Education As A Core Element Of Generating Quality Human Capital

One of the difficulties in identifying the needs of low-income students is the profound cultural barriers which exist that prevent their strengths and deficits from being identified. Children from low-income homes frequently have poorer vocabularies and a weaker basis of the type of knowledge that is frequently considered 'intelligence' on most forms of assessment. A low-income child's IQ may be high, even though he lacks a framework of accepted middle-class knowledge. "In January 2003, the National Academy of Sciences released a report on the seeming overrepresentation of minorities in special education and underrepresentation of those students in gifted education. The NRC reported that, nationwide, 7.47 percent of all white students and 9.9 percent of Asian students are placed in gifted programs. Meanwhile, 3.04 percent of African-American students, 3.57 percent of Hispanic students, and 4.86 percent of American Indian students are classified as gifted" (GT-minority identification, 2003, ERIC Clearinghouse). The discrepancy, the NAS believed, could not be solely explained by talent alone but was at least partially rooted in the methods of identifying students labeled as gifted. Biases in standardized and other tests identifying student strengths, combined with prejudices, however unintentional, amongst educators and administrators lead to under-identification of the gifted

Typically gifted and talented programs are intended to challenge fast pace learners and recognize their special abilities, however the innocuous separation between peers can prevent other students’ talents from being acknowledged and advanced. While the gifted and talented students are applauded for their intellectual capabilities and natural talents, other students are labeled as average or less skilled. Placement into these programs are rooted from the results of standardized testing, which students and teachers spend a great amount of time preparing for. Preparation for these exams alter the curriculum and objective for learning all together. Some education systems seem to focus more on teaching to test rather than teaching to educate. In Cathy Davidson essay, “Project Classroom Makeover,” she explores how there should be more emphases on the relevance, relationship and rigor in the classroom and how this can teach students more efficiently and improve our school. Within the past 15 years, advancements in technology alone theoretically have created new prospective ways of learning, therefore standardized testing may be an inadequate method of testing students’ talents and abilities. Because each student’s future is so heavily weighted on their performance throughout grade school, education systems should have a well-rounded system in place that allows students to support and learn from each other rather than creating a divide between the strong versus the poor test

Education was built, along with many other things, to the average standard. It was designed with the average student in mind, never really adapted towards those who grasps concepts quickly, accelerate at rapid rates beyond their peers. As gifted, or exceptionally intelligence children make up around 6 to 10 percent of the students within America, roughly 3 to 5 million students (“Gifted Education in the U.S”). But as America is behind in the general education, it is bounds behind in gifted education. Teachers aren’t equipped to challenge the gifted students, or simply have no time to spend developing and nurturing the child’s talents. Schools don’t have programs to help the children develop at their quicken pace, and programs in place aren’t

Gifted students should be provided advanced opportunities to be challenged, to experience both success and growth, to develop higher level study, creativity, and productivity. To develop their interests and talents their individual characteristics, needs, learning rates, motivations for learning, cognitive abilities, and interests must be taken into account. Differentiation can be included in the curriculum by incorporating acceleration, complexity, depth, challenge, and creativity. Students can also be given fewer tasks to master a standard, use multiple resources and higher-level skills, conduct research, develop products, make cross-disciplinary applications, and complete alternative

After this thinking and research I know now that we must come together as a nation and reshape the school system. We must redefine what it means to be gifted, and what it means to be smart. Because whether you excel in Math and Science, English and History, or Art and Dance, everybody is a genius. But to achieve our full potential, and recognize this greatness, we must stop forcing fish to climb trees, and let them swim

In 2015, I wrote about my personal philosophy of the gifted learner. I stated in my paper that, “Giftedness is not a one, set definition. The definition of gifted must encompass intellect, ability, creative talent as well as emotional awareness. It cannot be micro-managed and be a “one size fits all” definition” (Dauber, 2015). People, who are gifted, need differentiation and opportunity to express, demonstrate and show their giftedness. Educators must be able to provide opportunities for the gifted learner to express his/her abilities and/or talents. Gifted students learn differently and require special educational experiences in order to grow academically and achieve their highest potential. Therefore, the education field must be able to understand not only the cognitive side of a gifted learner but the affective or social/emotional aspects too.

A Gifted and talented (G/T) student” is “one who . . . exhibits high performance capability in an intellectual, creative, or artistic area, possesses an unusual capacity for leadership, or excels in a specific academic field” (Aldine ISD Board Policy Manual, 2014). The Texas Education Agency (TEA) provides a state plan, which outlines the standards for Texas schools to be in compliance. It also offers the educational opportunities these students should receive. In fact, there are performance measures for five aspects of G/T programs including student assessment, service design, curriculum and instruction, professional development, and family and community involvement. The plan assists districts in delivering these comprehensive services to

But the problem of this admission system is that it can’t recognize those kids who have real talent; the kids who are picked are those who have parents that can afford the prep test program. With this system, it’s possible that many students who have real talent might be missed. If this admission system can’t help us finding those talents, then there is no reason we maintain it. What we should do is exactly the opposite; we should abandon it and set up a new system which can really help us recognizing gifted

I evaluated the information in the document above based upon Moon’s (2013) nine measures to consider in comprehensive gifted education program. I think that FCCPS does a considerably good job addressing these nine guidelines. However, I believe they should consider more non-standardized materials and data while considering students for identification.

Many educators feel that teachers aren’t trained to teach gifted students. Teaching accountability has teachers focus more on

A fifth grader may come in at a “second-grade level” and graduate at a “fourth-grade level,” which is a tremendous achievement on the part of the educators; however, because standardized testing fails to account for such circumstances, the entire year would be seen as a failure from the perspective of the state (Berger). To put it crudely, “poor schools can’t win at standardized testing” because students in areas of poverty start school academically behind and are unable to catch up as there is the lack of resources and funding (Broussard). On the other extreme, gifted students are also hurt by attempts to standardize education, for instance, with the No Child Left Behind Act, an act that many say has “failed our adolescents” (Steinberg). Teachers say that the legislation has resulted in a “race to the middle” that means “talented students have their potential squandered” as schools “[don’t] foster growth” (Weller). In effect, standardization attempts to remove individuality from learning and ignores that students have different capacities for learning, that some students may need more help while others need to be challenged above their grade level - instead it averages it all out to a “standard” that harms both

Gifted students should be provided advanced opportunities to be challenged, to experience both success and growth, to develop higher level study, creativity, and productivity. To develop their interests and talents their individual characteristics, needs, learning rates, motivations for learning, cognitive abilities, and interests must be taken into account. Differentiation can be included in the curriculum by incorporating acceleration, complexity, depth, challenge, and creativity. Students can also be given fewer tasks to master a standard, use multiple resources and higher-level skills, conduct research, develop products, make cross-disciplinary

Validity is the assessment of the test’s informational construct, content, and criterion (Jarosewich, Pfeiffer, & Morris, 2002). Despite the fact that GATES does not reference any giftedness theory or theory of support, content validity is confirmed for GATES since the test was developed based on literature reviews, critiques of existing rating scales, and academic and test construction experts of the field (Jarosewich, Pfeiffer, & Morris, 2002, p. 330). A combination between federal guidelines on giftedness and a confirmatory item analysis is the basis of GATES creation.

The brief of “Acceleration of Gifted Students” (2003) emphasizes that the decision of which track to send kids on must be made on an individual basis to ensure the most academic gain. Accelerating the curriculum for students is simplest for schools because it solely affects the individual student based on his, or her, class schedule or educational history; a whole, new class does not have to be created to accommodate only a few students. Accelerating a student’s educational program benefits them overwhelmingly by increasing their performance and creating a feeling of fulfillment for students (“Acceleration,” 2003). When students are incapable of advancing their education at the pace they need, “it teaches students that they are supposed to have all the answers without having to work” (“The Many Faces,” 2006). This occurrence promotes behavior that inhibits gifted students from attempting to conquer challenges that ultimately push them to become even more successful academically. Accelerating a student’s academic program is comparable to athlete’s lifting schedule; it cannot progress too quickly or slowly and it must be unique for the

With IQ testing and the commonly-held belief that intelligence is fixed and static, receiving those test scores can positively or negatively impact a student. Trained psychologists are required to administer and examine IQ tests, however this task is often given to undertrained teachers. With a lower score, students may stop trying in school, thus it is crucial for educators to realize the limitations of a test score (Law, 1995, p. 9). Any test or combination thereof will only provide an estimate of knowledge and not an absolute. As quoted in Ford (2004), the Office of Civil Rights (2000) stated “No single test score can be considered a definitive measure of a student’s knowledge” (p. 15). Also, many believe that IQ equals innate ability, leading to discrimination. Gregory (2004), as quoted in Ford, recognized that a test score is neutral until we assign it value (2004, p. 7). The national and global impact of identification procedures is huge. Underutilized talent is not developed properly in school, leading to less overall contribution to society and especially the economy (Warne 2013 p. 488). Consequently, the country as a whole would benefit from reformed gifted identification