My big problem with GATE programs, as they were implemented at SFUSD, is the question of what happens to the kid at the 89%ile.
I am not at all against elite education, nor do I believe everyone should proceed roughly at the same pace. But I am very wary of an approach that imposes a bimodal solution onto what is almost certainly a more normally distributed population.
There are various ways this was implemented over the last 50 years. When I was in the SFUSD gifted program in the late 1970s, I believe it was done by some kind of IQ assessment. When my own kids were in SFUSD in the late 2000s, they took the top 10% of each class, as defined by test scores on the STAR test, which is an academic test. There were a few ways to test in (both verbal and reading in the top 10%, or one or the other in the top 10% two years in a row, or nominated by a teacher - there may have been a few others).
Ok, but then what happens to the kid who scored 89%ile consistently? Are we getting behind a solution that takes the top 10% off into a class which is taught at the 95%ile, and then leaves the 89%ile student to now be taught at the 45%ile?
Even people who support more advanced learning for more advanced students must see a problem here. Seems like we need a better solution. The top 10% isn't the only group that may benefit from a specifically tailored curriculum.
I am not at all against elite education, nor do I believe everyone should proceed roughly at the same pace. But I am very wary of an approach that imposes a bimodal solution onto what is almost certainly a more normally distributed population.
There are various ways this was implemented over the last 50 years. When I was in the SFUSD gifted program in the late 1970s, I believe it was done by some kind of IQ assessment. When my own kids were in SFUSD in the late 2000s, they took the top 10% of each class, as defined by test scores on the STAR test, which is an academic test. There were a few ways to test in (both verbal and reading in the top 10%, or one or the other in the top 10% two years in a row, or nominated by a teacher - there may have been a few others).
Ok, but then what happens to the kid who scored 89%ile consistently? Are we getting behind a solution that takes the top 10% off into a class which is taught at the 95%ile, and then leaves the 89%ile student to now be taught at the 45%ile?
Even people who support more advanced learning for more advanced students must see a problem here. Seems like we need a better solution. The top 10% isn't the only group that may benefit from a specifically tailored curriculum.