Talk:Rationale for gifted programs
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of education and education-related topics. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to featured and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details. |
| Portal | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
Your article seems well written. I'm disappointed that the foundation-laying work of Joseph Renzulli (The Enrichment Triad Model) and of George Betts (The Autonomous Learner) are not referenced.
One of the concerns I have with your rationale is the argument that gifted children will make important contributions to society. While this is often the case, it is their choice what they will do with their learning and education, whereas it is society's duty to offer them an education appropriate to their learning styles and abilities regardless of how they may or may not use their minds - just as it is for all children. While gifted children may be a resource to us all (and likely are!) that is not in itself a justification for educating them. A better justification is that we owe a good and appropriate education to the children of our world.
Having poked holes in your work, I offer, nonetheless, sincere thanks for your careful research and writing on this important and valuable topic.
- Bill
Contents |
[edit] Thx and suggestion
Thx for the article! I made a few wiki-format changes. The thing i think it most needs now is a briefer, more focused intro, preferably incl the article title near the very beginning. See Wikipedia:Lead_section and Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Lead_section. And more links in the text or See Also would also help people find/use it, as well as linking to here from other articles. Hope this helps, "alyosha" (talk) 23:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] POV
This article seems heavily in favor of gifted education programs without giving much thought to those who oppose them. Perhaps a "criticisms" section could help? (For the record, I'm in favor of gifted programs; I just recognize the need to maintain NPOV, especially when dealing with controversial matters such as gifted education). Jeff Silvers 21:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Gifted children as public resource
Bills argument that gifted children will choose the way in which they use thier education is IMO vaid only on the level of individual students. From a broader perspective (ie goverments and funding allocation) the rational of providing gifted education as a kind of resource enhancment is logical because some if not most of the students will make valuable contributions as a result of their gifted education.
- Joel
[edit] Arguing the argument
As a gifted child who has been exposed to many suggestions of program closure, I have to say that not only are good criticisms for gifted education few and far between, most of them are only applicable to individual schools or school boards. They mostly have to do with budgeting and classroom sizes, not with the opinion that gifted children should not recieve proper education.
I think that there can be a tendency for some to view money spent on gifted education programs as money being taken away from the mainstream school population, rather than as a separate budget or as part of special needs funding, ie., if $200,000 per year is being spent on a gifted program in a school, then that's seen as $200,000 of the budget that should be used to benefit all of the children in the school but that's only being used to help a small percentage of them.
Ideally, it should really be a case of one amount of funding being given for the school as a whole, and then a separate sum on top of that for special needs, including gifted education, with the latter sum never being used for anything except the programs it is intended to be used for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.95.162.29 (talk) 11:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
