We wouldn't need gifted and talented programs if public schools had decent and consistent curriculum. This is just a blind for getting more money for ineffective people to continue to waste our children's time.
The second part of your comment could well be true. The first part, however, is demonstrably false. I take it you've never run into a "scary-smart" individual whether grown-up or still in the age of precociousness—they're unmistakable and exist in a different dimension than you...or I do.
I've been involved in education reform for over 30 years. I've raised national merit semi-finalists and valedictorians. I've looked into "gifted and talented" programs in the past and they reflected the low intellect of the people who designed them. It was a lot of busy work and nonsense and pseudo-education. It is possible some programs are better now, but one thing I do know: The education industrial complex does nothing on behalf of children that does not line their pockets and benefit them primarily.
Unless you have high level teachers who have mastered content knowledge in a particular field, programs run by the average teacher will produce nothing. But the school systems LOVE anything that gives them a reason to ask for more money. And the more there is a 'perceived' benefit, like G&T programs, the more likely it is that the public will continue to fund it, regardless of whether there is *any* measurable outcome.
The poll is focused on allocation of existing funds rather than funding increases. I agree that many gifted programs are weak and that content knowledge mastery is king, but funding balance reflects the priorities of the system and if the system is allocates little of its existing funding advanced education it's allocating little of its attention and care to the same.
We wouldn't need gifted and talented programs if public schools had decent and consistent curriculum. This is just a blind for getting more money for ineffective people to continue to waste our children's time.
The second part of your comment could well be true. The first part, however, is demonstrably false. I take it you've never run into a "scary-smart" individual whether grown-up or still in the age of precociousness—they're unmistakable and exist in a different dimension than you...or I do.
I've been involved in education reform for over 30 years. I've raised national merit semi-finalists and valedictorians. I've looked into "gifted and talented" programs in the past and they reflected the low intellect of the people who designed them. It was a lot of busy work and nonsense and pseudo-education. It is possible some programs are better now, but one thing I do know: The education industrial complex does nothing on behalf of children that does not line their pockets and benefit them primarily.
Unless you have high level teachers who have mastered content knowledge in a particular field, programs run by the average teacher will produce nothing. But the school systems LOVE anything that gives them a reason to ask for more money. And the more there is a 'perceived' benefit, like G&T programs, the more likely it is that the public will continue to fund it, regardless of whether there is *any* measurable outcome.
The poll is focused on allocation of existing funds rather than funding increases. I agree that many gifted programs are weak and that content knowledge mastery is king, but funding balance reflects the priorities of the system and if the system is allocates little of its existing funding advanced education it's allocating little of its attention and care to the same.