But how are they meant to make up that higher knowledge if they're in a track that assumes they don't have it and don't need it? This is what velvetpage was talking about when she said those lower kids are left to languish - they aren't given the opportunities to gain that higher knowledge because the track they're in doesn't require it and thus doesn't teach them it. Whereas if we have at least the same base high standards for all (and no one's saying don't let kids go beyond that), then they'll get that higher knowledge and can use it as they wish.
I think this is one benefit of my district. We've got the same high standards for all kids, but they do fit advanced program kids under the umbrella of "exceptional child education" (term used instead of special ed) - because of that, the higher level kids DO get what they need, while the mid-range kids still get the support they need to reach the standards. We actually have a form that we have to fill out - not as extensive as an IEP for special ed kids, but it's meant to show that we are making accommodations for the gifted kids. This way, everyone gets what they needs, and you don't have kids left behind because we've tracked them into some lower set of standards.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-17 01:59 am (UTC)I think this is one benefit of my district. We've got the same high standards for all kids, but they do fit advanced program kids under the umbrella of "exceptional child education" (term used instead of special ed) - because of that, the higher level kids DO get what they need, while the mid-range kids still get the support they need to reach the standards. We actually have a form that we have to fill out - not as extensive as an IEP for special ed kids, but it's meant to show that we are making accommodations for the gifted kids. This way, everyone gets what they needs, and you don't have kids left behind because we've tracked them into some lower set of standards.