Let me start of by saying that this article is so true and a little disappointing. All too often students and just people in general are victims of their own successes. In this case, students are hand-cuffed by their intellegence. Why is that? The article offers up many beliefs for why our country shys away from acceleration. The biggest two of the 12 reasons I think is the fact that age trumps everything else and disasters are memorable. I think that we live in a society that dictates your status based on your age. Think about it. You can't go to school until you are five. Even if you are a smart four year old, you are too young to begin. Generally speaking, promotions and raises in the corporate world on based more on longevitiy than actual merit. Don't get me wrong, usually it works out that the older you are or the longer you are somewhere, the more deserving you usually are. The reality is that time and age are not always indicators of intellegence or performance. Sometimes young people (or new employees) can exceed the expectations set for them. I also agree that diasasters are memorable, especially in this context. If the belief is a student is capable of moving up or ahead, and the student fails, it could leave long term negative effects with that student. In this instance, it would be crucial to ensure that the student is truly prepared for the acceleration. Based on the reading, however, this seems to be very infrequent. As a parent, my oldest son has always been very intelligent. He has been in the GT program since elementary school. I think that the fear for us would be the maturity and social growth. I know that the reading discussed that acceleration was actually beneficial for academic and social growth. Despite the reading, I would still be reluctant. I think that for most parents, we just want our children to have normal and productive childhoods, and normal to us is the normal progression through school.
As I was reading through this report, I read several of the myths the authors drew attention to. I can't say that I was too suprisingly shocked by any of them. Honestly, based on the school in which I teach, I expect many educators to believe that acceleration is not important, because most of our students really don't need it! I hate to say it, but this is definitely the case at our school. We only had two students on the first six weeks honor roll! I think that when the masses don't need something, the minority is left out. Of course, I think that it is crazy, but it happens all of the time in our society. Also, due to my current school I think that it is ludacris to think that acceleration is solely for the wealthy. I teach at a low socioecnomic school and I have seen some truly intelligent kids come through there, and I can tell you that they were by no means wealthy. Also, think about all of the movies and publicity we see of people coming from the streets and being very successful based on intellect. Really, I hate to say this but when it comes to education (or lack there of) nothing surprises me these days.
Based on reading through the Texas State Legislation on Gifted and Talent programming, it would seem like the state is trying to do their part when it comes to our special students. The state has it all laid out in black or white, but it seems that it is three tiered. Tier one looks as if a district wants to be compliant they have to meet some minimum requirements, the second tier is for districts to be recommended and the last tier is for exemplary. The problem that I can see is that depending on the intepretation, acceleration is only mentioned twice. First, in section 2.1E it states that services for gifted/talented students are comprehensive, structured, sequenced and appropriately challenging. It would seem that acceleration could fall into place here. The other place is located in section 2.4E where it states that acceleration options are actively facilitated by district administrators, counselors, and teachers. The problem is not the fact that acceleration is only mentioned twice, but that the mention of acceleration only comes under the category of exemplary. My question is why not sooner? Why not emphasize acceleration at all levels? Ultimately, I believe the state has good intentions and a pretty decent program, but it is up to the districts to really put in place a good program for these students and not let them fall through the cracks!
As I was reading through this report, I read several of the myths the authors drew attention to. I can't say that I was too suprisingly shocked by any of them. Honestly, based on the school in which I teach, I expect many educators to believe that acceleration is not important, because most of our students really don't need it! I hate to say it, but this is definitely the case at our school. We only had two students on the first six weeks honor roll! I think that when the masses don't need something, the minority is left out. Of course, I think that it is crazy, but it happens all of the time in our society. Also, due to my current school I think that it is ludacris to think that acceleration is solely for the wealthy. I teach at a low socioecnomic school and I have seen some truly intelligent kids come through there, and I can tell you that they were by no means wealthy. Also, think about all of the movies and publicity we see of people coming from the streets and being very successful based on intellect. Really, I hate to say this but when it comes to education (or lack there of) nothing surprises me these days.
Based on reading through the Texas State Legislation on Gifted and Talent programming, it would seem like the state is trying to do their part when it comes to our special students. The state has it all laid out in black or white, but it seems that it is three tiered. Tier one looks as if a district wants to be compliant they have to meet some minimum requirements, the second tier is for districts to be recommended and the last tier is for exemplary. The problem that I can see is that depending on the intepretation, acceleration is only mentioned twice. First, in section 2.1E it states that services for gifted/talented students are comprehensive, structured, sequenced and appropriately challenging. It would seem that acceleration could fall into place here. The other place is located in section 2.4E where it states that acceleration options are actively facilitated by district administrators, counselors, and teachers. The problem is not the fact that acceleration is only mentioned twice, but that the mention of acceleration only comes under the category of exemplary. My question is why not sooner? Why not emphasize acceleration at all levels? Ultimately, I believe the state has good intentions and a pretty decent program, but it is up to the districts to really put in place a good program for these students and not let them fall through the cracks!
No comments:
Post a Comment