On Jul 21, 5:55=A0pm, hru...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Herman Rubin) wrote:
> In article
<ceb46995-8188-4ea3-931a-c2e23997a...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>
>
>
> Dom =A0<DR...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >On Jul 4, 12:54=3DA0pm, Dom <DR...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> In view of the fact that "quality education" existed when there were
> >> no programs for "gifted students," I do not see how the current state
> >> of pseudo-education in the U.S. is related to a lack of resources for
> >> "gifted students."
> >>
=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=
=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D
> >=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D
> >> courant.com/news/opinion/editorials/hc-
> >> siegle0701.artjul01,0,4321064.story
> >> Resources Run Short For Gifted Students
> >> DEL SIEGLE
> >> July 1, 2008
> >> Being a gifted young learner should not mean you lose your right to a
> >> quality education.
> >[snip]
> >courant.com/news/opinion/letters/hc-
> >digedlets0720.art1jul20,0,6679191.story
> >Overall Progress Is Laudable =A0 =A0July 20, 2008
> >Del Siegle has expressed great alarm at the results of a study of
> >standardized testing of students over a recent eight-year period [Op-
> >Ed, July 1, "Resources Run Short For Gifted Students"]. The results
> >show that students scoring in the bottom 10 percent have made
> >"encouraging gains" in math and reading, while the scores of students
> >in the top 10 percent have remained steady. Exactly what is alarming
> >about that?
> >Mr. Siegle's interpretation of these data is that gifted students are
> >being ignored. But another interpretation is that teachers are helping
> >low-performing students to improve while continuing to help high-
> >performing students to excel.
>
> A gifted student can excel with ease, but is more likely to
> be bored. =A0But this is excelling at what? =A0Excelling at
> doing first grade addition, besides teaching no mathematics,
> is useless for someone who can easily do n-digit addition,
> multiplication, and division. =A0
>
> >Although there might be a case to be made for increasing resources for
> >teaching gifted students, I don't think these data do that.
>
> In the old days, gifted students were allowed to advance more
> quickly, although not as quickly as they could. =A0NOTHING else
> is reasonable, and it may not be just more rapid advancement
> in the current dumbed-down curriculum.
>
> >Robert Burnett, Farmington
> >The writer is a high school chemistry teacher.
>
> Every bright, not to say gifted, student in your cl***** should
> already be taking strong college chemistry courses at that age
> instead of the courses taken by those of 2-digit IQ.s. =A0The
> difference is that great on IQ alone, and as this is associated
> with the ability to understand, quite possibly even more.
> --
> This address is for information only. =A0I do not claim that these views
> are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
> Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
> hru...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Phone: (765)494-6054 =A0 FAX:
(765=
)494-0558
thumb up to you--I sat through 2 years of useless, slow chemistry
cl***** when i could have gotten a 5 on the test after 1 semester,
maybe a year. or much less through independent study. Some students
jsut get it and doing the same problems 500 times is just a waste
|
