Now the “former gifted” bullshit is so ingrained in people’s identity that any criticism of the program is perceived as a direct attack
The criticism in question is not “any” criticism, it’s an implication that such programs should be fully removed. There’s plenty of valid criticism to be had, like letting parents force their kids into these programs without proper testing, or the socioeconomic disparities that are present in such programs.
Your source is not available through my college, and it’s locked behind a paywall. Without being able to read beyond the abstract, it seems to be focused on early year including kindergarten gifted programs, rather than a more generalized take that includes middle school and highschool.
If it’s just elementary school, I will agree that gifted programs loss of socialization can be much more important even for those small time periods. However, your source does not seem to be making a general statement of all gifted programs.
Those programs just blow smoke up kids asses and set them up to fail.
This, specifically, makes it clear you have an overwhelmingly and purely negative view of such programs. I’m not making things up, you have made it clear you think they are in no way beneficial. It’s not a strange or large leap to take that as you implying they should be removed.
It really seems like you’re taking any criticism of the program as criticism of you.
Again, what you’re saying is not “any” criticism.
I’m not going to argue with a bunch of shit you imagine I said or with you moving the goalpost about specific ages of enrollment.
I’m not moving goalposts. I’m establishing that while I overwhelming agree with a level of gifted type programs, I don’t think every program is good, nor every age of enrollment. Elaboration on my specific viewpoints is not moving a goalpost.
When I talk about the programs why wouldn’t I be including all of them?
I’m assuming you are. I’m saying your source does not appear to be. My language was perhaps unclear, but that paragraph was meant that on specifically elementary school, my stance is less strong on pro. It was not meant to suggest that you only thought it was about elementary school
There’s a difference between catering to academic interests and making a narcissist boot camp for the children of overly ambitious parents.
It’s not hypothetical that these “gifted” programs don’t really have better outcomes in terms of making kids engaged with academics.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3102/01623737211008919?__cf_chl_tk=gnysh5ogzqmxq5zeh3fnugjfyjlahx6q2cnxbzxadd8-1760030934-1.0.1.1-1v6fhgnw9_xc8v9gozbdcjibfgxp7q8p9fltjtdav4k
Imo it’s obvious that these programs aren’t for the kids, they’re for the overactive and insecure parents.
Now the “former gifted” bullshit is so ingrained in people’s identity that any criticism of the program is perceived as a direct attack.
The criticism in question is not “any” criticism, it’s an implication that such programs should be fully removed. There’s plenty of valid criticism to be had, like letting parents force their kids into these programs without proper testing, or the socioeconomic disparities that are present in such programs.
Your source is not available through my college, and it’s locked behind a paywall. Without being able to read beyond the abstract, it seems to be focused on early year including kindergarten gifted programs, rather than a more generalized take that includes middle school and highschool.
If it’s just elementary school, I will agree that gifted programs loss of socialization can be much more important even for those small time periods. However, your source does not seem to be making a general statement of all gifted programs.
It’s really funny that you consider my opinion that the programs suck as an endorsement to fully remove them. I never said that.
I’m not going to argue with a bunch of shit you imagine I said or with you moving the goalpost about specific ages of enrollment.
When I talk about the programs why wouldn’t I be including all of them?
It really seems like you’re taking any criticism of the program as criticism of you.
This, specifically, makes it clear you have an overwhelmingly and purely negative view of such programs. I’m not making things up, you have made it clear you think they are in no way beneficial. It’s not a strange or large leap to take that as you implying they should be removed.
Again, what you’re saying is not “any” criticism.
I’m not moving goalposts. I’m establishing that while I overwhelming agree with a level of gifted type programs, I don’t think every program is good, nor every age of enrollment. Elaboration on my specific viewpoints is not moving a goalpost.
I’m assuming you are. I’m saying your source does not appear to be. My language was perhaps unclear, but that paragraph was meant that on specifically elementary school, my stance is less strong on pro. It was not meant to suggest that you only thought it was about elementary school