3 ms·
Yeah I think the identification of "gifted" children is pretty imprecise and error prone. Also it's unclear the kids doing well (better than everyone else, I i
by throwfh80h82 4y ago
Yeah I think the identification of "gifted" children is pretty imprecise and error prone.
Also it's unclear the kids doing well (better than everyone else, I imagine) are the ones who'd most benefit from special treatment, versus the struggling kids.
- scarmig 4y agoI agree that a binary gifted/nongifted is not really descriptive of reality or useful. No kid should get special treatment; every kid should get treatment appropriate to their level. It's not even strictly speaking a matter of resources: you don't need fancy equipment to teach a more advanced class. It does mean you need more teachers and a larger school, so that people can be placed into classes of roughly equal levels of ability.
- candiodari 4y agoThen there's only 1 solution: 1 teacher per child. Half that would make the education budget exceed the total tax income of the state ... Or put differently: for this suggestion we can't pay. And we choose not to pay for even mild improvements to the current situation.