Due to the elimination of funding for the GATE by the State, PAUSD has suspended the identification of GATE students. The District remains committed to serving the individual needs of high achieving and gifted students regardless of GATE identification.
Does No Child Left Behind Require that No Child Can Get Ahead? An analysis of the impact of the No Child Left Behind Act on gifted and talented students by the Davidson Institute for Talent Development. Topics Support: Advocacy Support: Policy Author Davidson Institute for Talent Development Year 2006
It’s been nearly four years since President George W. Bush signed into law the No Child Left Behind Act (Jan. 8, 2002) – perhaps the most ambitious reform of American education ever attempted. Although it may be too early to tell what the results will be, per-student spending has increased at the federal level from $7,950 in 2001 to $9,940 in 2003 with an unprecedented focus on students whose performance is below grade level. The United States now spends $11,152 per student in all levels of education, making the U.S. the second highest spender in the world. According to the U.S. Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings, “The president has delivered on his promise - thanks to No Child Left Behind, our nation’s schools are making great strides toward ending the ‘soft bigotry of low expectations; and ensuring that all children have the opportunity to learn.’”
The reality is not so rosy. Our brightest students are not learning in school. The fact is that No Child Left Behind is promoting underachievement among our nation’s brightest students, denying an appropriately challenging education to millions. That is because although the plan promises that every child will learn how to read by the third grade, it does nothing to ensure that students who already knew how to read in kindergarten will continue to learn. For these exceptionally gifted students, No Child Left Behind means no child can move ahead.
The 2006 federal education budget contained approximately $9.6 million for gifted education research grants, known as the Javits Act. This amount is the only federal funding allocated towards gifted education, which equates to a mere fraction of a penny of every federal dollar spent on education. Things are just as bleak at the state level. Since No Child Left Behind became law, state funds for educating our highest-achieving students have been steadily cut – Illinois eliminated its gifted education budget altogether; California cut its gifted education budget by 18 percent; in Connecticut 22 percent of districts slashed their gifted programming. This is in addition to the 21 states that offered no educational programs for gifted learners. What does this say about our nation’s commitment to ensuring that “every child learns?”
Posted by GiftedParent a resident of Barron Park on Sep 4, 2012 at 3:16 pm In the best case, all children deserve differentiated education - where their specific strengths and weaknesses are nurtured, supported and improved.
Gifted children are a unique challenge - to some, it sounds like complaining about what to do with your ultra-high income. What is actually the problem? Truly gifted children need far more than extra worksheets and earlier, more advanced math and/or reading books. For them facts and skills are easily memorized and acquired.
Although gifted children and high achievers overlap - they are not the same. PA has lots of high achievers - but its population of gifted children is likely to be small. This is hard for parents to accept. As a result, it is impossible to get community support for a gifted program (with separate classes) for a small fraction of students.
Posted by GiftedParent a resident of Barron Park on Sep 4, 2012 at 3:16 pm In the best case, all children deserve differentiated education - where their specific strengths and weaknesse...... CleverBeaver 发表于 9/10/2016 11:32:24 AM
Although gifted children and high achievers overlap - they are not the same－－－ 这个很同意。 我们这里， 一个年级有一两个真正gifted甚至没有， 比较多的就是high achievers。 有个女孩子6年级上8年级的数学课， 但老师归结于她从小做khan academy， 不一定就是数学方面有天分。 但是她画画很好， 是真正有天分的， 可惜家长不鼓励这方面的。
Although gifted children and high achievers overlap - they are not the same－－－ 这个很同意。 我们这里， 一个年级有一两个真正gifted甚至没有， 比较多的就是high achievers。 有个女孩子6年级上8年级的数学课， 但老师归结于她从小做[font=Lucida Grande, Helvetica, Ar...... 落地无声 发表于 9/10/2016 12:31:16 PM
Although gifted children and high achievers overlap - they are not the same－－－ 这个很同意。 我们这里， 一个年级有一两个真正gifted甚至没有， 比较多的就是high achievers。 有个女孩子6年级上8年级的数学课， 但老师归结于她从小做[font=Lucida Grande, Helvetica, Ar...... 落地无声 发表于 9/10/2016 12:31:16 PM
我先扔个砖头，从我看到了解到的说说跳不跳级的这个问题。
好像很多中国家长都关心这个问题，因为感觉正常课堂讲得太慢，亚裔娃儿觉得很简单，所以觉得正常念下去太浪费时间，不如快点儿学完早上大学挺好的。我原来也是这么想的，不过这几年做了一些研究，觉得这种做法不太适合美国的教育制度。
中国的制度是高考决定一切，特别牛的孩子如果早两年就能考北清，确实高中前读来读去磨叽那点儿东西挺浪费时间的。可是美国大学录取看的东西很多，美国高中教育水很深，有能力打算爬藤的娃儿比一般的娃儿要多学好多，有的高中AP课程差不多把大学头两年的都学完了，再多的富裕精力都有可学习的东西，写个论文发点儿文章神马的，都可以用来给申请大学加分，和中国那种所有人的都是高考一个终点线的制度不一样。
不过话说回来，高中忙的要死小学闲的要死也是美国教育的一个问题，总不能让孩子都小学跳两极高中蹲两级吧？不要低估美国人民的智慧，天才班儿这个东西就是他们琢磨出来对付这种弊端的。有的学区是明着叫天才班，有的学区叫啥“advanced learning plan", 本质都是往快了讲，高小学初中的东西，初中学高中的东西，然后高中省下很多时间就可以用来学AP IB搞乱七八糟的外挂，这简直是作弊有木有！欺骗普通大众有木有！
所以打算让娃儿跳级的爹妈不如附近打听一下，看有没有学区是这种制度的，如果能混进这种体制还是好处很多的，娃儿还是和同龄孩子混在一起，不会有啥社交问题。
我目前了解的就这么多，欢迎各位纠正补充 :)
目前只是在考虑好私立还是好公立的问题。
好的私立都是分层教学的，比较牛的娃儿肯定还是私立更好，不用在公立混大锅饭。
目前幼儿园是私立的，我能看出来是很好，反正钱砸进去是能够听到响声的。但是从幼儿园一路往上送私立的话还是挺肉疼的，等初中高中再送又很难进去好的私立，再加上马上有老二了，还要考虑公平问题。。。所以很纠结，各种纠结。
所以我是职妇党，上班赚钱动力十足，哈哈。
都吵架吵累了吧，你多灌点呗，要不找个新话题调动大家积极性
是呀，私立真是个无底洞呀。从pre k 到12， 差不多的私立都要两三万，俩娃就是一百万呀，我觉得还不如公立读出来一个娃儿给五十万买房，他们的日子会轻松好多吧:P
我都没敢算过总数，只知道现在每个月一个LV包往外扔。其实我也曾经这么想过，不如送公立然后攒的钱给娃当第一桶金，可是我们这里公立实在是让人不放心。
你去看看就不觉得冷清了，这么多天了还在各种吵各种辩。。。
让群众们休息一下，或者等下个大坑出现，群众们会满血复活的，哈哈
附议！
隔壁主妇职妇说白了也是钱坑。。。
钱坑真是华人经久不息的话题。
☆ 发自 iPhone 华人一网 1.11.08
but "no child left behind" focuses way more on the opposite side, i wish it could have been more balanced
这个真的是让人很崩溃，再加上各种政治正确，还有厕所中性化，唉
所以选学区真的是个很大的问题，不仅是选房子，还是在选孩子的同学朋友。
Due to the elimination of funding for the GATE by the State, PAUSD has suspended the identification of GATE students. The District remains committed to serving the individual needs of high achieving and gifted students regardless of GATE identification.
于是我更奔溃了
现在公立的也有小班制， 开学先来个摸底考试，然后按学科串班。。。昨晚上刚开了2小时的pta会议回来， 觉得学校还是很愿意和家长合作的。
都是学东西，不学点其他的啊
我认识一家，亚裔美国人，名校双MD+PHD，两个专科医生，不差钱，为了跳级，6年级把两儿子从我们这里最贵的私立转回公立的。
专门进来顶楼主标题的。。。。
我们在东部上了一年半preschool，感觉教育很超前，从玩具设施到老师都很好，班里有个老师是BU本科毕业的pre-med的学生，take one year off思考人生，娃爱死那个老师了，因为也是华人
然后，在加州上了一年工薪私立，感觉就是完全重学了一年，当然学校的家长都不错，其他家长也抱怨学校就是重复重复再重复。我觉得这个年纪能静下心来写作业不错了，重复总比啥都没有好，娃和班上比较年轻的那个老师bonding也不错，设施比较差的感觉（和以前相比），不过习惯了就好
再然后，由于我的cheap out，转上公立，家长都也还不错，老师感觉就是不怎么上心，经常病假，上课内容好像过于简单 （老师的feedback是娃不能concentrate，这好像有个死循环，学校越教的简单娃越不容易focus）。给了vocabulary list让回来自己教，教完了可以再给你高一级的新list…… 完全放羊的感觉，没有GATE program，也许是想让整个年级的进度持平
三个学校都可以找到比较亲密的playdates，所以总体来讲social aspect并不差。三个学校各种不同，也可能是人生各个阶段的各种trade off吧
太小上大学不太放心……
中学之后就没有时间推太多艺术体育类，只能专攻。
所以不要觉得小学轻松。。。
谢谢MM的信息，这个很有用。
我在加州，我听说的也差不多吧，所谓的好公立其实也都是家长花钱砸课后辅导班砸出来的，孩子们在课后班都学得差不多了，去学校老师也知道孩子们都补习得差不多了，所以所谓的好学校其实不是学校好而是生源好（不过这个国内也一样啦），然后好私立呢也是竞争很激烈，学校可能会比公立教得多些？但是我还不清楚是不是也是补习成风。如果是的话， 那又是额外一笔钱了。
举个例子，华盛顿州是民主党占上风极左的，去年，拥有投票权的政客们第一大金主都是教师工会，所以他们通过决议，停掉了华盛顿州的charter school。完全是利益驱使。
Trump在讲他的教育政策的时候，明确指出教师工会是祸根，他要让教育有竞争，坏的老师要被开除，捣乱的学生要被惩罚。现在民主党一直在说黑孩子被歧视，被惩罚的太多。trump说包庇捣乱的学生就是在剥夺其他学生的学习权利。就冲这个，为了孩子，我绝不投民主党。
我研究附近十分小学的时候就有看到有家长的review说某个十分学校的老师不好，老师在班上公然说你们都是有钱人家的孩子怎么怎么地，一副愤世嫉俗心理不平衡的样子，让这种人教孩子家长怎么能放心。
所以我不是很想送公立，但是私立实在是要花很多钱。纠结。
有时候想想自己小时候稀里糊涂学校就上下来了，现在也还好啊，就觉得公立也没啥，学区差点也没啥。
可是有时候亲妈附身又觉得好好的孩子不要被我给耽误了，送去不好的学校被老师耽误或者被同伴耽误了怎么办，所以就觉得一定要送好学区甚至好私立。
可是票子总是不够实现理想中的生活，纠结。
“公校老师是没有评判标准的，做了什么，做的好不好没人知道，” 是不可能的。 要有考核的。
尤其新老师， 每周有人来课堂观摩。 我第一年至少有5，6拨人来看上课， 提出各种意见。 coach 就有两个。 coaching lesson plan, classroom management 各方面。 觉得这楼对老师的看法不是特别公正。
谢谢mm！这么看的话工会制度确实有弊，
利的话也能保证好的老师不流失吧
MM不要不高兴，我们从家长角度考虑当然会偏重于弊端然后考虑怎么避免或者能不能促进学校改进或者怎么样。
我之前也说了，老师里面肯定有好老师，只是从家长的角度很多时候就是看运气了。
比如我家孩子现在上的幼儿园，算是比较贵的私立的，各方面看着挺好的，学校招人也是挺严格的，我相信老师的待遇应该是相对好一些的，老师换得也不勤。一切看上去很美好，可是时间久了还是能看出来老师和老师是有区别的，学校肯定有考核标准，但是明显有的老师是热爱自己的工作的，而有的老师就是只做份工作而已，个别老师也是偷奸耍耍滑的。我相信这种情况哪里都有，不论公立私立。
也不知道我是不是要求太高了，希望老师对自己的工作有热情，至少认真负责吧。
美国不讲国内那一套，但是咱的口号还是有道理的，为人师表啊，不要误人子弟啊啥的。
我们娃还小，所以还没坐校车啥的，这个gifted program很让人纠结的，好多一般的区和好区有，我们学校不知道为啥木有
An analysis of the impact of the No Child Left Behind Act on gifted and talented students by the Davidson Institute for Talent Development.
Topics Support: Advocacy Support: Policy
Author Davidson Institute for Talent Development
Year 2006
It’s been nearly four years since President George W. Bush signed into law the No Child Left Behind Act (Jan. 8, 2002) – perhaps the most ambitious reform of American education ever attempted. Although it may be too early to tell what the results will be, per-student spending has increased at the federal level from $7,950 in 2001 to $9,940 in 2003 with an unprecedented focus on students whose performance is below grade level. The United States now spends $11,152 per student in all levels of education, making the U.S. the second highest spender in the world. According to the U.S. Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings, “The president has delivered on his promise - thanks to No Child Left Behind, our nation’s schools are making great strides toward ending the ‘soft bigotry of low expectations; and ensuring that all children have the opportunity to learn.’”
The reality is not so rosy. Our brightest students are not learning in school. The fact is that No Child Left Behind is promoting underachievement among our nation’s brightest students, denying an appropriately challenging education to millions. That is because although the plan promises that every child will learn how to read by the third grade, it does nothing to ensure that students who already knew how to read in kindergarten will continue to learn. For these exceptionally gifted students, No Child Left Behind means no child can move ahead.
The 2006 federal education budget contained approximately $9.6 million for gifted education research grants, known as the Javits Act. This amount is the only federal funding allocated towards gifted education, which equates to a mere fraction of a penny of every federal dollar spent on education. Things are just as bleak at the state level. Since No Child Left Behind became law, state funds for educating our highest-achieving students have been steadily cut – Illinois eliminated its gifted education budget altogether; California cut its gifted education budget by 18 percent; in Connecticut 22 percent of districts slashed their gifted programming. This is in addition to the 21 states that offered no educational programs for gifted learners. What does this say about our nation’s commitment to ensuring that “every child learns?”
http://www.davidsongifted.org/Search-Database/entry/A10361
Posted by GiftedParent
a resident of Barron Park
on Sep 4, 2012 at 3:16 pm
In the best case, all children deserve differentiated education - where their specific strengths and weaknesses are nurtured, supported and improved.
Gifted children are a unique challenge - to some, it sounds like complaining about what to do with your ultra-high income. What is actually the problem? Truly gifted children need far more than extra worksheets and earlier, more advanced math and/or reading books. For them facts and skills are easily memorized and acquired.
Although gifted children and high achievers overlap - they are not the same. PA has lots of high achievers - but its population of gifted children is likely to be small. This is hard for parents to accept. As a result, it is impossible to get community support for a gifted program (with separate classes) for a small fraction of students.
我很喜欢现在普遍把art包括进STEM变成是STEAM，画画好的小朋友真的是有天赋的（而且家长因为某些原因也不在意去push），其他的像数学，家长push一点的可以到达high achiever水平，gifted真的不多
公立排名怎么看啊？在哪里找数据？
另外问一下，我们过几年要选学区搬家，小学除了看rating, 排名，以及一些公开的数据外， 要怎么比较呢？我现在能想到就是去open house, 但是貌似也只是能看到表面。
研究学区人员构成啊，亚裔多高收入白人多的区相对重视教育些，另外还可以看一眼学校里有多少孩子吃免费或者减价午餐，大概就知道周围都是什么人了。
还有在网上抄学校的评价，最好是家长写的那种，重点研究负面的，看看你能不能接受。还要考虑每个学校的课外活动的情况吧，再结合你娃的特长或者你想推的项目，如果学校有相应组织或者活动啥的就优先咯。
我觉得前面一个mm说的有道理，要是公立州立能排的上号也就公立了，要不还是尽量私立。
要是钱不够送私立，送公立也行，就是人辛苦点儿，自己盯着了。
话说我们这里公立学校的家长无论老中老印还是老美，都自己死盯。city-data 上老美都说，我们这里学区所谓的10分都是靠家长撑起来的，学校老师基本没啥作用。。。
其实私立也一样，家长也死盯的。
我女儿上的幼儿园里就有那种家里没有中国人不讲中文但是专门找不怎么说英文的中文家教给自己三岁孩子教中文的。
所以重点是和重视教育的家长扎堆，这样才能大家一起推一起进步。不过弊端就是孩子竞争压力大。可是再大大得过当年高考吗？
哈哈，理解。我同事是犹太人，他老婆是中国人，家里没有中文环境，所以他让他家娃上的中英双语 pre-school.
公立私立都得靠家长，但是私立相对省心，因为学校分层做的比较好，而且 after-school programs 多，放学后直接留在学校上了。
一般的公立学校一放学，你得接娃然后 communite 送去 after-school 学习各种才艺，要是多个娃还得来回 commute. 要不一个人工作时间特别 flexible, 要不一个人得全职在家带娃，要不请人接送，就这三种选择。当然那种全州 top 的公立 after-school program 也很多，就省得麻烦了。
竞争什么的我从来不担心。作为社会人竞争就不可避免，就是从小富二代，要做点儿实事也跟人竞争。再说了，咱小时候都是国内高考上来的，我从小也没觉得有啥竞争影响我心理了。我一直觉得我童年还是挺愉快的。
主妇，不错的公立就可以了，回家妈妈能辅导功课，课外活动妈妈能安排，但是职妇，孩子肯定要去私立，这根本没的选呀。我说的是小学阶段。
体有这方面我没有什么研究，妹妹有时间的话能给多讲讲么？我听说网球十几岁开始正式学比较正常，小时候学没有什么用，是这样么？
哈哈哈哈，都是这样的，亲妈纠结综合症。
我们校区把这两种分的很清楚，考试有两种，一种是智商考试，一种就是书本上知识的考试。智商高的可以去天才班，智商达不到要求但是学习成绩很好的是去另外一种班，教的方法是不一样的。天才班快两个年级，high achiever的班快一个年纪。