67:
49:
22:
77:
162:
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.
390:
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
330:
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)
245:
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,
161:
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
201:
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
219:
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
252:
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
344:
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
Knowledge by being moved to form a
256:
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.
494:, with this title serving as a redirect to the appropriate article section. That will better match the structure of reliable sources and better fit Knowledge's role as an encyclopedia. While I prepare to propose that through Knowledge channels, please feel free to review a
286:
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.
311:
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 ]). Any editor can do this.
335:, 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.
416:
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
331:
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
176:
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
253:
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.
498:
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. --
511:
402:
300:
377:
485:
321:
448:. 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
133:
165:
Having poked holes in your work, I offer, nonetheless, sincere thanks for your careful research and writing on this important and valuable topic.
479:
181:
530:
127:
191:
184:. 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,
293:
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.
272:
495:
436:
Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Knowledge is a
535:
430:
406:
525:
304:
103:
445:
264:
206:
398:
467:
296:
90:
54:
391:
contents be moved to a "pros" section, leaving room for a "cons" section; both of which should cite references.
214:
507:
459:
449:
240:
29:
102:
topics on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
503:
188:
171:
150:
Your article seems well written. I'm disappointed that the foundation-laying work of Joseph
Renzulli (
411:
268:
475:
373:
317:
177:
499:
185:
35:
260:
8:
281:
99:
471:
463:
455:
369:
313:
203:
397:
This is not to be a disclaimer either (like "this article is not NPOV, do with it")
491:
426:
418:
332:
82:
224:
if not most of the students will make valuable contributions as a result of their
357:
490:
Most of the material in this article should be merged into the main article on
365:
246:
not with the opinion that gifted children should not recieve proper education.
519:
422:
196:
290:
Also, good luck finding criticisms that are worthy of acknowledgment.
95:
66:
48:
440:, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the
76:
444:
link at the top. The
Knowledge community encourages you to
437:
182:
Knowledge:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Lead_section
496:
source list on human intelligence and gifted education
94:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
72:
28:This article has not yet been rated on Knowledge's
132:This article has not yet received a rating on the
517:
486:This should be merged with Gifted education
21:
19:
345:substantial section in the main article.
518:
531:Unknown-importance education articles
88:This article is within the scope of
15:
460:New contributors are always welcome
364:editor can do. I encourage you to
202:matters such as gifted education).
34:It is of interest to the following
13:
468:many reasons why you might want to
215:Gifted children as public resource
14:
547:
458:to try out your editing skills.
75:
65:
47:
20:
112:Knowledge:WikiProject Education
536:WikiProject Education articles
356:Please go ahead and do that.
207:21:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
115:Template:WikiProject Education
1:
526:Unassessed education articles
512:17:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
106:and see a list of open tasks.
407:22:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
192:23:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
7:
480:00:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
431:11:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
322:20:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
305:03:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
10:
552:
378:20:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
273:11:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
152:The Enrichment Triad Model
134:project's importance scale
462:. You don't even need to
446:be bold in updating pages
368:improve these articles.
131:
60:
42:
154:) and of George Betts (
178:Knowledge:Lead_section
158:) are not referenced.
156:The Autonomous Learner
91:WikiProject Education
466:(although there are
241:Arguing the argument
360:are something that
451:how to edit a page
172:Thx and suggestion
118:education articles
30:content assessment
412:Original Research
275:
263:comment added by
148:
147:
144:
143:
140:
139:
100:education-related
543:
500:WeijiBaikeBianji
492:Gifted education
419:gifted education
333:Gifted Education
258:
120:
119:
116:
113:
110:
85:
83:Education portal
80:
79:
69:
62:
61:
51:
44:
43:
25:
24:
23:
16:
551:
550:
546:
545:
544:
542:
541:
540:
516:
515:
488:
414:
284:
243:
217:
199:
174:
117:
114:
111:
108:
107:
81:
74:
12:
11:
5:
549:
539:
538:
533:
528:
487:
484:
483:
482:
442:edit this page
413:
410:
395:
394:
393:
392:
385:
384:
383:
382:
381:
380:
349:
348:
347:
346:
339:
338:
337:
336:
325:
324:
283:
280:
278:
249:
242:
239:
237:
234:
216:
213:
211:
198:
195:
173:
170:
146:
145:
142:
141:
138:
137:
130:
124:
123:
121:
104:the discussion
87:
86:
70:
58:
57:
52:
40:
39:
33:
26:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
548:
537:
534:
532:
529:
527:
524:
523:
521:
514:
513:
509:
505:
501:
497:
493:
481:
477:
473:
469:
465:
461:
457:
454:, or use the
453:
452:
447:
443:
439:
435:
434:
433:
432:
428:
424:
423:Richard Dates
420:
409:
408:
404:
400:
389:
388:
387:
386:
379:
375:
371:
367:
363:
359:
355:
354:
353:
352:
351:
350:
343:
342:
341:
340:
334:
329:
328:
327:
326:
323:
319:
315:
310:
309:
308:
306:
302:
298:
294:
291:
288:
279:
276:
274:
270:
266:
265:193.95.162.29
262:
254:
250:
247:
238:
235:
232:
229:
227:
223:
212:
209:
208:
205:
194:
193:
190:
187:
183:
179:
169:
166:
163:
159:
157:
153:
135:
129:
126:
125:
122:
105:
101:
97:
93:
92:
84:
78:
73:
71:
68:
64:
63:
59:
56:
53:
50:
46:
45:
41:
37:
31:
27:
18:
17:
489:
472:WhatamIdoing
450:
441:
415:
399:70.52.112.35
396:
370:WhatamIdoing
361:
314:WhatamIdoing
295:
292:
289:
285:
277:
255:
251:
248:
244:
236:
233:
230:
225:
221:
218:
210:
204:Jeff Silvers
200:
175:
167:
164:
160:
155:
151:
149:
89:
36:WikiProjects
307:ArthurDent
297:65.7.145.21
282:POV is fine
259:—Preceding
228:education.
520:Categories
508:how I edit
366:WP:BOLDly
358:WP:MERGEs
186:"alyosha"
109:Education
96:education
55:Education
261:unsigned
220:because
456:sandbox
231:- Joel
168:- Bill
464:log in
226:gifted
189:(talk)
32:scale.
504:talk
476:talk
470:).
438:wiki
427:talk
403:talk
374:talk
318:talk
301:talk
269:talk
222:some
180:and
98:and
362:any
197:POV
128:???
522::
510:)
506:,
478:)
429:)
405:)
376:)
320:)
303:)
271:)
502:(
474:(
425:(
421:.
401:(
372:(
316:(
299:(
267:(
136:.
38::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
