> What happens to late bloomers? Are they forever cast down into a track of lower opportunity?
It's a good point, but it only argues for easy transfers into / out of the "gifted" track.
> What about the social benefits of being around people who are on a different intellectual level?
Only a good point if it comes from someone willing to live up to it. Would you willingly relocate to rural Kansas or inner Detroit for the social benefits of being around people who are on a different intellectual level?
> "Gifted" kids often come with motivated parents. Removing these children from schools will take their parents with them. [...] The worst schools will never get better if all the talent is sucked out of them.
Again this sounds very good on paper. But how would you feel about a very similar argument: people should never be allowed to move to LA, NYC or DC from impoverished communities. These are motivated people, and the worst communities will never get better if all the talent is sucked out of them.
A studious freshman is usually on par with his calculus instructor (Math PhD) in the domain of textbook college calculus.
Being advanced(PhD) or gifted usually means pursuing more open-ended type interests and research. The foundational skills, which form the majority of K-12 curriculum, won't be out of reach for someone keeping pace in non advanced tracks.
"gifted track" is rarely a set program. It's usually a mechanism for providing individually paced opportunities and resources [edit: added this phrase] _at a different/specific school_.
Where I live, you get tested whenever your parents want you to be tested, and if they pass the advanced learning at the point, they can choose to elect for the 'advanced school(s)'.
I think your point here should resonate louder (at least where I live in the USA).
Jumping in and out of the "gifted" track should be possible if such a thing exists; however to your point, how would the track be defined and what should it contain? Would there be a list of items that need to be mastered? What evaluations determine if you can jump in... or when you need to "jump out"? Would the "gifted" track be age based the way it is currently or could the contents be tailored to fit the needs of the individual students?
Following that line of thinking, at what point do you qualify for a job? Also, what social stigmas would we attach to "jumping out"?
I don't have answers, but your point led me to some very interesting questions. Thank you!
You ignore the fact most "gifted" students come from higher income families. There are "gifted" children from lower income families that would be misidentified due to underexposure of educational resources.
High income families already send their children to "smart" private schools; why not allow gifted children on the public school track to enjoy similar opportunities?
Why not just make schools better for all, rather than replicating the educational resource hoarding that takes place in private schools?
Because we have working models for high performing specialty schools.
We already have endless infighting about improving every school.
And how do you define "better"? Is it a lower teacher to student ratio? Higher average test scores? Graduation percentage? Percentage of graduating seniors accepted at 4 year colleges? Some other measure?
I believe that I would have been better off in a separate school.
I have chosen to send my children to a charter school for that reason.
> Because we have working models for high performing specialty schools.
So just because?
>"And how do you define "better"? Is it a lower teacher to student ratio? Higher average test scores? Graduation percentage? Percentage of graduating seniors accepted at 4 year colleges? Some other measure?"
There is no "better" for everyone. Rather than just segregating students (and requiring more teachers resources etc.), work to made education better for your students. Have different classes at different speeds.
>"I believe that I would have been better off in a separate school.
I have chosen to send my children to a charter school for that reason."
That's fine, and that's your prerogative as a parent. However, to say that segregation of kids should be the norm is a dangerous. IMO reckless.
Sure, we all know the historical connotations, but we also all know the actual definition of the word. Though I will say, given the correlation between educational resources and race, the historical connotation may be appropriate in some of these gifted vs non gifted situations.
> However, to say that segregation of kids should be the norm is a dangerous.
Who said anything about segregation? I think kids/parents should have free choice about which school to go to: advanced/normal, where the school just makes suggestions and the parents can opt-out or in freely. The only way to get forced out of "advanced school" should be failing out.
Saying that student A must attend school B because of trait C and student X must attend school Y because of trait Z, is segregation. It just so happens to be based upon you deemed "educational qualities" rather than what we normally think about, race. Or more economic status.
> I think kids/parents should have free choice about which school to go to: advanced/normal, where the school just makes suggestions and the parents can opt-out or in freely.
We already have free choice. There are a myriad of private schools you can choose to send your children to. Pay the fees and send them.
Resources don't cut it, the best students learn more from reading a text book than the average students learn from the best classes. There are a lot of fads in education, but elite schools mostly maintain their status by having elite students not elite instructors.
You are missing the other half of the problem: what about the non-gifted. The majority of kids are average: they didn't get whatever it is that makes some people above average. They need the slower pace of school to learn, otherwise they won't learn.
The right thing for an average student is not the same as what is right for either the gifted, or the "retarded" (I forget what the correct term is.
You missed the part where I said they are underexposed to educational resources. These "objective measures" would be biased against low income students that aren't taught the material.
It's a good point, but it only argues for easy transfers into / out of the "gifted" track.
> What about the social benefits of being around people who are on a different intellectual level?
Only a good point if it comes from someone willing to live up to it. Would you willingly relocate to rural Kansas or inner Detroit for the social benefits of being around people who are on a different intellectual level?
> "Gifted" kids often come with motivated parents. Removing these children from schools will take their parents with them. [...] The worst schools will never get better if all the talent is sucked out of them.
Again this sounds very good on paper. But how would you feel about a very similar argument: people should never be allowed to move to LA, NYC or DC from impoverished communities. These are motivated people, and the worst communities will never get better if all the talent is sucked out of them.