I think perhaps we are in (majority) agreement. My primary point is that g&t programs in the k-8 range don't look anything like what you describe. What you describe also happens, its just not called a gifted and talented program (at least in my experience).
If I hadn't had gifted classes to keep me intellectually stimulated, I probably would've been lighting things on fire during class in elementary school. I guess I would've found "the challenge in the mundane", but it most likely would've been through destructive and antisocial behavior.
I don't recall we even needed a lot of resources or personal attention or special student/teacher ratios in gifted class--they just set us loose with computers and told us to write logo programs (it was the early 90s), instead of being stuck in regular class trying to figure out how to cut myself so I could feel something other than bored.
I would've ended up getting a phd with or without gifted classes--I didn't need it to get a jump start on career success or something like that. I needed it to keep me sane.
It is extremely hard to draw such broad conclusions. I do think on the whole G&T programs are a net negative- if only because they have drained so many resources from the vast majority of students. I think there is a reasonable middle ground to be had somewhere.
> Why not conclude instead that there should be good advanced programs, not like the ones you've seen?
I have seen quite a few advanced programs and I can attach various adjectives to them, and I think some were objectively good from the standard measure. I think the entire concept is flawed in a fundamental way though. All children will benefit from small class sizes, individualized lesson plans, encouragement to pursue their passions, etc etc. Its heartbreaking that we offer those services primarily to children who are academically exceptional.
> As it is, my child is coming to the conclusion that school is boring/easy and that she is smarter than her classmates
This is certainly a struggle. Do keep in mind that your daughter will take your cues to heart in how you interact with her schooling. Finding the challenge in the mundane is a skill I did not develop until I was much too old to take advantage of it.
> Worst of all, she's realizing that her teachers and principal don't actually care whether she learns anything. IMO, that's worse than the picture you paint.
Thats certainly not a good situation. I wish you the best of luck in addressing it however you deem best. As I concede above, its hard to paint with broad strokes; every child is different and will respond differently to identical situations.