Before I read Malcolm Gladwell’s new book Outliers I would have been upset about this change to Montgomery County, MD’s “gifted” program – but Gladwell makes a pretty compelling case in his book that the practice of sorting kids into gifted programs so early tends to have the effect of unfairly excluding kids who are naturally as likely to excel at too early a point.
I still think social promotion stupidly coddles students, however.
“Tracking” is, I think, on balance a bad idea. And this is coming from someone who was “tracked” into gifted programs from about 7th grade onwards. I think we unnecessarily narrow the pool of students with the potential to become “academic elites”, and do so at the expense not only of those kids on the bubble, but also the “average” kids who might benefit from being paired up with a “smart” kid, so the smart kid can pass on some of their learning techniques and study habits. Yes, in practice this would be less than 100% efficient, but I think it’s worth a try.
FWIW, I was also in one of these programs – in Montgomery County, ironically.
My education was VERY different.
My dad was in the Air Force (Canadian) and I moved all over hell and back – I ended up going to 21 schools between K and 8 and two more in High School(honest!). I sure learned how to introduce myself – and make new friends – but as for ed-u-ma-cation most of that I picked up freelance on my own. I didn’t go to University till I was 28 and was working full time. As much as I was willing to give up to go to University – I just couldn’t get over the desire for food – several times a day. Ya – I know – I’m a wuss.
As for “Gifted Programs” one of my early wives was a teacher – I think it was the first wife (times blur when you’re having fun) and she felt they were very important to make sure the gifted among us were challenged enough to stay in school. Apparently, gifted kids who are not challenged seem to drop out. Who’d a thunk.
I don’t’ know, Oliver, I have mixed feelings about this. I don’t believe in “tracking” per se, at least not until high school. But identifying students who need extra enrichment in the classroom is just as important as identifying the students who need extra help. And while I understand not wanting to stygmatize the students who aren’t identified as “gifted,” you’ve gotta call the academically advanced kids something.
As the parent of a very bright 4th grader, I can tell you that my son is bored and unmotivated in the classroom – the classic “gifted” underachiever. We are hoping that his admission to the gifted program this year will give him the hook he needs to get interested in school again.
The gifted programs that I am familiar with leave the students in the classroom for most of the school week, pulling them out for a few extra, creative activities once or twice a week. It is very similar to the way my daughter, who has some learning disabilities, is pulled out of the classroom for speech therapy and extra help on homework (homework in kindergarten, which is another rant altogether). In fact, my son has an IEP identifying his needs as a “gifted” student, just as my daughter has an IEP identifying her need for academic help.
OTOH, I think entrance to these programs should be available at any point in the curriculum, so that those who may not be identified until later still have the chance to benefit from enriched education.
Well I’m not against the sorting, but the sorting is happening too soon from the evidence I’ve seen. Its like watching kids crawl and picking the fastest crawler for development as an Olympic sprinter. The kid who develops into a runner later in life gets screwed.
In my kids’ school district, they don’t start the gifted thing until 3rd or 4th grade. This came up while talking about my precocious 1st grader. Some kids are going to stick out early just because they’ve developed faster, and then the other kids catch up. Obviously school districts should be flexible about who’s in and out each year.
If a theoretically perfect school district maximized every child’s potential, they’d do it for every child, from the gifted to the learning disabled and everyone in between. I don’t quite know how to do that, other than provide extra help where needed, enrichment for gifted kids, and generally keeping school challenging for everyone.
Malcolm Gladwell is an idiot. Every empirical, long-term study that’s ever been done has shown that tracking improves the educational lot of every student in the school.
Be careful before you give too much credence to Outliers. I haven’t read it yet, but if he uses the same methodologies he used in The Tipping Point and Blink, then he’s basically written a book full of cherry-picked evidence and mangled interpretations of peer reviewed studies.
I think my school did it pretty well (public school system in the Midwest) – they start in Kindergarten or 1st grade, but students are re-evaluated each year. That way, “late bloomers” or children who move into the district can still participate in the Gifted program.
Of course, the one downside is if you’re a kid on the cusp and your Gifted status changes from year to year.
From what I recall, evaluation was a combination of grades, various standardized test scores, and teacher recommendations.
Social promotion doesn’t work, but you know what else doesn’t work? Holding kids back. A few years back, I was forced to move kids up and out of the eighth grade because the next year they would have been old enough to drive to middle school. On the other hand, they flat out told me that it didn’t matter what they did or how well they did it, because they knew they would be moved up anyway. On the good side, kids in this area can go to a trade high school.