The Instigator
safebug
Pro (for)
Tied
5 Points
The Contender
Consummator
Con (against)
Tied
5 Points

advanced school programs should be kept and expanded

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/24/2013 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,703 times Debate No: 30625
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

safebug

Pro

I believe that advanced and exhilarated school programs should be kept and expanded. We should strengthen our enrichment programs for highly capable children. If we open the programs to anyone, then it could be a non-exclusive class. I understand that by being able to enter the program be by a high test score, people feel that it is an unfair chance. However, the work that is in a highly capable class may be harder for some students who were not able to pass the test.
Consummator

Con

There are more than enough high-end privately funded schools where the rich can send their 'privileged' children (and pay for a high class tutor to take them through test paper techniques).

The focus of expansion should instead be on the less able students (the mentally disabled).

The current standard of them means that they are often merely in a special section of a mainstream school very isolated and not amongst others like them. They often have no friends because they are trying to make friends with people far above their intellectual capacity.

These are the students we should cater for by putting them in schools specially tailored for their needs, and if we expanded them the increased competitiveness would lower the prices of the schools (because the supply of the facilities would increase)(because 'special schools' are currently extremely expensive).
Debate Round No. 1
safebug

Pro

I see what you are saying, however the disabled have equal or more classes than the highly capable. These classes are also isolated and not everyone can be in them. You see, opponent, that we can expand both. There are kids in every community that cannot afford to go to private school but are highly intelligent. Many kids will drop out of school because they are getting bored in the normal classes and don't feel challenged. The rate at which kids drop out of school is increasing because of this.
{1} High School Dropout Statistics (US)
Total number of high school dropouts annually3,030,000
Number of high school students who drop out each day8,300
Percent of Americans with a high school diploma85.3 %
Percent of all drop outs that happen in the ninth-grade36 %
Percent of students who repeat the ninth-grade that go on to graduate15 %
Percent of students in the largest 50 U.S. cities that graduate High School59 %
Percent of US crimes that committed by a high school dropout75 %
Amount of money a high school graduate will earn more than a drop out$260,000
Percent of black drop outs that have spent time in prison60 %
Percentage of Hispanic dropouts that were due to a pregnancy41 %
Percent of US jobs a high school dropout is not eligible for90 %

{2}"Many teens say they were bored and frustrated with classes that didn't seem relevant to their life."
Teens will get bored in class because it is too easy for them and they need more of a challenge, however the students who need to be going at a slower rate are holding them back.

{1}http://www.statisticbrain.com...
{2} http://www.eduguide.org...
Consummator

Con

Just because there are barely any 'special' schools in USA for 'privileged' kids doesn't mean that there is a need for it.

A genius will learn to scrape through school no matter how boring it is because they are smart. In fact it's nicer to them to let them be the 'best in the grade' rather than simply average for a genius.

The disabled who have to have parents pay extra on top of school fees, because maybe there isn't a school for them close enough to home (they are only available in densely populated cities usually) then this is clearly an economic issue as well as the fact that while a genius can find a way to fit in with their peers, or are intelligent enough to seek help from teachers if bullying occurs, the disabled might get severely teased but find it too hard to come up with the right words for their parents.

Helping the underdog is far more pressing a need than assisting the super to feel elite (which they do anyway).

There is simply no need at all for these 'privileged' schools nearly to the degree of the opposite.

Your drop-out statistics and boredom sources were totally irrelevant to the debate.

I will now give an article on the issue (you have to pay to read the full thing but what he wrote so far is a good overview) http://www.jstor.org...
Debate Round No. 2
safebug

Pro

Please, the debate was about the highly capable programs, not about where the money or focus should go.
You make a strong argument with the fact that highly capable should be able to deal with boredom or bullying, however the students in this circumstance are not learning new material because they could understand what the assignment is three or four hours worth of explanation that the teacher gives the class. That is then a wasted three to four hours that child could spend learning new topics.

My information is solid, as I am a highly capable student and our school is thinking of getting rid of the program because the class is exclusive to children who get higher grades. However, the grades are not the only thing that qualifies a child. It is the mental capacity to quickly understand and to think outside the box.

Yes, the disabled children do need more focus towards their needs, but we (as a society) need to look at everyone"s needs because the "whiz kids" are also needing to be pushed ahead and challenged to get farther in their lives.

If these kids are not challenged, they will think poorly of themselves and loose self-confidence. Then they will not believe the good that they could accomplish and they would never TRY. The highly capable children need to be recognized as not just the smartest kid in class, and they need an environment where all the kids are equally smart and then they will be challenged properly.

******************************************************
(1)
Highly Capable Children Need Education Suited To Their Needs

As the parent of two highly capable children, I am tired of hearing people complain about fairness of gifted programs. These are people who would abolish gifted programs because they feel that gifted programs provide better education than do regular programs. These people are right in wanting to improve the education provided in regular programs. But this can be done without destroying gifted programs, which have been shown to be successful at meeting the special educational needs of a very small minority of children.

A goal of education should be to challenge each student at his/her own level. Parents of highly capable children do not want their children to receive better education than other children receive. They only want education that is appropriate to their children's special learning needs.

Highly capable children represent the top 1 to 3 percent of the normal bell-shaped curve of learning ability. They learn differently, and their needs cannot be met in the regular classroom. My children were bored, unhappy and disruptive in regular classrooms, in spite of the outstanding efforts of excellent, caring teachers. In special classrooms where learning is suited to their needs, they are thriving.

If gifted programs are abolished, as it appears that many would like, I would have to send my children to private school, which I cannot afford. I pay my taxes. Why shouldn't my public schools meet the needs of my children as they meet the needs of everyone else's children?

Nobody would dare criticize education that meets the special needs of children at the other end of the normal bell-shaped curve, the "special education" students with learning disabilities.

Do people criticize gifted programs because the term "gifted" is value-laden and generates resentment? If so, then let's change the name, and retain these successful programs for highly capable students.

Highly capable students have great potential to become citizens who make tremendous contributions to society. Without appropriate education, these children are "at risk" for serious problems. It would be very short-sighted for us to stifle their intellectual and emotional development by forcing upon them an education that does not let them develop to their full potential.
*************************************
(2)
Traditionally, schools have sought to identify and nurture giftedness in those core areas for which they assume responsibility, namely, in intellectual or academic areas of accomplishment, since it is for students gifted in those areas that the school provides a poor fit (as opposed to irrelevant fit, as would be the case for a musically gifted student in a school that offered little music instruction). Note that a key aspect of the definition has to do with such goodness-of-fit comparing the student's accomplishment with others "of their age, experience, or environment . . . They require services or activities not ordinarily provided by the schools."
*************************************
(3)
Q. My daughter is bright, but I'm not sure she's highly capable. She seems happy at her school and has plenty of friends, but I wonder if she is really being challenged.
A. Educational research indicates that many gifted girls go "underground" with their talents at an early age. They are often very socially aware and seek to fit in with other children their age rather than letting their true abilities shine through. Because they often don't exhibit the behaviors typically associated with boys who are not being adequately challenged, such as acting out or underachieving, parents and teachers may believe they don't require additional challenges or are simply hard workers and high achievers. Unfortunately, for these reasons, many highly capable girls are not given the opportunity to recognize their own potential and work at the level they are capable of. Seabury provides academically talented girls a place where it is safe to be smart and where their gifts are celebrated and nurtured.
*************************************
(4)
Good social adjustment, emotional maturity, and healthy self-concepts characterize the experience of many intellectually gifted children. Numerous studies have confirmed Terman's early finding that moderately gifted individuals tend to do well in school and to achieve success in later life (Gallagher, 1958; 1975; Hollingworth, 1942; Terman, 1925). Such life success is not automatic for the gifted, however, and depends to a great extent on environmental support. Even moderately gifted children are vulnerable to a variety of adjustment difficulties. As the degree of intellectual advancement increases, so does the child's risk of social maladjustment and unhappiness (Hollingworth, 1942; Terman, 1925; Terman & Oden, 1947; Tannenbaum, 1983).

Children with unusually advanced intellectual development are uniquely vulnerable. Moreover, studies throughout the country have begun to document the fact that extraordinarily gifted children exist, at least in some cities, in larger numbers than would be expected on the basis of the normal curve. Studies at the University of Washington (Roedell, Jackson, & Robinson, 1980; Robinson, 1980), at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore (Stanley, Keating, & Fox, 1974; Keating, 1976), and at the University of Denver (Silverman, in preparation) have all identified significant sub populations of highly gifted children.
*************************************
(5)
Highly capable children are often quite energetic. Although they might be cognitively ready for academics designed for older children, their bodies aren"t ready for a sit-still program. In addition, their ideas often outstrip their fine motor skills, and they need help writing down their amazing stories and project ideas. Occasionally gifted children become so immersed in activities such as reading or building with Legos, that they need adult guidance to get the exercise their bodies need.

*************************************
(1)http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com...
(2)http://www.state.gov...
(3)http://www.seabury.org...
(4)http://www.davidsongifted.org...
(5)http://www.bellevuediscovery.org...

Thank you for this debate. Please comment! :)

Please note that this was my first debate and that I am passionate about this topic!
Consummator

Con

My opponent beings their closing speech with the statement "Please, the debate was about the highly capable programs, not about where the money or focus should go." is my opponent unaware that keeping and expanding advanced schools is purely a debate over where the government's money should go and actually is a debate over absolutely nothing else?

"You make a strong argument with the fact that highly capable should be able to deal with boredom or bullying, however the students in this circumstance are not learning new material because they could understand what the assignment is three or four hours worth of explanation that the teacher gives the class. That is then a wasted three to four hours that child could spend learning new topics." The child needs to learn. Despite being highly capable, it is very likely that there are pieces of information only available on a syllabus and never reached by self-study alone because often children with high capabilities specialise into one particular topic of study for the sole purpose of intellectual pursuit regardless of application to modern world. Schooling helps them focus their minds on more applicable forms of knowledge.

"My information is solid, as I am a highly capable student and our school is thinking of getting rid of the program because the class is exclusive to children who get higher grades." My opponent seems to justify the validity of their information by explaining that it is their subjective, personal opinion. Clearly this is a logical fallacy and should be disregarded.

"Yes, the disabled children do need more focus towards their needs, but we (as a society) need to look at everyone"s needs because the "whiz kids" are also needing to be pushed ahead and challenged to get farther in their lives." This is totally incorrect. Whiz kids, as my opponent calls them, will already be pushing themselves as they have a high intellectual capacity to plan for the future that the norm do not have. Meanwhile the disabled children,w ho really do need pushing and help, are not being sufficiently funded and this is clearly a far more pressing issue at hand.

"If these kids are not challenged, they will think poorly of themselves and loose[lose] self-confidence." This is false, they will actually have hugely increased self-confidence because they will be acing every test while their peers struggle in admiration.

"he highly capable children need to be recognized as not just the smartest kid in class, and they need an environment where all the kids are equally smart and then they will be challenged properly." This isn't true and my opponent offers no evidence to support its validity, which according to me doesn't exist because it's an invalid statement.

The rest of my opponent's speech is all plagiarized and unoriginal content but I shall address it nonetheless.

"A goal of education should be to challenge each student at his/her own level. Parents of highly capable children do not want their children to receive better education than other children receive. They only want education that is appropriate to their children's special learning needs." This is pointless because a higher demanding program would merely put more unnecessary stress on the highly gifted and in fact be much harder for them to cope with that a standard class. Additionally they will often get lower grades overall than if they had been in a standardised school.

"Highly capable children represent the top 1 to 3 percent of the normal bell-shaped curve of learning ability. They learn differently, and their needs cannot be met in the regular classroom. My children were bored, unhappy and disruptive in regular classrooms, in spite of the outstanding efforts of excellent, caring teachers. In special classrooms where learning is suited to their needs, they are thriving." Whilst this is admirable, it is clearly an issue with the students as opposed to the teachers who are described as excellent and caring. Perhaps seeking help for something like ADHD could be advisable.

"If gifted programs are abolished, as it appears that many would like, I would have to send my children to private school, which I cannot afford. I pay my taxes. Why shouldn't my public schools meet the needs of my children as they meet the needs of everyone else's children?" he error here is the failure toe realise that schools already meet the needs of such students.

"Nobody would dare criticize education that meets the special needs of children at the other end of the normal bell-shaped curve, the "special education" students with learning disabilities." That is because they actually need help whilst the highly gifted don't, if anything they need even less help than most do.

"Q. My daughter is bright, but I'm not sure she's highly capable. She seems happy at her school and has plenty of friends, but I wonder if she is really being challenged.
A. Educational research indicates that many gifted girls go "underground" with their talents at an early age. They are often very socially aware and seek to fit in with other children their age rather than letting their true abilities shine through. Because they often don't exhibit the behaviors typically associated with boys who are not being adequately challenged, such as acting out or underachieving, parents and teachers may believe they don't require additional challenges or are simply hard workers and high achievers. Unfortunately, for these reasons, many highly capable girls are not given the opportunity to recognize their own potential and work at the level they are capable of. Seabury provides academically talented girls a place where it is safe to be smart and where their gifts are celebrated and nurtured."
Firstly this is a highly biased advertisement which probably wasn't even a genuine question and was all made up for the advertising of a school named "Seabury" for the gifted girls. Secondly all these baseless assertions are not backed up with any evidence at all, it's merely unfounded sexist opinion.

The other two sources had nothing to with debate and display which plagiarism never gets you far.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by safebug 3 years ago
safebug
thank you TheSaint for voting! I am glad that you voted for me! :)
Posted by safebug 3 years ago
safebug
IT WAS MY DEBATE I Know What I WAS DOING STOP YELLING AT ME For MY CHOICES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 3 years ago
16kadams
safebugConsummatorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources: although pro cited more references, I also take quality into account. Con cited one source, but it was an academic peer-reviewed journal. Pro cited many sources, many of which were advertisements. Arguments: pro, unless specified, has the BOP. He failed o give conclusive proof we should invest money into advanced schools. He argued that the debate wasn't about money, but expanding a school system is 100% about where and why the money goes somewhere, as con noted. Pro kept stating money for the intelligent was not as important as the disabled, and normal schooling actually forces them to cope with society (bullying, for example), an invaluable skill. Many minor classes also won't be provided at 'gifted' schools, which may prevent them from learning average skills needed in life. Pro failed to convince me we need to spend more money on the wealthy, sspecually when others probably have less help but need more of it. And, the intelligent can always join this site for a challenge:)
Vote Placed by TheSaint 3 years ago
TheSaint
safebugConsummatorTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: The arguments con made were demonstrably false. I myself am an AP student and the issues raised by con simply are not real issues. Pro did a decent job countering con's arguments and made arguments of his own. Also while pro's sources weren't strictly important they were better then nothing on con's side.