The Education Thread

topcatpole, in your mind, what do gifted education programs or gifted students need extra resources for? I don't mean why do they need them. I mean, how would more funds be spent.

For the record, I firmly believe in strengthening gifted education programs and I stand by my contention that there's already more than enough money to do so in most school districts, without reallocating anything from special education. I'm just curious as to how you think resources could be used to fill the (admittedly underserved) needs of gifted students.

Also, which special education resources would you take away? The number of paraprofessionals being employed? The number of special ed teachers (maybe increasing the size of self-contained classes)? Speech and language teachers? Occupational therapy? Resource room? The extra equipment needed to accomodate disabled students? I'm curious as to where you think cuts can be made.

 

Here is EXACTLY what I wrote:

"Just out of curiosity, are you aware of the fact that the special education laws that John is referring to came out of the Civil Rights movement? He isn't spewing rhetoric. Rights for African Americans and rights for those with disabilities are historically tied to the same exact legislation."

I would LOVE for you to point out how that post has anything even approaching the same zip code as the tone you ascribe to it. I made a factual statement because you took offense to something someone said. I didn't make a smarmy "you idiot, don't you know..." statement. I asked if you were aware of the fact because I figured that if you were, you would see that John was making that statement to make a completely relevent comparison. You talk about twisting words? On what planet is what I wrote even similar to "Do you still beat your wife?"

He said you were wrong because, from a legal standpoint, you ARE wrong. You have stated on at least two occasions that more money should be spent on standard kids. He said you were immoral because he believes it to be true. I agree. Morality is a personal thing. You're free to disagree and think of yourself as the shining white knight of morality for all I care. I do find it telling that you could not answer his question about race that was brought up to show the moral equivalence. As to why I call you insulting and not John, read the damned thread already. You have made ALL of the personal insults in this thread. I have no doubt that you feel like you've been insulted, but as noted in the first part of this post, you take offense at completely non-offensive posts.

Here are two examples of your own words on the issue:

Yippee. You don't think Special Education services should be eliminated. You just think that bright folks deserve more money than the special education crowd (whether they need it or not). You also refer to special needs kids as "people that the lawyers down the street have decided that it is moral to help out." You don't call that insulting?

Again, you have no problem with special education kids getting some money, as long as those who already have an advantage get MORE money than them.

Do you know what reductio ad absurdum means? I feel like I'm reading a satire at this point. I know exactly what you were trying to claim. You were just wrong. How can the two cases (African American civil rights and Disabilities Civil Rights) be any more equivalent? They came from the SAME fight and gained power through the SAME legislation! The civil rights legislation essentially states that nobody will be penalized based solely on the way they were born. The special education laws go into more detail, stipulating that special education students are entitled to the resources they need for an appropriate education in the least restrictive environment. John's rhetorical question was (I believe) stated to point out that, while you are not a racist, you do have a bias against special needs children. That is obvious from your contribution to this thread. If the "lawyers down the street" hadn't decided that you HAD to toss them a bone, I don't doubt that you'd love to be back in the asylum days.

You offered a statement, not an argument. You were very clear about what you want, but when anyone has suggested that you failed to take legislation into account or were biased against a population of students, you immediately revert to the insults and the snit fits. Bottom line, you can call me hoss or say I'm absurd or any of the other number of insults you've aimed at me and others. None of that makes your ONE idea (that of giving more money to high achieving kids than is given to special education kids) moral, legal or even halfway intelligent.

I'm not trying to get into a competition with Demosthenes. I am not a fifth grader on a playground. John pointed out the NUMEROUS times you tossed personal insults in lieu of actual reasoned argument. I am patiently awaiting a similar list from you. Again, as noted from the very first point in this post, you take offense to statements that, IMO, no reasonable person would see even the hint of offense.

Yes, it was a platitude, but it was far from an empty one. I find it profound because of the way it sheds light on how the education system is set up in this country. Would I like a world in which there is money falling out of everyone's ears? Yeah, it'd be nice to have unlimited funds. I would also love a world in which every parent was interested in their child's education. I'd love a world where I didn't have collaborative classes with 33 students (while my honors class has 17, BTW). This isn't a perfect world. That is the bit that you don't seem to understand. You have all these ideas about the way education works, but you aren't there. You could triple the money being spent on the highest level of students. You know what? It wouldn't make more than a negligible bump in their already high achievement. To deprive special education kids of money to accomplish that goal is absurd. The money goes further with that population.

Appropriate doesn't mean equal money. The high level students receive an appropriate education, and, while it may not show up in the budget breakdown, they also get PLENTY of benefits that the special education kids do not receive (aside from the genetic benefits they were born with). Look at class sizes based on ability level and look at WHICH teachers teach which class.

What a way to wrap it up. After bleating on about how I put words in your mouth, you do what you've claimed of others. I know that you don't want to eliminate special education programs. You just want to make sure the nice, smart kids get more money than they do. It's like saying that you don't want to stop giving food to the starving kids down the street. You're fine with it so long as your fat ass of a kid gets MORE food than they do. Resources are based on NEED, not equality. The fact that: 1- you can't grasp that concept, and 2- you are determined to feel insulted at even the most innocuous of comments baffles me.

 

While I agree that funding can be better structured (I feel that red tape and administration is bloated, and would restructure there as opposed to taking from the poor to feed the rich), gifted kids already get PLENTY of perks. Not only are the gifted classes usually much smaller, but they tend to get the better teachers. At the vast majority of schools I've been in, the better/more experienced the teacher, the more honors and AP classes they had on their schedule. The collaborative classes almost always seem to fall to the least experienced/qualified teachers.

While it might be interesting (in a twisted way) to see Topcat's response to this, isn't it a bit of a futile question? None of those resources can legally be taken away.

 

Not all schools have gifted programs. My high school did, and it was great. The only real difference between the honors and "regular" classes were the curriculum, the students and the teachers. As you point out, the experienced and qualified teachers taught GATE/TAG classes, presumably based on their preference to do so. The increased cost to the school was absolutely ZERO, because great teachers cost the same as lousy ones. All the school did was track the students by ability/effort level. But gifted and talented programs are fairly rare in NYC as far as I've seen. There are some magnet schools, but I don't believe it's common for other public schools to have gifted programs. Also, anecdotally I've heard of some poorly structured, poorly run TAG programs which didn't serve the gifted students well -- but that's not a matter of funding.

That's true. I guess that since those things I listed can't be taken away, I was curious about where else he thinks too much money is going? Or maybe he thinks the law should be changed? I just wanted to steer the conversation toward specifics, because to justify the reallocations he's advocating, he needs to provide some specifics.

 

I hope you are right. As we have agreed to before, it seems there is a lot of administration costs that should be looked at before there are any cuts to programs. A lot of these help more than just the G+T, but they are common things I have seen:
Better libraries with more up-to-date collections, particularly in the sciences
More advanced courses- including improving lab facilities
More teachers with advanced degrees- required to teach the advanced courses
Better IT support- most school districts struggle with this
Additional foreign languages- perhaps I was particularly unfortunate in where I went, but there are more languages than English, French and Spanish in the world. I am convinced that more and more we will need Chinese speakers to compete in the world.
Additional immersive programs- where I went we had a humanities program that did a great job of combining language, art, geography and culture into a single offering.

It would vary with locality. One area that could be looked at here in DC is to upgrade the public schools. Currently we have a huge problem in that the students can't be accomodated by the public schools so they have to be sent to private schools at public expense. There are proposals to fix this which are being discussed now.

 

No they can't, but they can be restructured to be used more efficiently. But I would look at administrative overhead and physical plant before looking at cutting any programs.

 

Perhaps at the elementary level, but there are elite NYC public high schools. Bronx Science, Brooklyn Tech & Stuyvesant have always been the pinnacle of the pyramid, but others are touted as well: http://nymag.com/urban/articles/schools01/ (my favorite: Frank Sinatra H.S.! ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._high_schools_requiring_entrance_examinations

 

FWIW, this is what the law requires, and it was just reauthorized in 2004.

I'm not sure what "fixes" are being discussed, but I'm certain one is not getting rid of IDEA.

 

I think the primary one is to upgrade the facilities of the public schools, so that these students do not have to be sent to private schools. IIRC this would reduce transportation as well as instructional outlays. In the near term (once again, going on memory) there would be a capital cost for a couple of years to revamp existing facilities and then there would be a considerable annual savings.

 

Yes. That's why I said, "There are some magnet schools."

EDIT to add some topic-related news-

This just in: today was the last day of the New York State English Language Arts Test. So I'm done. I don't have to actually teach anything for the rest of the year!

 

If and when you have kids, will you quit your job and stay at home to homeschool them?

 

Because you work from home?

 

I'm not sure why you posted a blog about home-schooling in a thread about public education. Are you saying that more people should home-school their children? Do you think that home-schooling is usually better than public schooling? For most parents, home schooling is not an option, because the parents have to work.

 

Then I recommend posting that link in the parenting & family forum, or in the education & academia forum. The relative merits of homeschooling is not really a political topic.

 

Really? Which prominent politicians have spoken out about it? Has legislation been proposed to outlaw it in any state that you know of?

Do you have anything other than the opinions of a few bloggers and some articles about the political activities of some home-schooling families?

I just think it's a non-issue. It's not a right that's going away soon, and it's not a realistic or desirable option for most families.

I recommend private school then.

 

I really couldn't care less about it.

Obviously, the NEA doesn't advocate homeschooling. That would be a little contrary to their specific agenda, which is to promote the value of professional teachers. There is nothing on their website to indicate that they advocate making homeschooling difficult or illegal. It doesn't appear that they have an official position on it though.

I only do for your children.