Talk:Rationale for gifted programs

Your article seems well written. I'm disappointed that the foundation-laying work of Joseph Renzulli (The Enrichment Triad Model) and of George Betts (The Autonomous Learner) are not referenced.

One of the concerns I have with your rationale is the argument that gifted children will make important contributions to society. While this is often the case, it is their choice what they will do with their learning and education, whereas it is society's duty to offer them an education appropriate to their learning styles and abilities regardless of how they may or may not use their minds - just as it is for all children. While gifted children may be a resource to us all (and likely are!) that is not in itself a justification for educating them. A better justification is that we owe a good and appropriate education to the children of our world.

Having poked holes in your work, I offer, nonetheless, sincere thanks for your careful research and writing on this important and valuable topic.

- Bill

Thx and suggestion
Thx for the article! I made a few wiki-format changes. The thing i think it most needs now is a briefer, more focused intro, preferably incl the article title near the very beginning. See Lead_section and Guide_to_writing_better_articles. And more links in the text or See Also would also help people find/use it, as well as linking to here from other articles. Hope this helps, "alyosha" (talk) 23:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

POV
This article seems heavily in favor of gifted education programs without giving much thought to those who oppose them. Perhaps a "criticisms" section could help? (For the record, I'm in favor of gifted programs; I just recognize the need to maintain NPOV, especially when dealing with controversial matters such as gifted education). Jeff Silvers 21:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Gifted children as public resource
Bills argument that gifted children will choose the way in which they use thier education is IMO vaid only on the level of individual students. From a broader perspective (ie goverments and funding allocation) the rational of providing gifted education as a kind of resource enhancment is logical because some if not most of the students will make valuable contributions as a result of their gifted education.

- Joel

Arguing the argument
As a gifted child who has been exposed to many suggestions of program closure, I have to say that not only are good criticisms for gifted education few and far between, most of them are only applicable to individual schools or school boards. They mostly have to do with budgeting and classroom sizes, not with the opinion that gifted children should not recieve proper education.

I think that there can be a tendency for some to view money spent on gifted education programs as money being taken away from the mainstream school population, rather than as a separate budget or as part of special needs funding, ie., if $200,000 per year is being spent on a gifted program in a school, then that's seen as $200,000 of the budget that should be used to benefit all of the children in the school but that's only being used to help a small percentage of them.

Ideally, it should really be a case of one amount of funding being given for the school as a whole, and then a separate sum on top of that for special needs, including gifted education, with the latter sum never being used for anything except the programs it is intended to be used for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.95.162.29 (talk) 11:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

POV is fine
Article title is "Rationale for gifted programs", by it's title, one would assume that the article presents the reasons people agree with the gifted program. The very fact that this article exists is violating NPOV, it should be merged with the article on gifted education.

Also, good luck finding criticisms that are worthy of acknowledgment.

I'm unsure as to how to request that this be merged with the article on gifted ed. but I would appreciate it if someone would recommend it.

65.7.145.21 (talk) 03:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)ArthurDent


 * You merge articles by deleting information from this one, pasting it (mind that the refs go with it) into the other one, and setting this up as a redirect to the other article (that is, replacing all of the existing text with #REDIRECT Gifted education ). Any editor can do this.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The OP raises the point that should be addressed before any of this article's other qualities— the very title of this article makes clear its intent to justify special education for gifted children. While a list of criticisms (particularly the funding issue, as it seems to me to be the only real con) would balance the obviously positive tone, I wouldn't expect to find an opposing argument in this article. The issue is this: is the article necessary, or should its content be merged with Gifted Education, which already has "Justification" and "Controversies" sections. I don't know if this kind of operation requires a vote or something, but if a merge is planned then this article's content can be evaluated and brought in line with the other.


 * I have a personal interest in this topic as I was raised in a tiny rural village with ample special programs for "slow learners" but absolutely no provisions in place (to this day) for gifted students. That said, I think the content here would better serve Wikipedia by being moved to form a substantial section in the main article.


 * Please go ahead and do that. WP:MERGEs are something that any editor can do.  I encourage you to WP:BOLDly improve these articles.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Apart from the move/merge question, I personally disagree with "by it's title, one would assume that the article presents the reasons people agree with the gifted program". Nothing is to be assumed, therefore the introduction should state clearly (and briefly) what the program is, and all non-neutral contents be moved to a "pros" section, leaving room for a "cons" section; both of which should cite references.

This is not to be a disclaimer either (like "this article is not NPOV, do with it") 70.52.112.35 (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Original Research
This article seems to be original research representing one person's point of view. It needs to be edited, expanded, and modified to represent a broader point of view. It should probably be combined with the larger article on gifted education.Richard Dates (talk) 11:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

This should be merged with Gifted education
Most of the material in this article should be merged into the main article on Gifted education, with this title serving as a redirect to the appropriate article section. That will better match the structure of reliable sources and better fit Wikipedia's role as an encyclopedia. While I prepare to propose that through Wikipedia channels, please feel free to review a source list on human intelligence and gifted education I maintain in user space for all Wikipedians to share. If you have any recommendations for additional sources, I would be glad to hear those. See you on the wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)