TL;DR: gifted programs are bug patches against mandatory egalitarian education, and such bugs are note present in aristocratic education. Therefore forced equalization is bad.
I was marked not gifted at an earlier stage in life (at age 10) and then suddenly marked as gifted at age 12.
I still opted not to go for the programmes much to the chagrin of my illiterate parents. Stupid 12 year old kid haha
Assuming the tests are accurate, this alone says a lot about the way "giftedness" is a dynamic quality. Especially in growing kids.
On the opposite case, I have a friend who has a son who got in at age 10, couldn't cope, and dropped out by age 14.
The problem (I see) isn't that there are gifted programs which indicate an understanding that not everybody is the same. but that everybody's trajectory in terms of growth is also different.
I am accepting that any programme is always guilty of some broad generatlization. Unless there's a way to personalize a programme for every single student. Too costly for now.
What these programmes, including those not for the gifted, can do better is to allow room for people to more easily weave in and out of these programmes.
And on a topic by topic basis too. Example, maybe you're gifted in the sciences but normal everywhere else.
Right now, there's a lot of gatekeeping and arbitrary standards that determine whether you stay in or stay out.
Once you get in, there s pressure to make sure you keep up with your peers to stay peers with them.
If you're not in and on the border, there's pressure to work harder to get in. This destroys psychological safety. Not enough psychological safety defeats the original purpose of such programmes which is to allow each child to reach their fullest potential.
Maybe these gates can be a bit more porous both ways is what i'm saying thus allowing more psychological safety.
TL;DR: gifted programs are bug patches against mandatory egalitarian education, and such bugs are note present in aristocratic education. Therefore forced equalization is bad.
I was marked not gifted at an earlier stage in life (at age 10) and then suddenly marked as gifted at age 12.
I still opted not to go for the programmes much to the chagrin of my illiterate parents. Stupid 12 year old kid haha
Assuming the tests are accurate, this alone says a lot about the way "giftedness" is a dynamic quality. Especially in growing kids.
On the opposite case, I have a friend who has a son who got in at age 10, couldn't cope, and dropped out by age 14.
The problem (I see) isn't that there are gifted programs which indicate an understanding that not everybody is the same. but that everybody's trajectory in terms of growth is also different.
I am accepting that any programme is always guilty of some broad generatlization. Unless there's a way to personalize a programme for every single student. Too costly for now.
What these programmes, including those not for the gifted, can do better is to allow room for people to more easily weave in and out of these programmes.
And on a topic by topic basis too. Example, maybe you're gifted in the sciences but normal everywhere else.
Right now, there's a lot of gatekeeping and arbitrary standards that determine whether you stay in or stay out.
Once you get in, there s pressure to make sure you keep up with your peers to stay peers with them.
If you're not in and on the border, there's pressure to work harder to get in. This destroys psychological safety. Not enough psychological safety defeats the original purpose of such programmes which is to allow each child to reach their fullest potential.
Maybe these gates can be a bit more porous both ways is what i'm saying thus allowing more psychological safety.