5 ms·

>.... are we willing to sacrifice helping them do better to help the top achievers do their best? How much are we willing to sacrifice in either direction? It

>.... are we willing to sacrifice helping them do better to help the top achievers do their best? How much are we willing to sacrifice in either direction? It is so strange reading this comment, as I know how Americans are primed to respond to it, and how precisely opposite my response is.

cortesoft 7y ago
Care to share what your response is? I am not sure I know what the traditional American response is?
- barry-cotter 7y ago
  Look at how the US K-12 education system works in practice. This is probably a reasonable enough guide to what the populace want because of democracy. You see a system designed and run for the pretty average children with substantial investment in bringing up those who are academically behind, whether or not there’s any prospect of them becoming average or exceeding it. You see basically nothing spent on the most academically gifted, as such. If they’re lucky there’ll be streaming with honours or AP classes. Special needs gets about 25% of K-12 education spending. Gifted and talented hovers around 1%.
  - waterhouse 7y ago
    Miraca Gross, writing about Austrialia, says this: "Two studies a decade apart (Start, John, and Strange, 1975; Start, 1985) surveyed every Australian tertiary institution which offered teacher education programmes. Each was contacted with a questionnaire relating to their teacher education offerings in four areas: mentally, physically, or emotionally handicapped children, migrant children, socio-economically deprived children, and gifted and talented children. The situation regarding teacher preparation in gifted education was twice as positive in the mid-1980s as it had been in the mid-1970s. Nevertheless, in 1984, for every hour on teaching the gifted, student teachers had been exposed to 18 to 24 hours on teaching the disadvantaged. Furthermore, sessions on gifted education usually comprised one single-hour lecture in a general course, or elective units of three to six lectures. Whereas every institution had at least one compulsory unit or course on one or other form of disadvantage, no institution in Australia had a compulsory unit on gifted. One college replied to the survey saying that its students could consider the intellectually able as one topic in a comprehensive course, and approximately one lecture would be devoted to the area. The name of the course was "Controversies in Education" (Start, 1985)." She says it's less bad in the United States—as of 1993. The figure you give isn't encouraging, though.

cortesoft 7y ago

Care to share what your response is? I am not sure I know what the traditional American response is?

barry-cotter 7y ago
Look at how the US K-12 education system works in practice. This is probably a reasonable enough guide to what the populace want because of democracy. You see a system designed and run for the pretty average children with substantial investment in bringing up those who are academically behind, whether or not there’s any prospect of them becoming average or exceeding it. You see basically nothing spent on the most academically gifted, as such. If they’re lucky there’ll be streaming with honours or AP classes. Special needs gets about 25% of K-12 education spending. Gifted and talented hovers around 1%.
- waterhouse 7y ago
  Miraca Gross, writing about Austrialia, says this: "Two studies a decade apart (Start, John, and Strange, 1975; Start, 1985) surveyed every Australian tertiary institution which offered teacher education programmes. Each was contacted with a questionnaire relating to their teacher education offerings in four areas: mentally, physically, or emotionally handicapped children, migrant children, socio-economically deprived children, and gifted and talented children. The situation regarding teacher preparation in gifted education was twice as positive in the mid-1980s as it had been in the mid-1970s. Nevertheless, in 1984, for every hour on teaching the gifted, student teachers had been exposed to 18 to 24 hours on teaching the disadvantaged. Furthermore, sessions on gifted education usually comprised one single-hour lecture in a general course, or elective units of three to six lectures. Whereas every institution had at least one compulsory unit or course on one or other form of disadvantage, no institution in Australia had a compulsory unit on gifted. One college replied to the survey saying that its students could consider the intellectually able as one topic in a comprehensive course, and approximately one lecture would be devoted to the area. The name of the course was "Controversies in Education" (Start, 1985)." She says it's less bad in the United States—as of 1993. The figure you give isn't encouraging, though.