data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fa3e6/fa3e65ae9802324d0c46f47b2ed14c65ee5d4f78" alt="How Well Can We Serve Gifted Students"
How Well Can We Serve Gifted Students
The topic of gifted education is a frequent one in international school circles. Some schools offer a gifted programme, while others are thinking about it, and still others eschew it entirely. There are many sides to the debate of whether to include gifted programming, yet what I don’t hear often enough is a questioning of the evidence as to whether such programmes are even effective. Do they truly benefit students that qualify as ‘gifted’?
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/798da/798dadde861e9fd968060117ab3dbc1bc65cf724" alt="On Pervasive Myopia"
On Pervasive Myopia
Ever the optimist, I always read reports on 21st-century whatever (e.g., skills, competencies, curriculum, etc.) with the hope that there may be some glimmer of recognition of the life-force of teaching and learning, as opposed to policy-wonk interpretations of what ‘education’ means now. So it was that I immersed myself in a seventy-page PDF from the Asia Society and Rand Corporation (aka a Global Cities Education Network report) entitled Measuring 21st-Century Competencies: Guidance for Educators (November 2013).
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/92ac1/92ac140598dfc5eb03b084b61db8be7d151b416a" alt="On Research, Evidence, and Practice"
On Research, Evidence, and Practice
What if research were being undertaken, evidence of 'what works' noted and shared in public forums, yet no espousal and/or application of those results in schools? It would seem difficult to believe that such a thing could be taking place, yet that is precisely the premise of an article in the August 2014 issue of Scientific American.