In hindsight, it is striking how little discussion we had in the reform community about how these efforts did or did not address the needs of kids who were excelling, or how these initiatives were landing on non-disadvantaged communities—places where parents liked things just as they were. These examples should have revealed to the sometimes self-certain reform community that, because public education is a democratic enterprise, an education-policy agenda should address the needs and interests of all families.
For entirely too long, policy has been incapable of addressing that question when posed by the parents of high-performing kids. As a result, high-achieving students depend on state and local policy and practice. Worse, only 17 states require that gifted services be provided in all K—12 grades.
Four states only required that gifted students be identified—with no requirement to serve them. Twelve states reported no state funding to districts for gifted education. In fact, more than half of the states had less than one full-time staff member devoted to gifted education state departments of education typically have hundreds of employees. In the book Exam Schools , Chester Finn and Jessica Hockett found only selective-admissions public high schools in the entire nation out of the roughly 24, public secondary schools in America.
And parents with means can send their children to elite private schools. The question, though, is whether we ought to invest serious public funding in gifted students through the public-education system. These are, after all, kids with special needs of a sort; their parents vote; and the nation could benefit mightily from the purposeful fostering of their talents. A study from found that the percentage of U.
Only 3 percent of U. A report focused on disadvantaged kids found that they are more likely to fall from the ranks of high-achieving students over the course of their school careers, and that they rarely rise into the ranks of high achievers. Gifted education gets short shrift in part because some believe that other education issues are simply more important and see efforts to advance gifted education as inhibiting those priorities.
No surprise, the panelists approached gifted education primarily through the lens of integration. And no doubt, there is a moral case to be made for focusing attention on at-risk students instead of high achievers. A progressive point of view might hold that the only approach that squares with justice is to direct resources in a way that helps those at the bottom.
Others, reasoning more pragmatically, might note that there are limited educational resources, so we must triage: Struggling kids, not soaring kids, need help first. We should also recognize that the topic of gifted education makes some feel viscerally uneasy. Discussions about varying intellectual capacities can become malignant, for instance, due to radioactive attempts to link intelligence to sex , race , and class.
Who rises to the top? Early indicators. Psychological Science , 24 , — Olympiad studies: Competitions provide alternatives to developing talents that serve national interests. Roeper Review , 33 , 8— What happens to young, creative producers?
Psychological Science , 18 , — Skip to main content. This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions. Not a Member?
Search form Search our Site. It was found that gifted adolescent students were 50 times more likely to pursue doctoral degrees than the non-gifted students.
Of these, 44 percent had achieved a level of Doctorate. This can be compared with the general population where 2 percent have Doctorates. Beyond college and graduate school, there is more evidence of success for students of gifted programs. Another study of intellectually gifted adolescents showed that distinct ability patterns identified by age 13 foreshadowed continued creative accomplishments in middle age. In the group studied, they had earned patents and published 93 books.
Children go to school to learn — not only new material but how to learn. They need to be taught study skills and the self-discipline needed to focus and concentrate on the particular topic at hand. This is especially true for gifted children. In addition to study skills, the material is important, too. Gifted children in a traditional setting will acquire new information easily and do very well in tests that are not tough enough for them. However, they are not benefiting from an intellectual challenge.
What they need is adversity. Learning how to overcome adversity is important in school as a precursor to what these children will face later in life. If gifted students are not challenged and do not need to use appropriate study skills at an early age, then they will not know how to handle more difficult tests later on. They will not have the resilience needed when faced with future setbacks or failure.
Gifted students often feel uncomfortable in a classroom with peers who think of them as being different or unusual. They are shunned by other students who often form cliques based on their own social expectations.
The gifted students felt left out, and often feel rejected and ridiculed. When these gifted students are placed with other gifted students who think the way they do, and face the same problems, and enjoy the same love of learning, they feel much differently. They fit in better. They know they are being understood and accepted. Their minds remain occupied and challenged, and there is less chance of being called out for disruption.
0コメント