NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6214407.stm (bbc news clicky)

We supposedly live in a none prejudiced society where everyone gets an equal opportunity in life whether your young or old, tall or short but we still end up with the supposed most intelligent children getting extra opportunities.

I'm officially classed as 'gifted and talented' and in my personal opinion we get enough help. Why not help the middle set children. They dont get help for being unintelligent but neither do they get more opportunites for being intelligent.

Fair? I think not.

We supposedly live in a none prejudiced society where everyone gets an equal opportunity in life whether your young or old, tall or short but we still end up with the supposed most intelligent children getting extra opportunities.
Napoleon: Well, some people are more equal then others.
I'm officially classed as 'gifted and talented' and in my personal opinion we get enough help. Why not help the middle set children. They dont get help for being unintelligent but neither do they get more opportunites for being intelligent.
Ha, sure. Help those who need help. I suppose next you want people to love each other. Pipe dream.

Oh, and you got the URL and the URL text switched.

Those at a higher level need more advanced resources and teaching in order to keep progressing. Otherwise we have people using resources that will not challange them, the "middle children" are already using resources that challange them.

GT education is a subset of special education. It mostly just provides the funding to have seperate classes. When you are in a room of 30 students ranging from mainstreamed sped to gt, you teach to the lower-middle. That would hold back the gt students, which isn't fair to them. Therefore, they get seperate classes, as to the lowest group.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6214407.stm (bbc news clicky)

We supposedly live in a none prejudiced society where everyone gets an equal opportunity in life whether your young or old, tall or short but we still end up with the supposed most intelligent children getting extra opportunities.

I'm officially classed as 'gifted and talented' and in my personal opinion we get enough help. Why not help the middle set children. They dont get help for being unintelligent but neither do they get more opportunites for being intelligent.

Fair? I think not.

For starters,your link doesn't work.Secondly,in my school,more intelligent kids seem to get very few opportunities.
And your "non-prejudiced society" idea is wrong,women (in some cases) still get paid less than men doing the same job.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6214407.stm (bbc news clicky)

We supposedly live in a none prejudiced society where everyone gets an equal opportunity in life whether your young or old, tall or short but we still end up with the supposed most intelligent children getting extra opportunities.

I'm officially classed as 'gifted and talented' and in my personal opinion we get enough help. Why not help the middle set children. They dont get help for being unintelligent but neither do they get more opportunites for being intelligent.

Fair? I think not.

Of course its fair. Gifts and talents isn't based on how much you earn. Its about your ability. Those who have said ability should be allowed to maximise it. For those that do not it is encoragement to work harder

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6214407.stm

You got your coding mixed up, the url goes after the =, then the text goes between the tags.

Someone from Northumberland. YAY!

people who need special treatment should receive special treatment.

I remember going to school where we had a crappy at best gifted program, I was bored, and I gave up. The "average" kids don't get bored, they are being challenged, if they are not being challenged they are above average and need special accommodation.

Someone from Northumberland. YAY!
w00t, Northumberland!

Oh, and on topic - I was in the gifted and talented group at high school, and it did feel like we got more attention. We did history and geography at GCSE as a peer group, in fewer lessons per week. This grouping certainly gave us an advantage above the other classes, because we had a more united work ethic, and in general enjoyed the subject as a class. In one case we wangled a 'cultural' trip to London, cos we (teacher included) decided we should have a G&T trip to London, just for kicks. The G&T group got trips to Cambridge and Oxford, to encourage us to apply. This extra experience gave us an advantage when applying to universities in general, I think. These extra opportunities were beneficial to us, but did generate resentment among our friends.
So yeah. Extra support for the top end of the scale certainly works, but if its provided at the expense of the rest, then on average, it's worse than useless.

Gifted kids need more as their talents have less limits than other groups and if they access their talents they can possibly go incredibly far. More average groups are easier to challenge and will not get as much benefit from measures to help them reach their potential. As such, it is better to give as much capability for the intelligent to go as far as they can, otherwise we have more significant losses in how this potential could be used.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6214407.stm (bbc news clicky)

We supposedly live in a none prejudiced society where everyone gets an equal opportunity in life whether your young or old, tall or short but we still end up with the supposed most intelligent children getting extra opportunities.

I'm officially classed as 'gifted and talented' and in my personal opinion we get enough help. Why not help the middle set children. They dont get help for being unintelligent but neither do they get more opportunites for being intelligent.

Fair? I think not.

Congratulations, you just made me choke.

Congratulations, you just made me choke.

:eek: From all the way across the Atlantic?!

:eek: From all the way across the Atlantic?!

Yeah. It was an achievement.

Yes! Especially gifted children have special needs, just like academically challenged children.

Life isn't fair, it's arbitrary. Do you think we should do as has been done in the past and try to hold the gifted back to the level of the least intelligent, all in the interests of "fairness." Intelligent and gifted kids who are bored because they aren't being challenged are dangerous to themselves and others.

Once you get out of school and into "real life" you'll find that intelligence and drive are rewarded and stupidity isn't.

Call it Darwinism in action.

Interesting to see that apparently it's only for children "in England", so nothing for anyone gifted and talented in Wales, Scotland, and N.Ireland.:rolleyes:

Interesting to see that apparently it's only for children "in England", so nothing for anyone gifted and talented in Wales, Scotland, and N.Ireland.:rolleyes:

Well they get to set their own education policy, I believe.

Well they get to set their own education policy, I believe.

Standard problem of the dual nature of the Government as both English and British. But even so, they're apparently dumping an extra £65m on the English system, possibly should have thought about the tuition fees system which is mildly biased the other way. But still feel the system should be nationwide.

Life isn't fair, it's arbitrary. Do you think we should do as has been done in the past and try to hold the gifted back to the level of the least intelligent, all in the interests of "fairness." Intelligent and gifted kids who are bored because they aren't being challenged are dangerous to themselves and others.

Once you get out of school and into "real life" you'll find that intelligence and drive are rewarded and stupidity isn't.

Call it Darwinism in action.

I got streamed with the "thickie" kids while at school,because I was so damned disruptive(between bouts of staring outa the window), it never occured to the teachers to find out why I was disruptive until they made all the students one year sit IQ tests.. I came out at 148.
My behaviour was basically being caused by extreme boredom.

Now imagine this, you are sitting in a room listening to someone explain the fire safety rules for your building, where to go, where to assemble, you have to listen twice because the slow guys at the back have trouble keeping up, its funny.... imagine listening to the same damned instructions 20 or 30 times for the same guys... how would you feel? that was my average school day

The world has always been divided into the Brights, the tweens, and the downers.
The brights come up with an idea
The tweens make something useful of the idea
The downers press the remote while waiting for the next soap to come on the TV

Anything that gives the brights and the tweens a leg up on everyone else IS a good idea

El-Presidente Boris

Of course its fair. Gifts and talents isn't based on how much you earn. Its about your ability. Those who have said ability should be allowed to maximise it. For those that do not it is encoragement to work harder

Oftentimes in schools, however, it is based on the background of the students. White, middle- to upper-middle class students from two parent families are more likely to be identified as G&T than students from poor backgrounds. I personally have sought to have many of my students tested, only to be told, "it's a waste of time, they're just troublemakers."

I think a vertical curriculum is the best option available. It enables students to work at their own pace, and achieve at a level appropriate to their abilities. It gives them opportunities for success experiences that they do not get in age-based curricula.

But we also need to pay attention to those students whose gifts and talents lay in the practical realm. We need to stop neglecting those students who are not academically inclined. For instance, I teach students who can barely read at 14 years of age, but can rebuild a car motor in a weekend, or who could rewire my house blindfolded. These students are just as deserving of positive reinforcement, and extra assistance to advance as those who are traditionally seen as gifted.

Gifted kids need more as their talents have less limits than other groups and if they access their talents they can possibly go incredibly far.

Gifted kids should have enough fucking nous to work under their own steam.

I was in the "gifted and talented" program in grade school and we didn't do much. It was even worse in most other schools. As a result I found school a tortuous bore.
Sorry, second-graders don't have enough ability to control their education to do it without some help. I learned a lot by reading on my own, but simply reading for pleasure leaves a lot of holes in your education.

I learned a lot by reading on my own, but simply reading for pleasure leaves a lot of holes in your education.

Secondary education in general leaves a lot of holes in your education.

Secondary education in general leaves a lot of holes in your education.Sadly true.
It was only once I started college that I found how deficient I was in math. And how deficient some of my instructors were in other areas.

Sadly true.
It was only once I started college that I found how deficient I was in math. And how deficient some of my instructors were in other areas.

Consider my confusion when a college philosophy lecturerer wrote 'Buzz Aldrin was the first man in space' on the blackboard and proceeded to lecture us for the next ten minutes about this 'true' statement.

Hands were eventually raised and one of us students pointed out that he was actually the second man to step onto the moon.

Professor asks us 'Who was the first?'

Answer - 'Neil Armstrong'.

The lecturerer takes the board eraser, wipes off half his statement, replaces it with 'Neil Armstrong was the first man in space' and then continues to lecture us for the remainder of the class on the characteristics of this 'true' statement.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6214407.stm (bbc news clicky)

We supposedly live in a none prejudiced society where everyone gets an equal opportunity in life whether your young or old, tall or short but we still end up with the supposed most intelligent children getting extra opportunities.

I'm officially classed as 'gifted and talented' and in my personal opinion we get enough help. Why not help the middle set children. They dont get help for being unintelligent but neither do they get more opportunites for being intelligent.

Fair? I think not.

I don't think the purpose has really ever been to give the gifted extra help, but rather to get the most use out of them. If someone truly gifted is likely to finish college while holding down a full-time job to pay for it, but takes an extra year or two, and then when he's 55 he comes close to curing cancer, but he never really recovered from the strain he put on his health when he pushed his way through college with a full-time job and not enough money to really look after his health...

Well, wouldn't you rather he had been able to focus on his studies?

Consider my confusion when a college philosophy lecturerer wrote 'Buzz Aldrin was the first man in space' on the blackboard and proceeded to lecture us for the next ten minutes about this 'true' statement.

Hands were eventually raised and one of us students pointed out that he was actually the first man to step onto the moon.

Professor asks us 'Who was the first?'

Answer - 'Neil Armstrong'.

The lecturerer takes the board eraser, wipes off half his statement, replaces it with 'Neil Armstrong was the first man in space' and then continues to lecture us for the remainder of the class on the characteristics of this 'true' statement.

And the funny thing is that none of those statements are true.

Of course if the point of it was to explain the characteristics of truth then he had the opportunity to expound on that when it was pointed out that the truth of a statement could be analyzed even if the statement isn't true. Like a physicist can explain how an ice cube contains heat.

And the funny thing is that none of those statements are true.

That was the whole point of the sad and sorry anecdote.


EDIT: Ah, I wrote 'first' in one place where I should have written 'first' which rather marrs it all. Fixed now for perpetuity.