There are many practical ways of discovering what students know and what they are able to do. When we rely on the use of a single criterion such as an IQ score to act as a gatekeeper or rely on theories with little empirical grounding, our identification practices do not reflect this understanding of intelligence (Coleman, 2000 Perkins, 1995). Intelligence is multifaceted, developmental, and dynamic and can either be inhibited or enhanced by experiences. Disregard for theoretical knowledge of intelligence No amount of effort has thus far produced a successful long-term solution despite decades of efforts, the under representation dilemma persists. A child’s pre-school experiences and the nature of early classroom experiences are probably just as important because they set the stage for later academic success. The reasons are complex and include an over reliance on standardized tests, narrow conceptions of intelligence and the resulting definitions of giftedness, and the procedures and policies that guide local and state gifted programs. Disproportionate representationĬhildren from culturally/linguistically diverse and/or economically disadvantaged families and gifted children with disabilities have been dramatically underrepresented in programs for gifted students (Castellano, 2003 National Research Council, 2002). Historically, the identification of gifted students has been plagued with the following dilemmas that must be addressed. It must neither overlook students who need services nor identify students who do not. To be appropriate, the identification process must accurately find the students. Problems we face in the identification process In any case, identification must be the means to securing appropriate services to meet the needs of the student, not an end in itself. Ideally, information gleaned during identification would be used to guide curriculum and instruction for each child. With limited funding, schools must make tradeoffs between using individual assessments of children and using good group measures. Some states even require identification but do not require the provision of services (Coleman & Gallagher, 1995). School system administrators run the risk of using more energy, resources, and precision planning in the identification process than in the services provided once a student is identified. The amount of money allotted to gifted education must include both identification and programming, while providing a balance between the two. School systems often face difficult decisions when developing procedures for identification. Yet, identification remains critical to ensuring that children receive the services they need to thrive in school. The controversies involve all the pros and cons of labeling children as well as a variety of political issues. Few areas in the education of children with exceptionalities are as controversial and critical as appropriate identification of children who are gifted.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |