I won't address your second point, as the problem we'd then be discussing is completely different (i.e. we're now discussing resource allocation).
However, in regards to your first point: I said nothing about crippling those ahead. I'm curious what makes you say that honestly. Putting gifted students with "regular" students is not regression to the mean. Regression to the mean, would be putting gifted students in an environment where they wouldn't thrive. However, this said environment would also cripple regular students. So the solution, as I've said, and you agree with is to make education better, more generally.
> Putting gifted students with "regular" students is not regression to the mean.
How is it not? "Gifted" students are not given a chance to grow, since there's no pressure for them to excel in a school where they're already ahead. "Gifted" students aren't different from other children, they're responsive to the same social pressures all students face, and placing them with a "gifted" peer group allows them to thrive. Gifted students are among the most challenging for teachers to serve, as their needs lie outside the standard curriculum.
I don't understand your argument at all. It seems to hinge on some arbitrary obsession with gifted students. Your entire argument could be applied to at-risk students, who arguably need the help even more than gifted students and would see greater percentage gains as a result. Rather than discuss endlessly who should get what, we should rise the tide that raises all ships, no?
>"Gifted" students are not given a chance to grow, since there's no pressure for them to excel in a school...
"Regular" students are not given a chance to grow, since there's no pressure for them to excel in a school... I'll even humor you and apply this argument for "at risk" students. They, too, require pressure and engagement to excel. [1]
> Gifted students are among the most challenging for teachers to serve, as their needs lie outside the standard curriculum.
Indeed. Some gifted program curricula are simply minor modifications to standard ones, begging the question, why waste all of that money trying to barely change the curriculum? It would be better spent making school better in general. See my other sibling posts for citations.
Do you believe that it's feasible to improve schools holistically? Because I think that's the major disagreement between you and I. I think the idea we can one day improve schools as a whole, for every student, is a goal worth striving for, but I do not think it's realistic nor feasible in the current education system.
This problem of cooperative education (wherein we separate students with similar features) is well studied, for both "at-risk" and "gifted" students, and it's been show that regular classroom practices do not benefit either group [1].
Here's some information that supports your argument...
> It is clear from the results that teachers in regular third and fourth grade classrooms make only minor modifications in the curriculum and their instruction to meet the needs of gifted students. (pg 125)
...however.
> 61% of the responding teachers have received no staff development in the area of gifted education (pg 125)
> gifted resource teachers have little effect on what classroom teachers do to meet the needs of the gifted (pg 127)
---
In any case, your citation agrees with the holistic in practice.
> "...efforts must certainly must certainly include the selection or development of curriculum materials specifically design for classroom teacher use. They should also compact the regular curriculum, and to become more flexible in meeting the needs of all students, including gifted students." (pg 126)
P.S. I find this discussion to be enlightening and very productive, for me at least. Thanks for being a good conversation partner.
Also, yes, I do believe it's possible to improve schools holistically.
> Also, yes, I do believe it's possible to improve schools holistically.
Then I doubt I'll convince you through internet comments, but I think our goals are aligned (better education for all). However, we want to take different approaches to achieve it. The source I cited agrees that we should create an environment in which teachers are flexible, but my point in citing is that despite the comprehensive research that's been done on this topic, we've made very few steps towards actually accomplishing it, so I think it's time to give up that line of thought and try another, which is to separate students.
Separated schooling does have advantages, such as challenging gifted students ("A troubling finding that emerged was the preference of a few of the [gifted] students for heterogeneous classes because they were easier and enabled them to attain a high class ranking with little work")[1] and separation of children enable them to grow at a faster pace ("After 2 years, academically handicapped students in cooperative elementary schools had significantly higher achievement in reading vocabulary, reading comprehension, language expression, math computation, and math application in comparison with similar students in comparison schools") [2].
> P.S. I find this discussion to be enlightening and very productive, for me at least. Thanks for being a good conversation partner.
Likewise, thank you for being a good discussion partner as well.
However, in regards to your first point: I said nothing about crippling those ahead. I'm curious what makes you say that honestly. Putting gifted students with "regular" students is not regression to the mean. Regression to the mean, would be putting gifted students in an environment where they wouldn't thrive. However, this said environment would also cripple regular students. So the solution, as I've said, and you agree with is to make education better, more generally.