Eighth graders who participated outperformed both their district average and the average posted by students in the district’s highest-performing high school.
What I find concerning about “gifted” education is that it leaves out the majority of students (supposedly non-gifted kids) who most need it. When I read this: “It’s a two-year-long, accelerated English language arts curriculum for seventh and eighth graders that combines in-class instruction and out-of-class “technology-based assignments,” such as student-created videos, podcasts, literary magazines, mini-newspapers, audio recordings, and various other Google platform-based projects,” I think of all the underserved kids I have taught over my 30-year career. They ALL would benefit from and be motivated by creating videos, podcasts, literary magazines, etc. These activities are great for kids with learning disabilities, too. They could show what they know through a podcast or video instead of having to write. I wish this was how the everyday classroom looked.
Finally, a comment about “accelerated” programs. My own kids tested as gifted and were later diagnosed with autism. One tried accelerated classes and got great reports from teachers about his deep understanding of the topics and participation in discussions. However, ultimately he received a C because the school day left him too exhausted to complete all the work. Clearly, he knew and understood everything. This type of grading is unfair to so many kids. My other son was never allowed to even try those classes because he had anxiety, which landed him in a special ed classroom. We had to fight to even get him textbooks at higher levels. I know this is well beyond the scope of what you're writing about. But since “gifted” came up, I had to say something.
What I find concerning about “gifted” education is that it leaves out the majority of students (supposedly non-gifted kids) who most need it. When I read this: “It’s a two-year-long, accelerated English language arts curriculum for seventh and eighth graders that combines in-class instruction and out-of-class “technology-based assignments,” such as student-created videos, podcasts, literary magazines, mini-newspapers, audio recordings, and various other Google platform-based projects,” I think of all the underserved kids I have taught over my 30-year career. They ALL would benefit from and be motivated by creating videos, podcasts, literary magazines, etc. These activities are great for kids with learning disabilities, too. They could show what they know through a podcast or video instead of having to write. I wish this was how the everyday classroom looked.
Finally, a comment about “accelerated” programs. My own kids tested as gifted and were later diagnosed with autism. One tried accelerated classes and got great reports from teachers about his deep understanding of the topics and participation in discussions. However, ultimately he received a C because the school day left him too exhausted to complete all the work. Clearly, he knew and understood everything. This type of grading is unfair to so many kids. My other son was never allowed to even try those classes because he had anxiety, which landed him in a special ed classroom. We had to fight to even get him textbooks at higher levels. I know this is well beyond the scope of what you're writing about. But since “gifted” came up, I had to say something.