> Worse, eliminating gifted programs seems like its done mostly from spite.
No, its done based on research showing that tracked gifted/mainstream bifurcated programs are:
(1) worse compared to known practical same-classroom alternatives for the students identified as gifted,
(2) worse compared to the same alternatives for the students not identified as gifted,
(3) as implemented in practice, based on criteria that heavily bias for out-of-school environments rather than purely assessing intellectual ability.
“Gifted programs” were a top of the line social technology of the 1980s, and the two track industrial system they embody was better than the one-track industrial system. But we know how to do better than either, now.
This is just wrong. Tracking is needed to optimize outcomes across all levels of performance. I hate to sound rude but you have no clue what you’re talking about, in all due respect. Public education, if you think it should exist, must track students. There is no alternative and nobody disagrees about that.
> Tracking is needed to optimize outcomes across all levels of performance
Multidimensional/multilevel tracking of the type used in secondary schools seems to be, if not essential, at least useful to that goal.
Unidimensional two-track gifted/mainstream tracking has show itself to be suboptimal, especially for gifted students, who tend to be all over the map in their performance levels in different skill areas. The same techniques of providing assignments that engage at multiple levels and individualized enrichment needed to deal with that within gifted classrooms turns out to also be better for non-gifted classrooms, and to render the whole gifted/non-gifted segregation a pointless exercise that only causes unnecessary harm, stigma, and division.
Any evidence of these? What are these same-classroom alternatives? How are these worse for ungifted students? How do they not assess intellectual ability? Many of the gifted programs I've heard of do IQ testing, which isn't a perfect metric but is at least trying to assess intellectual ability. In any case, that's an argument for a better measure of intellectual ability not eliminating gifted programs.
No, its done based on research showing that tracked gifted/mainstream bifurcated programs are:
(1) worse compared to known practical same-classroom alternatives for the students identified as gifted,
(2) worse compared to the same alternatives for the students not identified as gifted,
(3) as implemented in practice, based on criteria that heavily bias for out-of-school environments rather than purely assessing intellectual ability.
“Gifted programs” were a top of the line social technology of the 1980s, and the two track industrial system they embody was better than the one-track industrial system. But we know how to do better than either, now.