# Anyone wanna talk about the conception of "gifted" status in children?



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

I know this discussion is not considered appropriate for the "Parenting the Gifted Child" forum, but I'm hoping it's okay here, as there is a lot of interest in the subject.

I am uncomfortable with it, myself. I was labelled a "gifted" child, and there was a lot of pressure, and a lot of ego stroking also. I think the ego-stroking was good for me in some ways as I also had an abusive childhood, but I feel uneasy with the current labelling and treatment of "gifted" children.

I think IQ testing is problematic at best, and focusing on a particular brand of intellectual development is unwise.

I also think "gifted" labelling sets up a hierarchy among children, where "gifted" children can be made to feel like they are better than other children.

I think the labelling can lead to arrogance.

I think parents can become so invested in their children being intellectually "superior" that it becomes a badge of honour, and I think children can feel this, and it can prevent them from actualizing all the parts of who they are, or being comfortable with the ways in which they fall short of that "gifted" standard.

I think parents can become convinced that their children are an alien breed, that they are not competent to parent them, that their children have immense and unmatchable need for intellectual stimulation, and that all kinds of special treatments have to come into play, even during early childhood.

I believe it is not good for children to pick up on the energy of a parent's anxiety about being able to nurture them, on the parent's fear that the child is unknowable, that they are somehow "greater than" the parent.

I believe that all children, especially very young children, really need the same things, such as love, nurturance, freedom to play and develop at their own pace, acceptance that is not conditional, and a pressure-free environment in which to learn and grow.

Thoughts?


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

nak

Subbing. I have many of the same concerns.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

I prefer the term "accelerated" to "gifted." I don't know why; it just sounds better. I see your points, but, accelerated children do have special needs that are unique from those of your "average" child. Their special needs are no less valid than the special needs of other "special needs" kids.

That doesn't make them "alien" to their parents, nor are they "greater than" their parents. They can be extreme perfectionists. They can have difficulty relating to kids the same age. They can give teachers a different kind of trouble (such as when the kindergarten teacher told me that his most troublesome students were the ones who already knew how to read.) And we need a place to talk about all of those things. And what exactly constitutes "gifted" is on a continuum......we may not all agree on that demarcation. But parents who feel the need to post in the "gifted" forum should feel free to do so.

PS. The idea that we are "pressuring" our kids is a myth. My dd reads for hours on end, not because I make her, but because she wants to. She talks about going to M.I.T. because she wants to, not because I've put any sort of pressure on her to do so.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *A&A*
I prefer the term "accelerated" to "gifted." I don't know why; it just sounds better. I see your points, but, accelerated children do have special needs that are unique from those of your "average" child. Their special needs are no less valid than the special needs of other "special needs" kids.

What child is average? I do not know of any child who is completely average, who has no special needs, nothing quirky or different about their personality.

Quote:

That doesn't make them "alien" to their parents.
I dont think it makes the child alien to the parents either, but I do sometimes see parents perceive it that way. The child gets the label of gifted, and suddenly the parent is consumed with anxiety about whether they have what it takes to parent the child, what should they be reading/learning/doing, etc. It is as though they now have an enormous responsibility resulting from the label to ensure the child gets all kinds of intervention and resources to develop their awesome and mysterious intellect, kwim?

Quote:

But parents who feel the need to post in the "gifted" forum should feel free to do so.
Just to be clear, I'm not challenging that.


----------



## eloquence (Apr 25, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama*
I know this discussion is not considered appropriate for the "Parenting the Gifted Child" forum, but I'm hoping it's okay here, as there is a lot of interest in the subject.

I am uncomfortable with it, myself. I was labelled a "gifted" child, and there was a lot of pressure, and a lot of ego stroking also. I think the ego-stroking was good for me in some ways as I also had an abusive childhood, but I feel uneasy with the current labelling and treatment of "gifted" children.

I think IQ testing is problematic at best, and focusing on a particular brand of intellectual development is unwise.

I also think "gifted" labelling sets up a hierarchy among children, where "gifted" children can be made to feel like they are better than other children.

I think the labelling can lead to arrogance.

I think parents can become so invested in their children being intellectually "superior" that it becomes a badge of honour, and I think children can feel this, and it can prevent them from actualizing all the parts of who they are, or being comfortable with the ways in which they fall short of that "gifted" standard.

I think parents can become convinced that their children are an alien breed, that they are not competent to parent them, that their children have immense and unmatchable need for intellectual stimulation, and that all kinds of special treatments have to come into play, even during early childhood.

I believe it is not good for children to pick up on the energy of a parent's anxiety about being able to nurture them, on the parent's fear that the child is unknowable, that they are somehow "greater than" the parent.

I believe that all children, especially very young children, really need the same things, such as love, nurturance, freedom to play and develop at their own pace, acceptance that is not conditional, and a pressure-free environment in which to learn and grow.

Thoughts?

I totally agree and have felt this way for years before I became a parent.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

I also feel that gifted school programs are great. Smaller class sizes, creative methods of learning, catering to students' individual needs. Wonderful. But how is it okay that we don't do that for ALL children? Any rationale for that that I can conceive of really disturbs me.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama*
What child is average? I do not know of any child who is completely average, who has no special needs, nothing quirky or different about their personality.

.

That's why I put "average" in quotation marks.


----------



## eloquence (Apr 25, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama*
I also feel that gifted school programs are great. Smaller class sizes, creative methods of learning, catering to students' individual needs. Wonderful. But how is it okay that we don't do that for ALL children? Any rationale for that that I can conceive of really disturbs me.

Me too, mama.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama*
I also feel that gifted school programs are great. Smaller class sizes, creative methods of learning, catering to students' individual needs. Wonderful. But how is it okay that we don't do that for ALL children?

We should, really. And the disturbing thing is that "gifted programs" are often filled with kids who are from a higher socio-economic status than the median socio-economic status of that school district.


----------



## jlpumkin (Oct 25, 2005)

AMEN!! I too was labelled gifted at a young age. I was bussed to a special school for gifted children. Personally I think it's all over rated. We were placed in classes based upon IQ. I found that "gifted" kids were often filled with a sense of entitlement that surprisingly (or not) has carried over into adulthood. Many (sometimes me too!!!) have yet to gain basic social skills because we were exempt from having to get along with peers - we were too advanced to understand their behavior or fit in or whatever - Guess what - out in the real world social skills count A LOT!!
Honestly all of the gifted status and programs lately drive me crazy. Every parent thinks that their child is smart (myself included), why do we feel some need to have them labelled? Just keep reacting to your child's interests. That's all the stimulation necessary. Many truely gifted children are actually found in the special education classes.
I know this is a very hot button for me so I'll stop now. I guess that is partly why I never started a topic on my own. Sure does feel good to have like minded mamas around because I normally feel completely isolated in this area.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

I think it's not the label, it's how it's dealt with that makes a huge amount of difference. For some people, however, the label is the thing that finally, finally pulls together all the disparate, sometimes "weird" behavior, and general differences into a handy envelope in much the same way as the label "Aspergers" or "Down" does, and for many of the same reasons.

Naturally, it can be attached by status-conscious parents whose sense of inherent superiority leads their children to become arrogant, but I contend that this arrogance would have occurred without the "gifted" label. The label is a tool, nothing more.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama*
I think IQ testing is problematic at best, and focusing on a particular brand of intellectual development is unwise.

It's not just one "particular brand" of intellectual development. It's a difference in the way the brain processes and retains information. Gifted is not just "mathematical intelligence" or "phonemic intelligence."

Quote:


I also think "gifted" labelling sets up a hierarchy among children, where "gifted" children can be made to feel like they are better than other children.

I think the labelling can lead to arrogance.

I think parents can become so invested in their children being intellectually "superior" that it becomes a badge of honour, and I think children can feel this, and it can prevent them from actualizing all the parts of who they are, or being comfortable with the ways in which they fall short of that "gifted" standard.
I certainly think that this is true with many parents -- whether they label their children "gifted" or not. If you took away the label, they would find another reason why their children are better than yours. The problem isn't with the label or with the difference in brain function. It's the problem of arrogant, status-conscious people.

To be honest, I seriously wish that the label "gifted" would disappear and be replaced with some less lovely-sounding label, one that confers much less automatic prestige -- perhaps "asynchronous development."

Quote:

I believe that all children, especially very young children, really need the same things, such as love, nurturance, freedom to play and *develop at their own pace*, acceptance that is not conditional, and a pressure-free environment in which to learn and grow.

Thoughts?
I completely agree, particularly with the "develop at their own pace" idea. If a child is genuinely gifted (and the more gifted they are, the more this is true), the more the parent needs to understand that the child needs to develop at her or his own pace -- not the pace of the public school, or the pace of the developmental charts in _What To Expect Your Toddler's First Year_, or the pace at which you think they "should" go, but at the pace their intellect demands.


----------



## LoveBeads (Jul 8, 2002)

I think any special needs label has the potential to do more harm than good. But I also believe that in the majority of cases, it does more good than harm.


----------



## AngelBee (Sep 8, 2004)

I do not like labels like that at all.

I think that we need to be VERY careful when choosing to put labels on developing children.

It is a lot of pressure. It can also be devistating to them.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama*
What child is average? I do not know of any child who is completely average, who has no special needs, nothing quirky or different about their personality.

This kind of PC disingenuousness isn't helping the discussion, don't you think? I'm definitely sure you know that "average," like any designator, is a term describing a group of people who falls within a certain range of ability, a zone, if you will. If you want a visual analogy, think of a handful of salt thrown upon a table. Most of the salt will cluster in a given area. Some will be more on the perimeter. The salt in the central cluster is where we consider the "average" salt grain to be. Maybe no _single_ grain of salt is _precisely_ in the center of that given area, but in aggregate, most of the salt is there. That's the idea behind "average" (as I'm guessing you know already).


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
For some people, however, the label is the thing that finally, finally pulls together all the disparate, sometimes "weird" behavior, and general differences into a handy envelope in much the same way as the label "Aspergers" or "Down" does, and for many of the same reasons.

Yes, I can see this, especially for a chid who is unexplicably "weird" and excels at IQ testing.

Quote:

Naturally, it can be attached by status-conscious parents whose sense of inherent superiority leads their children to become arrogant, but I contend that this arrogance would have occurred without the "gifted" label.
ITA. And this is where the gifted label divorces itself from the other types of "special needs."

I do think the gifted label contributes a lot to arrogance, because suddenly not only the parents, but teachers, other people are contributing. The label can officialize the arrogance.

Quote:

It's not just one "particular brand" of intellectual development. It's a difference in the way the brain processes and retains information. Gifted is not just "mathematical intelligence" or "phonemic intelligence."
Sorry, I mis-spoke. I was meaning to say that intellectual development, particularly in areas that are recognizeable thru testing, like logic, sometimes artistic ability, are recognized.

I really don't think focusing on intellect is useful in parenting. I think it is already overrated in this society. My own approach to parenting is about meeting my child's emotional needs as much as I am able. I feel that doing this will allow her to grow fully into herself, including intellectually.

I would much prefer this approach to be the norm, rather than daycares for example that really push their educational curriculum. I don't care if you will teach my child to say the letters of the alphabet. I care if she is crying, will you hold her.

And I think the desire of so many parents to have their children's fabulosity recognized as gifted contributes to a climate where pushing intellectual development at the expense of emotional needs is normalized.

Quote:

To be honest, I seriously wish that the label "gifted" would disappear and be replaced with some less lovely-sounding label, one that confers much less automatic prestige -- perhaps "asynchronous development."
Huh. I would find that much more palatable too.

ETA - Holy cross-postage batman!


----------



## AngelBee (Sep 8, 2004)

Also.....I believe that all children are gifted.

It is our job as parents and society to help them identify those areas and to encourage them.

Being gifted at academics is no better then being gifted musically.....or being gifted in woodworking.......or in dance......

Though for some reason society seems to equate academic achievement with happiness and success.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
This kind of PC disingenuousness isn't helping the discussion, don't you think?

I am not intending to be PC or disingenuous.

I feel like a lot of discussion of gifted children falls into the realm of plain old bragging. But when it is challenged, people run back to the idea that their children are special, that they have to deal with such unique and different things that parents of "average" children cannot possibly relate to, because those people never have to deal with unique challenges, kwim?


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

ITA with your whole post, AngelBee, and I think this is especially important:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AngelBee*
Though for some reason society seems to equate academic achievement with happiness and success.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama*
I also feel that gifted school programs are great. Smaller class sizes, creative methods of learning, catering to students' individual needs. Wonderful. But how is it okay that we don't do that for ALL children? Any rationale for that that I can conceive of really disturbs me.

Maybe because I have a feeling you're not necessarily getting what gifted school programs do in practice.

For one, most of them are pull-out programs -- so basically, that's like being "gifted" for an hour a week or so. You mostly have to make up the work you "missed" in the regular class because for the most part, teachers regard gifted pullouts as a frippery, an indulgence, "fun." Imagine if we had the same mentality toward special ed, huh? Like, if you have Down syndrome and an I.Q. of 75, you get to be with other kids like yourself only an hour or two a week, and you have to make up all the regular classwork because being in the Down class is a privilege.

For another, in a _good_ gifted class -- and I'll get to the difference in a sec -- there's a genuine difference in how the students are taught because giftedness is not just an issue of depth, but an issue of _rate_. In theory, a regular-ed child could not handle the complexity or the pace of a gifted class, even if they busted their hump trying to do so. It would be like me trying to be at NBA camp with the Chicago Bulls. Ain't gonna happen.

In a _bad_ gifted class -- and I will argue that those are the majority, largely due to the limitations imposed on teachers because of the pullout issue -- it's a bunch of silly projects and logic games. A regular-ed child would probably have a fine time.

As far as dealing with individual differences in a small class? That would be great -- but outside of homeschooling, that's not going to happen. Money. Bottom line, we don't care about education and we vote with our wallets. We spend plenty of time yammering about how the children are the future, and how it's such a valuable profession, and how important it it, but when it comes down to passing a bond issue for a new school? _Fugeddaboutit_. That's why, IMHO, homeschooling tends to work for most committed homeschoolers, because it's precisely what you described: small class size, and individually-designed education.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

I know exactly what gifted programs are like. As a child I attended both the pullout and the full-time type. I was given every indulgence and then some by my regular teachers when I attended the pullout program, and never had to make up work.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *A&A*
We should, really. And the disturbing thing is that "gifted programs" are often filled with kids who are from a higher socio-economic status than the median socio-economic status of that school district.

That's because of several factors:

1. Teacher bias.
By the way, I live in a lower SES area -- definitely lower middle-class, mostly Hispanic. The special ed. coordinator at the elementary school for which we're zoned told me, "We've never had [a gifted child] before."

Bull. They haven't been looking.

2. Intimidated parents who don't push for the accomodations their kids need and who believe teachers when they say "all children are gifted."

3. Parents who may not know themselves that their child is gifted -- they just know he's bored and acting out.


----------



## AngelBee (Sep 8, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama*
I know exactly what gifted programs are like. As a child I attended both the pullout and the full-time type. I was given every indulgence and then some by my regular teachers when I attended the pullout program, and never had to make up work.









I experienced the same thing through out elementry school.

Funny how quickly I was labeled "lazy and unmotivated" when homework increased in junior/senior high and I could not keep up.

Testing....still got all A's.
Homework.....usually not completed.

As a result I had poor self esteem and did not know what was wrong with me. I was kicked into the hall, assigned detention, told I needed to work up to my potential, and was denied learning disability testing.

Well......finally last summer I went to get tested on my own. I am in the 98% ADHD.


----------



## Oh the Irony (Dec 14, 2003)

i really like the multiple intelligences model.

http://www.ldpride.net/learningstyle...20Intelligence

all kids have areas of strengths and areas of challenge. if an area is a child's strength, i would consider that child "gifted" in that area. i look at gifted on an individual basis--not as a comparision to other children.

all types of intelligence are not equally respected and nourished in american society and i believe it is a huge disservice to kids.

that said, yes some kids have stronger strengths than others and they deserve to have their strengths and challenges nurtured in the way best suited to them. all kids do.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AngelBee*
Also.....I believe that all children are gifted.

It is our job as parents and society to help them identify those areas and to encourage them.

Being gifted at academics is no better then being gifted musically.....or being gifted in woodworking.......or in dance......

Though for some reason society seems to equate academic achievement with happiness and success.

Sorry, but I have to disagree with your statement, and rather strongly.

I believe all children are _unique_ and _special_ if that is what you mean by "gifted."

I believe that all children have _value_ and deserve to be treated with respect, if that is what you mean by "gifted."

I believe that many children have _talents_ and those talents, when present, should be encouraged, if that is what you mean by "gifted."

However, I do not and cannot believe that _all_ children are academically advanced, that their brains process information faster and retain it longer than the norm; that their ability to make connections between and among disparate objects and events is normal or universal, nor that it is normal or universal for a child's intellectual development to be far in excess of their age, if that is what you mean by "gifted."

Hope that helps clarify.


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

*sigh*

I keep typing out these long posts and erasing them.

This issue is a sore spot for me. I just want to say that I really agree with what thismama has said, and to me there is nothing PC or disingenuous about the statement that no child is average. Every person will fall at a different point in the distribution for different aptitudes and most people will have at least a few aptitudes in which they are significantly to the left or right of the curve. I do not think that the culturally-determined set of aptitudes measured by IQ scores should be privileged in the way that it is or seen as determinant of the quality of someone's mind or their ability to learn. In fact I think that people with very high IQs are often among the most reluctant to change their habits of thought, once established.

It is only my experience, but my experience tells me that IQ is a poor predictor of just about anything. I think it does all children a disservice to focus on identifying those with "special needs" (disabilities, giftedness, whatever) rather than providing non-hierarchical, open-ended opportunities to develop interests and aptitudes.

I will post this before it gets any longer and I delete it again!


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:

However, I do not and cannot believe that all children are academically advanced, that their brains process information faster and retain it longer than the norm; that their ability to make connections between and among disparate objects and events is normal or universal, nor that it is normal or universal for a child's intellectual development to be far in excess of their age, if that is what you mean by "gifted."
I'm confused, CB, coz I thought you didn't like the label gifted to describe those things?

When I talk about "all children are gifted" I mean these things:

Quote:

I believe all children are unique and special if that is what you mean by "gifted."

I believe that all children have value and deserve to be treated with respect, if that is what you mean by "gifted."

I believe that many children have talents and those talents, when present, should be encouraged, if that is what you mean by "gifted."


----------



## AngelBee (Sep 8, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
Sorry, but I have to disagree with your statement, and rather strongly.

I believe all children are _unique_ and _special_ if that is what you mean by "gifted."

I believe that all children have _value_ and deserve to be treated with respect, if that is what you mean by "gifted."

I believe that many children have _talents_ and those talents, when present, should be encouraged, if that is what you mean by "gifted."

However, I do not and cannot believe that _all_ children are academically advanced, that their brains process information faster and retain it longer than the norm; that their ability to make connections between and among disparate objects and events is normal or universal, nor that it is normal or universal for a child's intellectual development to be far in excess of their age, if that is what you mean by "gifted."

Hope that helps clarify.

That is EXACTLY what I take issue with.

Only being academically gifted counts as being gifted.

That is BS.


----------



## Oh the Irony (Dec 14, 2003)

i like this link better:

http://skyview.vansd.org/lschmidt/Pr...telligence.htm


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama*
I am not intending to be PC or disingenuous.

I feel like a lot of discussion of gifted children falls into the realm of plain old bragging. But when it is challenged, people run back to the idea that their children are special, that they have to deal with such unique and different things that parents of "average" children cannot possibly relate to, because those people never have to deal with unique challenges, kwim?

Perhaps the nugget of contention here is that for many parents, _this is true_, and it's the area in which I think parents of gifted children have the most in common with parents of (other) special needs children. No, when it comes right down to it, a parent of an average child really _cannot_ understand, on a deeply sympathetic level of knowledge and experience, what it's like to be the parent of a child who's profoundly retarded...and for the same reasons, a parent of an average child really can't understand what it's like being the parent of a child who's profoundly gifted, either. Yes, we can try, and yes, we can be empathetic (and should be!) but no, I think that there's a point where you need to talk to the BTDT crowd of people who have gone through the same crud as yourself in dealing with a child who is radically different from the norm -- and the more different that child is, the more I tend to think this is true.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nora'sMama*
I do not think that the culturally-determined set of aptitudes measured by IQ scores should be privileged in the way that it is or seen as determinant of the quality of someone's mind or their ability to learn.

I totally agree.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama*
I also feel that gifted school programs are great. Smaller class sizes, creative methods of learning, catering to students' individual needs. Wonderful. *But how is it okay that we don't do that for ALL children*? Any rationale for that that I can conceive of really disturbs me.

How will they create the masses who follow without question?


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
Perhaps the nugget of contention here is that for many parents, _this is true_, and it's the area in which I think parents of gifted children have the most in common with parents of (other) special needs children. No, when it comes right down to it, a parent of an average child really _cannot_ understand, on a deeply sympathetic level of knowledge and experience, what it's like to be the parent of a child who's profoundly retarded...and for the same reasons, a parent of an average child really can't understand what it's like being the parent of a child who's profoundly gifted, either. Yes, we can try, and yes, we can be empathetic (and should be!) but no, I think that there's a point where you need to talk to the BTDT crowd of people who have gone through the same crud as yourself in dealing with a child who is radically different from the norm -- *and the more different that child is, the more I tend to think this is true*.


----------



## AngelBee (Sep 8, 2004)

Besides that.....the norm? Who decides what is the norm? Society?!?

Ewww....

This is why I am homechooling/unschooling. I do not believe in the comparisions and labels that public and private schools place upon MY children.

My real problem is not with offering accelerated programs. I am fine with that. It is HOW it is done.

If it were more like college from kindergarden on....I would be fine with it. Where each child/family could customize their child's education based on strengths, interests, talents, etc.

Until the system runs like that:

A) I want No part of it.

B) I will stand strong that labels are harmful....to both so called gifted students as well as the ungifted students.

I know a girl who found out she was valvictorian (sp?) She did not believe in labeling and requested that the school select someone else. They refused.

She dropped out of school.







Talk about taking a stand!


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
Perhaps the nugget of contention here is that for many parents, _this is true_

Well, yes it is true. Heck, it is true for me in parenting my daughter that I deal with unique challenges that not everyone else can relate to, but that doesn't mean she needs a gifted label, kwim? I think it is true for many of us.

Quote:

No, when it comes right down to it, a parent of an average child really _cannot_ understand, on a deeply sympathetic level of knowledge and experience, what it's like to be the parent of a child who's profoundly retarded...and for the same reasons, a parent of an average child really can't understand what it's like being the parent of a child who's profoundly gifted, either.
No, not for the same reasons, because being a parent of a child who has profound developmental delays is very, very different from being a parent of a child who receives a positive label, great accolades, and shiny predictions for his/her future. Completely different things.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama*
I know exactly what gifted programs are like. As a child I attended both the pullout and the full-time type. I was given every indulgence and then some by my regular teachers when I attended the pullout program, and never had to make up work.

That's great, but it's certainly not the norm.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies*
How will they create the masses who follow without question?

Oh but see it's fine to shortchange the 'average' children, coz they will be sheeple anyway, according to the logic. It's only the gifteds whose minds we must protect.

ETA - Coz after all, aren't they the infrareds or whatever they're called anyway, the ones who are coming to save us so we don't have to worry about how bad we screw up?


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama*
I'm confused, CB, coz I thought you didn't like the label gifted to describe those things?

I don't. I was using her label. Like I said, I would prefer the term "asynchronous development" because that doesn't carry the connotation of being élite or privileged and it doesn't confuse the notion of quantifiable intellectual ability with that of _talents_, which is my main gripe with multiple intelligences theory.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AngelBee*
That is EXACTLY what I take issue with.

Only being academically gifted counts as being gifted.

That is BS.

Why? My oldest dd was doing calculus and physics when she was 5 years old. I know MANY adults, including myself, who have no frikkin' clue how to even BEGIN understanding those two subjects.
I didn't even know what the heck she was doing until CPS visited and made her get tested.







: I thought my dd was 'mentally challenged' because no one understood her. I even held her back a grade because I thought she was 'behind' and would fit 'better' with younger peers.


----------



## AngelBee (Sep 8, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies*
Why? My oldest dd was doing calculus and physics when she was 5 years old. I know MANY adults, including myself, who have no frikkin' clue how to even BEGIN understanding those two subjects.
I didn't even know what the heck she was doing until CPS visited and made her get tested.







: I thought my dd was 'mentally challenged' because no one understood her. I even held her back a grade because I thought she was 'behind' and would fit 'better' with younger peers.

Because gifted simple means to be inclined in an area. That should not be limited to academics.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies*
Why? My oldest dd was doing calculus and physics when she was 5 years old. I know MANY adults, including myself, who have no frikkin' clue how to even BEGIN understanding those two subjects.
I didn't even know what the heck she was doing until CPS visited and made her get tested.







: I thought my dd was 'mentally challenged' because no one understood her. I even held her back a grade because I thought she was 'behind' and would fit 'better' with younger peers.

Well that's great, MITB, but your daughter's mathematical ability was not what AngelBee was addressing. Her point, as I understand it, is that talent such as you describe above is only ONE form of 'gifted' ability or talent, and that many others are not recognized.


----------



## AngelBee (Sep 8, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*
Because there is only money for this. In an ideal world, there would be money to teach everyone to their gifts and meet everyone's needs.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama*
Oh but see it's fine to shortchange the 'average' children, coz they will be sheeple anyway, according to the logic. It's only the gifteds whose minds we must protect.

I don't consider it 'protecting' their minds, so much as meeting their needs.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AngelBee*
That is EXACTLY what I take issue with.

Only being academically gifted counts as being gifted.

That is BS.

It's really _not just that_, any more than the label "profoundly retarded" is entirely defined by being academically challenged. The _rest_ of what I said was this:

"...brains _process information faster_ and _retain it longer_ than the norm; that their ability to _make connections between and among disparate objects and events_ is normal or universal, nor that it is normal or universal for a child's _intellectual development to be far in excess of their age,_ if that is what you mean by "gifted."

Those other components count as well because they are also features of what we're calling (on this thread) "giftedness."


----------



## AngelBee (Sep 8, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama*
Well that's great, MITB, but your daughter's mathematical ability was not what AngelBee was addressing. Her point, as I understand it, is that talent such as you describe above is only ONE form of 'gifted' ability or talent, and that many others are not recognized.











I honestly find it to be a form of discrimination.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*
Because there is only money for this. In an ideal world, there would be money to teach everyone to their gifts and meet everyone's needs.

But WHY is there only money for this? It is because it is valued more highly than other types of gifts, because it is seen as the only valid gift.

ETA - Cross-post - ITA, AngelBee.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*
I do believe that there is no such thing as an average child because we all have our gifts. But, education programs are often written for the "average" child according to statistical information. It would be literally impossible to write a curriculum that includes all students. I will give you on example of a class I taught: In a first grade class, I had one child who was probably mildly mentally retarded in many ways. She could not read letters or numbers. No matter what we tried, she could not remember what the symbols stood for. Her eyesight was fine but her understanding of abstract concepts on a visual basis was lacking for some reason. She was deprived of oxygen during birth but we knew not how this affected her exactly. The parents finally got her tested after that year but that is another story. Even though she could not read, she could recite any story that had been read aloud from memory and she knew how to explain such abstract concepts as culture to the whole class. She could locate and correctly identify any country on the globe, even though she could not read, because she had been shown where they were by her parents. She was unwilling to draw anything from her own imagination, but she could copy any picture or drawing almost perfectly. She was kind of like a savant of sorts. It was incredibly difficult to teach her with a class of 20 other kids. And, there were two full time teachers in this private school! It was still nearly impossible to meet her needs, they were so unique. She was a classic example of a gifted person. She had behavior problems stemming from her disabilities and abilities. In the end, her parents signed her up for public school for second grade where she was to be placed in a regular classroom with a full time aid.

It is a badge of honor for some parents to have their child labelled gifted. These are typically middle and upper class parents for whom academic achievement is important. But, in reality, their children are not all that gifted. They are merely, like me, academically advanced. To have a truly gifted child is not a badge of honor. *It is greatly difficult to have a truly gifted child because they are so different from average. It is a challenge to be their parent or teacher*.









Thank you.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies*
I don't consider it 'protecting' their minds, so much as meeting their needs.

Well, I think all children deserve to have their needs met, and children who do not happen to excel on the IQ test are not any less entitled to having their needs met than children who get the label.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

And what's with all the 'gifted' 1 and 2 year olds these days?? Back in my day, at least it was a non-issue til the testing in grade 4. Too. Much. Pressure.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*
You have obviously never met a truly, profoundly gifted child.

Dude, I went to a gifted SCHOOL for years. If I've never met a truly profoundly gifted child, there is something WRONG with the system.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*
It is very difficult to have this child's needs met and these children are very rare indeed.

And, if they are so rare, why are they popping up all over the place these days?


----------



## BusyMommy (Nov 20, 2001)

Personally, I will not have my kids tested.

Professionally, I'm all for it b/c classrooms are so overcrowded and we have so many diverse needs that it is impossible to adquately honor them all. My last school was from a high socio-econo. neighborhood and I had tons & tons of parent support. My previous school was the poorest in town and it was a fight just to capture the kids' attention. Pity the poor gifted child trying to learn & grow while I'm evacuating the classroom to avoid the child throwing desks and books at everyone w/in range.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama*
Well that's great, MITB, but your daughter's *mathematical ability* was not what AngelBee was addressing. Her point, as I understand it, is that talent such as you describe above is only ONE form of 'gifted' ability or talent, and that many others are not recognized.

Her 'ability' extends far wider than the mathematical concepts. I figured most would 'understand' the math part.
It is like every part of her brain is on fire....I don't know how to explain it.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama*
Well, I think *all children deserve to have their needs met*, and children who do not happen to excel on the IQ test are not any less entitled to having their needs met than children who get the label.

No one said differently!!! ITA that EVERY human being deserves to have their needs met. That includes 'gifted' humans!


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama*
And, if they are so rare, why are they popping up all over the place these days?









It is rare if you realize just how many children are on this earth.
In the past millions of children never had access to 'education'. They were labeled weird or outcasts.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama*

No, not for the same reasons, because being a parent of a child who has profound developmental delays is very, very different from being a parent of a child who receives a positive label, great accolades, and shiny predictions for his/her future. Completely different things.

Yeah, for the same reasons, because to be honest, you're not describing profound giftedness in your post above. You're talking about mild giftedness. Mild giftedness really does get those positive accolades and shiny predictions because a child with mild giftedness generally does well in school -- she's challenged, but not too much, and finds school interesting and rewarding, because to her, it is. That child will be rewarded by teachers because she's so smart (and tends to be well-behaved, because she's found that those two qualities are mutually reinforcing), and will indeed tend to get bright predictions of future glory.

That's not profound giftedness. _Not at all_.

Profound giftedness is more like this: Your child strikes other people as unsettling and weird, and when she or he was young, people criticized you for hothousing or pushing, not understanding that it's not your "fault" they learned to read fluently at age 2. They just picked it up. Other parents isolate themselves from you and may give negative comments, including words like "monster."

They have interests in highly specific, rather abstruse areas of interest that don't really appeal to most people and certainly not to peers. In school, they are viewed as freakish or disruptive because they're so often bored to tears by the constant condescension from teachers, the irritating busywork that seems to have absolutely no purpose: "But WHY do I have to color in the number '5' in all my answers? WHY?", the fact that they're simply not allowed to read ahead to the next chapter...and the next..and the next while the other kids labor through the first one.

They're not allowed to skip the spelling test whose words they knew five years ago, so they blow it off and write down stupid sh*t, because that's an expression of the hatred they feel toward the teacher and the school where no one cares about the real stuff, the words that stretch the mind and feel "hard" and cool.

They're driven insane by the fact that the teacher mispronounces and misspells words and gets facts wrong and _doesn't seem to care_ when she does -- and gets irritated, even to the point of referring them to the principal's office for correcting them when they're wrong.

These kids have no friends, or very few, and quite often really don't know why. People often seem strange and mysterious in the sense that they're concerned with absolute trivia and get worked up about events or issues that are absolutely irrelevant. If they're an angry personality, they can start lashing out either at others or at themselves.

Does that maybe help paint a clearer picture of the difference??


----------



## BelgianSheepDog (Mar 31, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama*
And what's with all the 'gifted' 1 and 2 year olds these days?? Back in my day, at least it was a non-issue til the testing in grade 4. Too. Much. Pressure.

Yeah, really! It kills me to see the way people beat themselves up over this, too. Like my 18 month old is only in the 80th percentile for pointing and babbling, omg, he's never going to be able to keep up. Or, HAHAHA my 2 year old conducted the NY Phil last weekend, we pwn u!! Ugh.

(FTR I was another one put in "gifted" programs, and in the early elementary years they had trouble figuring out if I was mentally challenged, hard of hearing, or "gifted," so unusual was my way of thinking and doing things, apparently. I think they decided on gifted mostly because of my reading level--reading adult nonfiction before kindergarten. Today I might as easily get thrown in the PDD NOS/Aspie box.)


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jlpumkin*
. Many (sometimes me too!!!) have yet to gain basic social skills because we were exempt from having to get along with peers - we were too advanced to understand their behavior or fit in or whatever - Guess what - out in the real world social skills count A LOT!!

I think you're confusing cause and effect here.

Gifted/accelerated kids aren't "exempt" from getting along with peers--it truly is difficult for them.

Would you ever say that about a kid with, perhaps, Down Syndrome? Oh, he was exempt from having to make friends; that's why he never learned to make them. No, there are different things going on in the brain that actually make it difficult, with "special needs" kids on any side of the spectrum.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
That's not profound giftedness. _Not at all_.

So then why are these kids in the gifted schools? Why do they get the label?

Quote:

Profound giftedness is more like this: Your child strikes other people as unsettling and weird, and when she or he was young, people criticized you for hothousing or pushing, not understanding that it's not your "fault" they learned to read fluently at age 2. They just picked it up. Other parents isolate themselves from you and may give negative comments, including words like "monster."

They have interests in highly specific, rather abstruse areas of interest that don't really appeal to most people and certainly not to peers. In school, they are viewed as freakish or disruptive because they're so often bored to tears by the constant condescension from teachers, the irritating busywork that seems to have absolutely no purpose: "But WHY do I have to color in the number '5' in all my answers? WHY?", the fact that they're simply not allowed to read ahead to the next chapter...and the next..and the next while the other kids labor through the first one.

They're not allowed to skip the spelling test whose words they knew five years ago, so they blow it off and write down stupid sh*t, because that's an expression of the hatred they feel toward the teacher and the school where no one cares about the real stuff, the words that stretch the mind and feel "hard" and cool.

They're driven insane by the fact that the teacher mispronounces and misspells words and gets facts wrong and _doesn't seem to care_ when she does -- and gets irritated, even to the point of referring them to the principal's office for correcting them when they're wrong.

These kids have no friends, or very few, and quite often really don't know why. People often seem strange and mysterious in the sense that they're concerned with absolute trivia and get worked up about events or issues that are absolutely irrelevant. If they're an angry personality, they can start lashing out either at others or at themselves.

Does that maybe help paint a clearer picture of the difference??
This is a totally different picture, and yes I see this very differently. ITA with you tho about another label, I forget which phrase you used?

And these children are very rare. What about all the parents of other children claiming "gifted" status, comparing it to disability? Where does one draw the line?


----------



## AngelBee (Sep 8, 2004)

By the way, these labels go both ways. I am against alot of the labels that are used to describe children as slow, delayed, etc.


----------



## bri276 (Mar 24, 2005)

I have mixed feelings on the subject- I'm not a big fan of labels of any kind, be it race, religion, political, or intellectual.

While these labels often help like-minded people congregate, they equally tend to divide one group from the other, in ways that aren't always fair or accurate (ie, someone not wanting to be friends with a Christian because their experience with Christians was someone pushing their religion on them). Under every general label I can think of, there is always so much variety in the individual that the label defines only itself, and never it's members.

When most people think of a special needs child, they think of one that is in a wheelchair, or mentally challenged- instead, the child could be speech delayed with perfect physical and cognitive skills. Similarly, a gifted child could be one who excels at musical instruments beyond the talent of a skilled adult, and yet cannot spell on the level of her "average" classmates.

Still, these labels, whether they be "Jewish" or "Republican" or "Gifted" help to create an umbrella for a wide range of complicated people to gather under- the key is getting people, parents, in this case, to disallow the label itself to define the child, and allow the child to blossom into their own individual person. How much their special needs will affect their lives, whether they be gifted or challenged, should be assessed on a case by case basis, whereas one child will require intensive therapy to learn to walk, a gifted child may need advanced classes to keep an interest in school. As long as a parent acts- not just feels- but ACTS in the child's best interest, alternative education and or therapies can make a world of difference for a child who is outside of the typical development range on either side.


----------



## AngelBee (Sep 8, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama*
Well, I think all children deserve to have their needs met, and children who do not happen to excel on the IQ test are not any less entitled to having their needs met than children who get the label.

ABSOLUTELY!!!


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*
The truly gifted person or child is literally thinking differently than you or I. I am not truly gifted. I am just a smart person who did well in school and needed more advanced studies than average. The truly gifted person, regardless of their gift, is someone who percieves the world differently than you or I. Their brain is working differently. They are divergent thinkers, they think outside the box. They are often very focused on what interests them, be it dance, music, science, history, whatever. They often forgo basic needs in order to be involved in what interests them. They are difficult to talk with because they are thinking on a higher plane than most of us. If you were to meet them, you might find them strange or arrogant because they know so much more than you in their area of study that they are a bit obsessed with it.

Classic examples of truly gifted people are Pablo Picasso, Vincent Van Gogh, J D Salinger, and Silvia Plath. Plath and Van Gogh burned out like bright stars after leaving a startlingly gifted portfolio of work. Picasso was treated as a genius from the time he was a small boy and had his needs met to the point where he developed an ego appropriate for one so gifted. He was lucky. Salinger, of course, retreated from the public eye, a classic antisocial behavior of one so far removed from average. In movies, we've seen John Nash played by Russel Crow in A beautiful mind as a person who was extremely gifted and also having mental health problems. That is not uncommon in the truly gifted. Another movie example is the boy played by Matt Affleck in Good Will Hunting. He was incredibly antisocial and difficult to teach and work with. Yet, somehow his gifts shined through enough to catch the appropriate attention.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

And I have mixed feelings about abililty-grouping in schools (since I've been a teacher for over a decade) --it really helps the accelerated kids, but it pulls the lower-level kids down even more. We need SMALLER CLASSES in general!


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama*
But WHY is there only money for this? It is because it is valued more highly than other types of gifts, because it is seen as the only valid gift.

ETA - Cross-post - ITA, AngelBee.

In actuality, there's very little money for it. It's not federally mandated, for one thing, and therefore it's left up to the individual decisions of the states to implement a gifted program (which usually consists of the once-a-week pullout program) which doesn't begin to meet the needs of many gifted children...and it's the first to meet the axe at budget time because it's seen as an indulgence and a frivolity.

Special ed gets far, far more money. I don't grudge them a penny of it because I believe that more money is needed for the special needs of these students -- but would you say that it's because our society values disability more? I don't think it's that easy.


----------



## AngelBee (Sep 8, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*
Because there just is only so much money for districts and schools to use. They have to make decisions about how the money is going to be spent and they often shortchange the gifted because they think they are at least going to do ok in school. They need the money for the special education children and for counselors and for other programs. For example, I taught a gifted pullout program in a large, very well-to-do district with many, many upper middle class families. There was one profoundly gifted program in one school and there was no district transportation for it. If you could not get your child there on your own, no matter how intelligent they were, your child had to go to his/her neighborhood school where there was only a 2 hour a week pullout gifted program. That is all there was money for. It is just a reality. I know because I participated in the program review for that district. I know how much money was allocated and how it was spent to the best of our abilities. Would you have the gifted program take money away from the music program, denying elementary children music? Would you cancel their recess, firing all recess aids? Would you stop buying new books for the library? Would you cut the school day shorter in order to pay teacher's less? How would you find the money?

This brings up other issues though as to what is wrong with the public school system.

There is alot to address.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama*
Well, I think all children deserve to have their needs met, and children who do not happen to excel on the IQ test are not any less entitled to having their needs met than children who get the label.

I don't disagree with that. I would say, "I can't imagine anyone who _does_ disagree with it," except that state budgets for education would immediately prove me a liar.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
That's because of several factors:

1. Teacher bias.
By the way, I live in a lower SES area -- definitely lower middle-class, mostly Hispanic. The special ed. coordinator at the elementary school for which we're zoned told me, "We've never had [a gifted child] before."

Bull. They haven't been looking.

2. Intimidated parents who don't push for the accomodations their kids need and who believe teachers when they say "all children are gifted."

3. Parents who may not know themselves that their child is gifted -- they just know he's bored and acting out.


Yes, and people with higher incomes have more money for books, etc. So perhaps a lot of "gifted" children have just had a more enriching environment.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama*
And what's with all the 'gifted' 1 and 2 year olds these days?? Back in my day, at least it was a non-issue til the testing in grade 4. Too. Much. Pressure.

It's like identifying Asperger's early, or identifying learning disabilities early -- it's a form of early intervention. Or should be.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama*
Dude, I went to a gifted SCHOOL for years. If I've never met a truly profoundly gifted child, there is something WRONG with the system.

Yes, ITA. The entire education system in this country is created to make peole who will not question authority. It is not based on utilyzing one's intelligence to the fullest and for the best of ALL people.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
It's like identifying Asperger's early, or identifying learning disabilities early -- it's a form of early intervention. *Or should be*.









: If I had known what I know now, I would not have taught my dd to keep her mouth shut and 'pretend' to be like the kids she saw around her. We are still dealing with the effects of my doing that to her.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *A&A*
Yes, and people with higher incomes have more money for books, etc. So perhaps a lot of "gifted" children have just had a more enriching environment.

I was born in poverty, raised in poverty and so are my children. BUT, we have always utilyzed the public libraries. So, I agree with the part about having access and a parent who allows that access to be used.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama*
So then why are these kids in the gifted schools? Why do they get the label?

_What_ gifted schools? Quite honestly, there are so few of them nationally that I could literally count them all on my hands and have fingers left. I can think of Mirman in LA, the Long Island School for the Gifted, the Illinois Math and Science Academy, and that's honestly about it. Even IMSA is really stretching it because its focus is (obviously) math and science, not giftedness in general.

From secondhand experience, I've heard that both Mirman and LISG are primarily for mildly or highly gifted folks, but not for the ones on the real extremes. Those kids are almost always homeschooled, at least as far as I know, because it's the rare, _rare_ school that will even try to accomodate someone that different.

Quote:

And these children are very rare. What about all the parents of other children claiming "gifted" status, comparing it to disability? Where does one draw the line?
I think there are some legitimate crossovers between giftedness and disability in the sense that both are different from the norm, and the more different they are, the more things they have in common because both share a similar degree of difference.

And I have no idea where one draws the line. Should a line be drawn? I think many parents find it helpful to find allies and comrades wherever possible because the BTDT crowd really _is_ very small. Finding someone who has shared some facet of an experience like yours is really invaluable.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Well, I'm in Canada, so I'm speaking from that perspective.


----------



## EFmom (Mar 16, 2002)

I agree with CB that there are two categories of "giftedness." I have a child who is mildly gifted. She's IQ tested at 142, and she's usually in the 98-99 percentile in standardized tests. For her, the school's gifted program works nicely. It's a pull out program which makes school more interesting for her and allows her to use her intelligence in a different direction than her regular classroom does. She is, btw, expected to make up the work she misses by being pulled out.

On the other hand, I have a nephew who is highly gifted. He has IQ tested in the 170s. His parents and teachers have little idea how to deal with him. The school psychologist where he goes to school admitted that they'd never had a kid test as high as he does. He has skipped a grade in school. He often gets lousy grades on tests because he can't be bothered to slow down enough to read the questions. Homeschooling is out of the question. He is fortunate in that he does have lots of friends, but that's unusual. My sister tears her hair out with this kid as do his teachers, who often can't even comprehend the questions he asks, let alone know how to answer them. I have no idea how this child could best be educated.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *A&A*
Yes, and people with higher incomes have more money for books, etc. So perhaps a lot of "gifted" children have just had a more enriching environment.

I'd say a lot of "academically successful" kids have, but that's a different beastie from "gifted." I think there's a decided bias against poor people and people of color, particularly African-Americans, not the least reason for which is that not all kids present as gifted, according to what teachers think "gifted" means -- and what they think "gifted" means is someone who's well-behaved and gets As on the tests. Like I said above somewhere







: that's mildly gifted -- not exceptionally or profoundly gifted. Naaaaah, those kids are just troublemakers.

Except they're not. Not _just_.


----------



## limabean (Aug 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama*
So then why are these kids in the gifted schools? Why do they get the label? And these children are very rare. What about all the parents of other children claiming "gifted" status?

I would bet that the majority of kids who are in programs like GATE are not profoundly gifted -- they are just smart kids whose parents decided to GATE-track them early on. If your kids are good test-takers and well-behaved in school, it doesn't seem so difficult for them to qualify for GATE. But as CB wrote very eloquently, profoundly gifted kids are very different from mildly gifted kids (and often *aren't* the well-behaved model students that people think of when they think of gifted kids). I would imagine that each school only has a small handful of profoundly gifted kids, yet has a much larger actual number of kids in the "gifted" program. As thismama said, Where does one draw the line?

I notice parents don't clamor to have their slightly-below-average kids identified as learning disabled, but if the kids are slightly on the other side of average, some parents sure are itching to have them classified as gifted.







In the end, it seems that it can be a disservice to the profoundly gifted children who truly need extra services and a different learning environment. Having so many just-on-the-high-side-of-average kids in the "gifted" program can make people skeptical about the identification system and the program itself.

It's kind of like how the phrase "spirited" is thrown around so often here. All kids have their difficult moments, and then some truly are extremely difficult to parent on a daily, moment-to-moment basis. But I never know which is which, and have come to develop some skepticism in general about use of the phrase.







:


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies*







: If I had known what I know now, I would not have taught my dd to keep her mouth shut and 'pretend' to be like the kids she saw around her. We are still dealing with the effects of my doing that to her.









Hugs to you, MITB. You gave her the best advice you knew to give at the time. Protective camouflage _does_ work for some people, and some people can do it without selling their souls. It's not always bad advice to give; it just depends.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
Naaaaah, those kids are just troublemakers.

Except they're not. Not _just_.

But this is it, no kid is just a troublemaker, whether they have gifted status or not.

I was labelled gifted, and in high school was a troublemaker, and my gifted status saved me or got me out of getting in bigger sh!t on several occasions, while my peers who didn't have gifted status didn't get that saving grace.

And no, I was not just a troublemaker, but then, neither were they.


----------



## MamaMonica (Sep 22, 2002)

I find the whole discussion interesting. I went to a small public school with no gifted or honors classes. Everyone was thrown in together and survived to various degrees. The teachers did know everyone though and I often got support to choose a more advanced project.

Our society has a norm and needs to label all those who fall outside of this norm. What is called gifted now was probably called "odd uncle Joe" or "strange cousin Sue" in previous eras.

I have a gifted relative- he has asperger's though. I think profound giftedness usually comes with another diagnosis as well. Rather than a badge of honor, I think it is a tough row to hoe for a parent to raise a profoudly gifted child.


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *limabean*

I notice parents don't clamor to have their slightly-below-average kids identified as learning disabled, but if the kids are slightly on the other side of average, some parents sure are itching to have them classified as gifted.







In the end, it seems that it can be a disservice to the profoundly gifted children who truly need extra services and a different learning environment. Having so many just-on-the-high-side-of-average kids in the "gifted" program can make people skeptical about the identification system and the program itself.










:


----------



## bri276 (Mar 24, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *limabean*

I notice parents don't clamor to have their slightly-below-average kids identified as learning disabled, but if the kids are slightly on the other side of average, some parents sure are itching to have them classified as gifted.









it happens. there are many,many children on Ritalin who don't need to be, because their parents or teachers or pediatrician (all of whom are usually underqualified to diagnose) decided they have ADD or ADHD. that doesn't necessarily correspond to lower intelligence but it's considered a learning disability, technically. and there are plenty of people who have one child they consider not to be as bright as their other child or children, based on nothing except their own chidrearing experience, and therefore label that child as delayed or "behind", when in fact they're just on their own timetable well within the boundaries.

most parents don't want to make their kid look "different" to other kids and parents. a truly gifted child will make it apparent themselves, and it will be obvious if a parent is being a bit pushy (also, some people really just love their kids and that's their way of showing it, in being perhaps overly proud- annoying? yes.)


----------



## EVC (Jan 29, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *A&A*
Yes, and people with higher incomes have more money for books, etc. So perhaps a lot of "gifted" children have just had a more enriching environment.

This has long been a sticking point in the school disctrict where I grew up. I went to the gifted school. I personally am lower middle class and neither of my parents went to college, but the majority of students were indeed white, upper class, children of doctors and lawyers, etc. There were other kids of more humble backgrounds like me, and there were minority students, but the majority were white, upper middle class. I do think having more access to intellectual stimulation at any early age was a part of it.

The testing for admission to the school lasted about a week and was quite intense. It included factual knowedge, but it also tested spatial comprehension and manipulation, creative thinking and analysis, etc. So it tested not only for how much you know, but also the manner in which your mind processed information and formulated conclusions. To even be considered for the school, you needed to test at a minimum IQ of 130, then you would be interviewed by a psychologist to determine the final decision.

But still the "priviledged class" tended to rise to the top often enough that people noticed.

I've always wondered then about cultural biases in assessing giftedness.


----------



## Rigama (Oct 18, 2005)

Why is this being re-visited again? ALL of the previous threads like this ended up closed, and I suspect this one will meet the same fate. I don't understand WHY having a gifted child is seen as a personal affront to others when nobody looks at being single, "special needs" or poor in the same way.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Rigama*
Why is this being re-visited again? ALL of the previous threads like this ended up closed, and I suspect this one will meet the same fate. I don't understand WHY having a gifted child is seen as a personal affront to others when nobody looks at being single, "special needs" or poor in the same way.

I hope this doesn't get closed. It is a discussion about the concept of and the treatment of "gifted" children. I don't see what is so wrong with discussing that?


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
Hugs to you, MITB. You gave her the best advice you knew to give at the time. Protective camouflage _does_ work for some people, and some people can do it without selling their souls. It's not always bad advice to give; it just depends.

















Thank you!!! No ONE has ever told me that. Now you have me crying. It has only been recently that I found the "Parenting Gifted Children" forum and am learning. I have done so many 'backwards' things to my dd and am feeling guilty for harm I may have caused her because I chose to not 'label' her and chose to be ignorant on the subject.


----------



## bri276 (Mar 24, 2005)

mitb-







out of all the things people have done to their kids over the years, what you did hardly qualifies as a major mistake!!


----------



## EVC (Jan 29, 2006)

Quote:

I can think of Mirman in LA, the Long Island School for the Gifted, the Illinois Math and Science Academy, and that's honestly about it.
I went to one in FL.

Quote:

From secondhand experience, I've heard that both Mirman and LISG are primarily for mildly or highly gifted folks, but not for the ones on the real extremes. Those kids are almost always homeschooled, at least as far as I know, because it's the rare, rare school that will even try to accomodate someone that different.
We had extremely gifted students, but of course the majority were mildly/highly gifted.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies*







Thank you!!! No ONE has ever told me that. Now you have me crying. It has only been recently that I found the "Parenting Gifted Children" forum and am learning. I have done so many 'backwards' things to my dd and am feeling guilty for harm I may have caused her because I chose to not 'label' her and chose to be ignorant on the subject.


----------



## sophmama (Sep 11, 2004)

I don't know a lot of people who balk at the idea of having varsity and J.V. programs in sports, or care that some kids get cut. A lot of parents don't mind if their kid is on the "average" section of the growth charts. But when it comes to IQ, everyone feels insulted if their kid isn't deemed as high as another. The very idea of a comparable scale is offensive to a lot of people. But since we can't all homeschool in our current world, to get services needed, some people have to administer tests.

A kid who starts learning (on their own) letters and sounds at age 1, and can read fluently by 3 is not necessarily profoundly gifted, *but* doesn't need the same things in a classroom as the kid learning to read at age 7. I know some kids even out but I think the lack of new and challenging material for the 'advanced' kids can sometimes contribute to that.

My dh is a special ed teacher. He has kids who barely need an IEP and kids who can barely function at all (different classes). Some kids have a 'tests read out loud' requirement on their IEP and that's it. Others have a lot more. There is a whole range of special ed just like there is a whole range of 'gifted' (I hate the word because it's so emotionally loaded and has other meanings in society at large).

The slightly advanced kid who reads well at 3 might not be on the Einstein track. But I don't think those kids should be sitting in a classroom where they're allowed to rot while they wait years for the other kids to catch up to where they are.

I think I daydreamed all through elementary school. I didn't learn a single thing there that I hadn't learned at home. Since I was bored, I just sat and created an imaginary world and never stood out to anyone. I never tried because the material didn't interest or challenge me. We moved out to the country to a school that didn't have any gifted programs at the beginning of Jr. High. I decided for the principle of work ethic, I'd start trying. I graduated salutatorian of my class, but I was still a weird unsocialized kid in many ways. I never went to college because, out of my mental boredom with school, I had become a religious zealot and decided to go to Bible college, where I graduated the top of my class as well, and ended up with no real career path.

I wish someone had identified me and given me a different educational track early on. I'm not profoundly gifted but the standard curriculum never met my needs. I don't / never will care about the label. I think 'asynchronous' development' is much better. It takes all the baggage off it. Of course all children are 'gifted' but not necessarily in the academic definition that is used in schools today. I know it's offensive, but I wish people would leave the parents alone whose kids acquire the label. I KNOW some people push, but just because someone complains about keeping up with their kid, does NOT mean they're pushing!

I keep my mouth shut about my dd's abilities with most people (but people who know her, know where she's at). The ONLY place I feel comfortable ADMITTING what she can do is in a forum like the 'gifted' forum here or another one I joined. If she never tests into a program - I really don't care. I don't think she's profoundly gifted either. But I do think she's at the same pace of development I was at for her age and I don't want her to end up like me - bored and underserved in school. I've researched which schools have which programs and since we're planning on moving eventually here anyways, I plan on getting into one of the ones that has more to offer.

FWIW I think that MORE kids should have IEP's and class sizes should be smaller. I know my dh goes crazy sometimes with managing his 150 student roll as well as being the case manager for 17 students IEP's and for teachers with the class sizes he has, it's really hard to individually accommodate. Where we live parents DO push to have their kids evaluated either special ed or GT because they're going to get into smaller classes usually that way. I think around here, people know that with either of those 2 labels, your kid is going to get a better education and that's why it's such a big deal.


----------



## jlpumkin (Oct 25, 2005)

:
Still following. I wanted to point out that at least personally I don't have an affront to gifted children. I have a problem with this mad clamor for everyone to have their kids labelled. And I also think it's key for parents to note that it is those that were once labelled as "gifted" themselves that are the most opposed - or so it seems.


----------



## Arwyn (Sep 9, 2004)

I have a couple thoughts on this (I'm not joining the rest of the "what is gifted" fray, just wanting to share a couple thoughts). Both are coming from my experience as a "gifted to the point of not getting along with peers but not solving quadratic equations when I was 3 either" child.

1) I kinda liked GATE, it was fun, although since I was in an open-ed program normally, it wasn't hugely different than what I did the rest of the time. But I didn't like (hated was the word I used) my mom's intellectualism, that said since I was the most intellectually gifted of my peers (although I doubt that - there was one other kid who was right up there with me in terms of difficult brilliance, or asyncronous developement, I phrase I quite like, btw), I was the "best", the "most worthy", the _whatever_ist. She thought I was somehow better, an idea I rejected then and still reject now. I'm not special or better because I can pass any multiple choice test with my eyes closed (and I do mean nearly _any_ - haven't failed one yet, even for subjects I know basically nothing about) or I pick things up and understand things more clearly than do most people (yet I still feel slow and dim compared to many people). It's not something I worked at, not something that came hard to me, not something to be proud of. It's just different, and everyone is different in some way. (My favorite quote: "Always remember you're unique. Just like everyone else.")

2) I HATE the anti-intellectualism in this country. There have been some comments on this thread about over-valuation of intellect, and although I would agree there's under-valuation of other kinds of gifts, talents, and intellegences, I strongly disagree that we over value intellectual ability. Just look at our president (seriously - I don't care what your political position, he's not an intellectually gifted person, although he's not dumb either, and he won _in part *because*_ he wasn't overly-intellectual compared to his rivals). We DON'T value intellect or intelligence or adedemically rigorous thought - look at the evening news. Look at the degredation and dismissal of science. Philosophy and chess are considered two of the most boring subjects ever by the general population (I drove by a billboard the other day that said "Chess is not our national pastime - you're luckier than you think"). The fact that we not only don't value but _actively distrust_ intellect and intelligent thought horrifies me.

BUT - I think maybe GATE programs are part of why. Intellectualism is seen as reserved for the "gifted" - gifted with higher intelligence or higher socioeconomic status - and not something for the everyday "average" person. And THAT'S bs. Just like the idea in some circles (not espoused by anyone that I've seen here) that being smart lets you get away with not developing people skills, as is the case in many a med school, the idea that not having a "gift" in intellectual ability lets you off from having to think intelligently and logically is just ABHORRANT to me. Sure, some people may have to work harder at it (I had to work really hard at becoming socially competant, and _that_ I'm proud of, because it wasn't easy, but I became good at it anyway), but it's worth valuing for EVERYONE, not just for the intellectual elite.

Those are just my thoughts brought up by this discussion.


----------



## loraxc (Aug 14, 2003)

Quote:

And I also think it's key for parents to note that it is those that were once labelled as "gifted" themselves that are the most opposed - or so it seems.
What's interesting to me in this conversation is that so many of those posters don't seem to see that their problem was not the "label," but the inadequate accommodations. Over and over again, people rail against the label/concept and then talk about how poorly school went for them, despite their intelligence. Hmm.

My belief in the concept of giftedness and in the need for special programs for the gifted does not in any way equate to my belief that the treatment you personally received in the school system was the right treatment.

On the topic of everyone having gifts and everyone deserving to have those gifts developed--absolutely there are many gifts. But SCHOOL, generally, revolves around a certain kind of thinking, one which tends to be advanced in those labeled as traditionally gifted. Therefore, it's not all that strange that there are programs in *school* for those who are gifted in the traditional sense, but not as many for who are gifted in gymnastics, personal relations, cooking, or public speaking.


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Arwyn*
2) I HATE the anti-intellectualism in this country.









: Well said. There is a great amount of literature detailing he anti-intellectual bias in the US compared to Asia and Europe. It's unfortunately a fact, not a supposition.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama*
Well, I'm in Canada, so I'm speaking from that perspective.

I'm Canadian and don't share your perspective. My best friend is probably EG and is Canadian (still there too, in case us ex-pats don't count) and doesn't share your perspective.

There are many things being discussed here. Lessee if I can get the gist:

1. Schools are inadequate for everyone, so no one should get special accomodation even though it is more inadequate for some. Apparently one can't believe schools should better serve all our children AND believe in specialized education for any subset of those children. Oh, wait, that's true only if they're on the upper end of the scale. (NOT, I repeat, NOT begrudging resources spent on Special Ed.)

2. "Gifted" is a nice word, why don't, ahem, some people (and we all know who they are!!!) want to share? Definition smefinition.

3. Recognizing a child's exceptional talent in one or more areas somehow negates those children who are merely talented or of average ability in that area. Unless it's sports. Therefore we shouldn't speak of such things, especially in front of the children. It's probably best that children don't grow up accepting that everyone has strenghts and weaknesses in different areas anyway, and there's no shame if someone does something better than them.

4. The kids in TAG programs are not really "gifted," are often there because they are high achievers and are pushed by their parents (whom we don't like at all!!); therefore, there are no truly "gifted" kids and if there are, they are rare and freakish.

5. Each of our experiences wrt giftedness speaks for all others, and, if negative, one wasn't inadequately accomodated, but rather was damaged by a label and the expectations associated with that label.

6. All "gifted" children are academically advanced and get good grades. They will do well in life without help and had darned well better get used to being bored.

7. [Placeholder 'cause I don't think I've seen this one yet.] Other children will eventually catch up anyway.

What have I missed?

For the record (and I only speak for my family):

1. We're homeschoolng and don't assign grades. I believe grades are counterproductive, especially in the early years, because they don't reflect the learning process. A child get's 70% on an adding test, then 70% on a multiplication test (but now knows all the adding facts), etc.

2. I believe in letting the kids work at their own level without shame. We encourage acceptance. DD1 picks up math concepts at the blink of an eye, but is still learning to skip. Her best friend can't read but has an amazing imagination and can extemporize marvellously detailed stories like nobody's business.

3. All children are special and deserved to be loved and nurtured (in the largest sense of the word), including mine. My older child isn't athletically gifted, but I still believe in it (especially after DD2!).

4. Chidren are a gift. "Gift" has not been co-opted by any group, so far as I know.

Yet I still say DD1 is gifted.


----------



## sophmama (Sep 11, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NoHiddenFees*
There are many things being discussed here. Lessee if I can get the gist:

1. School's are inadequate for everyone, so no one should get special accomodation even though it is more inadequate for some. Apparently one can't believe schools should better serve all our children AND believe in specialized or for any subset of those children. Oh, wait, that's true only if they're on the upper end of the scale. (NOT, I repeat, NOT begrudging resources spent on Special Ed.)

2. "Gifted" is a nice word, why don't, ahem, some people (and we all know who they are!!!) want to share? Definition smefinition.

3. Recognizing a child's exceptional talent in one or more areas somehow negates those children who are merely talented or of average ability in that area. Unless it's sports. Therefore we shouldn't speak of such things, especially in front of the children. It's probably best that children don't grow up accepting that everyone has strenghts and weaknesses in different areas anyway, and there's no shame if someone does something better than them.

4. The kids in TAG programs are not really "gifted," are often there because they are high achievers and are pushed by their parents (whom we don't like at all!!); therefore, there are no truly "gifted" kids and if there are, they are rare and freakish.

5. Each of our experiences wrt giftedness speaks for all others, and, if negative, one wasn't inadequately accomodated, but rather were damaged by a label and the expectations associated with that label.

6. All "gifted" children are academically advanced and get good grades. They will do well in life without help and had darned well better get used to being bored.

7. [Placeholder 'cause I don't think I've seen this one yet.]Other children will eventually catch up.











I think you've accurately phrased what I feel like a lot of people want parents of GT kids to "get".


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NoHiddenFees*







: Well said. There is a great amount of literature detailing he anti-intellectual bias in the US compared to Asia and Europe. It's unfortunately a fact, not a supposition.

I think this really depends upon where you live. In white, middle- to upper-middle class communities, there is a huge premium and focus on having a gifted and intellectually superior child. My city has at least three schools for the highly gifted, and a scattering of other schools for children who are, I guess, middling-gifted. Admittance to the private schools is based on IQ testing; to the public schools, CoGAT. My city is very white. Very middle class. Very educated.

I don't think there just happens to be a huge population of gifted children here, I think that the gifted label benefits and reinsitutionalizes the "Bell Curve" idea of what knowledge and information matters. Case in point - one of the questions on the IQ test is a picture of a viola. The strings are missing. The child is asked what is missing - the strings. The missing strings of a viola is very class-dependent information, we're not asking about the missing doughnut in the 12-pack from Krispy Kreme. So that's a pretty nifty self-perpetuating idea of what consitutes intellectual giftedness.

Which child comes across as the "gifted one" in our society - one who has memorized all the presidents' names, dates of service, and birthdays by age three, or a two-year old who can figure out how to open a complex baby-proof latching device using their powers of deduction and reason? Well, the one who can recite information. It can be assessed, tested, performed. In fact, all it demonstrates is a good memory and retention ability. The child might have no idea what a president IS really, but it sure looks good on the TV.

There are countless paeans to the gifted or superior child in our national media (spelling bee winners; the math whiz; the teen author - whoops she was a hack; the the child genius who can play mozart backwards, blindfolded, whilst spinning plates and cooking an organic meal for the dean). Everyone wants one. Pick yours up today at Sylvan/Kumon/Insert lessons. The Internet is rife with do-it-yerself IQ testing, leading to many self-appointed geniuses. Baby Einstein effluvia, videos, leappads, baby classes, etc - all of these emphasize how they either a) make your baby smarter or b) "challenge" the smart baby, as they are SO DONE with those stupid balls or blocks. I don't think we have an anti-intellectual society on the whole. We have a society that worships achievement and accomplishments and information-hoarding, which gifted kids are supposed to be able to pull off with less effort.

And if there's anyone who puts in little effort, it's GWB. He doesn't need to get book learnin' in order to do a bang-up job of presidenting. He appealed to a certain segment of the population who believed that their innate intelligence (i.e. "common sense") was of far higher worth than book learning. And apparently he had a strategy there that worked, although many would wonder today if he could indeed open a child-safe latch. Without Cheney's help.


----------



## RedWine (Sep 26, 2003)

boongirl said:


> The truly gifted person or child is literally thinking differently than you or I. I am not truly gifted. I am just a smart person who did well in school and needed more advanced studies than average. The truly gifted person, regardless of their gift, is someone who percieves the world differently than you or I. Their brain is working differently. They are divergent thinkers, they think outside the box. They are often very focused on what interests them, be it dance, music, science, history, whatever. They often forgo basic needs in order to be involved in what interests them. They are difficult to talk with because they are thinking on a higher plane than most of us. If you were to meet them, you might find them strange or arrogant because they know so much more than you in their area of study that they are a bit obsessed with it.
> 
> ******************
> 
> ...


----------



## BelgianSheepDog (Mar 31, 2006)

Flyingspaghettimama, how much does it cost to join your fan club?


----------



## EVC (Jan 29, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *RedWine*

I went to Harvard for grad school. It was the first time in my life I felt I was in a place where people "got" me. Most of the people thought quickly, loved outside-the-box, creative thinking, and were on the same plane as I. My husband felt the same way, when he went first to MIT for his Masters, then to Harvard for his Ph.D.

As a Professor at MIT, he often comments on the relief expressed by incoming students -- they feel they are finally home. Too often in their lives they've felt like freaks, because they were extremely different from everyone else they knew.


That's interesting. I did my MA at a "tier 1" university and experienced nothing of the sort. I actually considered the majority of students in my department to be somewhat lackluster in their intellectual abilities. They could regurgitate facts extremely well, but were not particularly adept at independent thought. It was the same for me in undergrad and to a lesser degree now in my PhD program. But the premium placed on rote memorization in still there. You certainly need not be gifted to excel in academics--even in graduate study at prestigious universities.


----------



## EVC (Jan 29, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BelgianSheepDog*
Flyingspaghettimama, how much does it cost to join your fan club?









I've already admitted my crush on her in TAO







Webstalking is free


----------



## MamaMonica (Sep 22, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flyingspaghettimama*
And apparently he had a strategy there that worked, although many would wonder today if he could indeed open a child-safe latch. Without Cheney's help.









You are gifted with words, flyingspagettimama.


----------



## loraxc (Aug 14, 2003)

Quote:

Recognizing a child's exceptional talent in one or more areas somehow negates those children who are merely talented or of average ability in that area. Unless it's sports.








Good one.

Quote:

Case in point - one of the questions on the IQ test is a picture of a viola. The strings are missing.
On "the" IQ test? The only one? The one most commonly in use today? In 2006? Are you aware that there are many IQ tests available today that rely on things like figure perception, pattern recognition, etc., which are therefore far less biased than the old tests that had questions about yachts and regattas and so on?


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flyingspaghettimama*
I don't think there just happens to be a huge population of gifted children here, I think that the gifted label benefits and reinsitutionalizes the "Bell Curve" idea of what knowledge and information matters. Case in point - one of the questions on the IQ test is a picture of a viola. The strings are missing. The child is asked what is missing - the strings. The missing strings of a viola is very class-dependent information, we're not asking about the missing doughnut in the 12-pack from Krispy Kreme. So that's a pretty nifty self-perpetuating idea of what consitutes intellectual giftedness.

Which particular test is this? Is it a group achievement test or and IQ administered one one one by a professional? It makes a difference. Screening has problematic issues. You'll get no argument from me there. However, you don't seem to be saying you'd like better screening tools, but rather that identification is harmful. I'd argue that better screening tools are criticially important to catch the most underserved of the gifted population: ethnic minorities and children from a low SES background. They are going to be far more likely to underachieve (at best) or drop out. And I'm just talking about academic issues and not go into psychological issues and suicide rates.

If you want to argue about the current structure of the majority of TAG programs, I'm not sure you'll find much opposition here, even among the most vocal supporters of differentiated education for gifted children. It's the tendency (not necessarily yours) to broaden this sentiment to cover *all gifted kids* or the idea of giftedness as something separate from a few children who scored well on group achievement tests and whose parents made sure they were screened.

Quote:

There are countless paeans to the gifted or superior child in our national media (spelling bee winners; the math whiz; the teen author - whoops she was a hack; the the child genius who can play mozart backwards, blindfolded, whilst spinning plates and cooking an organic meal for the dean). Everyone wants one. Pick yours up today at Sylvan/Kumon/Insert lessons. The Internet is rife with do-it-yerself IQ testing, leading to many self-appointed geniuses. Baby Einstein effluvia, videos, leappads, baby classes, etc - all of these emphasize how they either a) make your baby smarter or b) "challenge" the smart baby, as they are SO DONE with those stupid balls or blocks. I don't think we have an anti-intellectual society on the whole. _We have a society that worships achievement and accomplishments and information-hoarding, which gifted kids are supposed to be able to pull off with less effort._
It's not as simple as saying look at all this: anti-intellectual, us? It's like the tendency of Americans to be simultaneously uptight about sex yet obsessed with porn. I don't think Americans [generic term, not meaning all Americans of course... CYA, me being Canadian and all] are obsessed with achievement and accomplishements except where they are the rungs on the ladder of "success." Americans are obsessed with success (IMHO, it's a hollow construct). If parents believe a service or program will make their child successful, they will come in droves, especially the white upper-to-middle class communities of which you speak. But is any of this motivated by attraction to or acceptance of _intellectualism_? Is there any real thought or analysis going on? Is it even encouraged? Intellectualism and academic prowess are not the same thing. If they were, all these "problem solving" units would be producing children who were curious and engaged with the world. Sorry, but I don't see that happening. Nor, sadly, do I see parents fighting for it.


----------



## Arwyn (Sep 9, 2004)

Not all segments of US society are anti-intellectual (obviously - as I stated, my mom is actually a self-admitted intellectualist, a trait I find nearly as annoying as anti-intellectualist), but the US _as a whole_ *is*.

Which gets millions of dollars in scholarships at every state university in the nation, football or chess (or Go - now there's a cool game)? Which draws millions of viewers with televised matches, and billions of dollars of advertising? Who gets paid tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars a year, the top athletes or the top scientists? (And which of those actually have the potential to help make our lives better or further our understanding of the human condition?) Are the bestselling authors those exploring interesting new ideas in the areas of philosophy and other humanities, or those who can plunk out half a dozen nearly identical books every year that do nothing but provide mind candy or divisive political vitriol? When was the last time the popular media explored an unpopular issue in depth because it was important, instead of regurgitating the most recent talking points spewed by the talking heads in that field? When was the last time there was REAL debate that was civil and used facts and logic on television instead of talking heads trying to yell their talking points louder than "the other side" and thus "win"? (Well, other than Jon Stewart on Crossfire, be still my heart, but even he was only one side of a potentially civil, serious discussion.)

The US as a whole DOESN'T value intellect or intelligence or logic or rigorous thought. We value sound bites and quick fixes and instant gratification and not having to think at all. When intellectualism does show up, especially in middle/upper class white culture, it's as part of a one-up-manship status pecking order fight, and not for what intellectual thought has the potential to _do_ for us, unless it can make life that much quicker, that much easier, that much softer, that much less intellectually difficult.

There are, of course, counter-culture groups that feel differently, but that's not mainstream US culture as a whole. That's not who elects presidents or sets the budget.

Feel free to tell me to shut up if I've gone way too off topic.


----------



## Arwyn (Sep 9, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NoHiddenFees*
Americans are obsessed with success (IMHO, it's a hollow construct). If parents believe a service or program will make their child successful, they will come come in droves, especially the white upper-to-middle class communities of which you speak. But is any of this motivated by attraction to or acceptance of _intellectualism_? Is there any real thought or analysis going on? Is it even encouraged? Intellectualism and academic prowess are not the same thing. If they were, all these "problem solving" units would be producing children who were curious and engaged with the world. Sorry, but I don't see that happening. Nor, sadly, do I see parents fighting for it.

Yes, yes, yes!







:


----------



## RedWine (Sep 26, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EVC*
That's interesting. I did my MA at a "tier 1" university and experienced nothing of the sort. I actually considered the majority of students in my department to be somewhat lackluster in their intellectual abilities. They could regurgitate facts extremely well, but were not particularly adept at independent thought. It was the same for me in undergrad and to a lesser degree now in my PhD program. But the premium placed on rote memorization in still there. You certainly need not be gifted to excel in academics--even in graduate study at prestigious universities.

There was no premium on rote memorization in any of my classes as a grad student. And I know MIT's qualifying exams -- the most strenuous in the country -- are definitely not based on rote memorization. you have to know how to think and problem solve, and do it quickly.

I agree you don't have to be gifted to excel in academics. I agree you don't have to be gifted to do well at prestigious universities. However, certain Universities attract a large number of gifted students. I don't know how anyone could survive at Harvard or MIT without the ability to think independently.


----------



## Arwyn (Sep 9, 2004)

A further thought on GATE/TAG programs - I guess a reason I'm not so entranced with them is because I did come from a subschool (three classrooms, about 80 students, K-8) that was a mixed age, mixed level, open education environment. Of _course_ we were all at different levels, but because we were all expected to be at different levels, we were all also supposed to help each other learn. My favorite parts of school were either helping those of my peers who didn't get a concept (I LOVE teaching-as-learning, it really really works for me), and being able to later turn to them (yup, even the way less "gifted" ones) for help in an area I wasn't so strong in (like athletics, or social interaction). So although I loathe schools as they exist in the US right now, I don't see the best solution as separating out the "smart" kids and the "dumb" kids, but as putting them all together and expecting them to help each other. Can that be done in public school as it exists today? Not really, so maybe GATE/TAG programs are better than the alternative (not having them). I just don't see them as the best long-term solution, what we should be striving for.

Another advantage of open education is that we don't NEED those labels, as each kid is automatically granted the freedom to work at their own speed - whatever that speed may be. And if they need extra help, or extra challege, there are other kids of all ages and abilities around to help give it to them. Not that open-ed is a panacea, but it would be a step in the right direction, in my opinion.


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loraxc*
On "the" IQ test? The only one? The one most commonly in use today? In 2006? Are you aware that there are many IQ tests available today that rely on things like figure perception, pattern recognition, etc., which are therefore far less biased than the old tests that had questions about yachts and regattas and so on?

Would you like to talk about the Weschler or the Stanford-Binet? Would you like to talk about g or crystallized intelligence or fluid intelligence? The whole section that measures crystallized intelligence is comprised of almost nothing but social constructs - i.e. information, vocabulary, comprehension, and so on. FWIW, my daughter took one (Weschler), and I think that they are really craptacular based on what I saw. And no, it's not sour grapes - she did very well. I still think they're craptacular.

How can you believe in IQ testing and not believe in the Bell Curve thesis? Or do those who are supporting IQ testing also buy into the fact that all Asians and Whites just _happen_ to be smarter by purportedly objective standards than other ethnic groups? If IQ is really innate, is it just happenstance that the white middle class children are the gifted ones?


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NoHiddenFees*







: Well said. There is a great amount of literature detailing he anti-intellectual bias in the US compared to Asia and Europe. It's unfortunately a fact, not a supposition.

I totally agree. Maybe I'm being horribly, dreadfully reductive and making sweeping generalizations about two cultures that comprise most of this planet's population, but you never hear (or at least I have never heard) Indian or Asian parents concerned about whether they're hothousing their kids or "pushing" them. As a whole (and obviously there are exceptions, of course), their cultures apparently value intelligence and academic achievement far more than ours apparently does, and not surprisingly, their kids tend to achieve success in demanding professional fields -- oh, and they seem personally happy and satisfied, not like they've missed out on life.

It wouldn't surprise me to have essentially a "brain drain" of top U.S. scholars to places like India, Singapore, or other countries that appreciate the one-two punch of intelligence and hard work. Needless to say, overvaluation of intellectual and academic achievements can go too far in the other direction, but so can undervaluation of the same.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NoHiddenFees*

Americans are obsessed with success (IMHO, it's a hollow construct). If parents believe a service or program will make their child successful, they will come in droves, especially the white upper-to-middle class communities of which you speak.

Yes, and what I see as the sadly typical American belief that intelligence is something that can be _bought_ -- like a Leap Pad, a Sylvan session, or any of the other consumer products FSM mentioned.
[/quote]
But is any of this motivated by attraction to or acceptance of _intellectualism_? Is there any real thought or analysis going on? Is it even encouraged? Intellectualism and academic prowess are not the same thing. If they were, all these "problem solving" units would be producing children who were curious and engaged with the world. Sorry, but I don't see that happening. Nor, sadly, do I see parents fighting for it.[/QUOTE]

YES. A thousand times yes. I teach in a magnet school for computer wonks. Overall, they are excellent at studying for tests. Unfortunately, I encourage the Socratic method and independent thought and discussion. You can't really regurgitate information in my class and pass, because I count tests for only 15% of the grade and discussion for 30%. For some kids, it's hell because for the first time, someone is demanding that they actually think independently, not just do what I think of as "brain bulimia" -- shove it in, barf it out on the test. For other kids, it's heaven...for the same reasons.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Arwyn*
Which gets millions of dollars in scholarships at every state university in the nation, football or chess (or Go - now there's a cool game)?

It is cool! And "Othello" too. But also, think of the other important "currency" in this country. That's right: POONTANG. Who gets more slanted clam: the football quarterback, or the chess club president? How about the spelling bee winner? Doesn't that make us all think "biiiiig hottie!"? Man, I don't know about y'all, but Bill Gates gives me a wet-on.

Quote:


When was the last time the popular media explored an unpopular issue in depth because it was important, instead of regurgitating the most recent talking points spewed by the talking heads in that field?
And no fair citing NPR!!!


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
I totally agree. Maybe I'm being horribly, dreadfully reductive and making sweeping generalizations about two cultures that comprise most of this planet's population, but you never hear (or at least I have never heard) Indian or Asian parents concerned about whether they're hothousing their kids or "pushing" them. As a whole (and obviously there are exceptions, of course), their cultures apparently value intelligence and academic achievement far more than ours apparently does, and not surprisingly, their kids tend to achieve success in demanding professional fields -- oh, and they seem personally happy and satisfied, not like they've missed out on life.

It wouldn't surprise me to have essentially a "brain drain" of top U.S. scholars to places like India, Singapore, or other countries that appreciate the one-two punch of intelligence and hard work. Needless to say, overvaluation of intellectual and academic achievements can go too far in the other direction, but so can undervaluation of the same.

ITA. My DH is from Greece and was never labeled "gifted". However he was expected to learn ancient Greek and English starting from a young age. He was expected to start algebra in the 4th grade. That is just what EVERYONE does in Greece. It is not considered "advanced". He is now an astrophysicist. Is he "gifted" in math? Maybe, although he certainly wasn't showing any signs of "giftedness" as a toddler. (He was slow to walk, talk, count, read, everything...slow but normal, not "on the spectrum" as far as we know.) He just grew up in a culture (and a family) that valued education. He does not understand this whole "gifted" thing. Certainly some Greek students do not excel at math to the degree that he does, and he hates literature. But everyone has to study math and literature to a degree that is unheard of here at the secondary level.

Speaking to loraxc's post, I do think that some of the bitterness I have regarding my own "gifted" childhood is due to the fact that my needs were not accommodated sufficiently. However, I really do think that a lot of my issues are due to the simple fact of being labeled and compared. And I did *not* have pushy parents. But I was made much of by adults in general from my first memories onwards. It was actually devastating to my self-esteem and motivation later on...I had come to believe I was superior to others, but I also felt like a fraud. This experience is not uncommon among gifted kids.

My DH never had such issues. He was assumed to be able to learn, like any other kid, and it was also assumed that he would have aptitudes that would come into being as he matured. I think it's a much healthier way of looking at things than worrying about sorting out who is "gifted" and who isn't at a young age. By the time kids need special accommodations because of high IQ, it is obvious. And before that point, providing a reasonably stimulating normal life is going to be enough even for a kid with an IQ of 180. If kids want to read, they will learn without being taught; same for arithmetic, same for musical awareness. You won't be able to stop them from developing these skills!

A blogger I read has a profoundly gifted 4-year-old. She and her husband both have high IQs. He is not in any "special" classes, he doesn't need 'em. He does truly incredible things but normal household materials are quite enough for him to work his intellect on at this point.







I really like how she has not labeled him or worried about his development overly, at this stage. She takes pride in his achievements and celebrates his quirks, the same as *every* parent of a 4-year-old. I really really do not think that even parents of profoundly gifted kids need to wring their hands and wonder if they need to be ordering homeschooling materials for their toddlers.


----------



## talk de jour (Apr 21, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
That's not profound giftedness. Not at all.

Profound giftedness is more like this: Your child strikes other people as unsettling and weird, and when she or he was young, people criticized you for hothousing or pushing, not understanding that it's not your "fault" they learned to read fluently at age 2. They just picked it up. Other parents isolate themselves from you and may give negative comments, including words like "monster."

They have interests in highly specific, rather abstruse areas of interest that don't really appeal to most people and certainly not to peers. In school, they are viewed as freakish or disruptive because they're so often bored to tears by the constant condescension from teachers, the irritating busywork that seems to have absolutely no purpose: "But WHY do I have to color in the number '5' in all my answers? WHY?", the fact that they're simply not allowed to read ahead to the next chapter...and the next..and the next while the other kids labor through the first one.

They're not allowed to skip the spelling test whose words they knew five years ago, so they blow it off and write down stupid sh*t, because that's an expression of the hatred they feel toward the teacher and the school where no one cares about the real stuff, the words that stretch the mind and feel "hard" and cool.

They're driven insane by the fact that the teacher mispronounces and misspells words and gets facts wrong and doesn't seem to care when she does -- and gets irritated, even to the point of referring them to the principal's office for correcting them when they're wrong.

These kids have no friends, or very few, and quite often really don't know why. People often seem strange and mysterious in the sense that they're concerned with absolute trivia and get worked up about events or issues that are absolutely irrelevant. If they're an angry personality, they can start lashing out either at others or at themselves.

I just have to, honestly, laugh at the "horrible hardships" you describe parents of "profoundly gifted" children experiencing, CB.

By your IQ scale, I am well in that category, and you know what? I didn't like school, but I dealt with it. It pissed me off when the teacher made grammar and spelling mistakes, but I got over it and kept my mouth shut (or made a snarky comment that went over her head.) I had few friends, but those I did have were often "average children," yet they were very close friends. I learned to read fluently at 2, and my parents were never berated for being "stage moms." People said, "Oh, that's cool."

Oh -- and I got fabulous grades. _Fabulous._









I really don't think being a parent of a "profoundly gifted" child is all that hard.









The children you describe sound like profoundly gifted kids who need an attitude adjustment.







:


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
I totally agree. Maybe I'm being horribly, dreadfully reductive and making sweeping generalizations about two cultures that comprise most of this planet's population, but you never hear (or at least I have never heard) Indian or Asian parents concerned about whether they're hothousing their kids or "pushing" them. As a whole (and obviously there are exceptions, of course), their cultures apparently value intelligence and academic achievement far more than ours apparently does, and not surprisingly, their kids tend to achieve success in demanding professional fields -- oh, and they seem personally happy and satisfied, not like they've missed out on life.

Hmmm, I disagree. I've worked extensively with South Asian (India and Pakistan) and Chinese families and the teens are incredibly stressed out by the parental expectations. Many were pushed from early ages (violin, memorization, classes, tutoring, classes) and have a lot of guilt/fear regarding an inability to meet expectations by their teens, and a lack of choice in following their own hearts regarding non-academic endeavors. The emphasis on creative pursuits was zilch, unless it was a formal affair (i.e. orchestra). This could be due to the fact that these (educated) populations that move to the USA trend toward the highly ambitious, and our currently-competitive environment here, but they were some miserable kids overall. _They_ will be the ones who do the hand-wringing, the second-generation.

And if we're talking anti-intellectualism, what about the Cultural Revolution? It wasn't the peasants they were routing out. I really question whether the US has any sort of corner on beating up on intellectuals. I don't know if I would equate lack of support for gifted education = anti-intellectualism. For example, our commonly-known pointy-headed friends in France have no standardized definition of "gifted" nor educational provisions for gifted children.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nora'sMama*
It was actually devastating to my self-esteem and motivation later on...I had come to believe I was superior to others, but I also felt like a fraud. This experience is not uncommon among gifted kids.

Yes, I so relate to this.


----------



## talk de jour (Apr 21, 2005)

Hey, I always feel like a fraud. I'm supposed to be so smart, but I feel pretty normal to me.

But then I actually go hang around some super-"normal" people...














:


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *talk de jour*
I really don't think being a parent of a "profoundly gifted" child is all that hard.









The children you describe sound like profoundly gifted kids who need an attitude adjustment.







:

I regret that you're so unsympathetic.


----------



## talk de jour (Apr 21, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
I regret that you're so unsympathetic.

No, I just don't think advanced intellectual development is an excuse for acting poorly.

Either there's something else there besides giftedness (like PDD or ODD) or they weren't expected to use proper manners and be polite. I don't buy that being profoundly gifted excuses rudeness in a child emotionally developed enough to know that it's against cultural norms - in fact, I would expect a profoundly gifted child to be HYPER-aware of accepted norms of behavior.


----------



## Rivka5 (Jul 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flyingspaghettimama*
How can you believe in IQ testing and not believe in the Bell Curve thesis? Or do those who are supporting IQ testing also buy into the fact that all Asians and Whites just _happen_ to be smarter by purportedly objective standards than other ethnic groups? If IQ is really innate, is it just happenstance that the white middle class children are the gifted ones?

But believing that IQ tests have value, believing that intelligence is innate, and believing that racial differences in IQ are innate or fixed are three entirely different things!

The best estimates of the heritability of IQ suggest that about half of the variability seen in IQ scores is attributable to genes, and half to environmental factors. One way to interpret that is that innate factors sketch out a fairly broad range in which a person's eventual IQ will fall, and environmental factors define _where_ in that range they end up. (I say "environmental" rather than "nurture," because it includes so much more broad a range of factors - not just active education/encouragement, but also things like the prenatal environment and exposure to neurotoxins.)

The Bell Curve guys were hacks. There has been excellent research demonstrating that the observed racial differences in IQ scores are probably not innate/heritable. For example: one famous study examined the IQs of children fathered by WWII-era American GIs, and raised in Germany by their German mothers. There was no difference in IQ between the children of white GIs and black GIs - but if racial differences in IQ are inheritable, there should've been.

More recently, they've done genetic analyses that classify African-Americans according to their percentage of predominantly African vs. predominantly European genes. (As I'm sure you know, "white" and "black" aren't exactly pure categories, especially in the U.S.) There was no association between the percentage of "European" genes and intelligence. Again, if the observed racial differences in IQ were due to genetic differences, there should've been.

Is it really hard to believe that there are differences in the average quality of the environment experienced by African-American and white or Asian children, beginning in the prenatal period and extending throughout life? We know that, although there's a ton of variation within racial groups, there are average group differences in prenatal care, breastfeeding rates, parenting styles, parental education, exposure to known neurotoxins like lead paint, and on and on. Again, the various bell curves have huuuuge overlap... but is it really a stretch to believe that the aggregate of the disadvantages that American minority groups commonly experience may have consequences for development?

There used to be a big IQ gap between urban and rural children in the U.S., and today that gap is completely gone. I'm completely convinced that the same thing will happen to the current racial gap in IQ scores, as efforts are made to combat racism and inequality.


----------



## talk de jour (Apr 21, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*
This is a remarkably callous statement. It shows that you have really never spent much time with profoundly gifted children or their parents. You should not make a sweeping generalization unless you have some data to back it up.

So spending time with myself doesn't count?









As I said above, I don't believe behavioral problems (or behaviors that violate social norms) go hand in hand with giftedness.

I do have a theory that many "mentally ill" people are simply misunderstood geniuses, but that's beside the point here.

I believe that disorders that contribute to antisocial behavior are more likely to coexist with giftedness. I also believe that parents often foster a permissive atmosphere with very gifted children because they overestimate a gifted child's emotional development (they think that because a gifted child is as intelligent as an adult, s/he should also have the self-control and emotional development of an adult.)

However, I don't think that extremely gifted means extremely antisocial.

Though I do think that we'll always be considered antisocial to some point, because many of our interests and conversation styles are boring or too complex for many people, so they write us off as "those weird, boring people."







I consider myself very lucky to have found a gifted person as my best friend and partner - it makes me look a little less hermit-y.


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

Talk de jour, I actually think that high IQ tends to correlate with some degree of difficulty in interpersonal relations, although it's not universal. Also, rather than leaning towards being excessively permissive, I think many parents of children who are "gifted" are quite hard on them and expect much more of them than they expect from kids who are not accelerated in their development.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *talk de jour*
I just have to, honestly, laugh at the "horrible hardships" you describe parents of "profoundly gifted" children experiencing, CB.

By your IQ scale, I am well in that category, and you know what? I didn't like school, but I dealt with it. It pissed me off when the teacher made grammar and spelling mistakes, but I got over it and kept my mouth shut (or made a snarky comment that went over her head.) I had few friends, but those I did have were often "average children," yet they were very close friends. I learned to read fluently at 2, and my parents were never berated for being "stage moms." People said, "Oh, that's cool."

Oh -- and I got fabulous grades. _Fabulous._









I really don't think being a parent of a "profoundly gifted" child is all that hard.









The children you describe sound like profoundly gifted kids who need an attitude adjustment.







:









Sounds like you have a lot of resentment about how you were treated.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*
That is because you clearly have no idea what it means to be profoundly gifted.









:


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Rigama*
Why is this being re-visited again? ALL of the previous threads like this ended up closed, and I suspect this one will meet the same fate. I don't understand WHY having a gifted child is seen as a personal affront to others when nobody looks at being single, "special needs" or poor in the same way.


Good point. We don't have to defend who are kids are to strangers on the internet.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *talk de jour*
However, I don't think that extremely gifted means *extremely antisocial*.

No one said that.


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *talk de jour*
Either there's something else there besides giftedness (like PDD or ODD) or they weren't expected to use proper manners and be polite. I don't buy that being profoundly gifted excuses rudeness in a child emotionally developed enough to know that it's against cultural norms -- in fact, *I would expect a profoundly gifted child to be HYPER-aware of accepted norms of behavior*.

Let's _assume_ this is the case. What about when the rules don't make sense? What is a child supposed to do when "learning" the alphabet or cvc words when they're reading middle readers and YA at home? When do we stop addressing the behaviour and start addressing the cause? Do the same rules of addressing behaviour apply for kids with ADD or Asperbergers, or only for gifted kids? Should a child be accelerated only if they have mastered the social graces? What kinds of accomodations should gifted kids receive, or should they just learn to hunker down and not complain or act out? Or drop out? Wouldn't it be a good idea to assess children with behaviour problems for potential giftedness?


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*

Profound giftedness is more like this: Your child strikes other people as unsettling and weird, and when she or he was young, people criticized you for hothousing or pushing, not understanding that it's not your "fault" they learned to read fluently at age 2. They just picked it up. Other parents isolate themselves from you and may give negative comments, including words like "monster."

They have interests in highly specific, rather abstruse areas of interest that don't really appeal to most people and certainly not to peers. In school, they are viewed as freakish or disruptive because they're so often bored to tears by the constant condescension from teachers, the irritating busywork that seems to have absolutely no purpose: "But WHY do I have to color in the number '5' in all my answers? WHY?", the fact that they're simply not allowed to read ahead to the next chapter...and the next..and the next while the other kids labor through the first one.

They're not allowed to skip the spelling test whose words they knew five years ago, so they blow it off and write down stupid sh*t, because that's an expression of the hatred they feel toward the teacher and the school where no one cares about the real stuff, the words that stretch the mind and feel "hard" and cool.

They're driven insane by the fact that the teacher mispronounces and misspells words and gets facts wrong and _doesn't seem to care_ when she does -- and gets irritated, even to the point of referring them to the principal's office for correcting them when they're wrong.

These kids have no friends, or very few, and quite often really don't know why. People often seem strange and mysterious in the sense that they're concerned with absolute trivia and get worked up about events or issues that are absolutely irrelevant. If they're an angry personality, they can start lashing out either at others or at themselves.

Does that maybe help paint a clearer picture of the difference??


You've described it very well. Their brains *just work differently.* My dd was ready to drop out of school in Kindergarten because of the condescension of her teacher. She's not an angry personality, but other people appear quite mysterious to her. It's a rare soul (her age) she "clicks" with. That got somewhat better when we moved her up a grade, though. (Because it's easier to make friends with kids who are you intellectual age vs. your chronological age.)


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*
...This child often has a history of distruptiveness in class and is very likely to have only a few friends and be difficult to deal with, both at home and in school. Labelling the academically advanced child as gifted is, at times, an ego boost for child and parent...

In the interest of not making this too long, I only quoted a small excerpt of your post, but I wanted to thank you!







You understand -- thank you!

Now, I'll go back and read the rest of this thread.


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *talk de jour*
So spending time with myself doesn't count?









You count as an anecdote or a case study, but as a sample of one, not for generalizatons.


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*
That is because you clearly have no idea what it means to be profoundly gifted.

Um, except that she *is* profoundly gifted.

If you make a statement about a population, any exception invalidates that statement. If you want to talk about "some profoundly gifted people" or even "some of the profoundly gifted people I know", then that's a whole different kettle o' fish.

Dar


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NoHiddenFees*
Wouldn't it be a good idea to assess children with behaviour problems for potential giftedness?

I think it is an excellent idea to assess children with behavior problems for many potential causes of the behavior, including the possibility that they are not being adequately challenged at school. What is the alternative? Labeling them as "behavior problems" and leaving it at that?

I was thinking about the discussion above of the Bell Curve, etc. It's absolutely true that a "behavior problem" whose parents are poor, members of a racial/ethnic minority, or maybe just not very involved with the school will be treated in an ENTIRELY different way from a "behavior problem" whose parents are active in the PTA and upstanding members of the community. Very different assumptions will tend to operate. The former child might be assessed for learning disabilities or ODD; the latter might be assessed for giftedness.


----------



## dallaschildren (Jun 14, 2003)

This is an incredible discussion. One of the best I have ever read here.







:


----------



## Rivka5 (Jul 13, 2005)

I think that a lot of the controversy around the concept of intellectual giftedness comes from a set of assumptions that tend to get lumped together, but that don't actually belong together:

1. Some people have higher levels of intellectual talent than others.
2. People who are more talented in a given area have greater human worth or are more important or deserve better treatment or are simply _better_ than people who are less talented in that area.
3. Intellectual talent is the most important human characteristic.

It seems to me like a lot of people in this thread believe that if they want to reject statements 2 and 3, they must necessarily reject statement 1 - or at least, make statement 1 a bad thing to notice, talk about, or provide educational accommodations for.

But in fact, if you believe statement 1, you can _choose_ to accept or reject statements 2 or 3. You shouldn't assume that you have to reject statement 1 if you want to reject the other two, and you shouldn't assume that people who _believe_ statement 1 _believe_ the other two.


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama*
And, if they are so rare, why are they popping up all over the place these days?

Sorry to serial post -- I'm working my way through this thread.

I agree with you here and I think that it relates back to the fact that many parents (especially high SES, high achieving parents) see it as a badge of honor or proof of their superior parenting. _Way_ too many children are being ided as gifted in our school system (at least the one in which my children attend school). It obscures the true needs of the truly gifted child b/c *everyone* is gifted. The same seems to occur at times with younger children or kids not yet in school.

IRL I can tell which kids have been ided as gifted due to being bright and having pushy parents and which ones are truly gifted. On-line, I have no idea, so I am just taking people at face value and assuming that they are truly dealing with a gifted child if that is what they say. Could be wrong, but I just don't know...


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Rivka5*
Is it really hard to believe that there are differences in the average quality of the environment experienced by African-American and white or Asian children, beginning in the prenatal period and extending throughout life?

I dunno. I do know that many, many, most of the people who advocate for gifted education truly believe that it's an innate genetic state, and cannot be influenced by environment, because that might make their child less special, or perhaps others could catch up if exposed to the right environment. They frequently advocate for keeping out children who do not pass the testing muster and are "just nominated." They place much emphasis on the quality and veracity of IQ testing itself, and know their children's scores by heart. So what of the poor kids? Feh, too bad for them.

I personally do believe environment makes a huge difference in the IQ test results themselves. Because if you grow up in a household where you go to the symphony, then you're going to know the orchestral instruments. But is that _really_ intelligence?

I personally believe in Maslow's hierarchy of needs - if a child has their basic needs met (food, clothing, shelter), they feel more confident in exploring their world and making new discoveries. But I don't think we need a social construct (IQ testing) to weed out those who don't know the capital of Italy as somehow less intellectual.


----------



## talk de jour (Apr 21, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar*
Um, except that she *is* profoundly gifted.

If you make a statement about a population, any exception invalidates that statement. If you want to talk about "some profoundly gifted people" or even "some of the profoundly gifted people I know", then that's a whole different kettle o' fish.

Dar

Yeah, I'm really having trouble understanding why it is that I apparently have no idea what it's like to be myself. Whatever.


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nora'sMama*
The former child might be assessed for learning disabilities or ODD; the latter might be assessed for giftedness.

So true. We have a friend with a child who has many of the typically-described characteristics of a gifted child, and was a handful in the classroom. So he was tested for giftedness. He was average, according to testing. So he's right back where he started, the Bad Nut. That's the real bad news - if you have all the tortured psyche of the purportedly gifted child, but none of the test scores. At least the gifted kids get some accomodation, but him, he's just a big bowl of trouble.

(according to the school)


----------



## bri276 (Mar 24, 2005)

Well, Siobhan, I don't want to be confrontational, but this is the internet, and it takes a bit of trust to believe someone who says they're profoundly gifted. Furthermore, you claimed to be irritated by teacher's grammatical errors in school, and you made one yourself in that same post. Again- not trying to start an argument, but it does seem that the other ladies have made some extremely good points backed up with research.


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Rivka5*
Is it really hard to believe that there are differences in the average quality of the environment experienced by African-American and white or Asian children, beginning in the prenatal period and extending throughout life?

I would suppose lead exposure to be a large factor.


----------



## talk de jour (Apr 21, 2005)

.


----------



## glendora (Jan 24, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*
In a poor household, particularly one in which there is not much exposure outside the immediate environment and intellectualism is not nurtured, then these children will be the ones who benefit more from being nominated for an academically advanced program.

Except that the testing is largely based on vocabulary size, and young children raised in the lowest income bracket get about half of the exposure to words than children in middle class or even working class environments.

I'll get the references if you want.


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Rivka5*
I think that a lot of the controversy around the concept of intellectual giftedness comes from a set of assumptions that tend to get lumped together, but that don't actually belong together:

1. Some people have higher levels of intellectual talent than others.
2. People who are more talented in a given area have greater human worth or are more important or deserve better treatment or are simply _better_ than people who are less talented in that area.
3. Intellectual talent is the most important human characteristic.

But this is the thing that gets to me every time - what do people mean by "intellectual talent?" That is a very broad term. Verbally gifted? Mathematically? Memory? Retention? Speed? Inquisitiveness? what?


----------



## talk de jour (Apr 21, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bri276*
Well, Siobhan, I don't want to be confrontational, but this is the internet, and it takes a bit of trust to believe someone who says they're profoundly gifted. Furthermore, you claimed to be irritated by teacher's grammatical errors in school, and you made one yourself in that same post. Again- not trying to start an argument, but it does seem that the other ladies have made some extremely good points backed up with research.

I'm not teaching America's youth.

Also, on the Internet I attempt to make my point as clearly and concisely as I can. I have come to terms with the fact that sometimes being grammatically correct isn't the clearest and most easily understood method. My childhood self wasn't socially developed enough to realize that that is sometimes the case.


----------



## talk de jour (Apr 21, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*
I guess my problem is two fold. One, you cannot make a generalization about a population based one person. And, two, I do not think you are profoundly gifted. My IQ is 155 and I also read fluently at 2 or 3. I am not profoundly gifted and neither are you. A profoundly gifted person is one who could play the piano at 2 or take a computer apart and put it back together correctly at age 5 or can paint with proficiency at 6, with no training or someone who can sing perfectly, on pitch or whatever the word is to describe a person who can sing perfectly. A profoundly gifted person is one who you cannot have a normal conversation with because they are not a normal person. They are in a different plane of existence. They are thinking so completely differently than the rest of us that it is difficult to communicate with them. They can think of abstract concepts more deeply than any of us can even begin to understand. They can solve huge problems because they can see the answers whereas the rest of us can only see the problem.

There are LOTS of people with perfect pitch who are of perfectly average intelligence. Some people with perfect pitch don't even really enjoy music. It's just an innate ability that some have and some don't. I know a guy who is pretty intelligent, has perfect pitch, and is amazingly gifted in music. However, I wouldn't consider him "profoundly gifted."


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *limabean*
I would bet that the majority of kids who are in programs like GATE are not profoundly gifted -- they are just smart kids whose parents decided to GATE-track them early on. If your kids are good test-takers and well-behaved in school, it doesn't seem so difficult for them to qualify for GATE. But as CB wrote very eloquently, profoundly gifted kids are very different from mildly gifted kids (and often *aren't* the well-behaved model students that people think of when they think of gifted kids). I would imagine that each school only has a small handful of profoundly gifted kids, yet has a much larger actual number of kids in the "gifted" program. As thismama said, Where does one draw the line?

I notice parents don't clamor to have their slightly-below-average kids identified as learning disabled, but if the kids are slightly on the other side of average, some parents sure are itching to have them classified as gifted.







In the end, it seems that it can be a disservice to the profoundly gifted children who truly need extra services and a different learning environment. Having so many just-on-the-high-side-of-average kids in the "gifted" program can make people skeptical about the identification system and the program itself.

It's kind of like how the phrase "spirited" is thrown around so often here. All kids have their difficult moments, and then some truly are extremely difficult to parent on a daily, moment-to-moment basis. But I never know which is which, and have come to develop some skepticism in general about use of the phrase.







:









That's it exactly and it did rankle me when dd#1 was little and other moms were describing their children as high needs or spirited b/c they woke up once a night and cried for 20 minutes, but I guess that it is all perspective. FWIW, when I've used any of these terms (spirited, gifted or whatever) to describe dd it is b/c I am dealing with something extreme -- like a baby who didn't sleep for more than 30 minutes straight for over 18 months, a preschooler who threw tantrums for hours multiple times/day every day and would try to choke me...

That is why I rarely post in the gifted threads in regard to dd#2. Developmentally she is right on par with her older sister, but as far as the problems that go along with "gifted," she simply does not exhibit them to the extent that her sister does. Her needs are better being met by her environment so there is no major problem. For dd#1, life has been a problem from the moment she was born.


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*
In a poor household, particularly one in which there is not much exposure outside the immediate environment and intellectualism is not nurtured, then these children will be the ones who benefit more from being nominated for an academically advanced program.
.

Well, I don't think we will see the gifted program school enrollment around here be filled with the non-wealthy anytime soon. It was instituted here to keep the middle class parents happy and out of private schools. Anyone can be nominated, but then they have to pass the "objective" test that helps to keep the riffraff out. The parents get all bent out of shape when they talk about relaxing the standards, as it would let in the supposedly non-gifted kids, who unlike their children, did not score high enough. As if it were actually a meritocracy, and you can't just let in all these people who SAY their kid is gifted without PROOF. Bah.

I really believe differentiation is the key, not tracking by supposedly objective but in reality very subjective testing. Save money by (gasp) getting rid of the advanced programs (which are just accelerated learning here) and put two teachers in every classroom. Move away from textbook-style teaching to inquiry-based education, which can meet all children's needs, where they're at.


----------



## talk de jour (Apr 21, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*
Exceptionally Gifted 160 - 179 1:10,000 - 1:1 million
Profoundly Gifted 180+ Fewer than 1:1 million

Thank you for correcting yourself, and it would be fabulous if you corrected your misstatement above so you don't confuse anyone:

Quote:

You have obviously never met a truly, profoundly gifted child. They have just as many issues in a regular classroom as a delayed child. The reason that IQ tests are used is that they give a picture of how different a child can be from average.

An IQ of 100 to 130 is average
An IQ of 50-99 is delayed but can still be taught in regular school.
An IQ of 130-160 is gifted but can often still be taught in a regular school.
An IQ of 160+ is a very strange (to the average person) person who thinks very differently than the rest of us and is often having tremendous difficulties in school and at home. There is no badge of honor to have a child this intelligent. It is very difficult to have this child's needs met and these children are very rare indeed. More and more, these children are being homeschooled because that is the only way they are able to develop at the pace appropriate for them.


----------



## mata (Apr 20, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *talk de jour*
Hey, I always feel like a fraud. I'm supposed to be so smart, but I feel pretty normal to me.

But then I actually go hang around some super-"normal" people...














:


















me too!

OT-you know, from an early age I preferred to be led by my emotions and instinct. But this is a fascinating conversation.


----------



## glendora (Jan 24, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*
No need, we are basically making the same point, which is why I said these children benefit from being nominated. They will exhibit a high rate of vocabulary retention and intellectual curiosity, which is what their teachers will see as giftedness.

Except that, if memory serves, most kids end up in GT and other programs because the kids get tested at _the parents_ request.

(That said, I was in GT, and the whole thing was a joke. The shuttled us off to do logic puzzles for an hour a week. Big freaking deal. I suppose I'm just not understanding how these "programs" are supposed to help in a public school.)


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Oh no, now we are comparing IQ scores. This is going nowhere good in a hurry.

This is the way the gifted support threads often end up too, but in a more snarky, passive-aggressive way. And someone will say someone (else's child) is not "really" gifted, as giftedness must meet X criteria.


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bri276*
Well, Siobhan, I don't want to be confrontational, but this is the internet, and it takes a bit of trust to believe someone who says they're profoundly gifted. Furthermore, *you claimed to be irritated by teacher's grammatical errors in school, and you made one yourself in that same post.* Again- not trying to start an argument, but it does seem that the other ladies have made some extremely good points backed up with research.

I have no idea about Siobhan's IQ, of course, but I just had to







because one of the results of having been told constantly how smart I was is being terrified that I will make a grammatical mistake or typo! I confused things like that with intelligence for a long time.

Part of my beef with the whole gifted label is that I really feel like I have some major limitations intellectually which are masked by the areas in which I am, for lack of a better word, "gifted". My IQ may be what it may be, but I don't think that translates into any practical advantage for me. However, this is MY issue and I'm trying not to generalize here. I realize that many people with IQ are the real deal. But I actually am somewhat of a fraud!









I scored in the 99th percentile on the GRE and then couldn't manage to write a decent paper in grad school and had to drop out with my head hung low. This is the first time I'm admitting that, and it's not an easy thing for me to write. I don't feel smart, believe me. I feel like someone who knows how to get high scores on standardized tests.

However, I do sometimes feel "different", as though I am able to make connections that others don't, which is only tangentially related to academic skills. Would I feel as different if I hadn't been *told* I was different? Am I gifted different or disordered different? Who knows. I do know that many people whose intellectual gifts I deemed to be minor when I knew them as children have turned into articulate, capable, intelligent adults. I do not feel that I have grown up to be articulate or capable and while I won't say I'm stupid, many of my decisions have been decidedly un-intelligent.

My experiences as an adult have not validated the judgment of my teachers and testers. At one point as a young adult I felt as if I had been robbed of something that had been promised to me by those who focused on my "giftedness" rather than on my development as a whole, functioning person. I resent them for labeling me, whether the label was accurate or not.

I have met a number of people who I do consider to be profoundly gifted, who see the world differently and more...profoundly than others, and I really don't know whether to count myself among them. Sometimes I think yes and other times no. But honestly, most of the time I think it's a stupid question.







Awareness of and appreciation for my gifts has not helped me cope with my deficits. It has not taught me empathy or healthy coping skills. It has not taught me how to deal the fact that no one cares when you're 30 that you taught yourself to read at age 2. This is all stuff I had to learn myself, like everyone else.

I'm just







here. It's a bit cathartic.

Edited to say that by the criteria in the posts above I am DEFINITELY not profoundly gifted! Um, no question about it!














And I agree such people must be REALLY rare.


----------



## glendora (Jan 24, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flyingspaghettimama*
Oh no, now we are comparing IQ scores. This is going nowhere good in a hurry.

Generally when the IQ scores come out, Godwin's Law will soon go into effect.









Surely someone has a "gifted" anecdote about Nazis?


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *A&A*
Good point. We don't have to defend who are kids are to strangers on the internet.

It just occurred to me as I was responding to a bunch of these posts that this thread does seem to be going off track from the original question which was, if I recall correctly, whether labeling some children as gifted was detrimental to both those children and other children.

I do believe that there is some merit in that concern especially in regard to those children who are bright hot housed children who are not dealing with the same issues as the highly gifted. A child who would do fine in a standard classroom environment is not benefited IMO from being pushed to achieve more and being falsely IDed as something he is not. If funds are diverted from other more needy children to serve the non-existent needs of this cohort, then there is fault to be found.

On the other hand, identifying children who are truly very different creatures as what they are and then trying to create programs to meet those different needs is not elitist or harmful IMO unless these children and the other children who are not part of that group are then led to believe that the label confers some prestige or sense that the gifted children are better. The few gifted individuals I have known did not develop a sense of superiority even in GATE/TAG programs. These programs were filled with the aforementioned bright, but not gifted, kids and they still didn't fit in. They still felt that there was something askew and most of them came to the ultimate conclusion that something was wrong -- not with the situation, but with themselves.


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Nora's mama. I think that's why many of us care so much about the issue - we had bad experiences with being labelled ourselves and wish to do something very, very different for our children.


----------



## talk de jour (Apr 21, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*
There is nothing to correct. An IQ of 160+ is exceptionally gifted. An IQ of 180+ is profoundly gifted.

You equated "profound" with 160+, and made no distinction between 160+ and 180+.


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *glendora*
Generally when the IQ scores come out, Godwin's Law will soon go into effect.









Surely someone has a "gifted" anecdote about Nazis?

Dude, you are KILLING me with the Godwin's Law.









I'm sure you could work some eugenics in there to eventually lead into the Nazis...


----------



## glendora (Jan 24, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nora'sMama*
My experiences as an adult have not validated the judgment of my teachers and testers. At one point as a young adult I felt as if I had been robbed of something that had been promised to me by those who focused on my "giftedness" rather than on my development as a whole, functioning person. I resent them for labeling me, whether the label was accurate or not.

OMG. Ditto on that. No one bothered to tell me that Ivy League scores don't mean squat when you're trailer trash...


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flyingspaghettimama*
Oh no, now we are comparing IQ scores. This is going nowhere good in a hurry.

This is the way the gifted support threads often end up too, but in a more snarky, passive-aggressive way. And someone will say someone (else's child) is not "really" gifted, as giftedness must meet X criteria.

Yes, and this is why IQ tests were developed, so that there could be supposedly "objective" criteria for measuring intelligence. But does anyone agree with me that this is the wrong way to look at intelligence?? For me it is a question of functionality and rightness of fit with the world. IQs of 180+ do not seem to lead to correspondingly high levels of productivity, success (by any definition of success you care to use), or happiness. So why do we measure this shit?? Can someone tell me what purpose it serves other than to classify and hierarchify human beings by an arbitrary standard that has no particular application that I'm aware of besides...further classification?









A friend of mine has an aunt who is mentally retarded due to hypoxia at birth. She has always lived with her mother, who recently died, and is now moving into an assisted living facility. Her IQ was tested as part of this process and the testers were AMAZED at how "high-functioning" she is with such a low IQ. What did the IQ score really tell them? Shouldn't the way she functions in life tell them all they needed to know?

Similarly, if a person is performing with brilliance and aplomb at any particular pursuit, why do we need to know his or her IQ? If a person is performing brilliantly in some areas but has deficits in others, how does knowing that the person has a high IQ help correct their deficits? Please, I'd really like to know!


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

My husband, who was not labelled as gifted (yet makes three times as much as I do, pretty good for "average") remembers feeling quite jealous of the gifted pull-out kids, as they got to go on field trips and other experiential journeys. I guess the average kids just wouldn't be challenged enough by a trip to the aquarium, unlike the gifted ones? In my school, there was definitely prestige associated with being in the pullout programs, and I lived in the bumstix of ******* americana. He also learned to work his buttinsky off to get what he wanted, while I learned that if it don't come easy, it ain't comin' at all...and I do think he is a much smarter person than me as far as problem-solving, but lacks the vocabulary to _sound_ like he's really smart. Verbal ability is not the end-all be-all, despite what our culture insists and GT programs focus on (after all, that's why GWB is "dumb," right - because he sounds like he swallowed rocks for breakfast and can't put two words in a sentence together where there is a subject-verb agreement. Or as his mom put it, "he's stupid like a fox." Ugh.).

I think that this article is very interesting regarding labelling and motivation that someone posted on here a while ago, and it played a huge role for me in making a decision to keep my child out of gifted programs and either homeschool or seek out programs that catered to the individual.

http://www.educationworld.com/a_issu.../chat010.shtml


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flyingspaghettimama*
Verbal ability is not the end-all be-all, despite what our culture insists and GT programs focus on.










:


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*
You make a good point. I believe that IQ testing started as a way for the armed forces to efficiently funnel their newbies into the right training area.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ#History

And, may I suggest to anyone interested in this topic to read Stephen Jay Gould's The Mismeasure of Man?


----------



## talk de jour (Apr 21, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flyingspaghettimama*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ#History

And, may I suggest to anyone interested in this topic to read Stephen Jay Gould's The Mismeasure of Man?

Thank you so much for mentioning this book! It's one of my favorites. I love Gould, and I read this assuming that it was just some paleoanthropology of his... but no. It is SO much more.

Your bringing it up also reminds me of why I hate the constant IQ-score badgering. I hate people being commanded to pull things like that out to "prove themselves" when I really don't think it means a damned thing.
I personally don't think it matters one whit what your IQ is, so long as you inform yourself to the limit of your personal capacity and have a kind heart.

But hey... if we can measure all that in numbers, why try? Sadly, SJG shows that that attitude is a LOT more common than I'd hope.







:


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*

I know of no program where gifted kids get more and better field trips and extras than the regular kids.

It was the Puyallup SD, it was called the Quest program.


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flyingspaghettimama*
Oh no, now we are comparing IQ scores. This is going nowhere good in a hurry.

This is the way the gifted support threads often end up too, but in a more snarky, passive-aggressive way. And someone will say someone (else's child) is not "really" gifted, as giftedness must meet X criteria.

I've got to get to bed, but wanted to say something in regard to this briefly. I may have been guilty of this in the past as I truly am irritated by other moms at dd's school who go on and on about how gifted their children are. I will watch this in the future. I don't believe that giftedness needs to meet X criterian as there are such varied ways to exhibit and be gifted. My aggravation with everyone claiming the term "gifted" for all children relates back to my prior post:

Quote:

...many parents (especially high SES, high achieving parents) see it as a badge of honor or proof of their superior parenting. Way too many children are being ided as gifted in our school system (at least the one in which my children attend school). It obscures the true needs of the truly gifted child b/c *everyone* is gifted...
It prevents my child's needs from being met if she is being grouped together with children whose needs are nothing like hers and she is viewed as a problem b/c the program is meeting the needs of these other "gifted" kids, so what is her problem?!


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*

I know of no program where gifted kids get more and better field trips and extras than the regular kids.

I certainly didn't have more and better field trips and projects when I was in school, but a same-age friend of mine (another MDC mom) was just telling me recently about all the cool things she got to do in her gifted program, that were not part of the "non-gifted" students' experience. So this disparity does exist in some districts.


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*
What we really need is a revolution in the way children are taught.

Yes. This is the heart of it for me. The way our schools are organized is inadequate for MOST students, regardless of IQ.


----------



## Rivka5 (Jul 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flyingspaghettimama*
But this is the thing that gets to me every time - what do people mean by "intellectual talent?" That is a very broad term. Verbally gifted? Mathematically? Memory? Retention? Speed? Inquisitiveness? what?

I don't know what "people" mean, but I'd say that all of those things are intellectual gifts.


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

*********************

Heh heh. The thread title says "conception" of gifted children.

Yeah, let's talk about THAT! How do you conceive a gifted child, standing on your head?

Heheh.
*********************

This interruption of thread was brought to you by Beavis and Butthead...


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

Silly flyingspaghettimama, you conceive a gifted child in the most "advanced" position of the Kama Sutra, after eating artichokes and doing a few equations together as foreplay.


----------



## griffin2004 (Sep 25, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
Profound giftedness is more like this: Your child strikes other people as unsettling and weird, and when she or he was young, people criticized you for hothousing or pushing, not understanding that it's not your "fault" they learned to read fluently at age 2. They just picked it up. Other parents isolate themselves from you and may give negative comments, including words like "monster."

They have interests in highly specific, rather abstruse areas of interest that don't really appeal to most people and certainly not to peers. In school, they are viewed as freakish or disruptive because they're so often bored to tears by the constant condescension from teachers, the irritating busywork that seems to have absolutely no purpose: "But WHY do I have to color in the number '5' in all my answers? WHY?", the fact that they're simply not allowed to read ahead to the next chapter...and the next..and the next while the other kids labor through the first one.

They're not allowed to skip the spelling test whose words they knew five years ago, so they blow it off and write down stupid sh*t, because that's an expression of the hatred they feel toward the teacher and the school where no one cares about the real stuff, the words that stretch the mind and feel "hard" and cool.

They're driven insane by the fact that the teacher mispronounces and misspells words and gets facts wrong and doesn't seem to care when she does -- and gets irritated, even to the point of referring them to the principal's office for correcting them when they're wrong.

These kids have no friends, or very few, and quite often really don't know why. People often seem strange and mysterious in the sense that they're concerned with absolute trivia and get worked up about events or issues that are absolutely irrelevant. If they're an angry personality, they can start lashing out either at others or at themselves.

So, why isn't "profoundly gifted" referred to as the more accurate "profoundly burdened"? Oh wait, that has a negative connotation, doesn't it? Just like if you're not "gifted and talented" then you're...what..."not gifted and untalented"?

I am not denying that children we are shorthandedly referring to as "profoundly gifted" have unique learning needs and styles. But the label and common usage of "gifted" in the education system reeks of elitism and superiority that serves only to segregate children and disserve all of them in the process.


----------



## bri276 (Mar 24, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nora'sMama*
I have no idea about Siobhan's IQ, of course, but I just had to







because one of the results of having been told constantly how smart I was is being terrified that I will make a grammatical mistake or typo! I confused things like that with intelligence for a long time.

.

I don't confuse the two. Trust me. However, it was ironic, and a little suspicious. The error wasn't something like an apostrophe, which I wouldn't think twice about. Typos are nothing. Basic use of the English language is another- yet we all make mistakes, even profoundly gifted people. I completely understand that.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Well, to start with, I am of the mind that the whole school system should be thrown out and restarted from scratch. I think it's too far gone to fix in it's current state. Do I have any delusions that that will happen in the next 100 years? No, not really.

That said: With the school system as it is now, labels are needed. They are needed on both ends (and about a thousand in the middle....) I have not heard anyone claim that children with learning disabilities shouldn't be served. I have not heard anyone say that children with low IQs should not receive special services. Even IF we want to pretend that "gifted" children have no other needs than that, we should still serve that need.

I agree with CB and others that a different label would serve them better. Alas, the education system changes slowly. I expect that "gifted" or "gifted and talented" will be the label used for at least the next 20 years.

-Angela


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *talk de jour*
Hell, *I dropped out of high school to go to college as soon as it was legal for me to do so*, is that antisocial and defiant enough for you to consider me "gifted"?









Sorry your needs were not met.

My dd is 10, and she has been begging to go to college for the past 3 years. There is a program in the city that will let her do so. I think I will listen to her and try my best to get her needs met or at least provide what she wants.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *glendora*
Except that, if memory serves, most kids end up in GT and other programs because the kids get tested at _the parents_ request.

When I had my run-in with CPS, that was one of their requirements, for my dd to be tested. I don't know what tests they gave her along with the I.Q. test, but they labeled her extremely gifted and told me to put her in programs. At the time I thought it was 'bad' to label her and thought it was another way to say something was wrong with her.
Now, that I have been reading, I am leaning towards changing my mind and figuring out how to meet her specific needs that are so different than everyone in my family.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Along the lines of the problems with lower socioeconomic groups being under-represented in gifted programs, it is a BIG problem. Here they have been working on attempting to improve the situation (of course causing as many problems along the way as they solved....sigh) In the big school district here the identifying test for G/T programs is entirely non-language based. It's based on spatial talents. Great for finding non-english speakers. Rotten for gifted kids that aren't strong in the spatial area. Dreadful for gifted kids with LD in the spatial area.

BUT they are trying. We also have a dual-language (Spanish) G/T program.

Another aside- on gifted schools, I happened to be reading last week, there are a few in TX, one in Houston (Private).

-Angela


----------



## Arwyn (Sep 9, 2004)

This discussion is kind of fascinating to me, especially because I've had people from "both sides" agree with me (and I've agreed with them). I do think no one here disagrees with the idea that complete school reform would be best, and that the current system is not helping everyone the way they deserve. Honestly, to me (and this is ONLY to me, I am aware, not belittling anyone else's passion on this subject), the rest is just quibbling. Not that it's not important - it's just the details.

(Just today, DP and I were, once again, single handedly designing the complete fix for all the problems with our national government. We do this on a regular basis, and the bits we spend the most time on are the details, like what we would call the new style of government, the minutae of how it would be run, etc. It's all fantasy, of course, because none of it's going to happen, although it's not unimportant, either, because it gives us ideas of where to put our efforts for social and governmental change. The only thing we agree on every time, and the thing that somtimes gets lost in our quibbles over details, is that the current system _doesn't work_, and something needs to change.)


----------



## talk de jour (Apr 21, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bri276*
I don't confuse the two. Trust me. However, it was ironic, and a little suspicious. The error wasn't something like an apostrophe, which I wouldn't think twice about. Typos are nothing. Basic use of the English language is another- yet we all make mistakes, even profoundly gifted people. I completely understand that.

Seriously, I could go through that post and find every grammatical and stylistic mistake I made. There are several - definitely more than one.

Why nitpick that much, though? I was referring to situations in which the teacher would write, say, "You're Lesson For Today" on the board - or get very confused when a geography book referred to the "Hearth of China" and say "Weird. They must have meant 'heart.'"


----------



## Daffodil (Aug 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flyingspaghettimama*
I think that this article is very interesting regarding labelling and motivation that someone posted on here a while ago, and it played a huge role for me in making a decision to keep my child out of gifted programs and either homeschool or seek out programs that catered to the individual.

http://www.educationworld.com/a_issu.../chat010.shtml

I wouldn't say that article necessarily shows that there is a problem with gifted programs or identifying kids as gifted. A quote from the article:

Quote:

A classroom that teaches students to equate their intelligence and their worth with their performance will, in general, stifle the desire to learn and will make students afraid of challenges.
I totally agree with this, but to me, that's simply an argument against teaching kids to value grades (or any other measure of school performance.) What if you identified some kids as gifted, but encouraged them to believe that their school performance had nothing to do with their intelligence or worth? What if they got to attend a school where no one even attempted to measure or judge their performance? (Not likely, I know - that's one of the big reasons why I want to homeschool my kids.)

Of course, if the gifted programs in your area are more along the lines of the "equating intelligence and worth with performance" model, it might make sense to keep your kid out of them. But it doesn't mean the whole idea of special classes for gifted kids is necessarily bad.


----------



## Arwyn (Sep 9, 2004)

On the subject of asynchonous developing children, aka "gifted", and social graces, it has certainly been my experience that they tend to lack them, and if they don't, it's generally because of hard work on their part. And yes, ADaka"G" does tend to go along with other nonstandard mental traits (aka mental disorders) - I'm bipolar, as is my brother and much of my paternal family. It does seem like a bit of a chicken and an egg question, though - are AD/"G" kids social rejects because they lack social skills because they're AD/"G", do they lack social skills because they're social rejects because they're AD/"G", are they rejects and lacking because they've been LABELLED AD/"G", because of some other "disorder" that tends to go along with AD/"G"? I don't know, but I suspect, just like with intelligence itself, it's a combination of factors - inate _and_ environmental _and_ comorbid factors.

I do think it's wrong BOTH to say "hey, you're intellectually gifted, you don't have to be a nice person" AND "if you're not a nice person, you're just choosing to be a bastard and can get away with it because you're intellectually gifted." I didn't get along with most of my peers until, well, maybe adulthood. I DID find that I COULD get along with some people (the fellow freaks, mostly - those of us who valued creative thinking whether or not we were labelled "gifted". didn't actually get along with most of the GATErs - they were too focused on getting the grade), and that it was worth it to learn to do it, round about adolescence.

Most of the really, really smart kids I knew (and I did know a few) _didn't_ get along well with the other kids. Or me, for that matter, although we could relate, being freaks. There's one person in particular I remember, who frequently made ME feel dumb (he excelled at spelling, among other things, something I didn't pick up until highschool), who dropped out of highschool, moved in with an aunt in another state (not entirely by choice, I think), and as far as I know could be dead by now... I worry about him, because he didn't have it easy. He was socially awkward, not because he couldn't figure out the rules, but because the rules are so _stupid_ he couldn't figure out _why_ they were the rules.

So no, I don't think it's OK to say "you're smart you don't have to be nice", but it's also obviously, to me, true that there is something inherent in the experience of being "gifted" that makes social interactions, social niceties, especially in childhood and adolescence but potentially throughout life, particularly difficult. Can we overcome that difficulty? Yea, probably. But it is more difficult.

Someone for whom social interaction comes easily saying to someone for whom it doesn't that it's nothing, they should just do it, there's nothing stopping them but willfullness, is like someone with an inherent math ability telling someone with a math block that calculus is easy, they should just do it, there's nothing stopping them. Social intelligence is a different type of intelligence, and that skillset can be learned by almost everyone, and I agree it should be valued, but it doesn't come equally easily to all of us. We're not all natural ambassadors, just like we're not all natural physicists. Everyone, however, can learn some basic social niceties and some basic physics, and probably should. What's so wrong with that?


----------



## Bad Mama Jama (May 29, 2005)

:


----------



## Arwyn (Sep 9, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *girlie_librarian*







:

Ok, maybe I'm only saying this because it's 12:32 AM and I really, really shoulda been in bed hours ago, but I LOVE that smilie! I could just sit here watching it for hours. Well, minutes, anyway.


----------



## Daffodil (Aug 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jlpumkin*
And I also think it's key for parents to note that it is those that were once labelled as "gifted" themselves that are the most opposed - or so it seems.

It does seem that there are several posters who were labelled gifted and who felt it was damaging. I'll contribute my point of view as someone who was labelled gifted and didn't find it damaging. The gifted program I was in for 4th - 6th grade (separate all-gifted class) wasn't perfect, but it was better than regular classes. (I think many of the things that made it better are things that could be applied to any class - but that's a whole different discussion.) I guess I was lucky, because no adult ever said or implied to me that I had greater potential than anyone else, or that I was expected to do anything special with my life. (My "gifted" status was barely discussed with me by parents and teachers. It wasn't until I was in high school that I found out I had had an IQ test, and saw the score.)

Would my life have been substantially different if I hadn't gotten the gifted label? Probably not. Is knowing I'm "officially" gifted important or useful to me? I'm not sure. I feel pretty confident that my daughter would be considered gifted, too. Is it important to know that? If I were sending her to school, I think it would be, because I think a gifted program might be likely to suck less than regular school classes. (Sure, I think all kids deserve a good education, not just gifted kids - but I wouldn't go so far as to deny my kid a better school experience just because it's not available to everyone.) But I don't want to send her to school, so I don't know . . .

Here's a question for the people who were identified as gifted, and don't like the label. You know you meet the criteria for giftedness. Some of you have kids who you know would also. Would you really rather not even know that? Do you think it would be better if you didn't even realize that this discussion was about kids like you and yours? Why or why not?


----------



## lasciate (May 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Daffodil*
I guess I was lucky, because no adult ever said or implied to me that I had greater potential than anyone else, or that I was expected to do anything special with my life. (My "gifted" status was barely discussed with me by parents and teachers. It wasn't until I was in high school that I found out I had had an IQ test, and saw the score.)

You were lucky.

I'd been told by teachers ever since I skipped a grade that I was smart and gifted. That I could do or be anything in the world, I had no limits. What good did that do me? It paralyzed me with fear. I wasn't better at any one thing, I was good at everything. I didn't know how to choose, and the people who were supposed to help me decide kept telling me to go with my talents and interests. They didn't understand that they were making things worse for me, not better.

My parents are still pissed at my teachers for how they handled things. Apparently there were numerous afterschool meetings about me within a week after I started school (explains why all the teachers, even the ones I didn't have, knew my name - I had thought they knew everyone's name!) and my parents only had one thing to say - don't tell her she's different. Don't tell her she's smarter. And yet, they did. I knew my IQ had been tested, but I never did find out the score so I told people my score was 198. I'd been told I was so smart so I figured that was a good enough guess.

I was put in an 'academically talented' program from grades 5 to 8. I had to change schools away from all my friends to do this, and I didn't want to but my parents talked me into it. I had already skipped one grade and the teachers didn't know what else to do with me. I agreed because my parents told me I could change my mind and come back to my old school after 1 year. They lied, but they were desperate and thought this program would help me.

Unfortunately, it was too late. My grade 4 teacher was a horrid shrew who would yell at slower students and hold me up as an example to them, saying I was done all my work so why weren't they? I began to learn to 'dumb down' my work and to take as much time as I could doing it. I stopped caring about grades and lost respect for my teacher and teachers in general (unfair yes, but I was only 9).

Even in the AcTal program I didn't fit in. I could do work faster and more accurately than most of the class, but I had already lost motivation. I began not doing homework assignments but still acing tests, so my grades were spotty but it didn't seem to matter. I remember arguing with my teacher in grade 5 or 6 (we had the same teacher both years, so I don't remember exactly when it was) that not everyone could have an education, because school cost money. She told me I was wrong because everyone has the right to an education, and I told her that that wasn't the same thing - that because school cost money, people who could not afford it did not have access to that same education. She greatly disliked me after that, and my opinion of her plummeted.

In an effort to motivate me, I had teachers (mine and others at the same school) as well as the principal tell me that I could do better work and I was just being lazy. That I had a lot of potential and I should use it because it was a shame to waste it. My grade 8 teacher would actually yell until his face turned red and a vein pulsed in his forehead about how I was wasting my potential and there were so many kids who aren't capable of half of what I could do but they tried so much harder and here I was lazing about. How I could do or be anything I wanted and here I was choosing not to do or be anything. By that time I had figured that there wasn't a chance in hell of them not passing me so I had stopped all classwork completely. My teacher thought maybe others in the class were distracting me (ha! I had no friends in this class, despite being stuck with the same kids for 4 years) so my desk was moved out into the hall for months. I actually liked that, but got moved back into the classroom when it was clear I wasn't doing more work when I was alone.

My high school career was filled with teachers who 'heard about me' and tried their damnedest to get me in their classes and make me motivated to do all the wonderful things I could do if I only tried. All of them failed. It's not their fault really, I did love being in some of their classes but it was just too late. I had good marks overall and graduated with more credits than needed, went on to University and promptly dropped out. Waited two years, tried going back, but dropped out again.

Yeah, that gifted label really helped me a lot







:


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *talk de jour*
No, I just don't think advanced intellectual development is an excuse for acting poorly.

Either there's something else there besides giftedness (like PDD or ODD) or they weren't expected to use proper manners and be polite. I don't buy that being profoundly gifted excuses rudeness in a child emotionally developed enough to know that it's against cultural norms - in fact, I would expect a profoundly gifted child to be HYPER-aware of accepted norms of behavior.

You mistake "excuse" for "cause." Moreover, those same "cultural norms" to which you referred in and of themselves constitute an expectation of proper behavior. Third, awareness of accepted norms of behavior does not equal the ability to conform to those norms.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *glendora*
I suppose I'm just not understanding how these "programs" are supposed to help in a public school.

I think they currently give status-hungry parents of bright-but-not-gifted kids a feeling of prestige and act as pacifiers (however temporary and ineffective) for parents of actual gifted kids. As they currently stand, I don't think that the vast majority of them, particularly the pull-outs, really do much at all. I think it's a mechanism to shut up parents who clamor for their children to be put in the gifted program -- but without the intellectual rigor and academic demands of a program tailored to the needs of gifted students.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ChristaN*
It just occurred to me as I was responding to a bunch of these posts that this thread does seem to be going off track from the original question which was, if I recall correctly, whether labeling some children as gifted was detrimental to both those children and other children.

I do believe that there is some merit in that concern especially in regard to those children who are bright hot housed children who are not dealing with the same issues as the highly gifted. A child who would do fine in a standard classroom environment is not benefited IMO from being pushed to achieve more and being falsely IDed as something he is not. If funds are diverted from other more needy children to serve the non-existent needs of this cohort, then there is fault to be found.

On the other hand, identifying children who are truly very different creatures as what they are and then trying to create programs to meet those different needs is not elitist or harmful IMO unless these children and the other children who are not part of that group are then led to believe that the label confers some prestige or sense that the gifted children are better. The few gifted individuals I have known did not develop a sense of superiority even in GATE/TAG programs. These programs were filled with the aforementioned bright, but not gifted, kids and they still didn't fit in. They still felt that there was something askew and most of them came to the ultimate conclusion that something was wrong -- not with the situation, but with themselves.

Well put.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *griffin2004*
So, why isn't "profoundly gifted" referred to as the more accurate "profoundly burdened"? Oh wait, that has a negative connotation, doesn't it? Just like if you're not "gifted and talented" then you're...what..."not gifted and untalented"?

In some ways, for some people, I think it can be a profound burden. I don't know if you read the whole thread -- and who could blame you if you hadn't? -- but earlier, I expressed my wish that "gifted" could be replaced with something that smacked far less of élitism and privilege, like "asynchronous development," or some such term. I agree that "profoundly burdened" has a negative connotation, but the profound advantage that that term would confer would be, again, to remove some of the cachet from the category. Heck, you can call it "Fred" for all I care.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bri276*
I don't confuse the two. Trust me. However, it was ironic, and a little suspicious. The error wasn't something like an apostrophe, which I wouldn't think twice about. Typos are nothing. Basic use of the English language is another- yet we all make mistakes, even profoundly gifted people. I completely understand that.

Are you serious??? I can't believe people here think it is okay to question somebody who states that they have been ID'ed as profoundly gifted, especially because they apparently made a grammatical error. Nobody who has labelled their child as gifted has been directly challenged, and I bet everyone would freak if someone were!


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lasciate*
You were lucky.

I'd been told by teachers ever since I skipped a grade that I was smart and gifted. That I could do or be anything in the world, I had no limits. What good did that do me? It paralyzed me with fear...

I can't say that my experience with being labeled as gifted was wonderful and I did share some of the same problems that you described in your post -- there were so many possibilities that I developed no direction, things were so easy that I never developed any study habits, I felt like an oddball and the other kids seemed to feel the same way...

However, I feel that those issues were more inherent to who I was/am than related to my teachers making me feel that way. Yes, I could have been much better served if someone had helped me learn how to work and not coast b/c I wanted to good grades and was terrified of trying something outside of the box b/c it might not get the A. Yes, I would have been better served if someone had helped me sort through all of the possibilities and figure out what I wanted to do with my life before I was in my 30s. Yes, I would have been a much happier teen (I hope) had I not felt like some strange being who was incomprehensible and therefore likely intrinsically flawed.

Again, however, I don't think that completely "mainstreaming" me into college prep classes rather than AP or not offering GATE programs or never labeling would have solved any of these problems. Doing it _better_ is what I am looking for. We have dds enrolled at a charter school for next year that offers flexible grouping, personalized educational plans for _all_ students and subject acceleration. Helping dd take risks in her school work was a major goal of mine last year. Her teacher worked with me to make that happen and it has been good for her in all aspects of her life. Subject accelerating her is vital, IMO, to helping her learn to work for what she wants. If the work is consistently so easy that she can do it with her mind turned off, she will develop exactly the problem you describe -- being so paralyzed with fear of failure b/c she has never experienced it that she never does do anything with her life.


----------



## dallaschildren (Jun 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *griffin2004*
But the label and common usage of "gifted" in the education system reeks of elitism and superiority that serves only to segregate children and disserve all of them in the process.

For many years we have been told by various educators and neurologists that DS # 1 is "gifted". I have struggled with what this means exactly. Is their a reputable test out there to confirm their theory? Who makes up these intelligence tests? When he turned 4 and went into pre-school, I began to investigate our public school system as well as private schools in the area in preparation for kindergarten. In addition to discovering that the school system in our area is subpar for all children IMO, I found that what little "gifted" programs were offered, existed only at a select few magnet schools and that the tuition to attend them is outrageous. In my experience in our area, griffin2004 is right on. By setting up programs that address a gifted child's needs, and then making them unattainable to the majority of the population by virtue of economic status, is wrong. If you can't afford it, then your child is shortchanged. The system sucks.

DC


----------



## talk de jour (Apr 21, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Arwyn*
I do think it's wrong BOTH to say "hey, you're intellectually gifted, you don't have to be a nice person" AND "if you're not a nice person, you're just choosing to be a bastard and can get away with it because you're intellectually gifted." I didn't get along with most of my peers until, well, maybe adulthood. I DID find that I COULD get along with some people (the fellow freaks, mostly - those of us who valued creative thinking whether or not we were labelled "gifted". didn't actually get along with most of the GATErs - they were too focused on getting the grade), and that it was worth it to learn to do it, round about adolescence.

Most of the really, really smart kids I knew (and I did know a few) _didn't_ get along well with the other kids. Or me, for that matter, although we could relate, being freaks. There's one person in particular I remember, who frequently made ME feel dumb (he excelled at spelling, among other things, something I didn't pick up until highschool), who dropped out of highschool, moved in with an aunt in another state (not entirely by choice, I think), and as far as I know could be dead by now... I worry about him, because he didn't have it easy. He was socially awkward, not because he couldn't figure out the rules, but because the rules are so _stupid_ he couldn't figure out _why_ they were the rules.

So no, I don't think it's OK to say "you're smart you don't have to be nice", but it's also obviously, to me, true that there is something inherent in the experience of being "gifted" that makes social interactions, social niceties, especially in childhood and adolescence but potentially throughout life, particularly difficult. Can we overcome that difficulty? Yea, probably. But it is more difficult.

Someone for whom social interaction comes easily saying to someone for whom it doesn't that it's nothing, they should just do it, there's nothing stopping them but willfullness, is like someone with an inherent math ability telling someone with a math block that calculus is easy, they should just do it, there's nothing stopping them. Social intelligence is a different type of intelligence, and that skillset can be learned by almost everyone, and I agree it should be valued, but it doesn't come equally easily to all of us. We're not all natural ambassadors, just like we're not all natural physicists. Everyone, however, can learn some basic social niceties and some basic physics, and probably should. What's so wrong with that?

See, I hate random social interaction. I really do. I work in a retail job where I have to make nice with customers and do high-pressure selling, and I HATE it. Part of that is because I feel what I do is unethical, but it's also just all the fake social interaction, if that makes sense.

I'm sure most gifted kids feel the same way. I'm not saying that being a little sh*t is willful on the part of 90% of gifted kids who act that way. Usually it's an issue of being expected to deal with difficult social situations earlier than usual because they have the intellectual maturity of a kid who COULD emotionally deal with those social situations. Gifted kids often are MORE emotionally immature than "average"







: kids. A lot of it is acting out. Some of it is comorbid factors (ODD, PDD, and the like.)

And sometimes it really is just plain being a brat.







Gifted kids can be brats just like regular kids. But the "shy" or "eccentric" label that many get doesn't have to do with being a _brat_. It has to do with acting, speaking, and thinking differently than their peers.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lasciate*
Yeah, that gifted label really helped me a lot







:

Do you think that your experience would have been substantially different if you weren't labled? You still would have worked faster and more accurately than other students. Your teachers would have still held you up as an example. Was it BEING gifted or being LABLED gifted that was really the problem?

-Angela


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Daffodil*

Here's a question for the people who were identified as gifted, and don't like the label. You know you meet the criteria for giftedness. Some of you have kids who you know would also. Would you really rather not even know that? Do you think it would be better if you didn't even realize that this discussion was about kids like you and yours? Why or why not?

I think I could have really benefited from homeschooling, honestly, since I think it's inevitable that anyone who goes through the school system will be labeled to a certain extent and for me this did more harm than good.

However, I think that it's not a question of not "knowing" something about ourselves, as you put it, but of the way we categorize people and sort them into groups based on a few characteristics rather than appreciating them as individuals, as whole people. I came to feel rather defined by my "giftedness" as a child and I would really prefer not to have defined myself that way. It was a big stumbling block when I reached an age at which that definition was no longer relevant.


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lasciate*
I'd been told by teachers ever since I skipped a grade that I was smart and gifted. That I could do or be anything in the world, I had no limits. What good did that do me? It paralyzed me with fear. I wasn't better at any one thing, I was good at everything. I didn't know how to choose, and the people who were supposed to help me decide kept telling me to go with my talents and interests. They didn't understand that they were making things worse for me, not better.

Since about 1.5, people DD1 one meets -- she goes out of her way to do so if they're doing something that looks interesting -- end up telling her she's "smart" after about a minute's conversation. Since she's big for her age, I thought it might happen less often over time, but instead the opposite has occurred. I wish it was otherwise, but there's nothing I can or should do to manage her innocuous interactions with people. We'd planned on homeschooling anyway, but this is one of the reasons we don't want her in school. I think grades are harmful. Likewise holding one child up as an example, either good or bad, is harmful. Pressure to be successful at school rather than to commit to deep thought and hard work. BTDT. DD1 knows she's "smart;" how could she not? Yet she doesn't hear that she's "better." I think that's a big difference. She can do some things better than others and this is an aspect of who she is, but that's not a reflection of her _worth_ as a person.

I'm sorry you had such a bad experiece; it sounds like it was a bad school.


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lasciate*

I'd been told by teachers ever since I skipped a grade that I was smart and gifted. That I could do or be anything in the world, I had no limits. What good did that do me? It paralyzed me with fear. I wasn't better at any one thing, I was good at everything. I didn't know how to choose, and the people who were supposed to help me decide kept telling me to go with my talents and interests. They didn't understand that they were making things worse for me, not better.


Yes, yes, yes! I could have written this word for freaking word. And it's so silly that adults would get so carried away as to tell a child things like this, because they aren't accurate. EVERYONE has limits, EVERYONE. It is really not doing anyone a favor to pretend otherwise.

The other thing was that I had some really specific strengths - namely, learning things very quickly. For instance, I begged for piano lessons when I was in kindergarten and progressed quickly (though not prodigiously), playing pieces from the Anna Magdalena Bach notebook by 2nd grade, with a minimum of practice and attention. I continued to progress easily in piano until I got to the REALLY hard pieces - Chopin Ballades, etc. - and then I suddenly was overwhelmed. My facility for quickly mastering pieces all at once without laboriously learning them part by part was not helpful when I reached the point where that wasn't possible. And then I found I had developed NO perserverance, NO skills for breaking things up and making them manageable, to help me. So I stalled, panicked, crashed and burned. And felt like a fraud.

So why didn't I just ask my piano teacher for help? Well, because she expected me to be as brilliant at the piano as my earlier successes would indicate, and couldn't help but express annoyance and disbelief that I seemed to hit a wall at some point.

This happened with everything I was supposedly talented at. See my GRE/grad school example earlier.

It turns out I had some major deficits in planning actions. I had always worked so quickly that I didn't have to reflect on how I did something or learned something. Now as an adult I have no freaking idea how to do something that doesn't come quickly and easily to me. And the talents which were important in my life as a child, which brought me pleasure and positive feedback from the world - playing the piano, reading big books, writing stories, making up elaborate games - are positively superfluous as an adult. They still bring me pleasure but I don't have much time to devote to them, other things are much more important to me, and I certainly don't get a lot of positive feedback from the world about them. But I do get a lot of NEGATIVE feedback for the things that I have difficulty with - cleaning my house, cooking, paying my bills.

This is not wahh wahh poor me, because I feel very fortunate in my life. BUT my life is not what it was "supposed" to be. I am GLAD of that now - truly! - but I do feel that I have a warped sense of myself and what I "should" be doing, even now, which hobbles me in living the kind of life that *I* want to lead. And I very much wish that the adults in my life had refrained from talking about how much potential I had. It is really too much for a child, and it leads to expectations that are probably impossible to meet. A certain sense of disillusionment is inevitable for those who have been repeatedly labeled as gifted as children, which isn't necessarily devastating, but it's something to consider for parents of "gifted" children.


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NoHiddenFees*
Since about 1.5, people DD1 one meets -- she goes out of her way to do so if they're doing something that looks interesting -- end up telling her she's "smart" after about a minute's conversation. Since she's big for her age, I thought it might happen less often over time, but instead the opposite has occurred. I wish it was otherwise, but there's nothing I can or should do to manage her innocuous interactions with people. We'd planned on homeschooling anyway, but this is one of the reasons we don't want her in school. I think grades are harmful. Likewise holding one child up as an example, either good or bad, is harmful. Pressure to be successful at school rather than to commit to deep thought and hard work. BTDT. DD1 knows she's "smart;" how could she not? Yet she doesn't hear that she's "better." I think that's a big difference. She can do some things better than others and this is an aspect of who she is, but that's not a reflection of her _worth_ as a person.
.

It sounds like you are taking a good path with your daughter. Yes, just as some kids are always being told how beautiful they are, or how well-behaved, some kids are constantly hearing that they are "smart", and I don't think it's good for kids to hear any of these things frequently. But if they are allowed to spend most of their time in an environment where they are not being compared to others, I believe it will mitigate the effect of these interactions on their developing sense of self.


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

There's an excellent book by Barbara Kerr called Smart Girls that's basically a case study of a group of adult women the author attended a gifted school with. It includes a huge list of factors that, through case studies and biographies, the author determined to contribute to success/fulfillment of smart girls. I was in tears through much it, with not only the "could have beens" but also recognizing that I wasn't so freakish as I'd assumed (and I'm probably "only" HG).


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:

I found that what little "gifted" programs were offered, existed only at a select few magnet schools and that the tuition to attend them is outrageous. In my experience in our area, griffin2004 is right on. By setting up programs that address a gifted child's needs, and then making them unattainable to the majority of the population by virtue of economic status, is wrong. If you can't afford it, then your child is shortchanged. The system sucks.

DC
I couldn't agree more. In our district, one of the largest in the country, you're genuinely screwed if your child is gifted and you're poor.

For one, if your child is profoundly gifted and needs services earlier than the beginning of third grade, as many PG students do, they will provide services...if you get your child tested.

Sounds nice...but guess who pays? And if you don't speak English and don't know whom to call? Good luck.

So if you're poor and your kid is PG, he or she is out of luck for the first three years of his or her educational experience -- the really important foundational years that do a great deal to shape a child's overall perception of school and his or her purpose in it.

Nice.


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Daffodil*
Here's a question for the people who were identified as gifted, and don't like the label. You know you meet the criteria for giftedness. Some of you have kids who you know would also. Would you really rather not even know that? Do you think it would be better if you didn't even realize that this discussion was about kids like you and yours? Why or why not?

I'm sure my daughter meets the criteria for a lot of things... but unless or until knowing this is necessary in order to meet her needs, then I don't see any point in knowing. The only time I considered labeling her as gifted was as a way to get into community college (a gifted IEP is the only way to get in before age 16 in our county), when she expressed an interest in that. Otherwise it's just not been necessary. Our happy unschooling world is full of kids who are way outside typical school norms, so the whole concept of asynchrony falls pretty much flat. Labeling children implies that the problem is in the child, not in the schools, and I don't agree with that.

For the record, school was not a very happy place for me. I did spend two great years in a hippie school with flexible mixed-age grouping where I could delve deeply into a lot of the areas I wanted to learn about (I spent a good bit of time on tea-making and the ERA, as an 8 year old) and I was in various "gifted" and "accelerated" "and enriched" programs, but most of them were just more cr*p... and it's clear to me that my peers were no less bored in school than I was. If schools must exist, I'd rather see them focus on meeting the needs of _all_ students, rather than just those with labels.

Dar


----------



## EVC (Jan 29, 2006)

Quote:

I know of no program where gifted kids get more and better field trips and extras than the regular kids.
We certainly did. And I think that's part of the reason I'm torn over gifted education. Because of my school, I had A LOT of advantages over the kids at disctrict schools. I had opportunities that they couldn't even dream of. And some of them were quite literally life changing (I'm referring specifcally to an exploratory languages class in 4th grade which has led to a life long love of Russian and now a PhD in Slavic Linguistics).

But we had everything at our school! Computers back when they were not common in schools, high tech science labs, "hands on" field trips to explore marine biology and to perform local water testing, yearly trips to Epcot center (to practise language at the country pavilions), free tickets to the opera, guest invitations to local museum openings (and once I remember my art history class was even charged with writing the photo descriptions for the new Walt Wegman exhibit and then got to talk with him at the opening), we even once had a bowling trip with the first violinist of a visting Russian symphony orchestra. Of course, the curriculum was on accedlerated scale and students could tailor it to their interests (if you wanted AP Calculus in 6th grade, you could go for it, if you wanted to focus on language, you could start a third or fourth language in elementary school, etc). Well, I could go on and on and on and on. My point is, the advantage WAS unfair. Sure we were gifted and that could justify the need for additional stimulation, but still....It was NOT fair. Average and even below average kids COULD have benefited from many of the things we had. But they were never given the chance


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*
"Why do we have to do it that way? or Why don't we do it this way." are common types of question in classroom full of gifted kids. They look at the rules, analyze them, see the arbitrariness of them, and either refuse to follow them or offer alternative. This is very common. Sometimes, they just shut down and refuse to follow the rules. It is difficult to be a teacher of a class full of kids like this because you spend a lot of time talking about the rules, particularly if you practice GD and don't punish. It can be frustrating.

I would like to second this, and to say that another problem -- and I'm sorry if this sounds élitist here or snotty -- is that quite often, especially in elementary school, the teachers tend _not_ to be gifted and often tend not to be deeply educated in the subjects they teach. This isn't just random snark, BTW -- I'll be happy to back up my assertions with data if anyone is interested.

Most of the time, for most students, this is never a problem. There's far more to teaching than knowing your subject in depth, especially at the ES level where you're really concentrating on the fundamentals, not on the upper-level functions. What's far more important is to know how to teach those basics and keep your class managed and orderly.

That said, it _is_ a problem for highly (and very highly) gifted students who don't get _why_ the teacher is saying that "there's nothing less than zero," when any negative number (or the teacher's own credit card bill) would be sufficient to prove otherwise, or when she's saying that "only even numbers can be divided by 2" when you know that _any_ number can be divided by 2.

(What's even worse is when the teacher isn't just teaching those simplified concepts for the sake of clarity, but genuinely doesn't know or understand the math beyond that point -- and some of them apparently don't. Again, not random snark: I'll cite more data if you need.)

Exacerbating the problem is when a student points these things out and the teacher gets defensive or angry -- something that the student simply doesn't understand at all, because why wouldn't a teacher (or anyone) want to know the truth? The right answer?

For many gifted students, school is a frustrating and contradictory Alice-in-Wonderland world where things _should_ function one way and _actually_ function another. Teachers should know all the answers -- or at least admit when they don't. Teachers should want to know the truth, should want to be precise, should want to be exact -- but they don't always. And so on. That daily frustration can lead to the exact "shutdown" to which Boongirl referred earlier.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*
"Why do we have to do it that way? or Why don't we do it this way." are common types of question in classroom full of gifted kids.

I get calls too often because my dd will be sitting in her desk and silently crying. When asked what's wrong, she says 'nothing.' But when she gets home all the questions start and I have no clue how to answer her. Her logic is way beyond me and it makes perfect sense. It is how the world could/should work, but in reality, the world is cruel and unfair.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
I would like to second this, and to say that another problem -- and I'm sorry if this sounds élitist here or snotty -- is that quite often, especially in elementary school, the teachers tend _not_ to be gifted and often tend not to be deeply educated in the subjects they teach. This isn't just random snark, BTW -- I'll be happy to back up my assertions with data if anyone is interested.

And so on. That daily frustration can lead to the exact "shutdown" to which Boongirl referred earlier.


I'd like the data, not because I think you're being snarky, but because I'm a teacher (secondary). Also, as I've said before, I began to see the "shutdown" in my dd in Kindergarten.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nora'sMama*
It turns out I had some major deficits in planning actions. I had always worked so quickly that I didn't have to reflect on how I did something or learned something. Now as an adult I have no freaking idea how to do something that doesn't come quickly and easily to me.

And this is EXACTLY why (well one reason







) that I believe very strongly that "gifted" students should be identified and served as such. This is a common issue with children of this type. IMO a good gifted program would address this and help children gain the skills they need.

-Angela


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
I would like to second this, and to say that another problem -- and I'm sorry if this sounds élitist here or snotty -- is that quite often, especially in elementary school, the teachers tend _not_ to be gifted and often tend not to be deeply educated in the subjects they teach. This isn't just random snark, BTW -- I'll be happy to back up my assertions with data if anyone is interested.

I don't have research data on it, but I agree wholeheartedly. I was an "elem. ed" major (well, that wasn't a major as such, but I was in the program) The education program I was in was ranked one of the very best in the state at the time I was in it. There might have been one other teacher that I graduated with to whom I would trust my child's education and emotional well being in a classroom. MAYBE one. And she went into special ed.

-Angela


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:

And this is EXACTLY why (well one reason ) that I believe very strongly that "gifted" students should be identified and served as such. This is a common issue with children of this type. IMO a good gifted program would address this and help children gain the skills they need.
I agree, alegna, that children with this type of learning style should be identified so that their education can be tailored to their needs. I am realizing through this thread how much I HATE the word "gifted" because to me it washes over all the problems that can go along with this type of learning style. It also calls to mind an image of a "gift from God", sent down from heaven, i.e. something you are born with and then responsible for. So it makes it a child's fault if they do not excel. I much prefer "asynchronous development" or "atypical learning style" instead of "gifted".

Think of it this way: if I am Student A and I find out that Student B is "gifted", what does that make me? Not gifted, obviously. What if I find out that Student B learns differently from me and needs a special kind of help? Well, that just makes me...someone who learns in another way! In the second example no one is told by the language used that they should feel superior or inferior - and I think the "gifted" label does just that, gives some kids a gold star and leaves the other kids wondering why they didn't get one. IMO the language adults use to talk to children about themselves is very important, as well as the way in which they talk about children's future potential.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *A&A*
I'd like the data, not because I think you're being snarky, but because I'm a teacher (secondary). Also, as I've said before, I began to see the "shutdown" in my dd in Kindergarten.

Yeah, sure. Here's a link to the government report on education known as "A Nation at Risk." In it, the data about teacher preparation and expertise suggests that the educational system is not staffed by the best and brightest from American colleges. Essentially, people who major in education tend to come from the lowest-quartile group of students as measured on standardized tests such as the SAT, the ACT, and Praxis tests -- lower than phys. ed. majors. Those are the same people who become not only professors of education (a true case of the blind leading the blind) but teachers of our children.

(I wanted to add that although one criticism might stem from the fact that this report dates from the early 80s, its conclusions are still valid because very little has changed in this area.)

That leads me to conclude that teachers are not, as a general rule, gifted. Naturally, some gifted people don't present well on tests. However, I'm speaking of the general population, not a few exceptions. Also, there may be gifted teachers who perform excellently on standardized tests, but again, they are the exception and not the rule.

Secondly, most elementary teachers do not major in a core subject such as English or math or science. They tend to major in education. That means that they have what amounts to a very general background (high school plus general undergraduate requirements) for the core subjects they're going to be teaching.

That leads me to the conclusion that they lack in-depth knowledge of those core subjects.

Again, like I said before, in most cases it simply doesn't matter. Teaching is definitely not rocket science, and there is far more to it than subject-area mastery anyway -- and one could make a very effective argument that an ES teacher who _did_ have an undergraduate (or worse, a graduate) degree in a core subject would be completely overeducated for her job and would likely be unhappy and unfulfilled and not as effective as someone who'd basically trained to teach the crucial fundamentals.

It really is a problem, though, with gifted students, particularly the ones who have through experience come to doubt the "expertise" of the teacher and put the teacher through their own version of an IQ or achievement test before they give the teacher any respect. (To placate Talk De Jour, I am not excusing this behavior nor condoning it.) I've had those students on a number of occasions, and thankfully, I guess I've managed to BS well enough to make them believe I actually knew what I was talking about -- plus, I've gotten to the point where the phrases, "I don't know" and "Let me look it up" do not scare me or make me feel as if I lack authority. That helps. However, some teachers get mightily defensive and hostile toward those students, and it can turn hellish from there. Well, more hellish.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna*
I don't have research data on it, but I agree wholeheartedly. I was an "elem. ed" major (well, that wasn't a major as such, but I was in the program) The education program I was in was ranked one of the very best in the state at the time I was in it. There might have been one other teacher that I graduated with to whom I would trust my child's education and emotional well being in a classroom. MAYBE one. And she went into special ed.

-Angela

Your experience parallels mine. I'm not the genius of the world, BTW, but I was genuinely horrified at what I perceived to be the astounding ignorance not only of many professors (a long tale in and of itself) but of many would-be teachers. I'm not talking "ignorance" as in "Didn't understand that Fibonacci wasn't an Italian chef," but as in "Couldn't make subjects and verbs agree."

Yes, surely there were intelligent people, but unfortunately, they didn't seem to be the norm, at least not in my (well-regarded) program.


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

See, CB, I disagree that one can infer giftedness from SAT scores. I think the whole testing crapshoot is nothing but a scam created by big educational curriculum developers to test on...their curriculum. What if people don't test well, are they stupid? Or, sorry - "average?" No, they don't test well. I didn't test well for my GREs, but I really don't think that shows some sort of internal deficiency. It shows that I didn't pay out the nose for GRE prep classes or care all that much.

I've taken plenty of Master's-level education courses as well, and while I wouldn't say that the teachers-to-be aren't "gifted," I would definitely say I didn't see a lot of creativity or thinking-outside-the-box going on. I think teachers are frequently drawn to the profession because THEY had a positive experience in school and would like to recreate that experience, right down to the gold stars. But then, I guess I don't divide the world of people I meet into intelligent and not-intelligent.

And as usual, I must say that I couldn't agree more with Dar, the Superstar.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flyingspaghettimama*
See, CB, I disagree that one can infer giftedness from SAT scores. I think the whole testing crapshoot is nothing but a scam created by big educational curriculum developers to test on...their curriculum.

Well, the thing is, I don't think you can _necessarily_ infer giftedness either (especially about one person), but when you have a very large group of people who are consistently placing in the lowest quartile in several different tests (including the Praxis test, which -- at least for teachers -- is one of the most absurdly easy tests in the world. It tests on really fundamental knowledge...like _addition_) then I think you can make the reasonable inference that you're not, as a whole, dealing with the most academically advanced or intellectually able.

And to be honest, the large majority of people who are intellectually able and academically advanced would be wasted as teachers because, like I said before, it isn't rocket science.

However, I think one vast improvement would be to eliminate "education" as an undergraduate major altogether. Have prospective teachers actually major in a core subject: English, science, history, mathematics, and _then_ have them take the fundamental coursework they'll need to do well teaching. I think that would help tremendously.

Quote:

What if people don't test well, are they stupid? Or, sorry - "average?" No, they don't test well. I didn't test well for my GREs, but I really don't think that shows some sort of internal deficiency. It shows that I didn't pay out the nose for GRE prep classes or care all that much.

I did deal with that in my post above, or I thought I did: "Naturally, some gifted people don't present well on tests. However, I'm speaking of the general population, not a few exceptions. Also, there may be gifted teachers who perform excellently on standardized tests, but again, they are the exception and not the rule."


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
And to be honest, the large majority of people who are intellectually able and academically advanced *would be wasted as teachers* because, like I said before, it isn't rocket science.



I have to disagree with this, at least personally. I scored high on most tests (29 on the ACT, for example.) I've been a teacher for over a decade, and it's not a "wasted" career choice for me. Yes, I know some bad teachers, but I also know a lot of really good, smart, dedicated ones.

I haven't been impressed with most of my dd's elementary teachers, though. The one teacher who impressed me the most was actually the teacher's assistant.


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*
I know of no program where gifted kids get more and better field trips and extras than the regular kids.

My dd's middle school certainly does. She has at least twice monthly trips that are not offered to the other students.

This included a trip to New York to museums and theater.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *A&A*
I have to disagree with this, at least personally. I scored high on most tests (29 on the ACT, for example.) I've been a teacher for over a decade, and it's not a "wasted" career choice for me. Yes, I know some bad teachers, but I also know a lot of really good, smart, dedicated ones.

I haven't been impressed with most of my dd's elementary teachers, though. The one teacher who impressed me the most was actually the teacher's assistant.

But that's why I said "most." Almost nothing is "all." FWIW, I have quite good academic credentials and scores myself and I don't consider teaching a "wasted" career for me either -- but on the other hand, I've really sought to teach courses which actually used my knowledge base (I'm a HS teacher). I think teaching ES would be a completely different ballgame using a completely different set of skills...not necessarily the ones I majored in. I wish _all_ teachers were smart and dedicated. Life would be good.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

I thought that elem ed classwork was a total waste of time. It was 100% common sense to me. HOWEVER, sadly I believe that it is needed for many teachers. They really do need all that time learning how kids learn and how to manage a classroom. Because even after all that, they still weren't very good at it. But honestly, this is part of throwing out the whole system and starting over I think.

ah and the ignorance of those who teach teachers....







: The prof. who taught how to teach math and science.... my oh my. He was quite convinced that if one did not memorize all the basic facts (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division) that one could NEVER be successful in higher math.... I kindly informed him that he was sadly mistaken and sorely uneducated on mathematics theory.







: (yes, in front of the rest of the class...)

-Angela


----------



## griffin2004 (Sep 25, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*

Quote:


Originally Posted by *griffin2004*
But the label and common usage of "gifted" in the education system reeks of elitism and superiority that serves only to segregate children and disserve all of them in the process.

I can see the point about the label of gifted being elitist, but I disagree that it serves a disservice to all children. Can you please clarify how you believe this to be so?

From what the majority of "gifted" people and parents of "gifted" children have said here, the G&T school programs do not meet the unique learning needs of this population. The programs are more geared to "really bright" kids but not necessarily "gifted" in the clinical sense of the word, and serve in large part to satisfy parents that Johnnie and Sally really are a cut above the great unwashed.

So, it would seem that in large part (allowing for exceptions of course) the money being diverted away from the average kids' (that big chunk of the bell curve in the center) programs not only 1) detracts from the quality of the average kids' education, but 2) doesn't even serve the "gifted" population as it needs to be served. It's like a reverse panacea, in other words, a remedy for NO ills. I see G&T programs in large part as window dressing so school districts can trot out their little programs and we can all pat ourselves on the back at what brilliant (and therefore valued and worthwhile) these kids are that we created. All kids are disserved in the process.

The first time I hear a parent say that they wish their child was not "gifted" or that they are glad their child isn't (given the accompanying burdens many have described here) will be the first time I entertain the notion that G&T programs aren't primarily parental ego-stroking devices. And ego-stroke all day if that's indicated, but not at the expense of diverting limited funds away from the average kids (the majority, which includes my own child) into programs that don't properly serve the target population.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Well, here the g/t programs aren't really using any more money than the regular classrooms get. There aren't any more field trips paid for by the district. There aren't pull-out programs with extra teachers. They don't get special facilities.

-Angela


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna*
The prof. who taught how to teach math and science.... my oh my. He was quite convinced that if one did not memorize all the basic facts (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division) that one could NEVER be successful in higher math....

My DH, the prototypical math nerd, who leaves papers covered with abstruse equations EVERYWHERE, would find that highly amusing. He can't do arithmetic for crap. It's not the same kind of thought process as that used for higher math (which I can't do for crap, although I can do arithmetic pretty well in my head).

IMO the perfect teacher training would start with Master's-level knowledge of an academic subject and proceed to child development (including the study of asynchronous, delayed, and accelerated development) and cognitive science. Pedagogical theory would be a serious inquiry into the conditions that facilitate learning for different types of children, including questioning the institutional model of public schooling. A thorough history of formal education from the Roman Empire onwards would be taught, so that teachers can situate their task historically and culturally. As someone else said (boongirl?), I can dream...







(I know, I'm a







)

So when are we scheduled to throw the whole system out and start over?









I'd like to be there to help with the throwing out and also with the rebuilding.


----------



## glendora (Jan 24, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
...including the Praxis test, which -- at least for teachers -- is one of the most absurdly easy tests in the world. It tests on really fundamental knowledge...like _addition_) then I think you can make the reasonable inference that you're not, as a whole, dealing with the most academically advanced or intellectually able.

See, this is just my issue--standardized tests were _meant_ to identify the _lowest_ scores. The first IQ test was created to shuffle (French) kids into normal classes or special ed. NOT to determine a child's level of "giftedness."


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nora'sMama*
IMO the perfect teacher training would start with Master's-level knowledge of an academic subject and proceed to child development (including the study of asynchronous, delayed, and accelerated development) and cognitive science. Pedagogical theory would be a serious inquiry into the conditions that facilitate learning for different types of children, including questioning the institutional model of public schooling. A thorough history of formal education from the Roman Empire onwards would be taught, so that teachers can situate their task historically and culturally. As someone else said (boongirl?), I can dream...







(I know, I'm a







)

Sounds good to me! But how many people will be willing to go through that and what would we have to pay them? Back to seriously redesigning the whole shebang.

-Angela


----------



## EVC (Jan 29, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna*
Well, here the g/t programs aren't really using any more money than the regular classrooms get. There aren't any more field trips paid for by the district. There aren't pull-out programs with extra teachers. They don't get special facilities.

-Angela

It depends on the district then, because our gifted school was entirely funded by taxpayers' money, so I can see why some people would be upset....Why should they pay to give kids privileges and a better education when their own kids aren't given the same? It is a very unequal situation and frankly, if I were the parent of a non-gifted child in the district, I would be quite angry.


----------



## ihathi (Mar 13, 2006)

This whole thread reminds me why I got into Montessori education...

I wholeheartedly believe we must aim to meet _every_ child's individual needs and challenge _every_ child's individual level of understanding. This is as much true for the most academically talented as the most academically challenged.

When you talk about overhauling the whole system, I think it's important to remember that there are already some well-established schools that could serve as models on how to do so...


----------



## jkpmomtoboys (Jun 1, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *griffin2004*
The first time I hear a parent say that they wish their child was not "gifted" or that they are glad their child isn't (given the accompanying burdens many have described here) will be the first time I entertain the notion that G&T programs aren't primarily parental ego-stroking devices.

You got it. I wish my kid wasn't gifted. Why? Because with his gifted nature comes a whole host of other, related problems. Intensity, extreme sensitivity. He used to have panic attacks in preschool. And most, if not all, of it is related to giftedness.

I have a friend with a profoundly gifted son. He has pre-Turrette's (sp?) related to his giftedness. She wishes he wasn't gifted either. They are looking into a gifted school run by the school district near Sacramento so he can be with teachers and kids who understand his issues.

So be snarky all you want but there are valid needs in this group not always served by standard schooling.


----------



## EVC (Jan 29, 2006)

Quote:

Well, here the g/t programs aren't really using any more money than the regular classrooms get. There aren't any more field trips paid for by the district. There aren't pull-out programs with extra teachers. They don't get special facilities.
Well, most of these are not gifted schools per se, but many do serve gifted kids. As I understand (by the article's title "The Public Elites"), they are all public schools funded through taxpayers' dollars, yet are selective in their admissions process. I think that is what most bugs people about the issue.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12551652/site/newsweek/

Quote:


Benjamin Franklin Senior H.S., NEW ORLEANS:
A rigorous high school with competitive admission.

Bergen County Academies, HACKENSACK, N.J.:
Seven subschools specializing in everything from finance to visual arts.

Bronx Science H.S. NEW YORK, NY:
Notable alumni include: William Safire, E.L. Doctorow and Jon Favreau

Gretchen Whitney H.S., CERRITOS, CALIF.:
A comprehensive school for high performers.

High Technology H.S., LINCROFT, N.J.:
A pre-engineering academy with topnotch humanities.

Hunter College H.S., NEW YORK, N.Y.:
Part of the City University of New York system.

Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy, AURORA, ILL.:
A residential school near Chicago that enrolls 10th through 12th graders.

Louisiana School for Math, Science and the Arts, NATCHITOCHES, LA.:
A residential high school with competitive admissions.

Maggie L. Walker Governor's School for Govt. and Intl. Studies, RICHMOND, VA.:
Students selected on aptitude and interest in political science.

North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics, DURHAM, N.C.:
Students selected from all counties, which mixes rural and urban kids.

Northside College Preparatory H.S., CHICAGO, ILL.:
Students picked by grades and test scores.

Northwood H.S., IRVINE, CALIF.:
A humanities core program that focuses on English and history.

Oklahoma School of Science and Mathematics, OKLAHOMA CITY:
Rigorous two-year boarding school that takes many rural kids.

Pacific Collegiate School, SANTA CRUZ, CALIF.:
Emphasizes college prep and fine arts.

Pine View School for the Gifted, OSPREY, FLA.:
Sarasota County's main school for gifted kids.

South Carolina Governor's School for Science and Mathematics, HARTSVILLE, S.C.:
Very rigorous school where students do independent research.

Stuyvesant H.S., NEW YORK, N.Y.:
Takes students from all over the city; specializes in science.

Texas Academy of Mathematics and Science, DENTON, TEXAS:
This highly selective two-year school offers a real college curriculum.

Thomas Jefferson H.S. for Science and Technology, ALEXANDRIA, VA.:
Draws high-performing students from northern Virginia.

Union County Magnet H.S., SCOTCH PLAINS, N.J.:
Focus is on science, math and technology.

Univ. H.S., TUCSON, ARIZ.:
A small, autonomous school located within Rincon High School.

Univ. Laboratory H.S., URBANA, ILL.:
A five-year high school partnered with the University of Illinois.


----------



## griffin2004 (Sep 25, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jkpmomtoboys*
You got it. I wish my kid wasn't gifted. Why? Because with his gifted nature comes a whole host of other, related problems. Intensity, extreme sensitivity. He used to have panic attacks in preschool. And most, if not all, of it is related to giftedness.

I have a friend with a profoundly gifted son. He has pre-Turrette's (sp?) related to his giftedness. She wishes he wasn't gifted either. They are looking into a gifted school run by the school district near Sacramento so he can be with teachers and kids who understand his issues.

Thank you for your candor. It's refreshing.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jkpmomtoboys*
So be snarky all you want but there are valid needs in this group not always served by standard schooling.

It was not my intent to be snarky; I apologize if I came across as such. I absolutely agree with what you say. Other than the opinions expressed here, I don't see a groundswell of parents of "gifted" children demanding that the G&T programs that are *supposed* to be addressing their needs actually do so. Maybe it's there; I could easily be wrong and am open to being corrected.

The point I'll make just one more time (I promise) is that G&T programs in their current incarnation (again, allowing for the rare exception) don't serve their target population and in the process disserve the "average" kids. For the "really bright" kids it's a badge, for the "gifted" kids it typically doesn't address their unique needs and learning styles (at least based on the frustrations expressed here), and for the "average" kids it creates a value-infused heirarchy, diverts precious resources, and creates a tiered educational system where "thems thats got shall get; them thats not shall lose."


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna*
Sounds good to me! But how many people will be willing to go through that and what would we have to pay them?


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EVC*
Well, most of these are not gifted schools per se, but many do serve gifted kids. As I understand (by the article's title "The Public Elites"), they are all public schools funded through taxpayers' dollars, yet are selective in their admissions process. I think that is what most bugs people about the issue.


So should there be no special programs? What about arts high schools? What about other special interest schools? Here in Houston we have a HUGE magnet school program. There are magnets in just about anything you can think of. They all have entrance requirements of some sort (for example at the HS level the arts schools have auditions, at elem it might just be an indicated interest in the topic- computers, math etc) The "gifted" schools are actually a type of magnet school.

-Angela


----------



## EVC (Jan 29, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna*
So should there be no special programs? What about arts high schools? What about other special interest schools? Here in Houston we have a HUGE magnet school program. There are magnets in just about anything you can think of. They all have entrance requirements of some sort (for example at the HS level the arts schools have auditions, at elem it might just be an indicated interest in the topic- computers, math etc) The "gifted" schools are actually a type of magnet school.

-Angela

Honestly, I don't know what the answer is. I wish there were appropriate educational opportunities for children of all levels/abilities/talents/interests. I can't say that such schools shouldn't exist as that would make me a hypocrite (my school is on that list and I am very grateful for the opportunities I had). But I certainly understand people's frustration and even anger because it often comes off like "the rich get richer" at the expense of everyone else.


----------



## frontierpsych (Jun 11, 2006)

Okay, I didn't read the replies (naughty me) but I thought I'd give my quick two cents.

As a child who was deemed gifted, I always felt like I had to live up to that expectation. Just like when you always tell a girl how pretty she is she grows up feeling like she always has to be pretty. Just like when you describe a little boy as mean he will live up to that. I can't say it's positive or negative, only that it's important to make sure gifted children know it's okay to be wrong sometimes. I grew up very defensive, and I always *had* to be right. Labels can be stronger than we realize.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

I will say that the magnet school program here is a move in the right direction. It's a nice idea. Does it work as well as it should? Of course not. But it does allow special programs in a number of areas of interest.

-Angela


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*
Profoundly Gifted 180+ Fewer than 1:1 million

This is what I generally used in my teaching as a guide. It was helpful to point out to parents. I can probably come up with, at best, a half a dozen profoundly gifted people that I have met in my lifetime. And, they have all had major communication and social problems.

So, for those who have been saying that their remarks are really only true of "profoundly gifted" children... according to this ratio, there are fewer than 300 profoundly gifted people in the United States. According to the latest census, about 70 million US residents are under age 17, which would mean fewer than 70 profoundly gifted children. Sixty or so kids, total. So if most of what people are saying here truly only applies to these 60 or so kids, then is it really worth 20-odd pages? Would we have a 23-page thread about achalasia, for example? It's incidence in children is about the same as the incidence of profound giftedness, if not slightly higher, and it certainly affects every aspect of a child's life. How many kids with achalasia do you know?

Dar


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

I don't think that all issues and needs that apply to gifted students only apply to the profoundly gifted at all.

The profoundly gifted are a horse of a different color, yes. But I think that many "gifted" children need the label to be successful in school.

-Angela


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna*
I don't think that all issues and needs that apply to gifted students only apply to the profoundly gifted at all.

Hmm.. a lot of what was said earlier in the thread seemed to imply that the less-gifted kids would be fine with the current system, and excel... it was just those profoundly gifted ones who had all sorts of problems. Here's one by CB, from post 62:

Quote:

Mild giftedness really does get those positive accolades and shiny predictions because a child with mild giftedness generally does well in school -- she's challenged, but not too much, and finds school interesting and rewarding, because to her, it is. That child will be rewarded by teachers because she's so smart (and tends to be well-behaved, because she's found that those two qualities are mutually reinforcing), and will indeed tend to get bright predictions of future glory.

That's not profound giftedness. Not at all.
dar


----------



## orca (Jun 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
Essentially, people who major in education tend to come from the lowest-quartile group of students as measured on standardized tests such as the SAT, the ACT, and Praxis tests -- lower than phys. ed. majors. Those are the same people who become not only professors of education (a true case of the blind leading the blind) but teachers of our children.

Again, like I said before, in most cases it simply doesn't matter. Teaching is definitely not rocket science, and there is far more to it than subject-area mastery anyway -- and one could make a very effective argument that an ES teacher who _did_ have an undergraduate (or worse, a graduate) degree in a core subject would be completely overeducated for her job and would likely be unhappy and unfulfilled and not as effective as someone who'd basically trained to teach the crucial fundamentals.

.

I have a Canadian perspective on this, but I think this issue is two fold. For one, teachers are not paid a salary that is comparable to one that they would receive in the corporate sector when the actual amount of daily effort, time spent on classroom related work (outside the classroom) and post secondary education is factored in. This drives away the candidates who may be excellent teachers, but demand a prestigious salary. Secondly, the daily grind of teaching, especially in the primary years, is monotonous and repetitious by nature. I suspect that the high rate of teacher drop out in the first five years may be due to those "go getters" who could not find satisfaction at the end of the day. However, there are still many of us in this profession who are dedicated, highly educated and humble enough to admit we don't know all the answers!

It might be a great new thread to talk about what would make a teacher's education worthwhile&#8230;


----------



## orca (Jun 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*
these types of programs help parents to feel that their children are at least having some of their needs met. But, they also help the children to feel a sense of belonging. I used to get that all the time from children who were new to the program. All of a sudden, they are among like-minded peers. It can be a very uplifting experience for them and often an experience that makes a huge difference in their attitude towards education.


I would only add to the discussion that our board has several "gifted" schools where students who are tested in Grade three and identified as such are bussed to their closest school to receive instruction for their Junior years in a core gifted program, regardless of the family's economic status (but that's Canada for you&#8230 The school I spent the past two years at before my maternity leave also has a small program for the "local" kids, but by far the school is made up entirely of gifted children.

The only problem at this school was the inherent watering down of the program by parents who insist their child is gifted and refuse to accept the school boards testing. These parents seek out private assessment for a substantial fee and voila! Guess who just tested as gifted?


----------



## orca (Jun 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*
But, they are still children and their experience of the world is still limited and they still have much in the way of maturing to do, both physically and socially. And, they often have well-definied bs detectors and hate forced social interaction. Especially as they approach the tween and teen years, they use their bs radar all the time and question the logic, or lack of, in everything. "Why do we have to do it that way? or Why don't we do it this way." are common types of question in classroom full of gifted kids. They look at the rules, analyze them, see the arbitrariness of them, and either refuse to follow them or offer alternative. This is very common. Sometimes, they just shut down and refuse to follow the rules. It is difficult to be a teacher of a class full of kids like this because you spend a lot of time talking about the rules, particularly if you practice GD and don't punish. It can be frustrating.


----------



## orca (Jun 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nora'sMama*
And then I found I had developed NO perserverance, NO skills for breaking things up and making them manageable, to help me. So I stalled, panicked, crashed and burned. And felt like a fraud.

So why didn't I just ask my piano teacher for help? Well, because she expected me to be as brilliant at the piano as my earlier successes would indicate, and couldn't help but express annoyance and disbelief that I seemed to hit a wall at some point..











This deserves to be quoted in case anyone missed it. This is such an important point!


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar*
So, for those who have been saying that their remarks are really only true of "profoundly gifted" children... according to this ratio, there are fewer than 300 profoundly gifted people in the United States.

It's actually higher than this. There has been no definitive study of which I'm aware, but there is evidence to suggest that the bell curve doesn't adequately describe at least the upper end because greater than expected gifted children are found. Males in particular have been shown to be represented disproportionately at the _extreme_ ends of the curve.

Just to complicate things, modern IQ test aren't designed to differentiate at the highest end and many kids hit the ceilings. The 180 score referenced is true only for the old tests, and even then only for the Stanford-Binet L-M. Hoagie's has a good introductory page. Ruf's Levels combine some EG and PG for Level 5 and puts the number at 1:250,000.

EG (Ruf Level 4-5) kids are represented in a far greater number and are also not served well in the regular classroom. This is no fewer than 1:10,000.


----------



## lasciate (May 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna*
Do you think that your experience would have been substantially different if you weren't labled? You still would have worked faster and more accurately than other students. Your teachers would have still held you up as an example. Was it BEING gifted or being LABLED gifted that was really the problem?

-Angela

Being gifted wasn't my problem. Having teachers telling me I was gifted was. Being treated as if I were special was my problem. And no, I don't think any good teacher would have held me up as an example to the class. All that did was create resentment from the other kids who were being told that I was better than them.

If I had been told I was different from other kids, that I learned differently - instead of being told I was special, gifted, and learned *better*, my whole perspective would have changed. Ideally my parents would have been able to afford to put me in Montessori schooling like they wanted, but it just wasn't feasible. So I plodded along in a school system that had no clue how to handle me, and I suffered for it.


----------



## lasciate (May 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NoHiddenFees*
Since about 1.5, people DD1 one meets -- she goes out of her way to do so if they're doing something that looks interesting -- end up telling her she's "smart" after about a minute's conversation. Since she's big for her age, I thought it might happen less often over time, but instead the opposite has occurred. I wish it was otherwise, but there's nothing I can or should do to manage her innocuous interactions with people. We'd planned on homeschooling anyway, but this is one of the reasons we don't want her in school. I think grades are harmful. Likewise holding one child up as an example, either good or bad, is harmful. Pressure to be successful at school rather than to commit to deep thought and hard work. BTDT. DD1 knows she's "smart;" how could she not? Yet she doesn't hear that she's "better." I think that's a big difference. She can do some things better than others and this is an aspect of who she is, but that's not a reflection of her _worth_ as a person.

I'm sorry you had such a bad experiece; it sounds like it was a bad school.

It wasn't that it was a bad school - they did try - but it just wasn't equipped to deal outside the norm. The school I was transferred to was better, but it wasn't enough for me. Looking back I wish I could have skipped elementary school and gone straight to high school - the teachers there were so much better overall.


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*
In Seattle, a lot of pullout programs have merged into the regular classroom under the guise of "differentiated learning" which they should have been doing anyway. So, basically, there are fewer services for gifted kids in Seattle now that there are budget woes. I am sure this is seen in other districts nationwide, now that we are all supposed to be focused on not leaving any child behind (in other words, all children should be focused on the tests).










Bwa ha, that's true. Now the gifted programs suck just as badly as the regular ed classes!

But lest anyone think that the gifted are underserved in Seattle - it's true that there is some differentiated instruction schools (which I support in theory, if the curriculum actually allowed differentiation instead of just piling on more homework, which is doesn't). But in our public school system, there are seven elementary all-day self-contained programs scattered through the city for all the sorta-gifted (87th-90th percentile and up on CoGAT) starting from 1st grade, and one whole school for the super-gifted (99th percentile and up on CoGAT). And on top of that, all the private schools that serve 97th percentile and up on the S-B and Weschlers. Nobody's hurting for options if one wants their child labelled as gifted and put them into a self-contained homogenous environment.


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lasciate*

If I had been told I was different from other kids, that I learned differently - instead of being told I was special, gifted, and learned *better*, my whole perspective would have changed.

ITA with this. This is my whole problem with the "gifted" label, that it is evaluative rather than descriptive.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *glendora*
See, this is just my issue--standardized tests were _meant_ to identify the _lowest_ scores. The first IQ test was created to shuffle (French) kids into normal classes or special ed. NOT to determine a child's level of "giftedness."

I'm not a psychometrician, but I thought the original Binet test was created by the military to decide who was (or wasn't) officer material -- but however it was initially created, it hasn't stayed that way and has been repeatedly modified throughout the years -- not the least of which is to be less class-, race-, culture-, and gender-biased. Secondly, standardized tests aren't meant to identify the lowest scores any more than they're meant to identify the _highest_. They're meant to identify a _spread_ of scores and to identify "the standard."


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EVC*
Well, most of these are not gifted schools per se, but many do serve gifted kids. As I understand (by the article's title "The Public Elites"), they are all public schools funded through taxpayers' dollars, yet are selective in their admissions process. I think that is what most bugs people about the issue.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12551652/site/newsweek/

I think you're right, but I wish it wouldn't bother people because I think they are as necessary for kids on the right-hand side of the bell curve as are the special ed schools or services for profoundly disabled students. I don't grudge one cent of mine being spent on those students because their needs are too profound to be dealt with in the context of a regular classroom, even a lower-level one. They need a different approach and they need their peers. I think the same is true of EG and PG kids.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *griffin2004*
I don't see a groundswell of parents of "gifted" children demanding that the G&T programs that are *supposed* to be addressing their needs actually do so. Maybe it's there; I could easily be wrong and am open to being corrected.

I'll be happy to shed some light on this issue. I'm not demanding that the schools improve their G&T programs to actually serve the needs of G students for several reasons:

*1. Lost cause.*
No way are schools going to spend more on G&T programs. Look at how much rancor and animosity toward providing genuinely helpful programs to G students generates even on this board -- containing, I would argue, a group of people more open-minded than the average.

*2. No money.*
'Nuff said.

*3. Fatigue.*
It is more than tiring to plead your case before the superintendent of schools, the school board, and anyone else in earshot who would listen and basically be given the big bureaucratic wall of we-don't-give-a-sheet. It's more than tiring to realize that a gifted kid will have to face decades of ignorance from darn near every principal, teacher, teacher's aide and whoever-else they encounter during the course of their schooling. It's tiring to realize that even the low-cost easy alternatives (e.g., grade-skipping) are viewed as educational heresy with cries of, "But what about their SOCIALIZATION!!!???"

Fuhgeddaboutdit. It's easier for most HG-through-PG parents to homeschool and not have to deal with any of that garbage.

The point I'll make just one more time (I promise) is that G&T programs in their current incarnation (again, allowing for the rare exception) don't serve their target population and in the process disserve the "average" kids. For the "really bright" kids it's a badge, for the "gifted" kids it typically doesn't address their unique needs and learning styles (at least based on the frustrations expressed here), and for the "average" kids it creates a value-infused heirarchy, diverts precious resources, and creates a tiered educational system where "thems thats got shall get; them thats not shall lose."[/QUOTE]


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
I'm not a psychometrician, but I thought the original Binet test was created by the military to decide who was (or wasn't) officer material...

?? Did anyone read the wikipedia entry I sent? Its usage may have been popularized in the USA via army testing, but it was created originally to measure children who were "delayed." Ah, here's another:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford-Binet

Quote:

Later on, Binet worked with physician Theodore Simon on the problem of retardation in French school children. Between 1905 and 1908, their research at a school for boys in Grange-aux-Belles, France led to the development of the Binet-Simon tests. Employing questions of increasing difficulty, this test measured such things as attention, memory, and verbal skills. Binet cautioned people that these scores should not be taken too literally because of the plasticity of intelligence and the inherent margin of error in the test (Fancher, 1985).

In 1916, Stanford psychologist Lewis Terman released the "Stanford Revision of the Binet-Simon Scale" or the "Stanford-Binet" for short. With the help of several graduate students and validation experiments, he removed several of the Binet-Simon test items and added completely new ones. The test soon became so popular that Robert Yerkes, the president of the American Psychological Association, decided to use the test to develop the Army Alpha and Army Beta tests, which helped classify recruits. Thus, a high-scoring individual would get a grade of A (high officer material), whereas a low-scoring individual would get a grade of E and be rejected (Fancher, 1985).


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EVC*
Honestly, I don't know what the answer is. I wish there were appropriate educational opportunities for children of all levels/abilities/talents/interests. I can't say that such schools shouldn't exist as that would make me a hypocrite (my school is on that list and I am very grateful for the opportunities I had). But I certainly understand people's frustration and even anger because it often comes off like "the rich get richer" at the expense of everyone else.

Hold up. The magnet schools are the lower-SES student's best chance at a quality education, at least speaking for the one at which I teach. I teach at my state's only Blue Ribbon school, a school where you can't throw a rock without hitting a Milken scholar. It's in a crummy 'hood and it services the entire district -- that is, even if you live in the ghetto, you can still apply and go there. Selection's largely done by lottery.


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*
According to the SPS website, there are currently 11 elementary sites which offer spectrum all day classes. This is for the somewhat academically advanced children. This is not a gifted program. I know. I taught at Muir in the Spectrum grades 4-5 program before my dd was born. There have not been enough children at muir to make a whole class of spectrum kids for each grade for sometime. There is usually about less than 5 spectrum in grades 1-2, a few more in grade 3, and maybe half a class each in grades 4 and 5. These children are not gifted. They are academically advanced and the curriculum is the same as everyone else but one grade ahead. The "really gifted" program, called APP, is not gifted either. It merely allows the children to work 2 grades ahead in the same curriculum as other classrooms. This is why many middle income families with gifted kids have moved to other districts in the area, where at least the "gifted" classes are focused on giftedness in some way.

Ah, but if you look carefully at the descriptions, many are actually integrated Spectrum programs that aren't self-contained. And you may not think the programs are for gifted children, but the school district (and most parents) certainly think so:

Quote:

Only those students who demonstratescores in the 98th or above percentile in at least two of the three areas on the CoGAT will be invited to participate in academic achievement testing. Testing appointment letters will be sent following the winter break. *This testing is being completed to determine if the student is eligible as academically gifted (i.e., qualified for the Spectrum program), or eligible as academically highly gifted (i.e., qualified for both the Accelerated Progress Program and Spectrum).*
What would a "gifted" program look like to you, personally? Almost every parent of a gifted I've ever met says that they are specifically thinking of their child in academically gifted terms, which is why they so object to the "every child is gifted" phrase. You couldn't get away with saying your child was gifted but they hated reading and math and were very talented at the accordion. Most parents of gifted children are very happy if their children are accelerated. Certainly the private schools for gifted children also "just" accelerate as well, and don't promise a whole lot else.


----------



## EVC (Jan 29, 2006)

Quote:

It's in a crummy 'hood and it services the entire district -- that is, even if you live in the ghetto, you can still apply and go there. Selection's largely done by lottery.
I didn't mean "rich" in the monetary sense








I meant intellectually rich--in other words, the gifted (or very bright) students already have a certain intellectual advantage over "average" kids. By then funding gifted schools, they are getting the double advantage of also having increased opportunities. So natural intelligence + increased opportunities = greater chances for excelling.

Because there is only X amount of money in the budget for schools, putting money into gifted education means less money for the district schools. "Average" students then receive only average education. This leads to a sort of intellectual/academic stagnation at such schools.

The "smart" are given the opportunity to become "smarter" but the average are not raised up. That's what I meant by "rich get richer."

But I do think there is financial/class aspect to this in this sense that the majority of kids in these schools (at least the one I went to) were white and upper middle class.....


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

As to what a good gifted program would look like- IMO it's important to have enrichment as WELL as advancement. I was a child for whom advancement was not what I was after for the most part. I wanted to go WIDER, not faster.

-Angela


----------



## glendora (Jan 24, 2005)

Since someone brought up the Accordian kid, I'd say that kids with a singular prodigious talent for music or art or any other particular thing _are_ "gifted." They do have a gift.

Which is part of why this conversation is driving me La Nutso.


----------



## EVC (Jan 29, 2006)

Quote:

As to what a good gifted program would look like- IMO it's important to have enrichment as WELL as advancement. I was a child for whom advancement was not what I was after for the most part. I wanted to go WIDER, not faster.








:

I would also add smaller classrooms with opportunties for real discussion and debate and analysis (rather than just memorization of facts, names, and dates), hands on work (e.g. experimentation, field work esp. in the sciences), a strong writing program (imo knowledge isn't worth much if you are unable to present your ideas clearly), as well as some freedom to choose subjects for greater focus (sort of like college majors/minors) while still adhering to a broader core curriculum. And, most importantly for me, VARIETY.


----------



## EVC (Jan 29, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *glendora*
Since someone brought up the Accordian kid, I'd say that kids with a singular prodigious talent for music or art or any other particular thing _are_ "gifted." They do have a gift.

Which is part of why this conversation is driving me La Nutso.

IMO having a gift and being gifted are different, just as I think being talented and being gifted are different.


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EVC*
IMO having a gift and being gifted are different, just as I think being talented and being gifted are different.

Maybe the terminology needs to change. It is absurd to me to say that "having a gift and being gifted are different". I am fully aware of what the term "gifted" designates, but I think it is the _wrong_ term to use to describe people with high IQs.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nora'sMama*
Maybe the terminology needs to change. It is absurd to me to say that "having a gift and being gifted are different". I am fully aware of what the term "gifted" designates, but I think it is the _wrong_ term to use to describe people with high IQs.

Haven't heard anyone disagree with you there!







Problem is that it IS the current term used.

-Angela


----------



## EVC (Jan 29, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nora'sMama*
Maybe the terminology needs to change. It is absurd to me to say that "having a gift and being gifted are different". I am fully aware of what the term "gifted" designates, but I think it is the _wrong_ term to use to describe people with high IQs.

I wouldn't have a problem with changing that


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

I dunno, maybe here at MDC we could call it something else? I mean, we say 'intact' instead of 'circumsized', right? Why not 'asynchronously developing' instead of 'gifted'? I know it's seven syllables longer, but...









Just a thought. I know this will probably not happen! But I do think that labels change when people start using new ones, and sometimes the new labels make a difference. 'Developmentally delayed' children were once referred to simply as 'retarded', as in retarded development. That came to be seen as inaccurate and offensive, so it was changed. I don't see why the same thing couldn't happen with 'gifted'. I don't think it needs to take 20 years.


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar*
So, for those who have been saying that their remarks are really only true of "profoundly gifted" children... according to this ratio, there are fewer than 300 profoundly gifted people in the United States. According to the latest census, about 70 million US residents are under age 17, which would mean fewer than 70 profoundly gifted children. Sixty or so kids, total. So if most of what people are saying here truly only applies to these 60 or so kids, then is it really worth 20-odd pages? Would we have a 23-page thread about achalasia, for example? It's incidence in children is about the same as the incidence of profound giftedness, if not slightly higher, and it certainly affects every aspect of a child's life. How many kids with achalasia do you know?

Dar

I don't know many, if any, profoundly gifted people IRL. My dd is apparently "highly gifted," but I still argue that she needs some major differentiation in a school setting as well as in the rest of her life. In regard to that person who posted about changing her mind when she heard someone say that she wished her child was not gifted, I am really torn on that one. I love my dd's creative mind; I love who she is and if doing away with gifted would do away with the child I know and love, I would not want that. However, I really do wish that dd had been born to an easier life.

** edited to remove portion of post with personal information that I am no longer comfortable having here. ***


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

I'm really sorry that you and your sister have had so many difficulties... that must have been so hard for you.

I was also labeled gifted at a young age, and went through lots of the hoopla (IQ testing, special classes, took the SAT at 12 and scored quite well... that sort of stuff). I also had a troubled adolescence and ten years in and out of psych hospitals for various stuff. I feel like my problems were less related to being "gifted" than to being identified and labeled as "gifted". My brother, who was labeled as having a learning disability but whose verbal IQ was well into the gifted range, had a much easier time of it... and he never knew that he was "gifted" until he was in his thirties.

My daughter has always been more intensive and sensitive than other children her age. She thinks in the same ways I think, and I'm pretty sure that in schools she would have gotten the same label I got. Perhaps not labeling her is a grand experiment of sorts... but I didn't want her to go through what I went through. I don't know or care what the norm in parenting or education is, but I've tried to give her what she needs. At 13, she is a helluva lot more stable and centered than I was at 13. It would be silly to presume that not offically labeling her "gifted" is the entire reason, because she's been raised very differently than I was... but I believe that it's part of the whole picture.

dar


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

I don't honestly think that it was the label that hurt us. I wasn't ever put in GATE classes until 5th or 6th grade and I don't think that I even realized what it was at that point. I was in the AP and honors classes in middle school and highschool, but wasn't told that it was b/c I was "gifted."

** edited to remove portion of post with personal information. ***

I am the opposite of many of you who have posted here. I wish that I had known, had been given that label, or at least some explanation for what the heck what wrong with me and why I was so very odd and isolated from my "peers."


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar*
I was also labeled gifted at a young age, and went through lots of the hoopla (IQ testing, special classes, took the SAT at 12 and scored quite well... that sort of stuff). I also had a troubled adolescence and ten years in and out of psych hospitals for various stuff. I feel like my problems were less related to being "gifted" than to being identified and labeled as "gifted".

It's possible that your problems had more to do with the label. However, I was never labelled "gifted" (they didn't do any of that kind of testing here when I was going through school) and I still knew I was "different". My son's gifted, and I think the pull-out programs here have been very good for him...not so much for the content, but for giving him a chance to spend time with kids who are more like him than most of the kids at his school. IME, the gifted kids generally know that they're mentally different than many of the kids around them, and I don't the presence or absence of the label makes that much difference.

Where I think it does make a huge difference is with other people. I was an underachiever (didn't hear that term until several years after grad, though). I just wasn't interested. Part of that was my perfectionism - if I couldn't do something perfectly, I wasn't interested in doing it at all, which resulted in a lot of skipped assignments and missed marks. I had problems with drugs during my teens, as well.

I'm jumping in here without having read the whole thread. I've only skimmed it. I think gifted programs are important. Of the half dozen kids in my graduating class who I would say would have tested out as gifted, only two actually excelled in school. One was a math/computer geek, and totally absorbed in that. The other was completely absorbed in the arts, and interested enough in math to treat it as a hobby. I was one of the others - the third one to graduate, but only just. The other three all dropped out by the end of 10th grade. I don't know where any of them ended up, but their lives weren't going well the last time I talked to any of them.

Six gifted kids out of a class of 180.
Three gifted kids out of a dropout group of about 20.
I realize this is purely anecdotal, but those numbers concern me greatly.


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*
This is exactly what has happened, in my experience, in the school districts in which I've taught. Seattle, for example, has basically done away with services for gifted kids and instead has a two tiered approach to teaching the academically advanced in elementary school. In middle school, there is one school for academically advanced kids and they only have so much room. So, if you are lucky to get your kid in that public middle school, he or she still might not be able to take the advanced classes if they are full, no matter what your child scored on the tests. And, in high school, there are two high schools in the city with the international bac program and several with advanced placement courses.
.

There are eight different middle schools with Spectrum programs, and one for the very academically advanced, from my reading of the website. _You_ can call it academically advanced instead of "gifted" if you really want, but all the parents with children in the Spectrum and APP programs think their kids are gifted, and so does the school district. What do you think the kids are missing that gifted kids have and they don't, other than reading skills?

My whole point is to say - look how ridiculously subjective this labelling is, and how dependent it is upon comparing children to each other. It perpetuates the entire competition/winner-take-all mentality many of us deplore in our society. We would never change the label from "gifted" to "asynchronous" because then, well - many children would fit under that label, and people must hold the gates against the impostors, those who can play accordion like champs but are reading below grade level. I frequently think that Alfie Kohn's observations on gifted education hold true - it's a way of segregating and separating based upon rather questionably subjective criteria, but it serves a distinctly vocal and powerful population in US schools.

Gifted (or as boongirl calls it, "academically advanced") education will never be dismantled in this city, because the volvo vigilantes will never stand for it.


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*

As for the suggestion that we need a terminology change, I think that there is no one word or phrase that is ever going to make everyone happy. I was a "mentally gifted minor" (MGM). I have heard of others who are in a SAGE program or a GATE program or a MERLIN program or a Spectrum program. They are all bad, imo. There really is no one great way to say "I am in a program for kids who score pretty darn high on the standardized test and need a different kind of classroom setting in order to succeed and not drive their regular education teachers nuts." It is kind of like giving all the reading groups in a classroom different names. You can call them after birds or flowers or nuts or continents. It does not matter. The kids all know who is where and why.

But I thought you said the Spectrum kids weren't _really_ gifted, in your opinion?


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

I must say, academically advanced and gifted are two very VERY different things.

-Angela


----------



## mamaverdi (Apr 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna*
I must say, academically advanced and gifted are two very VERY different things.

-Angela

I agree.


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EVC*







:

I would also add smaller classrooms with opportunties for real discussion and debate and analysis (rather than just memorization of facts, names, and dates), hands on work (e.g. experimentation, field work esp. in the sciences), a strong writing program (imo knowledge isn't worth much if you are unable to present your ideas clearly), as well as some freedom to choose subjects for greater focus (sort of like college majors/minors) while still adhering to a broader core curriculum. And, most importantly for me, VARIETY.

But this is the funny thing - ALL kids would benefit from this sort of classroom, not just the ones labelled gifted. This is precisely Alfie Kohn's point - frequently the biggest opponents of radical change in education (no grades, no tests, experiential learning) comes from parents of the gifted. Because if everyone is special, then no one is, right?


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna*
I must say, academically advanced and gifted are two very VERY different things.

-Angela

Huh. Well, not according to the school district and all the parents of those academically advanced children. I think they just changed the label from "gifted" so to sound more PC.

If it's not about academics, then why do self-identified parents of gifted children talk about what age their child read at, their interest in "academic" subjects (latin, space, googols)... There's a whole page on Hoagies praising acceleration. http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/acceleration.htm


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

It's about the difference between advancement and enrichment.

-Angela


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

I dunno, 'mentally gifted' vs. simply 'gifted', 'Gifted And Talented Education' vs. 'Talented And Gifted'...'MERLIN' (we know Merlin was a 'wizard')...these are all evaluative, POSITIVE labels. So choosing from among them is pretty meaningless. Choosing a non-evaluative label would not be meaningless, IMO, but would represent a real change in approach.

'Asynchronous' appeals to me because it is descriptive but does not have a positive or negative connotation.


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna*
It's about the difference between advancement and enrichment.

-Angela

And why is enrichment the province of only those labelled gifted?


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nora'sMama*
'Asynchronous' appeals to me because it is descriptive but does not have a positive or negative connotation.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EVC*
Because there is only X amount of money in the budget for schools, putting money into gifted education means less money for the district schools. "Average" students then receive only average education. This leads to a sort of intellectual/academic stagnation at such schools.

I've taught all high school grades and all high school levels. Please believe me when I say, EVC, that you absolutely cannot educate lower-level learners (or average ones) in the same way, at the same rate, and at the same depth that you can the gifted ones -- and believe me, I have tried. And tried. And tried. It's like trying to make a poodle dance: it doesn't work, and it just pisses off the poodle.

That said, I think average and lower-level learners deserve a quality education with techniques and strategies that specifically have been shown to work _for them_.


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

CB, wasn't there a famous study in an elementary classroom where they told the higher-achieving students that they were just 'average', and they told the 'average' students that they were gifted? And then the two groups started performing as they had been labeled - the formerly average group started performing better than the formerly gifted group?

I swear this was a real study. Anyone know of it? I will try to Google, but not sure which terms to use.

(And even if it was a real study with the results that I described, that obviously doesn't speak to issues surrouding profound giftedness, but it does challenge the idea that labeling doesn't matter or that higher-achieving students think and learn significantly differently from their 'average' counterparts.)


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

boongirl - I agree with you that the program is of questionable value to anyone. However, I think that most of those spectrumAPP parents (and yeah, I lurked on there) definitely would take offense to someone telling them that their children weren't gifted. And acceleration is lauded as a great method to teach the gifted child (see that Hoagie's link). I think it is stinky like the fisherman's wharf, personally.

The school district obviously feels that they are selecting the gifted children, as evidenced by the quote from SSD website:

Quote:

This testing is being completed to determine if the student is eligible as academically gifted (i.e., qualified for the Spectrum program), or eligible as academically highly gifted (i.e., qualified for both the Accelerated Progress Program and Spectrum).
We can call the jackrabbit a horsefeather's donkey, but it's still commonly thought of by the jackrabbit's parents as a jackrabbit.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flyingspaghettimama*
But this is the funny thing - ALL kids would benefit from this sort of classroom, not just the ones labelled gifted. This is precisely Alfie Kohn's point - frequently the biggest opponents of radical change in education (no grades, no tests, experiential learning) comes from parents of the gifted. Because if everyone is special, then no one is, right?

With all due respect -- and I have a lot of it -- to Alfie Kohn, I think he's genuinely missed the mark, or at least needs to draw some finer distinctions.

Many of the HG and PG parents I know IRL or OL would absolutely love a setup as has been described. Some would hate it because they're independent learners and would detest the idea of working with others on a team, but I sense in the idea enough flexibility to allow for the "I am a rock, I am an island" crowd.

Moreover, some of the most HG and PG parents I'm aware of have taken what I (and most others) would consider to be the most radical step of all: homeschooling.

There are no grades in homeschooling, as all homeschoolers know when they're faced with the often-irritating question, "Yes, I know he's homeschooled, but _what grade is he in_?" There are no others against whom to measure oneself and no prestige gained other than putting a really good composition on the fridgie for the relatives to ooh and aww at (when they're not criticizing you for homeschooling or ignoring the whole subject, that is).

I suspect that Kohn's "gifted" parents are the status-seekers we've mentioned before, the ones who genuinely do have a stake in being measured against other people, in having public prestige, public recognition, public accolades for what their kid (an extension of themselves) is doing relative to others.

No way would these people want to homeschool. Where's the glory?


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nora'sMama*
CB, wasn't there a famous study in an elementary classroom where they told the higher-achieving students that they were just 'average', and they told the 'average' students that they were gifted? And then the two groups started performing as they had been labeled - the formerly average group started performing better than the formerly gifted group?

I swear this was a real study. Anyone know of it? I will try to Google, but not sure which terms to use.

(And even if it was a real study with the results that I described, that obviously doesn't speak to issues surrouding profound giftedness, but it does challenge the idea that labeling doesn't matter or that higher-achieving students think and learn significantly differently from their 'average' counterparts.)

I've heard of that study and I think there's a great deal of validity to it -- but only so much for so long.

Here's what I mean. I try for as much "grading blindness" as I can achieve: I have my students turn in papers pseudonymously. I have no idea (any more than I have reading your monikers on the Internet) what the actual identity of my paper-writers happens to be until I'm done grading them.

Interestingly, I've found that there's a strong similarity in how I grade a person over time -- that even when I don't know who the heck "Mystery Student" is, I grade the student similarly from paper to paper, suggesting that even when I don't know who the "smart students" are, or the "good writers," there are objective or measurable qualities in their writing that show up time after time.

What I'm saying is that sometimes the lack of labels (or the deliberate "misplacement" of labels in your example) doesn't work to change the overall quality of the student's work. Too bad.


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

But...you teach high school, right?

I think it *might* make a difference when their brains are still forming. If kids are exposed to an optimum learning environment AND they believe they are capable of learning (without undue expectations for "results"), maybe the seven-year-old who would have turned into a poor writer under "normal" conditions will be motivated to acquire the skills that will make him a stellar writer by 10th grade, if that makes sense.

I've seen it happen time and time again that a person who has no particular aptitude for something but who is passionately interested in it, ultimately achieves at the level of someone who is "gifted" but has no particular interest. For instance, my sister was never talented at foreign languages as I was. I received the departmental award in French in high school and placed in a national French competition; she barely got B's and couldn't really speak French after 4 years of it.

And then she went to college and got excited about Italian, for whatever reason. She ended up majoring in Italian and moving there after graduation. She still lives there. She works in Italian public schools. Her Italian is about 10 times better than my French.

If we could create an environment that induces a PASSIONATE response from kids, I have no doubt that many "low-level" learners would surprise the hell out of us by what they could learn and achieve.

I think we sell kids short to assume that how they perform at any one grade level and in any particular subject is all they are capable of doing.


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

But how many kids are really developmentally synchronized? Not many, in my experience, even if you limit the discussion to traditional academic skills. I've known plenty of second graders who can read Harry Potter but struggle with subtraction, or kids who know tons about medieval history before they learn to read.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
I've taught all high school grades and all high school levels. Please believe me when I say, EVC, that you absolutely cannot educate lower-level learners (or average ones) in the same way, at the same rate, and at the same depth that you can the gifted ones -- and believe me, I have tried. And tried. And tried. It's like trying to make a poodle dance: it doesn't work, and it just pisses off the poodle.

When I was a gifted child, I read about how gifted children tend to becoming intensely interested in something and then immerse themselves in learning everything about that topic. It certainly was true for me - I hopped from the Greek muses to the Kingston Trio to death and dying, and on and on.

Then I grew up and met more families, especially unschooling familes, and I saw that most of the kids learned in this way. It wasn't some special gifted thing at all. As a special ed teacher, I found that many of my "learning disabled" students knew all about certain topics that interested them. One of my high school students had opened and was successfully running his own business, selling his own artwork... and yet he was struggling to get through algebra, after failing twice. Perhaps he had asynchronous development and his business acumen was way ahead of his algebra skills... or perhaps school just wasn't relevant to him. Maybe the problem wasn't that the kids couldn't be educated in the same way, but that they just weren't motivated to do so. I've seen many kids who can discuss cars in great depth, analyzing and comparing different models and years and components, but were flunking out of school because it wasn't relevant. This wasn't just one or two kids - this was many, many kids.

dar


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*

No way would these people want to homeschool. Where's the glory?

Oooh, I think there are plenty of glory-seekers amongst the homeschooling crowd. Maybe not the MDC homeschooling crowd, but lots of accolades regarding winning X title/bee/etc. Attending certain prestigious camps. Entering Harvard at 12. I think there are many examples of prodigy-seeking parents. Brandenn Bremer's situation detailed in the New Yorker was quite worrying, and one certainly can't blame his suicide on schoolyard taunts.


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

Dar, we must have posted at the same time. You expressed what I was thinking but much more eloquently.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nora'sMama*
But...you teach high school, right?

I think it *might* make a difference when their brains are still forming. If kids are exposed to an optimum learning environment AND they believe they are capable of learning (without undue expectations for "results"), maybe the seven-year-old who would have turned into a poor writer under "normal" conditions will be motivated to acquire the skills that will make him a stellar writer by 10th grade, if that makes sense.

Yo, you're preaching to the converted. I think the pressure to have X skill by Y date is absurd and that kids would learn better in small, multi-grade classrooms where they could basically go at their own pace. It's not quite unschooling, but it's really, really relaxed schooling.


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*
But, when you work with really gifted kids and meet and talk to really gifted people and read about them, you realize that really gifted people are odd and weird.

And there are a lot of odd and weird kids who couldn't get labelled "gifted" due to aforementioned supposedly objective measures. And too bad for them, I guess.

My question is, who gets to be the gatekeeper of gifted labelling? Is it based on lists of characteristics or IQ tests or what? Have you seen the lists of "gifted" qualifications? It's like looking at your star sign - pretty much ANY parent could look at that list and go, yup - that's her, yup - that's her too! She's _such_ a Virgo _and_ a gifted kid. But the key feature in that list is "compared to other children"...it's really always about comparing.

And the truth is, if you look over the list, there aren't too many characteristics that DON'T describe most kids, unless they've had their love of learning and/or empathy squashed out of them.


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nora'sMama*
If we could create an environment that induces a PASSIONATE response from kids, I have no doubt that many "low-level" learners would surprise the hell out of us by what they could learn and achieve.

I used to teach self-contained emotional/behavioral disorders classes at the elementary level. Many of my students also had learning disabilities. I only ever had one who was labeled gifted as well... and yet we did a lot of sitting around the table and discussing ideas, and they came up with questions and were passionate. One year all of my kids memorized the names of all of the bones in the human body, because they wanted to do it. We played games about it, and made t shirts, and they really got into it. I remember another day when we were reading about Abe Lincoln, and the passage said that his mother died of milk fever. None of us had any idea what milk fever was... so we trooped down to the library (we didn't have internet access back then) and the kids all started pulling out books and looking up "milk fever". This led one of the boys into exploring some botany books looking for a photo of the plant that the cow had eaten... and then we ended up discussing other botanical things, I think. It just seemed to go from there. And no, he wasn't the "gifted" one... that was a whole different class.

I had around 7 kids and a full-time aide, so even though my kids sometimes spit and hit and threw chairs, when they were having good days we were able to do some neat stuff, and as long as they didn't get into a whole lot of trouble the principal was generally not too worried about them learning things that weren't part of the official curriculum. In fact, she was happiest if she could forget we existed.

dar


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
Yo, you're preaching to the converted. I think the pressure to have X skill by Y date is absurd and that kids would learn better in small, multi-grade classrooms where they could basically go at their own pace. It's not quite unschooling, but it's really, really relaxed schooling.

Why are the mamas on this thread not in charge of public schools in America?









I mean, I for one think I know better about not leaving children behind than our esteemed President, and I don't think I'm being particularly arrogant in making that claim.









There have been a lot of good ideas discussed on this thread IMO.


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flyingspaghettimama*
And there are a lot of odd and weird kids who couldn't get labelled "gifted" due to aforementioned supposedly objective measures. And too bad for them, I guess.

My question is, who gets to be the gatekeeper of gifted labelling? Is it based on lists of characteristics or IQ tests or what? Have you seen the lists of "gifted" qualifications? It's like looking at your star sign - pretty much ANY parent could look at that list and go, yup - that's her, yup - that's her too! She's _such_ a Virgo _and_ a gifted kid. But the key feature in that list is "compared to other children"...it's really always about comparing.

And the truth is, if you look over the list, there aren't too many characteristics that DON'T describe most kids, unless they've had their love of learning and/or empathy squashed out of them.









:


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flyingspaghettimama*
Oooh, I think there are plenty of glory-seekers amongst the homeschooling crowd. Maybe not the MDC homeschooling crowd, but lots of accolades regarding winning X title/bee/etc. Attending certain prestigious camps. Entering Harvard at 12. I think there are many examples of prodigy-seeking parents. Brandenn Bremer's situation detailed in the New Yorker was quite worrying, and one certainly can't blame his suicide on schoolyard taunts.

Yeah, but all I can say on those is that in order to win the National Spelling Bee or get in Harvard at 12, you actually have to work your azz off or be gifted, or (ideally) both. (I don't know jack about gifted camps so I can't speak to those). I think of those parents more like the parents of Olympic athletes and the "regular gifted" parents like the parents of Little Leaguers. Sure, there will be the really psycho status-hungry folks among them, but it's not just about the label; there actually has to be something behind it. Sorry if I'm not being clear -- it's late.


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar*
I used to teach self-contained emotional/behavioral disorders classes at the elementary level. Many of my students also had learning disabilities. I only ever had one who was labeled gifted as well... and yet we did a lot of sitting around the table and discussing ideas, and they came up with questions and were passionate. One year all of my kids memorized the names of all of the bones in the human body, because they wanted to do it. We played games about it, and made t shirts, and they really got into it. I remember another day when we were reading about Abe Lincoln, and the passage said that his mother died of milk fever. None of us had any idea what milk fever was... so we trooped down to the library (we didn't have internet access back then) and the kids all started pulling out books and looking up "milk fever". This led one of the boys into exploring some botany books looking for a photo of the plant that the cow had eaten... and then we ended up discussing other botanical things, I think. It just seemed to go from there. And no, he wasn't the "gifted" one... that was a whole different class.

I had around 7 kids and a full-time aide, so even though my kids sometimes spit and hit and threw chairs, when they were having good days we were able to do some neat stuff, and as long as they didn't get into a whole lot of trouble the principal was generally not too worried about them learning things that weren't part of the official curriculum. In fact, she was happiest if she could forget we existed.

dar

Wow, that's awesome! You were able to carve out a little niche where your students could really learn. Too bad that the reason the niche was allowed to exist was the fact that the school really didn't care about these kids.


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar*
But how many kids are really developmentally synchronized? Not many, in my experience, even if you limit the discussion to traditional academic skills. I've known plenty of second graders who can read Harry Potter but struggle with subtraction, or kids who know tons about medieval history before they learn to read...

As a special ed teacher, I found that many of my "learning disabled" students knew all about certain topics that interested them.

Absolutely. It's just that they had the societal misfortune to be interested in cars rather than Ovid. And that's the funny thing about the highly "gifted" education in this city - you have to be equally gifted in math and reading, no asynchronicity allowed!


----------



## glendora (Jan 24, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flyingspaghettimama*
Absolutely. It's just that they had the societal misfortune to be interested in cars rather than Ovid. And that's the funny thing about the highly "gifted" education in this city - you have to be equally gifted in math and reading, no asynchronicity allowed!

Yeah, I have a friend that came up with new math theorems as a freshman in college. But, he was just "bright," because despite being a math genius, he's just "above average" in language skills.


----------



## LeftField (Aug 2, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride*
It's possible that your problems had more to do with the label. However, I was never labelled "gifted" (they didn't do any of that kind of testing here when I was going through school) and I still knew I was "different".

*shyly steps into discussion*

My school never had a gifted program and I didn't know what that word meant until I was an adult. I always knew I was different and I didn't know why. For one, I was "lazy", because I didn't do homework or study and didn't work up to "potential". There was lots of complaining at report card night about how I could work up to potential if I really wanted to. Correspondingly, I felt like a lazy person for only getting mixed As and Bs (occasional Cs) and not wanting to work harder.

I was a deep thinker, the kind that lends itself to morbid thoughts. My father would always say, "Stop dwelling on things! You dwell too much!". I still struggle to keep myself from dwelling on deep and upsetting things. I didn't have the best grades in school, but everyone knew that I was the nerd. I felt pretty weird.

As an adult, I learned that my IQ falls into the moderately gifted range. I can't imagine what it's like to be profoundly gifted. I don't identify myself as gifted and no one has ever done it for me, but harm was still done and characteristics (the dwelling) still existed.

Anyway, I can see how labelling _can_ be harmful, but I have lived through no label and still experienced harmful practices and expectations (if only you studied, if only, if only, you can do anything you want to do, why don't you?). I tend to think that the label itself is not harmful, but it can be used as a harmful _tool_ in the context of a background philosophy. If someone is going to praise a child for being smart, berate him for not working up to potential and hold him up in front of his peers as an example, then they don't need a label to do that.

I am one of those people who believes their kid is gifted without test scores. I saw stuff early on that formed a clear pattern. Profound? I doubt it, but something. He does not know what "gifted" means and I don't plan on ever using that word in his earshot to describe him. All it has done was to help me find support and resources for some of the issues we've faced with him. We decided to homeschool because we saw gifted in him and anticipated a bad school fit. We still feel that way now. It is really important to me that he be able work at a challenging level so he doesn't run into what I did, which is underachieving and the low work ethic and subsequent worthless feelings that accompany it. I have zero academic expectations of my kids (except that they be open to learning). If neither of them went to university, I seriously would not care, as long as they were happy and could support themselves. I still worry about ds1, because he's a deep thinker (a "dweller" like his mother) and I worry that he will think too hard on morbid things and stuff...He already gets upset over stuff like the idea of people eating animals and how those animals were processed and I worry about him.

I cannot even begin to address the issue of gifted in school, because we have not chosen that route. But after reading this long thread, I saw this comment here that spoke to me. And I wanted to chime in on the concept of gifted "status", because it's not a "status" to us. It's just how my kid is and I don't see it as being any more or less special than left-handed.


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*
By definition of what their test scores represent and what the program teaches them, they are not in a gifted program and many of them are not truly falling in the gifted scale, according to what we have seen referenced here. I had students who were designated spectrum but had tested below the 97th percentile on the tests. These are academically advanced kids, but not many of them are truly gifted. Gifted kids mostly go to the APP program, where you have to have tested in the 98th and 99th percentile on standardized tests in order to enroll. These kids are working two grade levels above their own and are, by all definitions, gifted academically. They are more than just academically advanced.

When I started to teach gifted kids, I worked with kids who were testing in the 97th percentile or higher. Then, I came to Seattle and had kids who were testing way below that but were still in the program for various reasons: they had been nominated because they were a hard worker or perhaps they were allowed in because of their race (that does happen, don't flame me). There was a huge difference between what I had been teaching and what I was teaching in Seattle. I could not use the same materials for most of them. Maybe two or three kids in a class of 26-28 kids could grasp the logic puzzles or could understand the books we were reading or could write essays or could do algebra or whatever else I had been used to teaching at that grade in my previous jobs working with kids testing above 97th percentile. In Seattle, the kids I taught were, for the most part, academically advanced but not gifted.

That is what we have been trying to get across, we who work with gifted kids. There is a difference between an academically advanced kid and a gifted one. I had one child in my first year teaching in Seattle who really could understand things deeper and wider and could do the logic puzzles and other activities. She went to the truly gifted program, APP, the following year because I insisted she be retested. I knew she was out of place in our group merely working one grade level ahead. She needed more opportunities to spread her wings and fly as far as she could. There is a difference between gifted and academically talented. Seattle schools can call their Spectrum program gifted but, for the most part, most of the kids in that program are not gifted. They are smart. But, not gifted.

Send the Volvo revolutionaries my way.

Maybe how well a gifted program reaches students is dependant on the population where you live. Where I live (an area with lots of high level scientists and college profs) about 50 percent of the kids test in the top 10 percent on the Cogat.

The gifted program here which pulls the kids who test in the top 10 percent LOCALLY is pulling only a very high level.

Two of my friends who have profoundly gifted kids like living here because while the other kids in the class may not be at their child's level, they are functioning at a high ennough level to "get" their child. After all putting a child with an IQ of 160 in a class with kids whose IQ is at least 140 is a lot different than putting them in a more intellectually diverese class. And the highest level gifted kids still get individualized learning opportunities.


----------



## Rivka5 (Jul 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nora'sMama*
CB, wasn't there a famous study in an elementary classroom where they told the higher-achieving students that they were just 'average', and they told the 'average' students that they were gifted? And then the two groups started performing as they had been labeled - the formerly average group started performing better than the formerly gifted group?

I swear this was a real study. Anyone know of it? I will try to Google, but not sure which terms to use.

You're kind of remembering it. What they did was pick out some kids who tested "average" and tell their teachers, "these kids are actually quite brilliant, but they're late bloomers. Their past performance doesn't indicate what they're really capable of." Nothing was said to the kids themselves, and there was no attempt to portray "gifted" kids as "average." According to the researchers, the kids whose teachers thought they had hidden genius advanced a great deal academically in the next year.

It's a compelling study that really captures the imagination, but the problem is that no one else has ever been able to replicate those results - and it was tried, many times. So we don't know _what_ was going on that first time, but it doesn't seem to be a general or repeatable effect.


----------



## Daffodil (Aug 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar*
My daughter has always been more intensive and sensitive than other children her age. She thinks in the same ways I think, and I'm pretty sure that in schools she would have gotten the same label I got. Perhaps not labeling her is a grand experiment of sorts... but I didn't want her to go through what I went through. I don't know or care what the norm in parenting or education is, but I've tried to give her what she needs. At 13, she is a helluva lot more stable and centered than I was at 13. It would be silly to presume that not offically labeling her "gifted" is the entire reason, because she's been raised very differently than I was... but I believe that it's part of the whole picture.

But YOU know she's gifted. Do you think that's a useful thing to know? Maybe for you, it doesn't matter so much - you'd probably provide the same kind of healthy, stimulating environment to any kid, whether or not you believed she was gifted. But do you think maybe there are some kids who are in school and not doing amazingly well there, kids whose parents have never even considered that they might be gifted (maybe because they think it means doing calculus at 3, or getting really good grades on everything), who would get high scores on an IQ test and who might benefit from having their parents and teachers recognize them as gifted? Maybe they'd get more opportunities and more respect from adults once they were seen as having higher-than-average potential to learn. Maybe they'd get to be in a gifted program that was more interesting than regular classes.

Or maybe they'd just be berated for not living up to their potential, or bragged about, or pressured to "succeed" at whatever their parents thought was important. So I don't know - I can imagine the labelling being helpful, but I don't know which is more likely, that it would be helpful or that it would be harmful. But I find myself thinking of some of the MDC "is my kid gifted?" discussions I've seen, where I was struck by the number of people who said things like, "My kid was a really early talker, too, and did X, Y, and Z by the time she was 3, and I thought she must be gifted - but, you know what? She's not. She's in school now, and getting completely average grades, and she's never done anything remarkable." I bet at least some of those kids ARE gifted, and it just seems a shame for it not to be recognized. But, on the other hand, schools are full of kids whose potentential is unrecognized and who don't get the respect and opportunites they deserve, and I don't think that's less of a problem for kids who aren't gifted.


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flyingspaghettimama*
But this is the funny thing - ALL kids would benefit from this sort of classroom, not just the ones labelled gifted. This is precisely Alfie Kohn's point - frequently the biggest opponents of radical change in education (no grades, no tests, experiential learning) comes from parents of the gifted. Because if everyone is special, then no one is, right?

I do agree that all children would benefit from creative assignments, critical thinking assignments, personalized education plans, smaller classrooms and all of that. However, gifted children still do need something different: the ability to pace faster and learn more in depth. For instance, my older dd generally advances by 3-4 grade levels/year in her stronger subjects. It is unfair to expect her to work at a pace that doesn't move at the same speed her mind does. It would also be unfair to expect the other kids to move at a pace that doesn't match their own.

That is why I am so excited about the "flexible grouping" opportunities that we have at her new school. This school actually has no formal identification for "gifted" students and no TAG program. We are leaving a school with a TAG program for this school b/c the TAG program is a joke and grossly inadequate and I believe that what this charter is offering will do a much better job meeting my dd's needs even if the other school formally has her identified as highly gifted and the charter has no label for her at all. They do have the programming and that is what ultimately matters.


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flyingspaghettimama*
And that's the funny thing about the highly "gifted" education in this city - you have to be equally gifted in math and reading, no asynchronicity allowed!

Absolutely! We had the same frustration w/ dd's school last year. We gave them the info from a private assessment which showed her IQ to be very high and her understanding of the concepts behind math to be very advanced, but her mathmatical calculation was right on grade level.

The achievement testing had her btwn 2nd grade to college level on various subjects. They said, yep, she's gifted, but we won't offer her any services except an hour/week of pull out for critical thinking 6 weeks/year--nothing for math b/c she isn't performing above grade level and as far as language arts (her strongest area after abstract reasoning), the teacher can just give her harder books to read







: . IMO, there is no benefit to having them submit the paperwork to the district and formally "identifying" her if they are then going to do little to nothing with that information b/c services are all based upon achievement.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

This is a school-centric conversation.

I realize most kids go to school so you gotta talk about it...

...I'm sure it's been said that without school the crux of this conversation would evaporate. But we have this idea of average and "normal" that many people refuse to give up, set aside...


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Rivka5*
You're kind of remembering it. What they did was pick out some kids who tested "average" and tell their teachers, "these kids are actually quite brilliant, but they're late bloomers. Their past performance doesn't indicate what they're really capable of." Nothing was said to the kids themselves, and there was no attempt to portray "gifted" kids as "average." According to the researchers, the kids whose teachers thought they had hidden genius advanced a great deal academically in the next year.

It's a compelling study that really captures the imagination, but the problem is that no one else has ever been able to replicate those results - and it was tried, many times. So we don't know _what_ was going on that first time, but it doesn't seem to be a general or repeatable effect.

That's so unfortunate. I wish that fixing the problem were that easy.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Daffodil*
But, on the other hand, schools are full of kids whose potentential is unrecognized and who don't get the respect and opportunites they deserve, and I don't think that's less of a problem for kids who aren't gifted.

Just to validate what you're saying, some of the most incredibly gifted kids I've had -- no, actually, MOST of the incredibly gifted kids I've had, and almost 100% of the gifted boys -- had the lousiest grades in the world. Really, if you combined all of their grades together into One Big Grade, they'd _still_ not be passing.

You heard it first from a veteran teacher: grades are bullpuckey.


----------



## sophmama (Sep 11, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
This is a school-centric conversation.

I realize most kids go to school so you gotta talk about it...

...I'm sure it's been said that without school the crux of this conversation would evaporate. But we have this idea of average and "normal" that many people refuse to give up, set aside...

But you see - most people cannot homeschool. It's not for everyone. I am very supportive of homeschooling parents, but can clearly see the preventing factors for most parents out there. School *is* a factor for most parents to contend with. And getting the services needed for their kid's particular developmental needs is very important to parents with kids in school. Labeling for most public school systems is a necessary evil for now. Smaller class sizes and having kids from one year to another would be great but there are many preventing factors.


----------



## EVC (Jan 29, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flyingspaghettimama*
But this is the funny thing - ALL kids would benefit from this sort of classroom, not just the ones labelled gifted.

I agree. That's why I get so torn over gifted ed. I think all kids should get these opportunities. Perhaps the model could be used for all students with a difference in the breadth and depth of subjects for gifted kids? Or simply the methodology used?

Quote:

I've taught all high school grades and all high school levels. Please believe me when I say, EVC, that you absolutely cannot educate lower-level learners (or average ones) in the same way, at the same rate, and at the same depth that you can the gifted ones -- and believe me, I have tried. And tried. And tried. It's like trying to make a poodle dance: it doesn't work, and it just pisses off the poodle.
OK, I'll believe you. But that's easy for me to do because 1. I myself was a beneficiary of gifted education and 2. my dd is not in school yet.

If, when she gets older (and if we don't homeschool), and if she gets put into a regular classroom and I see the gifted kids getting all kinds of opportunities that she's not being given, it's going to be a lot harder for me to believe. Or perhaps I will still believe it, but it's going to hurt. I'll admit that's just plain old jealousy, but it does hurt when you see someone else's kids getting MORE and BETTER than your own kids. It hurts and it feels unfair. Especially when you know that you're the one paying for it (through your taxes).

Quote:

That said, I think average and lower-level learners deserve a quality education with techniques and strategies that specifically have been shown to work for them.
That would be great, except that it's not happening. Both my brother and sister went to disctrict schools and they didn't get even a fraction of what I got. I believe they were very much shortchanged in their educational experience. And I don't want that to happen to my dd.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

That said, I think average and lower-level learners
Ugh. Lower level learners? Does one just become desensitized over time to speaking this way about children?


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

Labeling for most public school systems is a necessary evil for now.
Then it shouldn't be difficult to see what people find disturbing and offensive about it. Calling a group of children "low level learners" will, I hope, become the kind of antiquated and ignorant term that causes embarassed looks and pained feelings of remorse towards the way we once treated children in this society.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

And so you know it up front, no matter how long you worked as a teacher, no matter how hopeless or discouraged you felt, deciding that the system is a "necessary evil" is a choice. Change will never come from the people who decide a broken system is a "necessary evil".


----------



## pookel (May 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flyingspaghettimama*
And acceleration is lauded as a great method to teach the gifted child (see that Hoagie's link). I think it is stinky like the fisherman's wharf, personally.

I don't get it, what's wrong with acceleration?

My major beef with the kind of gifted education I received was that it was supposed to be "enrichment," which I think some PPs have praised. What it was was a huge waste of time. One day a week, we sat in a separate classroom and did logic puzzles and "brain teasers" and riddles and crap like that, and then when we went back to the regular classroom, our teachers told us we were supposed to make up the work we'd missed and everyone resented us for thinking we were smarter than they were.

Meanwhile, what I actually NEEDED was not gimmicks and puzzles, it was simply to be learning something new in class and not the stuff I knew years ago. In fifth grade, I was daydreaming my way through explanations of multiplying two- and three-digit numbers (something I could do in my head when I was 7!), and instead of doing "brain teasers" on Monday, I should have been learning algebra in class every day. But when my parents went to the PTA meetings and begged for better gifted education for kids like me, the reaction they got was "stop bragging about your smart kid - why can't she just learn to fit in?"


----------



## pookel (May 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nora'sMama*
I have met a number of people who I do consider to be profoundly gifted, who see the world differently and more...profoundly than others, and I really don't know whether to count myself among them. Sometimes I think yes and other times no. But honestly, most of the time I think it's a stupid question.







Awareness of and appreciation for my gifts has not helped me cope with my deficits. It has not taught me empathy or healthy coping skills. It has not taught me how to deal the fact that no one cares when you're 30 that you taught yourself to read at age 2. This is all stuff I had to learn myself, like everyone else.

I could have written the above paragraph. I was ahead in every possible way academically. I talked in sentences at 15 months, read at 3, figured sales tax in my head at 7, scored in the 99th percentile in every standardized test I ever took, never studied for anything until high school, never needed to. At 3 my IQ was tested at 180. (My parents wisely didn't tell me the number, but I knew I was different from other kids.)

School crushed my spirit and destroyed my love of learning. School was where I learned to pretend I wasn't smart so people would stop making fun of me. School was where I learned to never study, never concentrate, never try to do anything hard, because I didn't need to. Everything came so easily to me.

At 13 I got a 1490 on the SAT without studying. The same year (ninth grade) I got a 228 on the PSAT and set a school district record. No studying, of course. Why would I need to? In my super-advanced high school calculus class, my scores were so high that the teacher, who usually set the highest score at 100 and then bell-curved the rest of the class down to 80, had to set my score at 105 to give the other students decent grades.

Then I went to college - the local state university, because I got free tuition there. My family couldn't afford to send me anywhere else. (Incidentally, we were not upper middle class or even middle class; we were barely above working poor.) And there I found out that while, yes, I was smart, I was NOT automatically at the top of the class. Other people had better study habits or better abilities to concentrate or could write more insightful papers than I could. I kept hearing from professors that I was talented and had the potential to be really good at their field IF I really buckled down and concentrated on that subject ... which of course was the thing I was no good at. I studied six different languages and got pretty good at several, but am fluent in none. I stopped taking math classes and forgot everything I knew - I can't even do geometry anymore. I ended up with a degree in history and classics, but never having had a clue how to get a degree that led to a career path I wanted.

The story has a happy ending, because I happened into (newspaper) copy editing, a field where the requirements are an extensive knowledge of random facts, excellent spelling and grammar abilities, the ability to read and work fast, and a talent for analyzing and correlating a wide network of information. This was the job that made me go, "hey, this is something I can DO!"

But I have still dealt all my life with the persistent feeling that I could have, should have done more with my life. Lenny Ng, who is my age and was showing up in talent searches at the same time I was, is now in some kind of fantastic post-doc mathematics research program, discovering new theories, and I - who could have at least intelligently discussed math with him when we were both 13 - can't even remember what sines and cosines are.


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pookel*
instead of doing "brain teasers" on Monday, I should have been learning algebra in class every day.

I know this is not the main point of your post, and it's OT, but I am always







as to why here in the U.S. we take so long to teach math concepts. In every other country whose educational system I have learned about, including Greece (my DH's country), all the arithmetic is covered by the equivalent of 3rd grade, and then algebra, geometry, other topics are introduced. Is it any surprise that students from other countries consistently WAY outscore U.S. students? That our university math and science departments are filled with students from abroad?

I don't get it. Who decided that you have to wait until 7th grade (at a minimum) to start learning algebra, and also foreign languages, for that matter? Kids of 'average' intelligence in other countries start with these subjects much much earlier and it's clear that the results are good - much higher math literacy, and populations where it is the norm to speak 1-3 foreign languages.


----------



## Finch (Mar 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
Just to validate what you're saying, some of the most incredibly gifted kids I've had -- no, actually, MOST of the incredibly gifted kids I've had, and almost 100% of the gifted boys -- had the lousiest grades in the world. Really, if you combined all of their grades together into One Big Grade, they'd _still_ not be passing.











Gifted. Came close to failing some classes in school, failed some in college. Because I didn't do the homework. Got chewed out by my AP Bio teacher for getting a C in the class but a 4 on the test....got a C in the class 'cause I never did homework.







: Majored in frat boys 101 in college, skipped class all the time (my first 2.5 years, anyway). Did fine on tests. Got nailed for not doing homework and not showing up.

Classic.

Me and my 10 foot pole are now going back to lurking.


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nora'sMama*
I don't get it. Who decided that you have to wait until 7th grade (at a minimum) to start learning algebra, and also foreign languages, for that matter? Kids of 'average' intelligence in other countries start with these subjects much much earlier and it's clear that the results are good - much higher math literacy, and populations where it is the norm to speak 1-3 foreign languages.

I once read (wish I could find the link) in an article in Education Week or similar publication that children by and large are incapable of fully understanding place value prior to about 4th grade! Never mind that 5yo's in Asian countries routinely master this (though they do have a slight advantage due a more sensible naming system than we have in English). It's dogma like this that helps prevent meaningful change in schools.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pookel*

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flyingspaghettimama*
And acceleration is lauded as a great method to teach the gifted child (see that Hoagie's link). I think it is stinky like the fisherman's wharf, personally.

I don't get it, what's wrong with acceleration?

What precisely stinks? Are we talking about a specific implementation of acceleration, an accelerated curriculum or wholesale grade or subject acceleration? The latter is a low cost way to serve gifted children and it has shown to be a good fit for _most_ kids. Still, the roadblocks thrown up by some school systems are flabbergasting to behold.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*

...I'm sure it's been said that without school the crux of this conversation would evaporate. But we have this idea of average and "normal" that many people refuse to give up, set aside...

I haven't seen it said, and ITA.


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pookel*
when my parents went to the PTA meetings and begged for better gifted education for kids like me, the reaction they got was "stop bragging about your smart kid - why can't she just learn to fit in?"


Here's the thing. Having a gifted child is what most people think they do want or would like. It's defintitely considered a good thing. And people do not(who aren't in this position) think about any downsides.

That being said, its a little like winning the lottery big time. Doing that causes a million (pardon the pun) problems. There are HUGE finacial managment, tax, emotional, personal relationship etc...issues to suddenly becoming wealthy.

Yet when you win the lottery NO ONE and I mean NO ONE who has not won the lottery already wants to hear about those problems. To complain to people who are not in the same situation is just stupid.

It's the same with having a gifted child. You can NOT bring it up at a PTA meeting. You can only address the issue with administrators IN PRIVATE or with other parents of gifted children. This might not get you anywhere but at least it wont' get people annoyed about your "bragging."


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NoHiddenFees*
What precisely stinks? Are we talking about a specific implementation of acceleration, an accelerated curriculum or wholesale grade or subject acceleration? The latter is a low cost way to serve gifted children and it has shown to be a good fit for _most_ kids. Still, the roadblocks thrown up by some school systems are flabbergasting to behold.

Whoa-hoah. How about asking some of the other pro-gifted labelling folks who were decrying academic acceleration for gifted children? Fight that one out amongst yourselves. I don't have a horse in that race. Perhaps you can start a new thread in the gifted board for that debate.

Remember, I'm also a person who takes issue with the whole idea of a standardized "curriculum" and that there's an advanced/average/delayed and/or grade level assigned to any sort of learning. As we've seen, kids in Greece get down with Algebra at a level probably only taught to the "gifted" kids here. Are they all gifted in Greece, or do we not understand the capabilities of US children?


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flyingspaghettimama*
Whoa-hoah. How about asking some of the other pro-gifted labelling folks who were decrying academic acceleration for gifted children? Fight that one out amongst yourselves. I don't have a horse in that race. Perhaps you can start a new thread in the gifted board for that debate.

Ummm. *You* said acceleration stinks. I was merely asking you what specifically stinks.


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
This is a school-centric conversation.

I realize most kids go to school so you gotta talk about it...

...I'm sure it's been said that without school the crux of this conversation would evaporate. But we have this idea of average and "normal" that many people refuse to give up, set aside...

It is a school-centric conversation, but many people are heavily invested in labelling their children gifted from toddlerhood, which is not a school-centric age. They worry about developing their toddler's _potential_, lest they get - heavens forbid - bored or not living up to their potential or something. Those average children might be happy with their blocks and dolls...but Timmy's got quadratic equations to solve, diseases to find cures for, boogers to pick...oh wait, not that last part.

What is so wrong with getting bored? That's how humans come up with some really cool stuff. Particularly toddlers.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

What precisely stinks?
What stinks is the myth of accelerated learning. There is no such thing. There are only children who, when presented with a prepared, incremental program of fact regurgitation, progress with varying degree's of speed, for myriad differing reasons. This has absolutely nothing to do with their speed of learning. Zero.

The very process used to identify "accelerated learners" is laughable, or it would be, if it's existence did not effectively divorce learning from institutional education.

Now if it was called a program for accelerated "progress along a prepared, incremental program of fact regurgitation" that would be honest. That would be worth talking about.


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NoHiddenFees*
Ummm. *You* said acceleration stinks. I was merely asking you what specifically stinks.

Did you read all the posts by Alegna, Boongirl, others who point out that acceleration is the wrong way to go? They think it's wrong from a different perspective, granted.

I think it stinks because there is no such thing as "acceleration" when you don't think there's a "behind" or "average" either. As one quick example, in one of our "gifted" classroom settings here, the 2nd graders were learning about the continents and their countries. This is what a child learns in the 3-6 classroom in Montessori. Are Montessori children gifted? No, their teachers have just chosen a different random set of facts for children to memorize, if they're interested (at least they get the choice as to whether they're interested or not)(and the songs are actually kind of cute).


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
Now if it was called a program for accelerated "progress along a prepared, incremental program of fact regurgitation" that would be honest. That would be worth talking about.

Ha, that sounds about right.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EVC*

If, when she gets older (and if we don't homeschool), and if she gets put into a regular classroom and I see the gifted kids getting all kinds of opportunities that she's not being given, it's going to be a lot harder for me to believe. Or perhaps I will still believe it, but it's going to hurt. I'll admit that's just plain old jealousy, but it does hurt when you see someone else's kids getting MORE and BETTER than your own kids. It hurts and it feels unfair. Especially when you know that you're the one paying for it (through your taxes).

I don't think more and better (or more OR better) is the answer. I honestly think the best approach would be more of a focus on early entry and acceleration, to be honest -- even if it's subject-area acceleration (e.g., Johnny is in 3rd grade for everything but reading, where he goes to the 5th-grade class). That way, it's not "more" except maybe in terms of difficulty level and homework, and not really "better" per se, just "different."


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
Ugh. Lower level learners? Does one just become desensitized over time to speaking this way about children?

Sigh.
Okay, you won the PC-er Than Thou award for today. A gold-plated granola flake will be sent to your house via UPS.

Now. What term would be more preferable to you? Why don't you just tell me so I can put it in there.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pookel*
I don't get it, what's wrong with acceleration?

My major beef with the kind of gifted education I received was that it was supposed to be "enrichment," which I think some PPs have praised. What it was was a huge waste of time. One day a week, we sat in a separate classroom and did logic puzzles and "brain teasers" and riddles and crap like that, and then when we went back to the regular classroom, our teachers told us we were supposed to make up the work we'd missed and everyone resented us for thinking we were smarter than they were.

Meanwhile, what I actually NEEDED was not gimmicks and puzzles, it was simply to be learning something new in class and not the stuff I knew years ago. In fifth grade, I was daydreaming my way through explanations of multiplying two- and three-digit numbers (something I could do in my head when I was 7!), and instead of doing "brain teasers" on Monday, I should have been learning algebra in class every day. But when my parents went to the PTA meetings and begged for better gifted education for kids like me, the reaction they got was "stop bragging about your smart kid - why can't she just learn to fit in?"

BINGO. Or being told that one's concerns for one's child just have to make someone laugh.

Not like anyone would do that, or anything.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NoHiddenFees*
I once read (wish I could find the link) in an article in Education Week or similar publication that children by and large are incapable of fully understanding place value prior to about 4th grade! Never mind that 5yo's in Asian countries routinely master this (though they do have a slight advantage due a more sensible naming system than we have in English). It's dogma like this that helps prevent meaningful change in schools.


HUH?? Before they're 8 or 9?? This is bull. I'm not an expert in ECE or cognitive development, but it's really not that hard a concept.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flyingspaghettimama*
Whoa-hoah. How about asking some of the other pro-gifted labelling folks who were decrying academic acceleration for gifted children? Fight that one out amongst yourselves. I don't have a horse in that race. Perhaps you can start a new thread in the gifted board for that debate.

Remember, I'm also a person who takes issue with the whole idea of a standardized "curriculum" and that there's an advanced/average/delayed and/or grade level assigned to any sort of learning. As we've seen, kids in Greece get down with Algebra at a level probably only taught to the "gifted" kids here. Are they all gifted in Greece, or do we not understand the capabilities of US children?

Okay, but can you imagine the shrieks from some parents -- obviously not all, of course -- about "YOU'RE ROBBING MY CHILD OF HER CHILDHOOD!" if you tried to do that??


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
What stinks is the myth of accelerated learning. There is no such thing. There are only children who, when presented with a prepared, incremental program of fact regurgitation, progress with varying degree's of speed, for myriad differing reasons. This has absolutely nothing to do with their speed of learning. Zero.

Please cite the factual basis or research information on which you base this conclusion, if you wouldn't mind.


----------



## eclipse (Mar 13, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
even if it's subject-area acceleration (e.g., Johnny is in 3rd grade for everything but reading, where he goes to the 5th-grade class).

From the point of view of the kid (me) who was sent to other classes for different subjects, this is not a good solution. It made me feel like I didn't fit in anywhere - not in my class of kids my age, not in the multiple other classes to which I was sent. I didn't feel comfortable in school until I was sent to a (gasp!) gifted class where kids were able to work at their own pace and at their own levels. Unfortunately, the GATE/Seminar classes I was in DID provide more and better learning opportunities than the "normal" classes - we had foreign language and drama and extra art and music classes, as well as smaller classes for individualized instruction. This was great for me, and the other children with whom I was educated, but I think it would have been beneficial to the "normal" kids too.

Ideally, for me, would be kids grouped by level in every subject, regardless of age, from early elementary school. So a 5 yo who was reading at a "5th grade" level would be in reading class with some or all of the children reading at that level at their school. And that same 5 yo might not have the fine motor skills necessary for skilled letter writing, so s/he would be in a "penmanship" class for beginners, along with other kids who were just begining to learn to write, and older kids who needed more time to become proficient.


----------



## pookel (May 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya44*
It's the same with having a gifted child. You can NOT bring it up at a PTA meeting. You can only address the issue with administrators IN PRIVATE or with other parents of gifted children.

You pretty much have to bring it up at the PTA meeting when the subject under discussion is whether to cut the gifted program entirely - you know, because those smart kids have too many advantages already.


----------



## gethane (Dec 30, 2003)

I am so not an expert in this field but this is just such a great discussion. Possibly the best I've seen here.

I just wanted to throw this out there and then maybe some of you can see if it fits into the discussion at all.

Extroverts vs. introverts. Couldn't some of the problems associated (in this thread) of being gifted or being labeled as gifted also simply be associated with introvertedness?

Geekness. I've actually seen several discussions resembling this (thread) in some form or another in various online geek communities. Geeks, overall, tend to be introverted and "gifted," at least according to some definitions used in this thread.

The label of "gifted" being a negative thing is often closely tied to the perception by other students that the child is a "geek."

I really was afraid to even post in this thread, however, I didn't see anyone else mention the introvert v. extroverted issue, or how being "geek" could tie in to the negative labeling affect of "gifted."

I feel strongly some of your words about growing up expecting great things from yourself and never .. quite .. getting there.


----------



## pookel (May 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
What stinks is the myth of accelerated learning. There is no such thing. There are only children who, when presented with a prepared, incremental program of fact regurgitation, progress with varying degree's of speed, for myriad differing reasons. This has absolutely nothing to do with their speed of learning. Zero.

OK, so the fact that I understood decimals, percents, and three-digit multiplication, and was good enough at this stuff that I made a habit of calculating the sales tax (6.25% at the time) in my head at the store before the cashier had finished ringing it up, when I was 7 or 8 years old ... that's just a sign that I was good at "fact regurgitation"? And you don't think there was anything wrong with sticking me in a class with kids who were just starting to grasp that 50% was the same as 1/2?


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

Okay, you won the PC-er Than Thou award for today. A gold-plated granola flake will be sent to your house via UPS.
Save the gold star awards for the classroom...

Quote:

Now. What term would be more preferable to you? Why don't you just tell me so I can put it in there.
Low level teachers.

Low level schools.


----------



## pookel (May 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flyingspaghettimama*
I think it stinks because there is no such thing as "acceleration" when you don't think there's a "behind" or "average" either.

So what would YOU do with a kid who already knows everything - not just in one subject, but EVERYTHING, in all subjects - that is being taught to the other children of her age in school? A kid who is bored stiff with the subject matter because they read the textbook in a week at the beginning of the school year, grasped all the concepts easily, and then was ready to move on to the next thing? Not just a kid who gets all As, not just a kid who memorizes fast - a kid who is not learning anything at all because there is nothing new being presented to her in class and she is learning very quickly that school is worthless?

I don't care what you think about the labels. I want to know how you think a school should meet the needs of a student like this - or if you don't think her needs deserve to be met at all.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

What stinks is the myth of accelerated learning. There is no such thing. There are only children who, when presented with a prepared, incremental program of fact regurgitation, progress with varying degree's of speed, for myriad differing reasons. This has absolutely nothing to do with their speed of learning. Zero.

Please cite the factual basis or research information on which you base this conclusion, if you wouldn't mind.
Please respond to what I said or own the limitations you choose to impose on your thinking.


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pookel*
I don't care what you think about the labels. I want to know how you think a school should meet the needs of a student like this - or if you don't think her needs deserve to be met at all.

Well, I suppose this goes back to a previous debate about whether there is some sort of standard information that everyone should be learning or taught. So, this fictitious child already knows everything in the world there is to know? Or knows what that school believes to be important via its curriculum? Also, textbooks are super sucky for all children, not just gifted ones. How can you make something like the Civil War so freakin' boring? How is it even possible to do so?

Inquiry-based methodology easily allows people to work at their own level, pace, and depth by emphasizing _questions_, not just the answers. An inquiry-based unit on volcanoes may lead one child to researching great volcanoes of the 20th century, another to geology, another to the physics of lava flow, another to creating cartoons depicting volcanoes. Or maybe not volcano-related business at all, but some other natural disaster. I attended a school that used this model in HS, and it was awesome. And it wasn't just for gifted kids at all. There is another school that uses this model in my city, and unfortunately it IS for children of a certain IQ level only.

And yes, I think this method of education works for all children, because it's so individualized. Now, there is very little to "test" on in this model, so I guess it wouldn't work for anyone seeking to measure children against one another or for GWB. But there is a lot of passionate learning going on.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
Save the gold star awards for the classroom...

Low level teachers.

Low level schools.

So why are your terms acceptable and mine not? Your PC award has just been revoked, I'm afraid.

Yes, I could have chosen a more PC term -- challenged learners, perhaps? How about "Deltas," which was the _Brave New World_-esque designation for lower-level students at a school at which I once taught? How about a more descriptive one? I could have said, "Students who are seventeen and read at the second-grade level with difficulty and no intonation." I could have said, "Students who can't write a coherent sentence -- or speak one -- and it's not an ESL issue because she can neither write nor speak coherently in Spanish either." I could have said, "People whose idiot mothers thought it was fine to have 'just a little drink' in pregnancy and now their kids have IQs of 80 and can't understand symbolism...and probably never will." Those would describe actual, specific students I've had.

However, as a blanket term, I chose the term most often used by the teachers in my district, which was not, FTR, "low level learners," but rather "lower-level," the difference being similar to the difference between, "She's not old, but she is a little oldER." It's not as PC as you would like, obviously -- but it is a little bit more preferable than the descriptive specifics.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
Please respond to what I said or own the limitations you choose to impose on your thinking.

Not without the facts on which you based your conclusion. That way, we -- and by that, I mean everyone on this board -- can operate from the same data and evaluate it accordingly. Would you mind defining what you mean by "own the limitations you choose to impose on your thinking"? I am afraid I have no idea what you mean.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

OK, so the fact that I understood decimals, percents, and three-digit multiplication, and was good enough at this stuff that I made a habit of calculating the sales tax (6.25% at the time) in my head at the store before the cashier had finished ringing it up, when I was 7 or 8 years old ... that's just a sign that I was good at "fact regurgitation"? And you don't think there was anything wrong with sticking me in a class with kids who were just starting to grasp that 50% was the same as 1/2?
I think you deserved an environment that was supportive of your interests and abilities. I think that could happen alongside, rather than apart from, children of differing abilities. Learning is an individual process. There is no such thing as group learning. A "group" does not learn. Individuals learn.


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gethane*
I feel strongly some of your words about growing up expecting great things from yourself and never .. quite .. getting there.

I think that sounds very sad. It sounds sort of like some of us internalized that schoolmarm's voice that said, "not working up to potential, as you are obviously inherently so X." It's the labelling and achievement-oriented set-up that Dweck and Kohn both write about that set children up for Big Results. I actually had my 8th grade teacher harangue me about quitting what I was supposedly gifted in, and I was totally annoyed. And felt guilty. And it still nags me. And I have a million excuses for not doing it, but the central fear is based on failure...and not meeting expectations.

Doesn't writing on MDC count? Sure it does. As a big waste of time...


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flyingspaghettimama*
Well, I suppose this goes back to a previous debate about whether there is some sort of standard information that everyone should be learning or taught. So, this fictitious child already knows everything in the world there is to know? Or knows what that school believes to be important via its curriculum? Also, textbooks are super sucky for all children, not just gifted ones. *How can you make something like the Civil War so freakin' boring? How is it even possible to do so?*


This book will answer your question!
link


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
A "group" does not learn. Individuals learn.

Wouldn't you want to place the individual in the group that can best meet their needs? Or do we have to stratify by age?


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
Just to validate what you're saying, some of the most incredibly gifted kids I've had -- no, actually, MOST of the incredibly gifted kids I've had, and almost 100% of the gifted boys -- had the lousiest grades in the world. Really, if you combined all of their grades together into One Big Grade, they'd _still_ not be passing.

You heard it first from a veteran teacher: grades are bullpuckey.









: X 1000

Problem was that I started telling my teachers that around 4th grade... for some reason teachers don't like it when 4th graders tell them that....









-Angela


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
This book will answer your question!
link

See now, that's the perfect text, along with some Howard Zinn. If you made it interesting...


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

Not without the facts on which you based your conclusion. That way, we -- and by that, I mean everyone on this board -- can operate from the same data and evaluate it accordingly.










Are you serious? I admire your consistency towards herd mentality. For children as well as adults.

You can read what I said. If you need more information in order to have permission to respond, then you owe it to yourself to go find it. It's not my job to help you prepare your response to my post....


----------



## pookel (May 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flyingspaghettimama*
Well, I suppose this goes back to a previous debate about whether there is some sort of standard information that everyone should be learning or taught. So, this fictitious child already knows everything in the world there is to know? Or knows what that school believes to be important via its curriculum?

Of course this wasn't a fictitious child in my example, but myself ... and what I knew was everything that the school was teaching to all the other students my age (actually, up to about two grades above me - my brother's class).

I totally agree with you that an open system where everyone could learn at an individual pace would be ideal. But the fact is that most schools do not have that sort of system, and kids who are far out of the mainstream - either by learning faster, or slower, or in a radically different way - are underserved by the current school system, much more so than kids who fit well into the educational model the school presents to them. I presume that you support special ed for kids with learning disabilities (correct me if I'm wrong), so what I don't understand is why you don't seem to support accommodations for kids with other kinds of learning differences.


----------



## LeftField (Aug 2, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*









Are you serious? I admire your consistency towards herd mentality. For children as well as adults.

You can read what I said. If you need more information in order to have permission to respond, then you owe it to yourself to go find it. It's not my job to help you prepare your response to my post....

This post makes even less sense to me than your first one, to be completely honest. Oh well. You sound like you don't want to elaborate or discuss it.

The rest of the thread has been a fabulous read on both sides of the issues and I appreciate the dialogue that has taken place.


----------



## pookel (May 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
I think you deserved an environment that was supportive of your interests and abilities. I think that could happen alongside, rather than apart from, children of differing abilities.

I suppose it's theoretically possible that such a system could work, but in practice, in the school system I was in, what actually happened is that whenever we split off into groups and worked together with children of differing abilities, everyone else in my group turned to me and said something like, "You do all the work because you're so smart" (with the implication: "and then maybe we won't spit on you and call you names for the next few days"). They didn't learn anything because they weren't interested in having to work hard at something when I could do the work for them, and I wasn't learning anything because I already knew the stuff.

Now, with radically smaller class sizes (say 10 kids maximum), a caring, involved teacher, and a totally individualized education for every kid ... maybe this sort of thing wouldn't happen. But I don't think that's realistic for our educational system, not any time soon.


----------



## pookel (May 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flyingspaghettimama*
See now, that's the perfect text, along with some Howard Zinn. If you made it interesting...

"Lies My Teacher Told Me" and "A People's History of the United States" are on my shelf for "future American history books to use with my kids if they'll let me."


----------



## Daffodil (Aug 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eclipse*
From the point of view of the kid (me) who was sent to other classes for different subjects, this is not a good solution. It made me feel like I didn't fit in anywhere - not in my class of kids my age, not in the multiple other classes to which I was sent.

It wasn't a good solution for me, either. I was the only 3rd grader who was sent to a 6th grade class for reading, and I hated how different it made me feel. I would rather have stayed with the rest of my class, even if I wasn't learning anything new. (It's not like I learned anything useful in the more advanced class, either. I must have been reading at well beyond a 6th grade level by then. I'm not even sure what the point of a reading class is supposed to be, once you already know how to read. I wonder if _any_ of the kids in that 6th grade class were learning anything.)


----------



## pookel (May 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
Are you serious? I admire your consistency towards herd mentality. For children as well as adults.

Since when is the idea that you should cite sources in an argument a sign of "herd mentality"?








:


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

I think that the big problem is that our main educational system right now is set up with the theory of homogeneous groups. We put all the 9 year olds in a room together and teach them the same things and expect them all to learn the same things at the same pace. While this set up MAY serve to adequately teach those things to the middle 50% of those 9 year olds, the "top" 25% and the "bottom" 25% will not be served as well. As you go further to either end they will be served less and less. Is it possible to create a learning system where much more of the population can be served effectively? Absolutely. Multi-age/multi-grade classrooms with flexible, self-directed curriculum would be a great start. In such a set-up a much larger percentage could be adequately served- perhaps the middle 90%, with only 5% at each end needing something different.

That said, I have worked in a number of school systems, public and private, and I don't think that there is an institutional solution in my city that I can afford for my children. So we will be homeschooling.

-Angela


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*









Are you serious? I admire your consistency towards herd mentality. For children as well as adults.

You can read what I said. If you need more information in order to have permission to respond, then you owe it to yourself to go find it. It's not my job to help you prepare your response to my post....

Heartmama, you have little cause to insult me for asking for data, particularly since, if I were of a "herd mentality," I would be willing to accept the proclamations of the aforementioned herd without data to evaluate myself, which was my original request.

Your refusal (e.g., "It's not my job") to provide any data whatsoever makes me certain (unless you prove otherwise) that your assertions are without merit and are based on absolutely no objective data whatsoever. You have nothing with which you can prove your statement at all, as far as I can see, and until or if you do, I wouldn't necessarily expect anyone to take seriously your statements regarding acceleration.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

Wouldn't you want to place the individual in the group that can best meet their needs? Or do we have to stratify by age?
Your question is based on a half truth.

The true part is that individuals often enjoy learning alongside those of similiar interests and abilities. It can be very helpful and enjoyable to see that others are in the same place you are at with a particular skill. For example, I'm learning to juggle. Jugglers tend to meet in large groups of varying skills, and then break down into smaller groups according to similiar skill levels.

The false part of this question is the assumption that individuals in a group form an identity that can be anticipated, pinned down, measured, made permanent. In the juggling group I may move towards a talented professional for a few minutes and, because I am brought into the orbit of greater ability, greater ability becomes real, tangible, closer to me. I would never get that from people with identical needs. It would be impossible. Then I may return to teaching someone the first step of tossing and catching a single ball accurately. And in doing that I may refine a skill I didn't know I needed to improve. Again, not something I get from people with identical needs!

If you understand that learning is individual, and if the individual is fully free to access any "level" of learning they are interested in pursuing at any time...yes fluid changing groups will form, which can be a natural healthy part of the individuals learning experience.


----------



## pookel (May 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
If you understand that learning is individual, and if the individual is fully free to access any "level" of learning they are interested in pursuing at any time...

So you wouldn't have a problem with a fourth-grader "accessing" a 12th-grade calculus class because it was the level of learning he was interested in pursuing, right? That sounds like acceleration to me. (And no, I didn't study calculus in fourth grade ... but my brother did in sixth, and was lucky enough to get to take university classes when he was 11, where they actually taught him things he didn't already know.)


----------



## pookel (May 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*
So, grade acceleration is going to work with kids who are highly academically advanced and who have a predisposition to good study skills but the truly gifted kids are not going to do well at this. They need a more in-depth, analysis-oriented type of education that does not go faster but goes deeper and wider.

Either I'm not truly gifted, or you're wrong. I certainly don't fit into that "academically advanced and who have a predisposition to good study skills" group, as I think I made clear in earlier posts in this thread. This "deeper and wider" stuff is the reason that I was doing logic puzzles in my GT class as "enrichment" rather than actually learning new material, which is what I needed. I learned faster than all the other kids in my class, MUCH faster. And what I needed was to be taught faster.

Honestly, I agree with some of the skeptics here about how inaccurate these kinds of generalizations can be about gifted characteristics. Need for "deeper and wider" studies - maybe some gifted kids, not me. Lack of social skills - definitely me, but not my brother. Ability to think outside the box and analyze material in a new and different way - not so much me, more so my brother. Honestly, I don't think these kinds of stereotypes are at all useful; they're certainly not helpful for kids who learn at an "average" rate but are also weird or creative or neurotic or whatever you want to characterize gifted kids as.


----------



## pookel (May 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*
Interesting, because I though that the school board was the group with the legal authority to make decisions. I did not realize it was the PTA.

The school board doesn't directly control the programs at individual schools. Those decisions are made by the superintendent, the principal, and the teachers at that school, and in my hometown at least, the PTA meetings were where the school authorities heard parents' concerns about their decisions.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

Heartmama, you have little cause to insult me for asking for data, particularly since, if I were of a "herd mentality," I would be willing to accept the proclamations of the aforementioned herd without data to evaluate myself, which was my original request.
So then, respond already...

Quote:

Your refusal (e.g., "It's not my job") to provide any data whatsoever makes me certain (unless you prove otherwise) that your assertions are without merit and are based on absolutely no objective data whatsoever. You have nothing with which you can prove your statement at all, as far as I can see, and until or if you do, I wouldn't necessarily expect anyone to take seriously your statements regarding acceleration.
True, but you cannot disprove it, which seems to be the crux of your refusal to respond. I've made a stand for what I believe in, fully and passionately, and those words are alive in the experiences of my life. Do you really doubt there is research showing the superiority of self paced learning, and the fallacy of learning that is "fast" or "slow" or "average"? Oh CB! Surely such a well read person as you knows the evidence is there, that I've probably read it, in fact may right now have shelves and shelves of books and references to just this effect.

I have the facts, and they aren't the truth I'm standing for here. You can accept that or continue to ignore...


----------



## LeftField (Aug 2, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
Do you really doubt there is research showing the superiority of self paced learning, and the fallacy of learning that is "fast" or "slow" or "average"?

I only have one question, if you'll humor me. Are you saying that different people do not learn at different rates? Are you saying that wrt abstract reasoning, pattern recognition, logic, foreign language acquisition, manipulation of numbers, heck-even rote memorization, etc etc, that (in the perfect environment) all people should have identical performance? Sorry, that was two questions. I'm just trying to wrap my head around what you're saying. You said you made your stand, but I'm still unclear on what it is. Could you please elaborate on your beliefs here?

Wrt your juggling analogy, if people are able to up and down in groups to imitate and then teach others, who does the most talented juggler learn from? Or does he always have the burden of teaching the others, without being allowed to really grow in his skill?


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pookel*
Originally Posted by flyingspaghettimama
Well, I suppose this goes back to a previous debate about whether there is some sort of standard information that everyone should be learning or taught. So, this fictitious child already knows everything in the world there is to know? Or knows what that school believes to be important via its curriculum?

Of course this wasn't a fictitious child in my example, but myself ... and what I knew was everything that the school was teaching to all the other students my age (actually, up to about two grades above me - my brother's class).

... I presume that you support special ed for kids with learning disabilities (correct me if I'm wrong), so what I don't understand is why you don't seem to support accommodations for kids with other kinds of learning differences.

Really? You knew everything there was to know in the world as a child? That's who I described as fictitious. A child who knew everything to be taught in their "grade level" isn't all that unusual, IMO. That's why the whole concept of grade level is ridiculous.

I'm not even going to dignify the comparing special ed to gifted argument. I personally find that whole argument totally distasteful, as I've stated before. And I don't think parents of challenged children appreciate it too much either. You all can compare the gifted to the special needs populations all you want, but you'll be the only ones doing it. There's a big difference between not being able to eat solid food and not working up to your potential in math.


----------



## pookel (May 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flyingspaghettimama*
Really? You knew everything there was to know in the world as a child?

Uh, read my reply again, that is what YOU said, that is not what I agreed with. I specifically said everything that the school was teaching to my grade and a couple grades up.

Quote:

I'm not even going to dignify the comparing special ed to gifted argument. I personally find that whole argument totally distasteful, as I've stated before. And I don't think parents of challenged children appreciate it too much either. You all can compare the gifted to the special needs populations all you want, but you'll be the only ones doing it. There's a big difference between not being able to eat solid food and not working up to your potential in math.
What does not being able to eat solid food have to do with special ed? That sounds like a kid with a physical special need, not a kid with a learning disability.

The comparison I was trying to make was between kids who don't learn anything in regular classes because they're so far behind (the kids who go to LD programs) and those who don't learn anything in regular classes because they're so far ahead (the kids who go to gifted programs). I don't know why you think that one group deserves special classes while the other one doesn't.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

I only have one question, if you'll humor me. Are you saying that different people do not learn at different rates? Are you saying that wrt abstract reasoning, pattern recognition, logic, foreign language acquisition, manipulation of numbers, heck-even rote memorization, etc etc, that (in the perfect environment) all people should have identical performance? Sorry, that was two questions. I'm just trying to wrap my head around what you're saying. You said you made your stand, but I'm still unclear on what it is. Could you please elaborate on your beliefs here?
I think I understand what you've asked.

I am saying that learning is individual. I am saying that learning is non linear. There is no such thing as average learning. If you create a linear, pre set incremental path of education, the rate of progress down a linear path will always vary (slowest to quickest). That is not a measurement of learning.

An example would be relationships. You could create a linear measurement of relationships (counting the anniversaries, charting milestones ie. home ownership, children, weathering financial troubles etc.) But this wouldn't tell you anything about the presence of love in that relationship. You cannot see love, you cannot measure it. You can go a long way without it. An observer can be "positive" that a couple must be in love, by all the evidence, and find out there was no love in that relationship at all.

Learning is like that. It's an experience that is completely individual. It is non linear, it cannot be forced or measured or anticipated. Like the relationship example, a person can progress at what looks like a terrific speed along a path of linear incremental education, without learning much of anything. They "get it and forget it", and may be shocked at how little they carry out of that education and into their own accessible memory.

Quote:

Wrt your juggling analogy, if people are able to up and down in groups to imitate and then teach others, who does the most talented juggler learn from? Or does he always have the burden of teaching the others, without being allowed to really grow in his skill?
I shouldn't say it's up and down, because it's often side to side, kwim? Sometimes I get a tricky move right away, and other times a simple move eludes me. I think that is true of the "most talented" juggler too.

But regarding the most talented juggler~this is why any such group should be fluid and voluntary. It always comes down to the individual's path of learning. You cannot learn as a group. Sometimes, you can learn _with_ a group. If a juggler felt there was nothing they could learn from being with a particular group of jugglers, they should pursue what interests them. FWIW the best person in most juggling groups is there from an interest in teaching others to juggle, so it's not a conflict of interest.


----------



## Rhonwyn (Apr 16, 2002)

Being labeled gifted in the 4th grade saved my butt. I was bored in school and unchallenged. I did the minimum to get by but I did read vociferously. In 4th grade, I took the Iowa Basic Skills test and another test called the Thorndike test. Because of my scores on those two tests, I was given an IQ test and then offered a spot in the gifted school.

Gifted school was 5th to 8th grade and we were bussed there from all over the city. All of sudden, I was being challenged and pushed and I excelled. I don't think any of this would have happened had I continued in regular school. It may not work this way for all kids but it really worked for me.

It is funny though, now that I have my own kids, I chose not to send them to gifted school because it started in Kindergarten and I didn't want to send my 5 year old on a bus for an hour. We chose a Waldorf education instead because it pushes my children out of their heads and requires them to learn with their bodies and their hands as well as with their heart and hands. We will look at academic high schools when the time comes.


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
Learning is like that. It's an experience that is completely individual. It is non linear, it cannot be forced or measured or anticipated. Like the relationship example, a person can progress at what looks like a terrific speed along a path of linear incremental education, without learning much of anything. They "get it and forget it", and may be shocked at how little they carry out of that education and into their own accessible memory.










Some people here are equating "progressing along the school's curriculum" with learning. That's an arbitrary and narrow definition that leaves out 99.99% of what is available to be learned. There's also a myth that things need to be learned in a certain order - not just silly things like Greek mythology after US states and capitals, but things like knowing the name sof the letters before reading, or knowing the multiplication tables before doing algebra. Is the 7 year old who is devouring Nancy Drew books ahead in reading, or is she behind because she can only name a handful of letters and doesn't know the sounds most of them represent?

dar


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
So then, respond already...

True, but you cannot disprove it, which seems to be the crux of your refusal to respond.

Heartmama, you made a statement regarding acceleration and I would very much like to see on what objective data you're basing your conclusions. Sure, I can respond to your _opinion_, but you are presenting your opinion as if it were incontrovertible fact. If your "words are alive in the experiences of my life" -- meaning that you derive your conclusion from personal experience -- that's fine too, but give me an anecdote.

Give me _something_, for God's sakes. I could say "Fairies grow out of my nostrils; what do you think about that?" and you'd probably want at least a picture before writing me off as a kook, or at least I'd hope you'd cut me the slack of assuming I _could_ be telling the truth about the nose fairies.

Quote:


Do you really doubt there is research showing the superiority of self paced learning, and the fallacy of learning that is "fast" or "slow" or "average"?

_Yeah_, actually -- that's why I really do want to see your data. I've been a teacher for ten years; I have 1800 days of seeing some students learn some skills and pieces of information faster than others -- some learning incredibly fast and some learning at a sloth's pace.

Quote:


Oh CB! Surely such a well read person as you knows the evidence is there, that I've probably read it, in fact may right now have shelves and shelves of books and references to just this effect.
Then give me one passage. One study. One link. That's it.

Quote:

I have the facts, and they aren't the truth I'm standing for here. You can accept that or continue to ignore...
Wow, that sounds like a Zen koan. Or just something that doesn't make sense to me. You have the facts and they aren't the truth you're standing for? Really, what _does_ that mean?


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

I have to say that I agree with most of what heartmama says. This is how I have found my own learning to be: nonlinear, more of a punctuated equilibrium than anything, and what I have learned (skills, information, analytical tools, philosophical frameworks for integrating all of the former) is constantly shifting and turning itself inside out.

Has anyone read any Marshall McLuhan? My thoughts on this are not well-formed yet but I do think that the centrality of technology and measurement in our culture gives us the illusion that we can measure and control things like learning, that we can look into a relationship and decide whether it is healthy, that we can judge the goodness or badness of any old thing because we are able to measure particular qualities and quantities of whatever it is. And I do think that it is by and large an illusion, but so is all of the world, if you believe in the concept of _maya_, which I do...and yet we can't escape _maya_ in this life, so illusions are necessary. They enable us to move and live in the world.

However, they can hide things from us, they obscure the "truth" of our nature, including the truth of how we learn and what we know and what is important to know. Correct me if I'm wrong, heartmama, but I think this is what you were getting at?

Upon reading this in preview, it sounds kind of out there. But it's my understanding of what heartmama is talking about, and I have to say I agree (although I may have misunderstood in which case I'm just agreeing with myself







). But, realizing that it's not possible to truly measure learning, that it may in fact stunt and warp the process of learning to introduce measurement and judgement - that doesn't change the need for practical solutions to the needs of the majority of children, who will spend vast hours of their life studying curriculum that assumes that learning follows a linear path and that faster processing speed = better learning. However, I do think that this assumption can be questioned without throwing out the rest of school along with it.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

I think a great deal of the problem here is one of miscommunication.

What you're talking about is not "learning." It's "wisdom." Substitute "wisdom" for "learning" in your statement below, and I will be quite inclined to agree with you.

"Learning" however -- a little of which is a dangerous thing, as we've seen -- can be defined as _the acquisition of a specific skill or a piece of knowledge_. That can indeed be measured: show me the skill; recall the fact. It happens at faster and slower rates and it can be tested and measured.

_Wisdom_ is far less measurable -- and far more valuable, as I think we'd all agree. Hopefully, the path of learning leads to wisdom, but again, I think we'd all agree that it's not the _only_ path and it doesn't _always_ lead there.

Can we at least agree on that?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
I think I understand what you've asked.

I am saying that learning is individual. I am saying that learning is non linear. There is no such thing as average learning. If you create a linear, pre set incremental path of education, the rate of progress down a linear path will always vary (slowest to quickest). That is not a measurement of learning.

An example would be relationships. You could create a linear measurement of relationships (counting the anniversaries, charting milestones ie. home ownership, children, weathering financial troubles etc.) But this wouldn't tell you anything about the presence of love in that relationship. You cannot see love, you cannot measure it. You can go a long way without it. An observer can be "positive" that a couple must be in love, by all the evidence, and find out there was no love in that relationship at all.

Learning is like that. It's an experience that is completely individual. It is non linear, it cannot be forced or measured or anticipated. Like the relationship example, a person can progress at what looks like a terrific speed along a path of linear incremental education, without learning much of anything. They "get it and forget it", and may be shocked at how little they carry out of that education and into their own accessible memory.

I shouldn't say it's up and down, because it's often side to side, kwim? Sometimes I get a tricky move right away, and other times a simple move eludes me. I think that is true of the "most talented" juggler too.

But regarding the most talented juggler~this is why any such group should be fluid and voluntary. It always comes down to the individual's path of learning. You cannot learn as a group. Sometimes, you can learn _with_ a group. If a juggler felt there was nothing they could learn from being with a particular group of jugglers, they should pursue what interests them. FWIW the best person in most juggling groups is there from an interest in teaching others to juggle, so it's not a conflict of interest.


----------



## pookel (May 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar*
Is the 7 year old who is devouring Nancy Drew books ahead in reading, or is she behind because she can only name a handful of letters and doesn't know the sounds most of them represent?

Just because kids don't fit neatly and exactly into categories of learning speeds doesn't mean there ARE no categories. That particular 7-year-old may be hard to categorize because she isn't learning things in the same order most kids do - but that doesn't mean that the kid who is reading Nancy Drew and knows all the letter names isn't ahead of the kid who doesn't know the letter names and can't sound out the word "cat."


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
"Learning" however -- a little of which is a dangerous thing, as we've seen -- can be defined as _the acquisition of a specific skill or a piece of knowledge_. That can indeed be measured: show me the skill; recall the fact. It happens at faster and slower rates and it can be tested and measured.

I think we're clearly talking about learning, not wisdom. If you want, you could measure specific pieces of evidence of learning - how fast can someone read a passage, how many state capitals one can recite - but that's not learning... and deciding what to measure influences your results more than anything the learner is doing.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pookel*
That particular 7-year-old may be hard to categorize because she isn't learning things in the same order most kids do - but that doesn't mean that the kid who is reading Nancy Drew and knows all the letter names isn't ahead of the kid who doesn't know the letter names and can't sound out the word "cat."

Always? What if the kid who doesn't know the letter names and can't sound out the word "cat" is reading Harry Potter... or Shakespeare?

dar


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar*
I think we're clearly talking about learning, not wisdom. If you want, you could measure specific pieces of evidence of learning - how fast can someone read a passage, how many state capitals one can recite - but that's not learning... and deciding what to measure influences your results more than anything the learner is doing.

Well, so much for my efforts to find harmony and common ground. So, Dar, why don't you define, _in precise terms_, what you believe "learning" is, and how exactly it would be different from _the acquisition of specific skills or pieces of knowledge_.


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
Well, so much for my efforts to find harmony and common ground.

If it helps, I do agree with what you said about wisdom... I just don't think that's what heartmama and I are talking about. I'm all for harmony and common ground...

Quote:

So, Dar, why don't you define, _in precise terms_, what you believe "learning" is, and how exactly it would be different from _the acquisition of specific skills or pieces of knowledge_.
I think this is a part of learning, sure... but it's pretty lower-level stuff. I think the more significant learning is about making connections, and analyzing, and synthesizing information. And I don't think one can measure this very effectively at all, because it's highly personal and often internal.

dar


----------



## pookel (May 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar*
Always? What if the kid who doesn't know the letter names and can't sound out the word "cat" is reading Harry Potter... or Shakespeare?

Then that's another one of those "hard to categorize" kids - but I was talking about a kid who didn't know letter names and couldn't read AT ALL. Do you disagree that that kid is behind the kid who's reading Nancy Drew?


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*
Having read McLuhan, I think he would find it ironic that you are using technology to convey that assertion. McLuhan defined media as extensions of our bodies. I think he would tell us to turn the computers off.









Oh, I agree! I don't think I expressed myself well. It's such a shame he didn't live to see the Internet. Do you think he would have pronounced it a 'hot' or a 'cold' medium?

Quote:

As a teacher, everthing that I do in the classroom that helps me to determine whether my students are learning is some form of assessment. It could be a portfolio or a test or a huge bunch of all sorts of materials. I prefer the latter because it gives us a clearer picture of the child.
You sound like such a great teacher. Unfortunately, I think your approach is not the norm.


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
True, but you cannot disprove it, which seems to be the crux of your refusal to respond. I've made a stand for what I believe in, fully and passionately, and those words are alive in the experiences of my life. Do you really doubt there is research showing the superiority of self paced learning, and the fallacy of learning that is "fast" or "slow" or "average"? Oh CB! Surely such a well read person as you knows the evidence is there, that I've probably read it, in fact may right now have shelves and shelves of books and references to just this effect.

I have the facts, and they aren't the truth I'm standing for here. You can accept that or continue to ignore...

Huh? Belief totally absent fact (none has been cited)? Is this a religion? Need we only but believe and we shall be saved from an unneccessary but inherent human propensity to categorize and analyse? Is it up to the non believer to disprove the essence of a belief? If you won't accept basic statistical analysis, the task seems rather onerous.

But what the heck:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
I think I understand what you've asked.

I am saying that learning is individual. I am saying that learning is non linear. There is no such thing as average learning. If you create a linear, pre set incremental path of education, the rate of progress down a linear path will always vary (slowest to quickest). That is not a measurement of learning.

Is there an average height? Weight? Is there an average age for walking, jumping, skipping? *Individuals* don't grow in a truly linear fashion, but we still grow, and at different rates, no? We can make growth charts showing average rates and rates at different percentiles. We can argue about the appropriateness of using a certain growth chart for breast fed babies, but we're arguing with a methodology and this is perfectly rational. We can't argue that given the right circumstances all children could grow at the same rate or that tall and short are irrelevent concepts. I only wish I could reach the top shelves in the kitchen cubboards.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
An example would be relationships. You could create a linear measurement of relationships (counting the anniversaries, charting milestones ie. home ownership, children, weathering financial troubles etc.) But this wouldn't tell you anything about the presence of love in that relationship. You cannot see love, you cannot measure it. You can go a long way without it. An observer can be "positive" that a couple must be in love, by all the evidence, and find out there was no love in that relationship at all.

Learning is like that. It's an experience that is completely individual. It is non linear, it cannot be forced or measured or anticipated. Like the relationship example, a person can progress at what looks like a terrific speed along a path of linear incremental education, without learning much of anything. They "get it and forget it", and may be shocked at how little they carry out of that education and into their own accessible memory.

Because you can't measure an intangible, "love," in an *individual* relationship (though you can analyse divorce, procreation, etc. rates for a *group*) you can't measure average rates of learning in a group? You can't say *x*% of children can read 1st grade primers by *y* age? Or the average age at which children can read a 1st grade primer is *z*? You can't assert with _any certainty_ it is unusual for a 4yo to be reading _Wind in the Willows_? The love/learning analogy is a poor one because group analysis confusing with predictions about an individual, and an intangible is being compared with something which, at least in several aspects, can be actually be measured.


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pookel*
Then that's another one of those "hard to categorize" kids - but I was talking about a kid who didn't know letter names and couldn't read AT ALL. Do you disagree that that kid is behind the kid who's reading Nancy Drew?

Behind? Or hasn't learned something that the other kid has learned? The idea of putting kids "ahead" and "behind" each other is total school-think. Are you "behind" me because I know things you don't know?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*
Teachers usually know that you have to learn something BEFORE you can analyze or synthesize it. However, I will concede that analysis and synthesis are also referred to as higher levels of learning.

But what child A is learning will be different from what Child B is learning, which will be different again from what Child C is learning.

If a teacher presents a lesson on the Depression, one child may be suddenly understanding something she'd read in the American Girl books, while another is reminded of Annie and realizes why the "New Deal" line was so funny. A third may be figuring out how much time had passed since WW I, and since the Civil War, and he might be figuring out a faster way to subtract numbers. A fourth may have already read a lot about the Depression on his own, and may be comparing the teacher's remarks with other sources. A fifth may be connecting the teacher's words to other things he's heard about stocks, and trying to understand how the whole stock market works. A sixth may be staring at a bug on the floor and trying to classify it based on its head shape, using his prior knowledge of entomology.

So, they're all learning. How are you going to measure who is "ahead" and who is "behind"? Who learned "fastest"?

dar


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Nora'smama

Yes I see what you are saying. I was talking to dh about this tonight. Once we compare people the "it" we are comparing, is not their learning speed, but their distance from an expectation. You cannot understand what someone has learned by comparison. You can only grasp where they are in relation to your expectations when you compare them...and terms like "fast" "average" and "slow" are the language of comparing.


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar*
Behind? Or hasn't learned something that the other kid has learned? The idea of putting kids "ahead" and "behind" each other is total school-think. Are you "behind" me because I know things you don't know?


This is such a good insight, Dar. And I think that gifted kids in particular often grow up very invested in the concept of being "ahead". This is why a lot of us have a hard time when we get to adulthood and "ahead/behind" looks very different, and pretty irrelevant...this is a major shock to someone whose self-concept has been predicated on being "ahead" of the others.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

But what child A is learning will be different from what Child B is learning, which will be different again from what Child C is learning.

If a teacher presents a lesson on the Depression, one child may be suddenly understanding something she'd read in the American Girl books, while another is reminded of Annie and realizes why the "New Deal" line was so funny. A third may be figuring out how much time had passed since WW I, and since the Civil War, and he might be figuring out a faster way to subtract numbers. A fourth may have already read a lot about the Depression on his own, and may be comparing the teacher's remarks with other sources. A fifth may be connecting the teacher's words to other things he's heard about stocks, and trying to understand how the whole stock market works. A sixth may be staring at a bug on the floor and trying to classify it based on it's head shape, using his prior knowledge of entomology.

So, they're all learning. How are you going to measure who is "ahead" and who is "behind"? Who learned "fastest"?
Yes!

To answer your question, typically they measure according to pre determined expectations. Fragile, subjective, arbitrary expectations at that. Learning is irrelevent. The teacher *expected* them to learn 2 specific facts about the Depression...the date in which it started, and the President under which it ended (for example). All of the children were learning, but only some will learn what the teacher expected from the information she presented.

The measurement is an act of comparison in relation to pre determined expectations.


----------



## gethane (Dec 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nora'sMama*
This is such a good insight, Dar. And I think that gifted kids in particular often grow up very invested in the concept of being "ahead". This is why a lot of us have a hard time when we get to adulthood and "ahead/behind" looks very different, and pretty irrelevant...this is a major shock to someone whose self-concept has been predicated on being "ahead" of the others.









:

some of the hardest work on my internal self in the last 15 years is getting away from this.


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gethane*
some of the hardest work on my internal self in the last 15 years is getting away from this.

Shhh... but I think it's why I love my test prep job. I test really well, and every time I want to teach prep classes for another test I have to first take the test and score really well. I'm ahead of 99% of the population on a whole myriad of pre-college and pre-grad school tests. Of course, it means nothing, unless I suddenly decide I want to go get an MBA or go to law school... but it feeds the gifted monster within.

I had serious lead poisoning when I was around 20, with a lead level over 100. It was intentional, although I'm not sure of I was trying to kill myself or just make myself dumber. I don't know if I succeeded with the latter task or not...

I'm getting random here, as my daughter would say. Time for bed.

dar


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

OMG Dar, that's what I do, too! I teach GRE classes! I love it!! I was supposed to sit for the LSAT so I could teach those classes, too, but it's a lot of prep (I don't have the IQ to score in the 99th percentile on the LSAT with no prep!). So the LSAT is on hold for the time being.

gethane, ITA - I feel like I created a "map of the world" based on the values of the school world which I assumed would carry over to the "real" world, and it was totally useless. So I've spent a lot of time re-drawing my mental map of the world and getting my bearings.

boongirl, my first thought on the Internet was that it is a hot medium, but it also preserves the written word indefinitely and allows for individual study...so there are some aspects of both hot and cold media...I think it depends *where* you go on the internet. But overall I'd definitely agree that it's hot. That is, if I have the definitions of hot and cold media correct - it's kind of tricky. I should get out my copy of "The Medium is the Message". But...not tonight.







Thanks for indulging my tangent...I am the Queen of Tangents...


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

Because you can't measure an intangible, "love," in an individual relationship (though you can analyse divorce, procreation, etc. rates for a group) you can't measure average rates of learning in a group?
Because? No. As you say, you can measure divorce rates, and you can measure how many children read a 1st grade primer. But you are only measuring *what you are measuring*, and *you are not measuring everything else*.

There would be accuracy in saying "On three separate occasions, I expected Johnny to read Goodnight Moon within a timed 10 minute window. He read the book is 17 minutes. Of 30 children 29 read it in 5 minutes and 1 (Johnny) read it in 17 minutes". So what?

What is often said instead is "Johnny is a low level learner".

This is a very simplified example, but there is a profound difference in the accuracy between stating what WAS measured (Johnny's performance to an expectation, and a comparison of performance to expectations) and what was not measured (what Johnny learned). Johnny may have learned any of a hundred things while he read "Goodnight Moon"...everything from noticing the clock face, wondering how high a cow could really jump, deciding which colors he liked best, counting the pattern of stripes across the window drapes, new idea's to to make up rhymes in his own head...etc.

It just so happened that this particular teacher uses speed to assess a child's progress with reading. He is below the average performance to her expectation when compared to the other children. That's all we know about Johnny. We do NOT know what he learned. Learning is individual and non linear. There is no test which could say with accuracy "Johnny is a slow learner". Baloney. Complete speculation and subjective assumption.


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

We haven't talked too much on this thread about the big overlap between "gifted" people and people with mental illness and learning/behavioral disorders such as ADHD. boongirl, your post reminds me of how I always take tests. I do them as fast as possible whether I know the material or not. I usually do well, but even if I'm having a hard time, I find it very hard to slow down and try to think things through. I just spit out whatever is in my brain and hope it works. I think this why I have major problems writing an academic paper (where you can't do it all in one go) but I loooove typing on message boards where the "spit it out of your brain" style works pretty well.









I have all the characteristics of someone with ADHD. I think that if I were an elementary school student now, instead of in the 80's, I'd probably be diagnosed with it. I feel there is a relationship between my "giftedness" and my deficits and it centers around this processing speed thing. I have to go at rocket speed or my brain gums up. I mentioned that I play the piano, but I don't play slow pieces almost as a rule. I am good at memorization but I can't memorize pieces with a slow tempo!

I also have OCD and might be bipolar. I have a lot of "issues". I am always searching for a central "issue" that explains my difficulties in life. I used to subscribe to a Gifted listserv and I found that many if not most of the frequent posters also had mental illnesses or, um, "quirks" of neurology if you will. A lightbulb went off in my head - wait! perhaps all of my "quirkiness" and "issues", which never seem to be perfectly encapsulated by one diagnosis, are directly related to my IQ - which is largely a measure of pattern recognition and processing speed. You could definitely look at OCD as pattern recognition gone wrong. You can also look at ADHD as "brainspeed" gone wrong. So maybe I don't have mental disorders - I'm just "gifted"! - and sometimes my giftedness "goes wrong".

But, look at this from another angle - why do some kids get the ADHD label and others get the "gifted" label? Is it possible to be ADHD and have a low IQ? If you took away my crazy processing speed and *made* me do things more slowly, would my IQ go down?

These are questions I used to ask myself a lot, and I still find them interesting. However I really do think that they are the wrong questions to ask, and that the problem is all of the classification itself. Everyone's neurology is a bit atypical. I think psychiatry and schools should treat people *individually*, rather than focusing on labels and diagnoses.

More







...sorry...


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
Because? No. As you say, you can measure divorce rates, and you can measure how many children read a 1st grade primer. But you are only measuring *what you are measuring*, and *you are not measuring everything else*.

There would be accuracy in saying "On three separate occasions, I expected Johnny to read Goodnight Moon within a timed 10 minute window. He read the book is 17 minutes. Of 30 children 29 read it in 5 minutes and 1 (Johnny) read it in 17 minutes". So what?

What is often said instead is "Johnny is a low level learner".

This is a very simplified example, but there is a profound difference in the accuracy between stating what WAS measured (Johnny's performance to an expectation, and a comparison of performance to expectations) and what was not measured (what Johnny learned). Johnny may have learned any of a hundred things while he read "Goodnight Moon"...everything from noticing the clock face, wondering how high a cow could really jump, deciding which colors he liked best, counting the pattern of stripes across the window drapes, new idea's to to make up rhymes in his own head...etc.

It just so happened that this particular teacher uses speed to assess a child's progress with reading. He is below the average performance to her expectation when compared to the other children. That's all we know about Johnny. We do NOT know what he learned. Learning is individual and non linear. There is no test which could say with accuracy "Johnny is a slow learner". Baloney. Complete speculation and subjective assumption.

I also think that some kids have the kind of personality that makes them really want to please, and they are highly sensitized to what the "right" answer is. Such students may know what to say, but that doesn't mean they are learning the content, or integrating it into their understanding of the world, in a meaningful way. The learning is a means to an end for the "teacher's pet" sort of student, at least some of the time. Whereas some kids are pretty oblivious to what they are "supposed" to get out of a lesson and naturally take from it what is important to THEM.

In my English classes in high school I always used to get annoyed by people who came up with really off-the-wall ways of looking at texts. I was very very good at knowing what the teacher thought was important about a book...I picked up on the little clues, there are always clues, and if she pointed out that Raskolnikov's clothes were yellow, I wanted to be the first to raise my hand and ask if maybe yellow was a symbol of Decay.







But that didn't mean I was really gaining a deep appreciation for and understanding of Crime and Punishment. I feel embarrassed now for thinking that I was smarter than others because I could latch onto the "correct" interpretation quickly...that certainly wasn't the sign of an independent mind. I think some very deep thinkers are easy to miss in the classroom.


----------



## pookel (May 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar*
Behind? Or hasn't learned something that the other kid has learned? The idea of putting kids "ahead" and "behind" each other is total school-think. Are you "behind" me because I know things you don't know?

I'm behind you on subjects where you know more than I do, ahead of you on subjects where I know more than you do, and somewhere off to the side on subjects where it's not clear-cut. Since we're adults and have learned most of the "basics" of life, you and I are probably "to the side" on most subjects. But with kids there is a lot more basic learning going on - they're still picking up the things that almost everyone is going to know someday. The ones who learn a certain subject faster are ahead.

If one kid is running at 12 months, another kid is cruising, and a third kid hasn't yet done anything but crawl, would you disagree that the first kid is ahead in walking? It doesn't mean there's anything *wrong* with the other kids. It is not a value judgment of their worth. It doesn't mean that the first kid is going to grow up to be an athlete and the other kids won't. All it means is that the first kid may need shoes sooner and probably needs more supervision at this age to stay out of the street, because he is walking sooner than his peers and has different needs - just like a kid who learns math faster than his peers has different needs. I don't see why that should be controversial.

Quote:

But what child A is learning will be different from what Child B is learning, which will be different again from what Child C is learning.
Just because there isn't a single, linear, clear-cut order in which things can be learned doesn't mean there is *no order at all*. You can learn algebra without learning the multiplication table, but you can't learn calculus without learning algebra - it is simply not possible. An understanding of variables and how they're used is essential to pretty much all higher math.

Quote:

If a teacher presents a lesson on the Depression, one child may be suddenly understanding something she'd read in the American Girl books, while another is reminded of Annie and realizes why the "New Deal" line was so funny. A third may be figuring out how much time had passed since WW I, and since the Civil War, and he might be figuring out a faster way to subtract numbers. A fourth may have already read a lot about the Depression on his own, and may be comparing the teacher's remarks with other sources. A fifth may be connecting the teacher's words to other things he's heard about stocks, and trying to understand how the whole stock market works. A sixth may be staring at a bug on the floor and trying to classify it based on it's head shape, using his prior knowledge of entomology.

So, they're all learning. How are you going to measure who is "ahead" and who is "behind"? Who learned "fastest"?
In which subject, specifically? History in general? The material presented in this particular class? The kid who is studying the bug may be ahead of his classmates in science, but if he doesn't know what the Depression was or how it affected American society or what caused it or when it happened, it's fair to say he's behind in this particular class.

You never did answer my question about whether the kid who's reading Nancy Drew is ahead of the kid who isn't reading at all, in the subject of reading. So?


----------



## pookel (May 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nora'sMama*
This is such a good insight, Dar. And I think that gifted kids in particular often grow up very invested in the concept of being "ahead".

But the problem is how they internalize the concept - not that there is such a concept at all. Don't you agree that there's a big difference between "you seem to be ahead in math, so maybe you can skip the rest of this textbook and move on to a harder one" and "you seem to be ahead in math, and that means you're special and better than everyone else."


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pookel*

If one kid is running at 12 months, another kid is cruising, and a third kid hasn't yet done anything but crawl, would you disagree that the first kid is ahead in walking? It doesn't mean there's anything *wrong* with the other kids. It is not a value judgment of their worth.

Ah, but to many parents, it absolutely IS a value judgment! That's why, online, you see thinly veiled brag threads (on other websites, of course, never at MDC!







) posted by proud parents of early walkers, and anxious worried threads posted by parents of late walkers. In our society we certainly DO attach a value to being "ahead".


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

I wish you'd addressed the rest of my post, especially the bit about the data behind your "belief."

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
Because? No. As you say, you can measure divorce rates, and you can measure how many children read a 1st grade primer. But you are only measuring *what you are measuring*, and *you are not measuring everything else*.

Please recall that elsewhere in the same post I said "aspects" can be measured. No one is suggesting that "learning" can be broken into one composite figure.

Quote:

What is often said instead is "Johnny is a low level learner".
Which means that it takes Johnny longer to acquire a _given_ skill than his peers. It doesn't predict what he will know, how hard he will work, what he may choose to study (or not). It also doesn't mean that Johnny can't eventually learn this or that. However, wouldn't Johnny benefit from appropriate scaffolding for his learning style and rate?

Quote:

There is no test which could say with accuracy "Johnny is a slow learner". Baloney. Complete speculation and subjective assumption.
Who said there was? You can compare aspects of his learning to his peers. A teacher or parent may have a "gut feeling" but they may be wrong. However, like it or not, there are certain skillsets that children are expected to master at each grade level at this time. The one perfect system so often described in this thread does not at this time exist for Johnny, whether Johnny is gifted or closer to average or whatever. Johnny has to deal with the system as it is now. I find it appalling that people can argue that small reforms shouldn't be fought for because the system requires wholesale change. Johnny should be in a classroom environment in which he can learn _something_. The suggestion that a 6yo child who's been reading for years and worked out such things as multiplication on their own should still be able to glean some knowledge from being in a group situations with other 6yo's most of whom are still learning to read is absurd. Is that a good use of their time?


----------



## pookel (May 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nora'sMama*
Ah, but to many parents, it absolutely IS a value judgment! That's why, online, you see thinly veiled brag threads (on other websites, of course, never at MDC!







) posted by proud parents of early walkers, and anxious worried threads posted by parents of late walkers. In our society we certainly DO attach a value to being "ahead".

Well, yes - that's why this is a good analogy. The problem is with *people making value judgments* based on the child's performance, not the mere recognition of the child's differing ability. The kid who walks early has specific needs related to his walking early; it's not helpful to him to have his parents bragging about it to everyone, but it also wouldn't be helpful for them to pretend it wasn't happening.


----------



## talk de jour (Apr 21, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar*
Behind? Or hasn't learned something that the other kid has learned? The idea of putting kids "ahead" and "behind" each other is total school-think. Are you "behind" me because I know things you don't know?

But what child A is learning will be different from what Child B is learning, which will be different again from what Child C is learning.

If a teacher presents a lesson on the Depression, one child may be suddenly understanding something she'd read in the American Girl books, while another is reminded of Annie and realizes why the "New Deal" line was so funny. A third may be figuring out how much time had passed since WW I, and since the Civil War, and he might be figuring out a faster way to subtract numbers. A fourth may have already read a lot about the Depression on his own, and may be comparing the teacher's remarks with other sources. A fifth may be connecting the teacher's words to other things he's heard about stocks, and trying to understand how the whole stock market works. A sixth may be staring at a bug on the floor and trying to classify it based on its head shape, using his prior knowledge of entomology.

So, they're all learning. How are you going to measure who is "ahead" and who is "behind"? Who learned "fastest"?

dar

























This was amazing, Dar.


----------



## sophmama (Sep 11, 2004)

One element that I haven't heard discussed much is those who go through good programs and end up having good lives. Because the few good programs are hard to find, a lot of people may not have much experience with them. Living in the DC Metro area, there are schools such as (Thomas Jefferson High School for example) that for many "gifted" (or whatever you feel they are) kids, do get an education that serves them well. I know several 'gifted' adults who ended up getting good scholarships and went on to pursue careers that they love. Some of those schools do really great things. I know the system fails a lot of kids, but there are good programs out there that reach some kids.

I wish I had had more intervention in my own educational process, but if there had been something like the few programs available out there - I think my life would have been a lot better. If I could have actually been challenged in school (beyond surviving the load of repetitive exercises), I think my life would have turned out so differently. I would have gone to college - which I would have loved. I never even took the SAT's or ACT's. I was offered a full-ride from one university without ever applying to any schools. I received mail and/or scholarship offers from hundreds of schools, but education had been so boring to me that I had found something to fill the void - religious zealotry. I think between the extreme alternative lifestyle upbringing (and Dobson parenting techniques), and the uninteresting education I received, my life just really headed down a road that I look back on with a lot of remorse. A good 'gifted' (or whatever) program could have saved me from so much anguish. It would have occupied my overactive mind in some sort of productive venue. It would have helped me to get away (mentally) from my freaky parents. It would have put me on a path toward a career and in the company of people who challenged me and interested me. It would have done a lot that 'regular' school did not.

Sure 'regular' school needs to be adjusted, but just like my dh's special ed students NEED certain services, 'gifted' kids _need_ certain things too that are not available to all student nor are they needed by all students. Some kids would be overwhelmed by having too much information presented at once and being expected to weed through it. Other kids in my classes hated how I'd try to take discussions on tangents that took us way off the main point of the lesson. I'd make them miss out on what the actual topic was because I read the material during the first five minutes of class and was ready to move on. Eventually, learning how to dumb myself down enough to be accepted was the lesson that got me through 'regular' school.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

I loved your post Dar. I'm not contributing to this thread much lately because I am not struggling with this anymore. I have reframed my understanding of this issue, thanks to women like Nora's Mama and yourself, Dar, who present alternative ways of viewing children and learning, and who point out the problems in the "gifted and talented vs. average," "ahead vs. behind" paradigm.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar*
If it helps, I do agree with what you said about wisdom... I just don't think that's what heartmama and I are talking about. I'm all for harmony and common ground...

I think this is a part of learning, sure... but it's pretty lower-level stuff. I think the more significant learning is about making connections, and analyzing, and synthesizing information. And I don't think one can measure this very effectively at all, because it's highly personal and often internal.

dar

All right, sure. I'll be happy to accept that. How about an expanded definition, then, one like, _the acquisition of skills and pieces of knowledge, and the ability to connect, analyze, and synthesize information_? I'm fine with that. And I would be inclined to agree that the higher up you go, the more difficult that mental "connective tissue" that you're speaking of between and among ideas, often disparate and seemingly unrelated, is very difficult to measure, and certainly difficult to measure with accuracy.

In some ways, though, I think you've put your finger on an important aspect of giftedness, and I don't think it would be out of line to state that a gifted person not only builds a knowledge base more rapidly than the general norm, but rapidly and extensively builds connections (sometimes unexpected ones) between and among those skills and pieces of information).

Where I think I apparently differ with you and some others is that I do believe that in any given group of people (and by "group," I basically mean "more than one"), there'll be people who are faster or slower at performing that act of "learning" we've mutually defined above. That goes both for individual skills (e.g. music acquisition) or overall. I don't think there's any shame in that fact alone, only in people's treatment of others based on that information. I don't think being above average, average, or below average makes one a better human being or more worthy of respect or kind treatment. I don't think that it's the be-all and the end-all of humanity or the only worthwhile quality.

Hope that helps.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nora'sMama*
Ah, but to many parents, it absolutely IS a value judgment! That's why, online, you see thinly veiled brag threads (on other websites, of course, never at MDC!







) posted by proud parents of early walkers, and anxious worried threads posted by parents of late walkers. In our society we certainly DO attach a value to being "ahead".

But I would argue, only for so long.

Up to a point, I think we value being "ahead" a great deal, but after that point, I think we regard it as deeply problematic in a host of ways. I don't know if anyone here has (or maybe everyone has) heard of the concept of "socially optimal intelligence" -- the best I.Q. "ceiling" to have in order to get along in society. I've heard that ceiling defined as 150 (that is, above that, and you have problems relating to others), but I personally think it's far lower. We're just not comfortable as a group with people who are far divergent from the norm in either direction, and unfortunately, that's when a presumably good trait like intelligence starts attracting the witch-stoners, if you know what I mean.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NoHiddenFees*
The suggestion that a 6yo child who's been reading for years and worked out such things as multiplication on their own should still be able to glean some knowledge from being in a group situations with other 6yo's most of whom are still learning to read is absurd. Is that a good use of their time?

I would agree...and the research (which I'd be happy to cite) suggests that that six-year-old would be way better off in a separate group or separate class.

Closer to the norm, a student who's "ahead" (let's say, a six-year-old who was learning to read but had mastered the basics) works effectively as a peer tutor for students who have not yet, and other students who are also close to the norm have a positive experience in being tutored by their peers. That research suggests that in an average classroom with a fairly typical bell curve of abilities, heterogeneous grouping works pretty darn well. Yippee-yay. Down with the grouping of kids into bluebirds, cardinals, and vultures.

However, the further you get on either side from that center of the bell curve, the rule about positive heterogeneous grouping changes. The six-year-old who's halfway through _Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix_ resents always or frequently being an unpaid teacher's assistant working with the kids who are struggling to sound out words, and the kids who are struggling to sound out words resent the peer tutor because the difference between their abilities makes them feel stupid -- they feel it to be an uncloseable gap, not one that they can reasonably achieve in time with practice, as they do with peer tutors closer to them in ability. In practice, what often happens is that the peer tutor does the work for the other kids and nobody learns anything.

That's why I think it's valuable to acknowledge that there _are_ differences in learning rates and depths, and to do what is possible to help the kids on the extremes as well as the kids in the middle. Right now, I would argue, most people think schools do a decent job overall with the kids in the middle, for the most part. (Gee, did I qualify that enough?) We have a nation that's pretty literate and numerate -- not as literate or numerate as we might want or might be optimal, but it does well enough, or at least it's not so universally abysmal that the majority concurs that we must throw out the existing system and start over. I think since the passage of IDEA that we do a far better job than we did before in helping the special-needs learners, although of course there's room for improvement there too.

Where we seriously drop the ball is on the other end of the spectrum -- we deny that _that_ extreme exists, we convince ourselves that "those kids" do well in school (or will when they get to take AP classes...disregarding the other 10 or 11 years where they won't be challenged), we put what others here have called a "bandaid" on the problem, we tell ourselves myths that sound pretty ("All children are gifted," or "They all even out by third grade" are two of my personal favorites), or we decry any and all such programs as categorically élitist.

Unfortunately, _people aren't equal_. That's not to say Group A is "better" or "worse" because that group possesses a certain quality. It is to say that Group A is _different_ and therefore has different needs in much the same way as a person with size 8 feet needs size 8 shoes. I should add that being a size 8 does not make you ethically or spiritually superior or inferior to someone with a size 1 or 10.

I find rather terrifying the mindset that wants to erase all differences and claim that humans partake of universal equality -- not equality under the law, as Jefferson meant by "all men are created equal," or equality in the eyes of God if you believe in God, or equality of WORTH, because I believe, as I have said before, that all children _are_ worthy, special, valuable, deserving of love and respect and fair treatment. No, I'm talking about equality of BEING. There is no such beast. We are all different and we have different needs, and to deny them -- or worse, to effectively prevent an entire group of people the privilege and the opportunity of exercising and fulfilling those differences -- is terrifying in its totalitarian erasure of individuality. It reminds me of this story.


----------



## LeftField (Aug 2, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
I would agree...and the research (which I'd be happy to cite) suggests that that six-year-old would be way better off in a separate group or separate class.

Closer to the norm, a student who's "ahead" (let's say, a six-year-old who was learning to read but had mastered the basics) works effectively as a peer tutor for students who have not yet, and other students who are also close to the norm have a positive experience in being tutored by their peers. That research suggests that in an average classroom with a fairly typical bell curve of abilities, heterogeneous grouping works pretty darn well. Yippee-yay. Down with the grouping of kids into bluebirds, cardinals, and vultures.

However, the further you get on either side from that center of the bell curve, the rule about positive heterogeneous grouping changes. The six-year-old who's halfway through _Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix_ resents always or frequently being an unpaid teacher's assistant working with the kids who are struggling to sound out words, and the kids who are struggling to sound out words resent the peer tutor because the difference between their abilities makes them feel stupid -- they feel it to be an uncloseable gap, not one that they can reasonably achieve in time with practice, as they do with peer tutors closer to them in ability. In practice, what often happens is that the peer tutor does the work for the other kids and nobody learns anything.

That's why I think it's valuable to acknowledge that there _are_ differences in learning rates and depths, and to do what is possible to help the kids on the extremes as well as the kids in the middle. Right now, I would argue, most people think schools do a decent job overall with the kids in the middle, for the most part. (Gee, did I qualify that enough?) We have a nation that's pretty literate and numerate -- not as literate or numerate as we might want or might be optimal, but it does well enough, or at least it's not so universally abysmal that the majority concurs that we must throw out the existing system and start over. I think since the passage of IDEA that we do a far better job than we did before in helping the special-needs learners, although of course there's room for improvement there too.

Where we seriously drop the ball is on the other end of the spectrum -- we deny that _that_ extreme exists, we convince ourselves that "those kids" do well in school (or will when they get to take AP classes...disregarding the other 10 or 11 years where they won't be challenged), we put what others here have called a "bandaid" on the problem, we tell ourselves myths that sound pretty ("All children are gifted," or "They all even out by third grade" are two of my personal favorites), or we decry any and all such programs as categorically élitist.

Unfortunately, _people aren't equal_. That's not to say Group A is "better" or "worse" because that group possesses a certain quality. It is to say that Group A is _different_ and therefore has different needs in much the same way as a person with size 8 feet needs size 8 shoes. I should add that being a size 8 does not make you ethically or spiritually superior or inferior to someone with a size 1 or 10.

I find rather terrifying the mindset that wants to erase all differences and claim that humans partake of universal equality -- not equality under the law, as Jefferson meant by "all men are created equal," or equality in the eyes of God if you believe in God, or equality of WORTH, because I believe, as I have said before, that all children _are_ worthy, special, valuable, deserving of love and respect and fair treatment. No, I'm talking about equality of BEING. There is no such beast. We are all different and we have different needs, and to deny them -- or worse, to effectively prevent an entire group of people the privilege and the opportunity of exercising and fulfilling those differences -- is terrifying in its totalitarian erasure of individuality. It reminds me of this story.

LOL. I swear I was thinking about Harrison Bergeron last night when I went to bed.

I don't see what's so hard to understand about this, but I can see why it's distasteful to many. Put my husband and I in a room, two people who have a similar level of education. My husband is going to greatly outperform me on any basic math problem, despite the fact he's never memorized his times tables. He has a stronger intuitive grasp of math than I do and he's very quick to learn it. Now, introduce a language that neither of us know...Swahili for example. I am going to pick it up at a much more rapid pace than my husband will and I'm going to retain it for longer with less scaffolding. Likewise, my SIL can quickly learn almost any instrument she touches and I would need tons of instruction and scaffolding despite my great appreciation of music. I can't believe that anyone would not see that some people learn faster or slower than others in specific areas.

I know a kid who could add and subtract in his head at 3 with great ease, while I know 4 year olds who still are trying to master 1:1 correspondence. Is one better than the other? Certainly not. Does the 4 year old do other things with great speed and ease than the 3 year old? Probably so. Do both kids have their own gifts and are they both special people? Of course they are. But you cannot deny that the one kid had advanced cognitive abilities with math. He hasn't memorized btw. He's working these numbers and actually could not say "2+2=4!". There's no memorization involved. It's kind of like my husband who is very talented and quick at math but can't recite a times-table. It's certainly not better, but there most certainly is an average grouping of math ability at 3, with some ahead and some behind. Some of the ahead group are just spitting out facts with no meaning, but many are not.

Actually, wasn't there a link shared somewhere that details the brain differences they found in children of varying IQs? Children with IQs above a certain level had different brain maturation. It was all done very scientifically. It's not better, but people are different. Are we really disputing the fact that people have different cognitive abilities?

I need to reread Harrison Bergeron sometime.


----------



## LeftField (Aug 2, 2002)

Thank you, Heartmama, for elaborating and explaining what you think. I meant to say that in my earlier post.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Well, only if you view one group of people as "gifted" and another group of people as "average."

Which I don't see as valid.


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*

Usually, a lesson is written such that an expectation is defined clearly to the students. This is actually a basic tenet of teacher education - define the expectation for the students so they know where you intend to go with the lesson. .

So the child who is learning what the teacher "expects" him to learn is the "best"... his learning counts. That's more about pleasing the teacher than learning, IMO.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pookel*
I'm behind you on subjects where you know more than I do, ahead of you on subjects where I know more than you do, and somewhere off to the side on subjects where it's not clear-cut. Since we're adults and have learned most of the "basics" of life, you and I are probably "to the side" on most subjects.

I reject your dualistic classification of subjects as either "basics" or "to the side". That's more school-think. We're all different, learning different things. Saying someone is "ahead" in reading or walking or basket weaving is only useful if you're judging people by comparing them to others.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pookel*
You can learn algebra without learning the multiplication table, but you can't learn calculus without learning algebra - it is simply not possible.

""Argue for your limitations,and sure enough, they're yours."
Calculus by and for Young People (Ages 7, Yes 7 and Up)
Darn neat little book, by the way...

It's interesting that Harrison Bergeron (one of my favorite stories) has been brought up in this context, because it's really the opposite of what I'm advocating. Rather than trying to make everyone the same, I'd like everyone to be free to be different, doing and learning in their own way. In Harrison Bergeron, being "ahead" or "behind" was of utmost importance. Would the world of Harrison Bergeron have been more acceptable if instead of making everyone the same, everyone was forced into one of three homogeneous groups: the fast, the average, and the slow? Isn't it better to treat everyone as a unique individual?

dar


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

*OK, please everyone on both sides answer me these:

(1) Within school systems as they currently exist, how specifically would you advise a parent of a five year old child reading at a 5th grade level who does math for fun slated to enter K in the fall (the new brand of academic K, not the old play based kind)? This is a single parent who works full time and can't homeschool.

(2) Same qualifications as above, except that the child is older, doesn't get good grades and is a behavioral problem. He is bored at school and acting out. The school won't consider accomodation until his behavior improves.*

I'm not trying to get free advice, we're homeschooling. The child above is our old friend Hypothetical Johhny, or HJ as I affectionately refer to him.


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama*
Well, only if you view one group of people as "gifted" and another group of people as "average."

It's a spectrum, not an arrangement of slots or boxes. Population IQ scores follow the normal curve (except possibly at the extremes, but even then it's pretty close). This means 68.2% of the population falls less than 1 standard deviation from the mean (the mean being a theoretical construct, NOT a person). 95.4 fall within 1 standard deviation and 99.6 percent fall within 2 standard deviations. You can argue here and back again about the validity of IQ tests and subtest accurately measuring something that may or may not be intelligence, but I think we can at least agree they can reflect the relative abilities of individuals (compared to a group) to work with symbolic and logical systems, yes the skills most commonly associated with conventional "intelligence," language and math.

We don't talk so much about muscial giftedness or artistics giftedness not because they can't be gleaned or observed, but rather because such children's gifts are simply not served in the schools. Unfortunately, I'd wager more children get private music lessons (if the parent can afford it) than art lessons or access to art supplies. This is not true of athletic giftedness, at least in the US; it is both recognized and nurtured. According the Ellen Winner in Gifted Children, children gifted at athletics are actually the most likely to be "pushed" by their parents.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
I find rather terrifying the mindset that wants to erase all differences and claim that humans partake of universal equality -- not equality under the law, as Jefferson meant by "all men are created equal," or equality in the eyes of God if you believe in God, or equality of WORTH, because I believe, as I have said before, that all children are worthy, special, valuable, deserving of love and respect and fair treatment. No, I'm talking about equality of BEING. There is no such beast. We are all different and we have different needs, and to deny them -- or worse, to effectively prevent an entire group of people the privilege and the opportunity of exercising and fulfilling those differences -- is terrifying in its totalitarian erasure of individuality. It reminds me of this story.









: I wish I could get enough sleep to articulate that myself.


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama*
Well, only if you view one group of people as "gifted" and another group of people as "average."

Which I don't see as valid.

I think that this brings us back to an issue of semantics. You don't like the term "gifted" and I do admit that it comes across as implying that some children have gifted and others do not.

I don't like the term either b/c it rubs people exactly that way and leads to the inevitable, "all children have gifts; all children are gifted" which denies the very essence of my child's differences. If everyone is gifted then dd has no need for anything different from anyone else b/c she is no different. As it seems all of us have said, we don't care what it is called as long as our children's needs are met. I, unfortunately, am not in the position to unilaterally rename the condition that we now call "gifted."


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NoHiddenFees*
(1) Within school systems as they *currently* exist, how specifically would you advise a parent of a five year old child reading at a 5th grade level who does math for fun slated to enter K in the fall (the new brand of academic K, not the old play based kind)? This is a single parent who works full time and can't homeschool..

Hey... that was pretty much my life 8 years ago! Except that I did send her to K - we tried two different alternative programs, neither of which worked out so well. Then I decided to quit my job and live on the beach, if need be, so that I could homeschool. I actually found ways to earn enough to support us (in the California bay area... if I'd moved it would have been much easier) so we didn't become homeless and we've been homeschooling ever since.

dar


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NoHiddenFees*
*OK, please everyone on both sides answer me these:

(1) Within school systems as they currently exist, how specifically would you advise a parent of a five year old child reading at a 5th grade level who does math for fun slated to enter K in the fall (the new brand of academic K, not the old play based kind)? This is a single parent who works full time and can't homeschool.

(2) Same qualifications as above, except that the child is older, doesn't get good grades and is a behavioral problem. He is bored at school and acting out. The school won't consider accomodation until his behavior improves.*

I'm not trying to get free advice, we're homeschooling. The child above is our old friend Hypothetical Johhny, or HJ as I affectionately refer to him.



















From the last two-three years of advocating for my dd, who will be entering 3rd this upcoming fall, I have to put forth this idea with a grain of salt.

I would advise trying to get the child placed in a full time encapsulated gifted program, have him grade accelerated or, at the very least, subject accelerated. I say that this is with a grain of salt, b/c I am finding that the likelihood of this actually happening is slim in many schools. I am finding that any advocating I am doing is to help someone else's child down the line b/c if the policies are in place to make sure that this doesn't happen, by the time any changes are made, my child will no longer be in that school to benefit.

I'm not against helping other kids down the line, but not at the expense of my child, which is why I have given up beating my head against the proverbial wall. We are changing to a charter that will come closer to meeting her needs.


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Uh, correct me if I'm wrong, but nobody here said everyone was the same. We do agree that everyone is different. We just don't know why a parent want to then erase that individuality by labelling and grouping again. And saying that some people are, well, _more_ different than others. More special. More deserving of schooling that works with the individual's unique needs and provides the inquiry-based challenges or enrichment or whatever that particular parent thinks their child needs. And everyone else is just _jealous_, right? Because school works just fine for all of those average kids. Except when it doesn't.

Oh look, here's another argument for elitism, from Hoagies. He agrees it is simply not possible for all children to be gifted and "receive a level of academic rigor and emotional understanding that transcends the typical." Only his.

When my daughter was first ID as "gifted," these are the sort of arguments I ran into, and ran away from. And when I read more about the damage the label does, and the pressure many parents place (potential and challenge and success and whatnot) on their child, and the questionable validity of IQ testing in the first place, and remembering my own negative experiences (it took me a while to quit being such a stuck-up snob with a fetish for supposed earmarks of intelligence - i.e. spelling, grammar, rapid speech, quick thinking, etc.) ... the the more I realized that it was not going to be a place for me or for questioning what exactly we might be doing to/with our children. You are excommunicated from the IQ cargo cult for questioning the long-term utility of labels, saying that you DO think all children are gifted, acceleration is stinky, or that IQ scores are not an objective measure of intelligence. Arguing for a better education for all - but based upon the individual's interests and needs - is not received so well in gifted circles. Because, well - how would we tell who was SMARTER if we don't have tests and linear progression of learning?

So...feh.


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NoHiddenFees*
*OK, please everyone on both sides answer me these:

(1) Within school systems as they currently exist, how specifically would you advise a parent of a five year old child reading at a 5th grade level who does math for fun slated to enter K in the fall (the new brand of academic K, not the old play based kind)? This is a single parent who works full time and can't homeschool.

(2) Same qualifications as above, except that the child is older, doesn't get good grades and is a behavioral problem. He is bored at school and acting out. The school won't consider accomodation until his behavior improves.*

I'm not trying to get free advice, we're homeschooling. The child above is our old friend Hypothetical Johhny, or HJ as I affectionately refer to him.









1) We sent our daughter to a Montessori school. She didn't ever feel "different" as there is no homogenous core, and everyone is different. There are Montessori public schools all over the US. Or, mixed-age grouping schools. Or, a school where you talk to the teacher and find out about working with the individual. Or, you don't freak out and find that they enjoy working on their social skills just as much as their academic pursuits, and worry about issues as they crop up.

2) Well, so this boy is older and is also reading at the 5th grade level and enjoys math for fun but acts out in class. I'm sure there are many boys who have similar issues, who don't read at a 5th grade level (maybe they read higher or lower). Why is there a behavioral problem? Are there problems at home? Has the teacher read about teaching boys? Is he getting enough sleep, exercise, nutritious food? Is his teacher drop-dead boring? Is mom pressuring him about grades (and why are grades all that important anyhow - is he learning?)? There can be many reasons for challenges in the classroom, and who's to say that reading at the 5th grade level is the underlying issue?


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flyingspaghettimama*
Arguing for a better education for all - but based upon the individual's interests and needs - is not received so well in gifted circles. Because, well - how would we tell who was SMARTER if we don't have tests and linear progression of learning?

So...feh.

Look, I'm not arguing that anyone's child should get a lesser education or that my child, alone, is worthy of an appropriate education. I don't have any idea if my younger dd is gifted. I still want an appropriate education for her. Granted, the kiddo is only 5 1/2 and we have yet to see if the ps system will do decent job of meeting her needs, but I will be there arguing for what she needs if she isn't getting it.

I don't see it as obnoxious or elitist to recognize that some children's needs are better met (while still not perfectly met) by the school system as it currently exists and some are met to a much lesser extent. If you take (1) a child with fetal alcohol syndrome and serious learning disabilities, (2) a child with no significant disabilities who is learning at pretty the rate the teacher expects, and (3) a child who is profoundly gifted with SID and place them all in a standard classroom with no accomodations, does it make me an elitist to say that child #2 will probably fare the best -- in terms of academic achievement as well as emotional health?

That's all I want -- for both of my children, gifted or not. I am not arguing that we don't need to do anything for the other kids.


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ChristaN*
I don't see it as obnoxious or elitist to recognize that some children's needs are better met (while still not perfectly met) by the school system as it currently exists and some are met much to a much lesser extent. If you take (1) a child with fetal alcohol syndrome and serious learning disabilities, (2) a child with no significant disabilities who is learning at pretty the rate the teacher expects, and (3) a child who is profoundly gifted with SID and place them all in a standard classroom with no accomodations, does it make me an elitist to say that child #2 will probably fare the best -- in terms of academic achievement as well as emotional health?
.

And maybe child #2's parents are going through a divorce halfway through the year. Maybe his mom is really stressing him out about getting good grades. Maybe he daydreams all day about cars or recess. Maybe he wishes he could get back on his guitar or is composing songs in his head when he's supposed to be "Paying Attention." When I think back to my schooling, there was no child who I thought of as "average" who the school system worked for. Most of them had a lot of difficulty in the school environment. Everyone was bored.

I'm sorry, I just don't believe in an "average" kid.


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flyingspaghettimama*
And maybe child #2's parents are going through a divorce halfway through the year. Maybe his mom is really stressing him out about getting good grades.

That is throwing a whole bunch of other issues into the equation that have nothing to do with the child being "gifted," "average," or "delayed."

Quote:

When I think back to my schooling, there was no child who I thought of as "average" who the school system worked for. Most of them had a lot of difficulty in the school environment. Everyone was bored.

I'm sorry, I just don't believe in an "average" kid.
I am NOT arguing that anyone is average in every way. I am simply stating that, the closer you come to being "normal" (i.e. -- learning in the expected manner, performing at the expected level, being understood by your age peers and not standing out as seriously strange and incomprensible), the better your needs will be met and the less you will be damaged by the school system as it currently stands -- usually. There are always exceptions.

As far as looking back at my schooling, there were definately kids who were pretty happy and okay with school. No, it wasn't perfect, but they had fun, went to dances, graduated and went on with their lives with no major damage. That would apply to at least 60% of my graduating class. They didn't drop out, commit suicide, or otherwise fall apart. ***edited to remove portion of post with personal informaton.***

In my mind, there is a difference btwn the child whose needs are not perfectly met and who is bored or can't wait to graduate and the child who kills himself.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

I find rather terrifying the mindset that wants to erase all differences and claim that humans partake of universal equality -- not equality under the law, as Jefferson meant by "all men are created equal," or equality in the eyes of God if you believe in God, or equality of WORTH, because I believe, as I have said before, that all children are worthy, special, valuable, deserving of love and respect and fair treatment. No, I'm talking about equality of BEING. There is no such beast. We are all different and we have different needs, and to deny them -- or worse, to effectively prevent an entire group of people the privilege and the opportunity of exercising and fulfilling those differences -- is terrifying in its totalitarian erasure of individuality.
I think I speak for Dar, Nora'smama and and several others when I say that if you are summarizing our points here, that is not what we said at all.

I have said, ad nauseum, that we are all different and with different needs, and that we should be free to explore them. I have said that a child should have complete access to experimenting at any level they are at with their learning (free to seek advanced or beginning materials etc.). I have said (repeatedly) that learning is always individual and should never be lumped together as a linear group process.

So, none of what you said above describes my words, or Dar's, or Nora'smama. But maybe you were addressing someone else who did say that.

Ironically, I think the public school system comes much closer to a totalitarian erasure of individuality, as you put it, than most of the alternatives. Labels like "gifted" or "low level learning" are not there because schools embrace individuality. Schools rigidly hold to the doctrine of "average", those "beneath" average will get special help towards it, and those "above" average will get limited opportunity (if they are very lucky) a few hours a week to do something remotely challenging. And of course because everyone is living under the shadow of "average", the "lower" and "higher" kids typically hide their difference to whatever extent they are able, in many peer situations.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

I don't see it as obnoxious or elitist to recognize that some children's needs are better met (while still not perfectly met) by the school system as it currently exists and some are met much to a much lesser extent. If you take (1) a child with fetal alcohol syndrome and serious learning disabilities, (2) a child with no significant disabilities who is learning at pretty the rate the teacher expects, and (3) a child who is profoundly gifted with SID and place them all in a standard classroom with no accomodations, does it make me an elitist to say that child #2 will probably fare the best -- in terms of academic achievement as well as emotional health?
.
Oh I completely agree it is wrong to put three children or 30 together and expect them to have roughly identical needs, interests, and abilities.

At a minimum, I support compulsory schools with smaller groups (under 10) working in an environment of self paced, self directed learning. While it's already law that sn children can have a personal aide (which I know is very hard to enforce despite the law), a similiar system of individual assistance being available to any child would support self directed self paced learning. Another benefit of mixed abilities and interests sharing workspace is the exposure to a diversity of learning.

And yes we could have this in our country, but we don't care enough as a society to spend the money on education.


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
Oh I completely agree it is wrong to put three children or 30 together and expect them to have roughly identical needs, interests, and abilities.

At a minimum, I support compulsory schools with smaller groups (under 10) working in an environment of self paced, self directed learning. While it's already law that sn children can have a personal aide (which I know is very hard to enforce despite the law), a similiar system of individual assistance being available to any child would support self directed self paced learning. Another benefit of mixed abilities and interests sharing workspace is the exposure to a diversity of learning.

And yes we could have this in our country, but we don't care enough as a society to spend the money on education.

See, then, I don't believe that we are having a fundamental difference of opinion regarding how to educate my child or any other child. The remaining differences seem to relate to:

1) the term "gifted"

_I think that we all agree that the term is flawed._

2) the original questions:

does terming our children "gifted" make them into egomaniacs or make them so nervous about not living up to their "gifts" that they are paralyzed or develop a sense of being a fraud?

_I see no current danger of my child becoming an egomaniac. If anything she tends toward the opposite -- extreme self critique and feeling abnormal. In regard to paralyzing her with fear of failure, her first grade teacher did do that and this was before the term "gifted" was ever applied to her; I don't believe that I have. We've made long strides in improving this situation this year -- ironically this has been post application of the label "gifted."_

do we, as parents, become so intimidated by our children who we view as so special, that we fear an inability to parent them and they sense our unease and are thus harmed?

_Again, on the contrary, I feel quite qualified to parent my child b/c I do understand her. I saw what went wrong for me and am trying to avoid the same pitfalls for her. I am very, very glad that she is mine and feel more competent to parent her than I would expect others to be; we are a good match._


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

OK, please everyone on both sides answer me these:

(1) Within school systems as they currently exist, how specifically would you advise a parent of a five year old child reading at a 5th grade level who does math for fun slated to enter K in the fall (the new brand of academic K, not the old play based kind)? This is a single parent who works full time and can't homeschool.

(2) Same qualifications as above, except that the child is older, doesn't get good grades and is a behavioral problem. He is bored at school and acting out. The school won't consider accomodation until his behavior improves.
If public school is her only option, and her child must go there regardless, outside advice is of limited significance. You can fight and advocate within the school system, although it may be a full time job (and the mother is already working full time), with very little change being won for her child.

Sure, fight, advocate, see what happens. There are resources online to advice her how to fight and with whom to advocate that her child's needs be met. It's really between her and the school she chooses to support.

Honestly like Dar, I would have lived on the beach...


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

It's just my mission to fill up this whole page with my posts








.

I did have another thought, though. It seems that those of us who are arguing most voraciously on this topic are those who were gifted children ourselves and who feel that this label hurt us or that our needs weren't met. We are therefore trying to do things differently with our own children.

I have chosen one route, that I believe is in my dd's best interests (getting her ided) and others have chosen a different route that they believe to be in their children's best interests. In some cases the end result in terms of education is similar (e.g. flyingspaghettimama's Montessori school for her dd wherein she can work at her own pace in a multi age grouping and my choice of a charter wherein my dd can work at her own pace by subject acceleration and flexible grouping). The difference is that I needed that label in order for dd to be given the opportunity to subject accelerate. The only Montessori in my area is a private school and has some things about it that really turn me off (really, it is an administration issue, not a problem with Montessori as a philosophy or teaching method).

I truly have no problem with someone rejecting the idea of "gifted" and/or choosing to not have his/her child labeled if that is what she believes to be in her child's best interest. The only reason I even entered into this debate is b/c it was more than, 'this is what we have chosen for our family and it is working.' It has been more a statement that giftedness does not exist or that we are harming our children by trying to get them "labeled" or pushing for special services for them. I will speak up when my choices are being attacked. If not, I am happy to let us all float along with our differing opinions and do what is right for our own families.

Why is the mere idea that some of us believe it to be in our children's best interest to have the "label" so threatening or offensive?


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

This seems to be going in circles. I don't think there's anyone on this thread that is going to argue that the school system is perfect as is for everyone. I think (please correct me if I'm wrong) that everyone here can pretty much agree that the BEST way to serve ALL children would be to re-work the system. BUT in the meantime, labels serve to help children with needs that are substantially different from the majority of the group to fuction better.

Any disagreements from either "side"?

-Angela


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
If public school is her only option, and her child must go there regardless, outside advice is of limited significance. You can fight and advocate within the school system, although it may be a full time job (and the mother is already working full time), with very little change being won for her child.

But does she have the ethical right to do so if it means she's fighting for her child to be treated differently from his peers?


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NoHiddenFees*
But does she have the ethical right to do so if it means she's fighting for her child to be treated differently from his peers?

Not only does she have an ethical right, she has an ethical obligation IMO to do whatever she needs to do to ensure the best education and the best environment for her child.

-Angela


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ChristaN*
Why is the mere idea that some of us believe it to be in our children's best interest to have the "label" so threatening or offensive?

I mentioned pages and pages back that I had considered getting the label for my daughter, when it seemed the only way for her to get into the classes she wanted. If we weren't moving, I might even have followed up on it. I don't object to working the system, such as it is. But I would be doing it with my daughter's full knowledge and consent, and I would see the label as a means to a specific end, rather than a permanent descriptor. Because our system is imperfect, this is a game we may need to play in order to best help our kids. In a better system, though, it wouldn't be necessary.

It's kind of like the "at risk" label... because of my income and because I'm a single mom, my daughter sometimes qualifies for scholarships or programs as an "at risk" child. Do I truly believe her to be "at risk"? Nope. But she meets the criteria set up by the administrators of the programs, so I'll take it. When I qualified for WIC when I was pregnant because I had the "medical risk factor" of being underweight prior to getting pregnant, I took it... even though I don't think there was anything wrong with my weight.

I see a lot of people who don't use the label that way, though. I see people clinging to the label as a way to define their very young children, rather than a means to help them get what their children want. I've read threads where parents posted about specific question on IQ tests, so other parents of "gifted" children could prep their kids and make sure they got that one. Honestly, that scares me.

dar


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna*
BUT in the meantime, labels serve to help children with needs that are substantially different from the majority of the group to fuction better.

Any disagreements from either "side"?

That still assumes that the majority of the group has one set of needs, and a small minority has different sets of needs. I reject the idea that most children have substantially the same needs.

dar


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar*

""Argue for your limitations,and sure enough, they're yours."
Calculus by and for Young People (Ages 7, Yes 7 and Up)
Darn neat little book, by the way...

Does it work? Seriously, if it's possible and she wants to do it and enjoys it, I'd love to teach calc to my kid -- and heck, as long as we're at it, to _myself_. I've heard of this book, but wasn't sure if it was actually worth ordering or was basically the math version of Glen Doman.









Quote:

Isn't it better to treat everyone as a unique individual?
Yes, unequivocally. I believe this is why homeschooling (at least as measured by those dreaded standardized tests) "works" for its students in a measurable and objective sense compared to public schoolers -- regardless of whether they school-at-home or unschool, regardless of whether the parents are Ph.D.s or high-school dropouts, regardless of whether the kids learned to read at 12 or at 2. It's because the kids get treated as unique individuals and surprisingly...it works. It works like a tailor-made suit just looks better on you than an off-the-rack.
[/QUOTE]


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

But does she have the ethical right to do so if it means she's fighting for her child to be treated differently from his peers?
??? I repeatedly said I believe education is individual and each child deserves access to resources which meet their learning needs. If every child was treated this way, there would be no label to fight for or against. Having your individual needs met would just be what happened in school. Every child's experience would, then, be individual...'different' as you put it.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NoHiddenFees*
OK, please everyone on both sides answer me these:

(1) Within school systems as they *currently* exist, how specifically would you advise a parent of a five year old child reading at a 5th grade level who does math for fun slated to enter K in the fall (the new brand of academic K, not the old play based kind)? This is a single parent who works full time and can't homeschool.

Rats. You took my best answer (homeschool).
Okay. Sigh.

1. Let the teacher discover for herself the child is gifted or they'll not believe you and think you're "one of THOSE parents." If they discover the child's giftedness themselves, they tend to value the discovery. It's a way of "unschooling" the teacher in that sense.









2. Send the child with a book he would otherwise be reading for pleasure in order to facilitate this discovery.

3. Call the Davidson Institute (www.ditd.org) to get advice for intervention with the school if or when the teacher recognizes that your son is way above and beyond what they're teaching in class.

4. Strongly advocate for a gIEP (gifted IEP) with specific, measurable, observable, and documentable accomodations. Things like, "Johnny may take Accelerated Reader tests at level 5.0 and above" are better than "The teacher will make accomodations for reading."

5. Read _A Nation Deceived_ (www.anationdeceived.org) and advocate for a grade-skip.

Quote:

(2) Same qualifications as above, except that the child is older, doesn't get good grades and is a behavioral problem. He is bored at school and acting out. The school won't consider accomodation until his behavior improves.[/SIZE][/B]

I'm not trying to get free advice, we're homeschooling. The child above is our old friend Hypothetical Johhny, or HJ as I affectionately refer to him.








Call Davidson. Get him tested. Advocate for a gIEP and argue especially that being accomodated is not a "reward" or a "punishment" based on behavior; it is a developmental difference and needs to be treated as such.


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
Does it work? Seriously, if it's possible and she wants to do it and enjoys it, I'd love to teach calc to my kid -- and heck, as long as we're at it, to _myself_. I've heard of this book, but wasn't sure if it was actually worth ordering or was basically the math version of Glen Doman.









Perish the thought! I've never owned it but when I worked as a homeschool facilitator a couple of my families were using it, and I flipped through it a bit. It's a neat program - I think you need both the book and worksheets to truly get into it. It's very investigative, and the exercises are like puzzles to solve. I think you'd enjoy it...

dar


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
Does it work? Seriously, if it's possible and she wants to do it and enjoys it, I'd love to teach calc to my kid -- and heck, as long as we're at it, to _myself_. I've heard of this book, but wasn't sure if it was actually worth ordering or was basically the math version of Glen Doman.









It's quite cool. It's more conceptual than applied; kids don't end up doing differential equations or anything. The MathMan is about as far away from Doman as you can get because he believes children can have a conceptual understanding of the subject, rather than a regurgitated or reflexive one, and the concept of the limit is something that young children can understand. If you want hard copies of the book and worksheets, order soon; they're CD-ROM only after the current stock runs out.


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

So, can someone clarify something for me? From those of you who are against labeling children as gifted, I am getting the impression that what you are getting at is that the children that we call "gifted" have no greater needs than any other child? Is this a correct reading of your posts?


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flyingspaghettimama*
Uh, correct me if I'm wrong, but nobody here said everyone was the same. We do agree that everyone is different. We just don't know why a parent want to then erase that individuality by labelling and grouping again.

It's acknowledging the difference. If a child has Asperger's syndrome, it's a way of defining a host of differences from the norm and understanding them. You could present a list of characteristics, sure, but hey, people have lives. Defining someone as "Aspergers" or "Gifted" or "Down" or "Hyperlexic" doesn't erase their individuality -- and for schools, anyway, it can be a way to understand how and in what way your child needs a different approach.

Quote:

And saying that some people are, well, _more_ different than others. More special. More deserving of schooling that works with the individual's unique needs and provides the inquiry-based challenges or enrichment or whatever that particular parent thinks their child needs. And everyone else is just _jealous_, right? Because school works just fine for all of those average kids. Except when it doesn't.
Not more deserving. More necessary.

Look. If you feed a rabbit lettuce, it'll do fine. If you feed a ferret lettuce, it'll die. The ferret needs meat-based protein. If you feed the ferret meat, it's not because the ferret is more special, more deserving. It's because the ferret can't live on lettuce.

I am _not at all_ arguing that the methodology (inquiry-based or project-based learning) used in some gifted classes -- that is, the ones that don't waste students' time with logic games and word searches -- doesn't work for many other students and should be restricted to gifted programs. Oh, and BTW, they _aren't_. No law I know of says, "You can't do this with regular-level kids."

You want to know why those methods do get used in some gifted classes? FSM, it's not the élitism you might be thinking of; it's a lot simpler.

1. Class size
2. Pullout program

Class size in a gifted program is usually smaller than a regular class; ergo, you can have more individual approaches with students. That would be true, BTW, in a regular class with 1/3 the students they now have -- good reason, IMHO, to advocate for small class sizes.

In a pullout program, you can't actually teach _content_. God forbid you teach Hypothetical Johnny calculus at age 7; what _would_ the calculus teachers do with him in high school, after all? Instead, you have to devise something to teach that's basically a stand-alone thing that won't "get in the way" of the regular class teachers, many of whom resent like poison the fact that there even _are_ gifted programs, and many of whom make students' life a bureaucratic hell of make-up work as revenge. The answer? Individual projects.

A genuine gifted program would be as inappropriate for a regular student as meat would be for a rabbit. In the Baudelaire Fantasy School of Wonderful Woo Woo, students would be placed into classes according to their ability and need, and if that means that Hypothetical Johnny is in first-grade reading, fifth-grade math, and third-grade PE, so much the better. ALL classes would be small and multi-aged. Students would be allowed to proceed largely at their own pace, which means that at the end of the year, maybe Hypothetical Johnny moves on to seventh-grade math (obviously his strong subject), fourth-grade PE, and still needs to be in first-grade reading.

Yeah, it would require creative scheduling and creative thinking and definitely a small school. But it could be done. It has been -- in one-room schoolhouses around the country before the institutionalization of schooling took place in the U.S. If North Dakota pioneers can do it with a copy of the Bible and McGuffey's Eclectic Reader, I think we can do it in the 21st century, don't you?

Quote:

Oh look, here's another argument for elitism, from Hoagies. He agrees it is simply not possible for all children to be gifted and "receive a level of academic rigor and emotional understanding that transcends the typical." Only his.
Not all children are gifted. Not all children are average. Not all children have learning disabilities. Each needs to be treated differently, or as differently as it's possible to do when you have 180 students to serve. There are some methods I've used as a teacher that simply work better with lower-level learners -- groupwork, repetition, individual one-on-one consultation -- but would frustrate the living crud out of highly gifted ones. Similarly, there are some methods that do not work in general with lower-level kids: the Socratic method bombs on a regular basis even if it's one-on-one, in a group, whatever. Except with POC. I don't know why and can't speculate, but POC -- especially women -- get engaged, get interested, get verbal and vocal and wonderfully argumentative, get the room swinging with original thought, and it's a freakin' _delight_. You have to shape the learning to the learner as much as possible, and it's not always as possible as I'd like in the context of a school. I wish it were.


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
A genuine gifted program would be as inappropriate for a regular student as meat would be for a rabbit. In the Baudelaire Fantasy School of Wonderful Woo Woo, students would be placed into classes according to their ability and need, and if that means that Hypothetical Johnny is in first-grade reading, fifth-grade math, and third-grade PE, so much the better. ALL classes would be small and multi-aged. Students would be allowed to proceed largely at their own pace, which means that at the end of the year, maybe Hypothetical Johnny moves on to seventh-grade math (obviously his strong subject), fourth-grade PE, and still needs to be in first-grade reading.

I want HJ to go to your school, at least until his mom is reconciled to live on the beach.







[Not a slam Dar; I love reading about you and Rain.]


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar*
Perish the thought! I've never owned it but when I worked as a homeschool facilitator a couple of my families were using it, and I flipped through it a bit. It's a neat program - I think you need both the book and worksheets to truly get into it. It's very investigative, and the exercises are like puzzles to solve. I think you'd enjoy it...

dar

Awesome! Thanks for the rec.; it's on my Amazon wish list. To be honest, I'm afraid of calc. Due to circumstances beyond my control, I was basically left out of first-grade math and thereafter had hellish problems with it. I never took math beyond Geometry I, so in the back of my head is the concern, "Crud...how do I teach my dd higher math when/if she needs it?" Sounds like this demystifies the more scary of the math avenues. Thanks again!


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
In the Baudelaire Fantasy School of Wonderful Woo Woo, students would be placed into classes according to their ability and need, and if that means that Hypothetical Johnny is in first-grade reading, fifth-grade math, and third-grade PE, so much the better. ALL classes would be small and multi-aged. Students would be allowed to proceed largely at their own pace, which means that at the end of the year, maybe Hypothetical Johnny moves on to seventh-grade math (obviously his strong subject), fourth-grade PE, and still needs to be in first-grade reading.

Yeah, it would require creative scheduling and creative thinking and definitely a small school. But it could be done. It has been -- in one-room schoolhouses around the country before the institutionalization of schooling took place in the U.S. If North Dakota pioneers can do it with a copy of the Bible and McGuffey's Eclectic Reader, I think we can do it in the 21st century, don't you?

OT

Interestingly enough, the last school I taught at pre-baby was exactly this. It was originally set up for "special-ed" kids of assorted types, but we got an assortment of gifted through too. It worked much better on many levels than a traditional classroom system. Our classes were capped at 8 students. The school rarely has over 30 total (k-8) It was also private and cost $10,000 a year per kid and paid teachers well below the going rate. Interestingly though it didn't have problems keeping teachers....

back to your originally scheduled discussion.

-Angela


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NoHiddenFees*
It's quite cool. It's more conceptual than applied; kids don't end up doing differential equations or anything. The MathMan is about as far away from Doman as you can get because he believes children can have a conceptual understanding of the subject, rather than a regurgitated or reflexive one, and the concept of the limit is something that young children can understand. If you want hard copies of the book and worksheets, order soon; they're CD-ROM only after the current stock runs out.

I've seen the book on Amazon; where are the worksheets? If it's not terrible trouble, would you mind linking me?


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
I've seen the book on Amazon; where are the worksheets? If it's not terrible trouble, would you mind linking me?

Per Don Cohen's website, the only hard copy worksheets left are at Rainbow. He also says there's only about 40 of the books left (though it is listed at Rainbow too; perhaps they have additional copies). The entire set on CD-ROM, including videos is $69.95 with s&h.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NoHiddenFees*
Per Don Cohen's website, the only hard copy worksheets left are at Rainbow. He also says there's only about 40 of the books left (though it is listed at Rainbow too; perhaps they have additional copies). The entire set on CD-ROM, including videos is $69.95 with s&h.

I "heart" Rainbow. Thank you so much!


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ChristaN*
So, can someone clarify something for me? From those of you who are against labeling children as gifted, I am getting the impression that what you are getting at is that the children that we call "gifted" have no greater needs than any other child? Is this a correct reading of your posts?

Right. I don't believe that kids labeled gifted have greater needs than kids who aren't so-labeled. I believe that all children have different needs, if that helps...

dar


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar*
Right. I don't believe that kids labeled gifted have greater needs than kids who aren't so-labeled. I believe that all children have different needs, if that helps...

dar

Okay then. I guess that we will never agree here and I am willing to live with that as long as my beliefs regarding my child's needs are not belittled.

I wonder, though, if you would feel the same regarding a child with more traditional "special needs?" If a mom of a child with aspergers, for instance, was stating that her child had greater than average needs for differentiation and adjustments in parenting style and classroom methodology b/c of his different brain wiring, would you agree with that?


----------



## siobhang (Oct 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nora'sMama*
The other thing was that I had some really specific strengths - namely, learning things very quickly.

I have only gotten to page 11 in this thread but I had to reply...

YES!!! This is exactly what happened to me as a child. I was labelled as gifted at some point, mainly because I had a big vocabulary and reading skills. Elementary school was simple- teacher said things once and it was like I had already learned them (in some cases it was true). By the time I got to topics which I didn't grasp entirely, I had learned that smart != studying/work. So to suddenly be faced with work in my good subjects of english and history scared the heck out of me. It meant I wasn't smart any more. So I stopped doing work so I could blame my "failures" on a lack of work, not on a lack of smarts.

And my teachers and parents all thought the "solution" to my bad grades in middle school were lectures, threats, groundings, etc.

I always struggled with math. In fact, the TAG program pulled me out of math for all of fourth grade and my teacher never actually checked homework or made me or the other girl in the class take the tests - she figured that since we were "smart", we didn't need to be tested. Well, as a result, I basically didn't learn any math for an entire year and entered the next year unprepared. It was mortifying to have my 5 grade teacher hold up my failing math tests in front of the entire class, jeering "I thought you were smart!"

So I figured out if I told teachers that I was "bad at math", they often would give me a pass because I was a girl.

Even when I flew through algebra with a 97% average (I love algebra), I had been tagged as bad with math so that was that.

Btw, I am a web developer, and I find I have a facility for relational database design - despite years of "soft science" education. It took my math genius husband to discover that maybe I am not really bad at math.

Just some random notes way too late at night.

Siobhan (the other one - nice to see another Siobhan around here!)


----------



## USAmma (Nov 29, 2001)

Coming in very late and without having read through the thread very well, but couldn't resist answering.

*I am uncomfortable with it, myself. I was labelled a "gifted" child, and there was a lot of pressure, and a lot of ego stroking also. I think the ego-stroking was good for me in some ways as I also had an abusive childhood, but I feel uneasy with the current labelling and treatment of "gifted" children.*

I agree, it can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on the circumstance. I was a gifted athlete in an otherwise pretty horrible childhood. I held onto that talent as evidence to myself that I was special, and that specialness is what made me realize I was worth fighting for. Myself, fighting for my future success.
*
I think IQ testing is problematic at best, and focusing on a particular brand of intellectual development is unwise.*

It can be, but OTOH it's also used to provide services to those with lower IQ's. That can be a good thing.

*I also think "gifted" labelling sets up a hierarchy among children, where "gifted" children can be made to feel like they are better than other children.*

Yes, I agree. But they can also be made to feel that they are abnormal, quirky, and odd. In the school environment there is so much pressure to conform.

*I think the labelling can lead to arrogance.*

I agree, but it can also lead to much needed services for some of the children.

*I think parents can become so invested in their children being intellectually "superior" that it becomes a badge of honour, and I think children can feel this, and it can prevent them from actualizing all the parts of who they are, or being comfortable with the ways in which they fall short of that "gifted" standard.*

Totally agree with this! It is not the parent's achievement. It belongs to their child.Giftness is something you are born with just like eye color and hair color. It's not something to brag about.

*I think parents can become convinced that their children are an alien breed, that they are not competent to parent them, that their children have immense and unmatchable need for intellectual stimulation, and that all kinds of special treatments have to come into play, even during early childhood.*

Mmm maybe some parents. Most that I have seen are good advocates for them. I have the confidence to homeschool my own child even though I am not a teacher, because I know her best. And while home may not be as exciting or stimulating, it's what's best for her right now. I am mourning the fact that she will need to go to school in the next year or so, so that I may also go back to school.

*I believe it is not good for children to pick up on the energy of a parent's anxiety about being able to nurture them, on the parent's fear that the child is unknowable, that they are somehow "greater than" the parent.*

This has not been my personal experience or that of people I know with gifted children. Rather, I think that many parents go through this with every type of child. Parenting is a humbling process and you realize how much you don't know when you are faced with even a normal situation like discipline or when your child asks you a hard question such as why people die. I have never felt that my child, as bright as she is, is greater than me. I have a whoooole lot more life experience than she does and that will not change for many decades. Even if she's very book smart she will still have to make mistakes in life in order to mature and become wise.

*I believe that all children, especially very young children, really need the same things, such as love, nurturance, freedom to play and develop at their own pace, acceptance that is not conditional, and a pressure-free environment in which to learn and grow.
*

Totally agree! I'm actually considering *not* putting my child in the gifted program in favor of choosing a school with a smaller class size that may not be the most academically challenging school in our area. I am more concerned about her inner happiness and her relationship with the teacher and her classmates than I am about how high she scores on tests. We can always school her at home on the side if she needs more challenging material. At least that's my feeling right now about her future school career.


----------



## Daffodil (Aug 30, 2003)

The worry that being labelled gifted can lead to arrogance sounds reasonable until you remember what being a kid is actually like in the real world. Did any of us go to schools where the "smart" kids were the most popular? I doubt it. But I bet a lot of us can think of examples (or WERE examples) of "smart" kids who were extremely unpopular. If being called gifted really makes kids feel superior, how come gifted kids so often feel the need to dumb themselves down to fit in?


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ChristaN*
Okay then. I guess that we will never agree here and I am willing to live with that as long as my beliefs regarding my child's needs are not belittled.

I wonder, though, if you would feel the same regarding a child with more traditional "special needs?" If a mom of a child with aspergers, for instance, was stating that her child had greater than average needs for differentiation and adjustments in parenting style and classroom methodology b/c of his different brain wiring, would you agree with that?

I can't speak for Dar, of course, but special needs children already do get adjustments in classroom methodology because of their different brain wiring, and depending on the degree of difference, completely separate classrooms -- all of which, as a teacher, I thoroughly support and endorse because I've seen that _it's completely necessary_.

Kids with special needs who are mainstreamed into my class (e.g., kids with LDs or who are Aspies) usually come with IEPs that I'm happy to execute, and as a general group, those students have been some of my best in terms of attitude and behavior. From my end, it's never been a big deal enlarging a Xerox for the kid who is legally blind, or not penalizing someone with a reading disability for spelling, because those are all very accomodatable, if you know what I mean.

For the kids with severe disabilities, I'm GLAD that there are special teachers and special classrooms -- I am not equipped professionally to be able to teach to that wide an ability gap in one class at one time. This is a luxury of teaching high school, and I cannot imagine the unfairness of assuming teachers in elementary school should have to teach what could be in one class, a six-grade ability spread...or more. Oy!


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *siobhang*
I have only gotten to page 11 in this thread but I had to reply...

YES!!! This is exactly what happened to me as a child. I was labelled as gifted at some point, mainly because I had a big vocabulary and reading skills. Elementary school was simple- teacher said things once and it was like I had already learned them (in some cases it was true). By the time I got to topics which I didn't grasp entirely, I had learned that smart != studying/work. So to suddenly be faced with work in my good subjects of english and history scared the heck out of me. It meant I wasn't smart any more. So I stopped doing work so I could blame my "failures" on a lack of work, not on a lack of smarts.

This is a travesty, Siobhan. And if you don't mind my saying so, this is one reason why I think it's crucial to differentiate education for gifted students -- I've seen this reaction in more students than I could shake a stick at, and although it's more typical for boys, it's a problem with girls also, as you're demonstrating.

I had a friend with a story similar to yours, only a bit more drastic. He had been utterly brilliant throughout high school, and more than a little arrogant about the fact that he was -- demonstrably -- the smartest person in school. He got a full paid scholarship to a prestigious university, and y'know what?

He flunked out first semester.

He'd NEVER had that realization you did, that although you're smart, you have to study. He literally didn't know. The shock undermined his whole conception of himself, as did the -- demonstrable -- fact that he was no longer the smartest person in school.

A good gifted program, IMHO, would have challenged both of you -- and all my superbrightbutfailing students -- from kindergarten on up. You, like other kids, would've hit the Wall of Angry Frustration early on, and, like other kids, would've learned to deal with it when the issue is one of learning colors and shapes, not sines and cosines. That's a powerful argument for separating the kids who are at the extremes.

And my teachers and parents all thought the "solution" to my bad grades in middle school were lectures, threats, groundings, etc.

I always struggled with math. In fact, the TAG program pulled me out of math for all of fourth grade and my teacher never actually checked homework or made me or the other girl in the class take the tests - she figured that since we were "smart", we didn't need to be tested. Well, as a result, I basically didn't learn any math for an entire year and entered the next year unprepared. It was mortifying to have my 5 grade teacher hold up my failing math tests in front of the entire class, jeering "I thought you were smart!"

So I figured out if I told teachers that I was "bad at math", they often would give me a pass because I was a girl.

Even when I flew through algebra with a 97% average (I love algebra), I had been tagged as bad with math so that was that.

Btw, I am a web developer, and I find I have a facility for relational database design - despite years of "soft science" education. It took my math genius husband to discover that maybe I am not really bad at math.

Just some random notes way too late at night.

Siobhan (the other one - nice to see another Siobhan around here!)[/QUOTE]


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ChristaN*
So, can someone clarify something for me? From those of you who are against labeling children as gifted, I am getting the impression that what you are getting at is that the children that we call "gifted" have no greater needs than any other child? Is this a correct reading of your posts?

No, that is not my point, at least. My problem is the whole paradigm of "gifted" vs. "average," and also with how those labels are arrived at.

I believe children have various gifts, all children are gifted, talented, unique and special. All children have individualized and unique needs, certainly not all at the same level, but also not at levels that can or should be simply categorized as is currently happening.

I believe that the idea of "gifted" vs. "average" is harmful to children who get either label.

ETA - Just read Dar's response. ITA.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

So, can someone clarify something for me? From those of you who are against labeling children as gifted, I am getting the impression that what you are getting at is that the children that we call "gifted" have no greater needs than any other child? Is this a correct reading of your posts?
As someone else said, when we are discussing how a child learns, there is no "average" to me. If the central philosophy of a learning program accepts individual styles of learning, I just don't think terms like "low level" "average" and "gifted" would be needed. Having your needs met would just be what happened in school.

The child you are calling gifted has *real* and *specific* needs. I agree. I am saying the child called "average" also has *real* and *specific* needs we are sweeping under the rug with the current ideology in the school system. The myth of "average learning" is damaging to everyone.

Quote:

I wonder, though, if you would feel the same regarding a child with more traditional "special needs?" If a mom of a child with aspergers, for instance, was stating that her child had greater than average needs for differentiation and adjustments in parenting style and classroom methodology b/c of his different brain wiring, would you agree with that?

I don't think the label "gifted" or "low level" learner *as used in this thread* carry the same meaning as a diagnosis of "autism".

The needs of all the children are just as valid and should be met. Please understand this! I don't think these labels are comparable, but all needs are equally valid. Ds has no diagnosis but he has very specific needs in order to participate in a new group. He must visit the building several times beforehand and form a personal acquaintence with the teacher. Ds *cannot* be dropped off somewhere without preparation. It's a very intense, real need and if it is not met he will not be able to learn or function. No amount of accomodation after the fact will reassure him. He also cannot be left alone to, say, empty trash cans, while the class goes ahead to another program. He has zero flexibility with that. It terrifies him to be left alone in a new building. I don't think he will always have this need, but it's a real need now, that has to be met in order for him to participate and learn in that kind of setting.

Autism is not a learning style, and that to me is the difference here...autism exists in every corner of the child's life, from self feeding to giving a hug.

Gifted or Remedial labels * as used in this thread* refer to learning and educational needs. A child in a gifted program in school does not automatically give above average hugs or exhibit above average dish washing skills. The label does not mean "gifted at all times in all area's of their life".


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
Autism is not a learning style, and that to me is the difference here...autism exists in every corner of the child's life, from self feeding to giving a hug.

Gifted or Remedial labels * as used in this thread* refer to learning and educational needs. A child in a gifted program in school does not automatically give above average hugs or exhibit above average dish washing skills. The label does not mean "gifted at all times in all area's of their life".

See, and I really don't believe that "gifted" only describes my dd's learning style. It does affect all corners of her life, who she is, and how she relates to the world around her. From the baby who was terrified of anyone other than mom from the moment she was born, who cried for hours on end for the first 2 years of her life, who is so intense that she is overwhelmed by the world and melted down into multi-hour tantrums multiple times/day as a preschooler... on and on my dd is a different person from the norm.

I am not in any way seeing educational need for faster paced learning as the largest of her needs. That is one of her needs, but far from the most important difference she has. And I absolutely am not implying that dd gives "above average hugs" or does the dishes in a better manner than average. She isn't "above average" in many areas. She is a different cat to borrow Stephanie Tolan's analogy.


----------



## LeftField (Aug 2, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ChristaN*
See, and I really don't believe that "gifted" only describes my dd's learning style.

Ditto this. For example, feeling sorrow over animals eating other animals at age 3 and deciding to become a vegetarian at 5 is not a learning style. My oldest is so sensitive, both physically and emotionally. He thinks hard about deep issues that are not usually issues at his age. Lots of random people IRL comment on it a lot, on how "aware" he is. There were children's books that I had to remove/hide from our study, because if he saw any tiny part of the book's cover sticking out from behind another book, he was terrified and would not enter the study. He was so deeply disturbed by a sculpture of a tree with hands and eyes that he didn't want to go back to the art museum a year later! It made it very very difficult to take him out. These are not related to learning style, but certainly (often) part and parcel of giftedness.

I wish all children had all their needs met in the school system. I think that organizing children by birth year is the most ludicrous thing. I am very grateful that we are homeschooling and we get to avoid many of these issues. My kid isn't better or more special than anyone else. But even without school, there's no way I could ignore that fact that he's different. Actually, in terms of learning style, I think he would do pretty poorly in the standard sequential school set-up. He's a big daydreamer and he is not skilled at following instructions step-by-step. He thinks differently in such a way that doesn't seem very compatible with school success by the standard formula. One of my relatives who is apparently HG almost failed the GATE achievement test, because she was poring over each question and it was a timed test. That doesn't seem like learning style either; she's extremely detail-oriented.

I don't think my kids are aliens or more special or any of the things that have been mentioned. I meet their needs like all parents meet their kids' needs. But I'm not afraid to recognize that there are some specific needs and characteristics there. WIth my oldest, I also researched hyperlexia, Asperger's, apraxia, PDD-NOS and other things. The label does not define them as people. But I'm not nervous about calling it what it appears to be, the same as someone who sees deviations from the norm in their kid.

I'm having a hard time concluding here, so I'll just stop instead of babbling on.


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Daffodil*
The worry that being labelled gifted can lead to arrogance sounds reasonable until you remember what being a kid is actually like in the real world. Did any of us go to schools where the "smart" kids were the most popular? I doubt it. But I bet a lot of us can think of examples (or WERE examples) of "smart" kids who were extremely unpopular. If being called gifted really makes kids feel superior, how come gifted kids so often feel the need to dumb themselves down to fit in?

I've been taking a break from this thread and letting my thoughts settle, but I wanted to respond to this - just to share my experience.

When kids are little, the "smart" kids _are_ looked up to by the other kids, at least that was my experience. My cousins loved to brag about their little cousin who could read at such a young age. The kids in elementary school definitely seemed to admire those who were supposedly the "smartest" in the class.

And then puberty hits, and smarts are SOOO uncool. To a "gifted" kid who has been used to nothing but positive attention and evaluation from others, to be suddenly rejected for the very thing that supposedly makes you "special" is very rough. It makes you distrust those who gave you the label, and at times it can make you cling to the label because it's all you have. I wasn't pretty, wasn't popular, but hey! I was gifted.







: In my mind I was able to deal with my feelings of hurt and anger from being rejected by my peer group by thinking that it was because I was so much smarter than them that they couldn't understand me or perhaps were jealous of me...instead of blaming my social failures on a lack of social skills, and helping me to work on those skills, my parents and teachers totally reinforced my views: "Nora'sMama, don't worry, the popular kids will end up pumping gas in 10 years and you'll be a brilliant writer. You're just thinking on a higher plane from them - don't let them bother you."

It was very confusing. Do I respect the judgment of my peer group and "dumb myself down" to fit in, and reject the "gifted" label? Or do I respect the judgment of adults and reject my peer group, and snarkily gloat about my IQ while watching their activities with envy?

I realize these are NOT the only choices, but for ME, at that time, it seemed like it. I definitely chose dumbing myself down. And then happened to meet some other "gifted", weird kids and rejected my "dumb" peers. And then was disillusioned when I didn't have as much in common with the "weird" kids as I thought.

I bounced back and forth in this silly dichotomous thinking for a long time before finally being able to view people as whole people and not members of the "smart" or "popular" groups.

gotta go, this is totally unedited, hope it makes sense


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

You make an interesting point, Norasmom, and I'll have to ponder that as dd gets older. I believe that I experienced a bit of what you describe as well.

On another topic, I am probably beating my head against a wall to try to continue to convince people to understand me here, but here goes anyway...

I have green eyes, very light skin and reddish blond hair. My dds got dh's Italian coloration, especially my older one. Dd#1 has nearly black hair, brown eyes and olive toned skin. I have a _greater need_ for sunblock than dd does. In fact, even with sunblock, I still burn at times if I am in the sun for very long. I also need to reapply 45 SPF sunblock regularly.

This is not to say that dd doesn't need any sunblock. Yes, we all have different needs, but my needs are actually _greater_ in this area. This is also not to say that dd would be harmed by providing her the same amount and kind of sunblock that you provide me (unless she develops a vitamin D deficiency due to lack of sun exposure







), but she simply is not as harmed if you don't. I don't believe it to be elitist, implying that I have _better_ skin, or likely to turn me into an egomaniac to acknowledge the facts that:
1) in a system that says "no sunblock for anyone" I am going to get more burned;
2) my need is greater here;
3) just because I am not an albino (acceptable, recognized special need), doesn't mean that my needs still do not create a greater need for me every time I set foot outside my door that the "average" population likely does not have to deal with.


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nora'sMama*
When kids are little, the "smart" kids _are_ looked up to by the other kids, at least that was my experience. My cousins loved to brag about their little cousin who could read at such a young age. The kids in elementary school definitely seemed to admire those who were supposedly the "smartest" in the class.

This might be true of children who can be "understood" by their peers. However, the more gifted the child, the less likely this is to be true. Even young children can be very cruel; I've lived it and I'm not even near to PG.

Quote:

And then puberty hits, and smarts are SOOO uncool. To a "gifted" kid who has been used to nothing but positive attention and evaluation from others, to be suddenly rejected for the very thing that supposedly makes you "special" is very rough.
Some gifted kids never get that postive attention. Not all gifted kids perform well at school (moderately gifted kids are most likely to "succeed" at school). Many end up acting out in class and are on the receiving end up behaviour related labels. As far as age peers, "strange" is as common and epithet as "smart." Let's face it, some kids are going to have major problems fitting in whether with their age peers or intellectual peers.

(not addressing this post in particular)
I find the notion curious that it's OK for children to be bored to tears and literally learn nothing remotely academic at school for the sake of a hour's or so "socialization" time with their age peers. How many hours are kids at school each day?


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ChristaN*
See, and I really don't believe that "gifted" only describes my dd's learning style.

And I know many parents of "gifted" children agree with that, and then comes the laundry list of more intense, more sensitive, more passionate, better sense of humor, more energy... it goes on and on. I just don't buy it. Some children will have all of these traits, sure, but some of the most intense, sensitive kids I've known were years "behind" academically, and I've known many sunny, easygoing kids who carried the gifted label. Sometimes, too, the gifted laundry list becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Rather than helping a child learn to be less sensitive, for example (assuming this sensitivity is causing difficulty for him), parents will explain it (to themselves or to the child) as a part of being gifted.

Quote:

I wonder, though, if you would feel the same regarding a child with more traditional "special needs?" If a mom of a child with aspergers, for instance, was stating that her child had greater than average needs for differentiation and adjustments in parenting style and classroom methodology b/c of his different brain wiring, would you agree with that?
School is an artificial situation, not the real world, and I don't think school is a place that meets the needs of most kids. I see parenting as pretty individualized, too - my parenting "style" is based on a kid's needs, so adjusting it for meet a child's needs would be redundant.

I don't know about averages, really. I just don't like to focus on "greater than" or "less than", "ahead" and "behind", "higher" and "lower". I do think that some kids will have a very high level of need in one or more areas for long periods of time, but I don't think you can break it down by label. I know some kids with aspergers who don't seem to have any greater degree of needs than their siblings, who aren't on that spectrum. I've known kids whose needs would drive me crazy (and seem "high" to me) because they involve needing lots of social interaction, but they thought my daughter's picky eating habits were difficult to deal with.

dar


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NoHiddenFees*
This might be true of children who can be "understood" by their peers. However, the more gifted the child, the less likely this is to be true. Even young children can be very cruel; I've lived it and I'm not even near to PG.


Well, my experience is that most young children are pretty accepting of others, until they start getting labeled. Once they start putting people into categories, yes, they can be cruel.

Certainly the challenges facing "moderately gifted" children are different from those facing the "profoundly gifted". However I think it is wrong to act as if the profoundly gifted are operating on some rarefied level that makes it impossible for them to be "understood". It smacks of the genius worship that began with the Renaissance and gained steam in the Romantic Era.

I am sure that it is hard for children of low IQ to understand some aspects of average children's behavior. However, that doesn't mean they can't interact. YES, children with different aptitudes may require dramatically different educational models to optimally succeed. But I disagree that these children cannot "understand" each other, or that the way a PG person's mind works is so different that they cannot hope to "fit in". I think the real problem is how adults treat children of different abilities differently. Children pick up on adults' judgment and respond accordingly.

All cultures classify and evaluate their members according to some criteria. However, modern Western culture is obsessed with classification and evaluation. You could say that classifying and evaluating students is the primary goal of institutional schooling, and that educating the students is but a secondary consideration. I am not making this assertion per se, but I think much support could be marshalled in support of it.

I don't think it's healthy to focus on classifying people by IQ at the expense of the development of the whole person, including that person's relationships with others. It is very hard to see yourself as part of the larger community, and to respect that community, when you have been told that because of your IQ others cannot "understand" you. Sure, kids with very high IQ are different in some very noticeable ways from other children - but I'd submit that they have a lot more in common with average IQ children than they have differences.

Many parents seem so determined to have the classification that sets their kid apart, even if their child is NOT profoundly gifted. I think it is related to the intense focus on the individual that we have in this culture, and the belief that a "misunderstood genius", someone who is so different as to be practically a different species, can save the world. To me, that is a cultural myth. It is not reality. People with 180 IQs can grow up to be very socially integrated. However it may take "accommodations" to help them achieve this goal. This is not the nature of "accomodation" that I see most people with gifted kids looking for, however.

*aside: dude, I should NOT be letting my 14-month-old run wild while typing this response! I'm going to try and sit out from this thread (and MDC in general) for a couple of days because I am ignoring my daughter.







*


----------



## EVC (Jan 29, 2006)

Quote:

feeling sorrow over animals eating other animals at age 3 and deciding to become a vegetarian at 5 is not a learning style.
LOL, I became a vegetarian at age 4 for the same reason









Interesting.....


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

See, and I really don't believe that "gifted" only describes my dd's learning style. It does affect all corners of her life, who she is, and how she relates to the world around her. From the baby who was terrified of anyone other than mom from the moment she was born, who cried for hours on end for the first 2 years of her life, who is so intense that she is overwhelmed by the world and melted down into multi-hour tantrums multiple times/day as a preschooler... on and on my dd is a different person from the norm.

I am not in any way seeing educational need for faster paced learning as the largest of her needs. That is one of her needs, but far from the most important difference she has. And I absolutely am not implying that dd gives "above average hugs" or does the dishes in a better manner than average. She isn't "above average" in many areas. She is a different cat to borrow Stephanie Tolan's analogy.
But most of that is not what the school intends when refering to the gifted child. "Gifted" does not mean "Had multi hour tantrums as a preschooler" or "refused to go away to strangers". It may be common for gifted children to do that, but many don't, and it's not part of what the gifted label (as used by a school) is reaching out to address. Maybe there is something else going on with your child, or maybe that's just part of her unique temperment. She sounds SO much like my ds.

A gifted program at school is designed to meet educational needs. It's not a "diagnosis" in a medical sense. It's not intended as therapy to address, say, a 4 year old who becomes a vegetarian out of a compassion for animals, which someone described their gifted child doing.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

1) in a system that says "no sunblock for anyone" I am going to get more burned;
2) my need is greater here;
Something is very wrong with a system that would say that!


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

I find the notion curious that it's OK for children to be bored to tears and literally learn nothing remotely academic at school for the sake of a hour's or so "socialization" time with their age peers. How many hours are kids at school each day?
Did anyone here suggest this was OK?


----------



## EVC (Jan 29, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LeftField*
Ok, I'm politely bowing out of this discussion. It's impossible to have meaningful and objective debate if there's no agreement on basic terms, statistics are figments of the imagination and substantial amounts of research and entire specialities are rendered meangingless because they don't jive with a person's personal life experience. No hard feelings, but I feel like we're arguing over the earth being flat because, despite scientific findings, it's never looked round to me.

I hope that is not on account of my response to you. FWIW, I was agreeing with you


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
Maybe there is something else going on with your child, or maybe that's just part of her unique temperment. She sounds SO much like my ds.

We have had dd throughtly evaluated by psychologists, her D.O. and an OT. What we got was "highly gifted" and thus intense due to the sensitivity of her brain wiring and possibly "SID" (sensory overresponsive).

I'm of the strong opinion that it is due to temperment combined with sensitive brain wiring (which is part of being gifted).


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

I don't think my kids are aliens or more special or any of the things that have been mentioned. I meet their needs like all parents meet their kids' needs. But I'm not afraid to recognize that there are some specific needs and characteristics there.
*sigh*.

The problem is that you keep phrasing this as though there is a group of children out there, who have no specific needs or characteristics. This is the myth I'm addressing.

Now, it sounds like you feel your child has a very specific need you would like addressed. Who said you shouldn't?

My son had a very specific need for 3 open heart surgeries. He has very specific limits on his ability to perform cardiovascular exercise. It's also a bad idea to play games that involve jumping out and scaring him or causing his heart to "skip a beat" as they call it.

He has "special needs" but the "specialness" exists in comparison. He has needs. Period. In a system that has no intention of meeting individual needs, *then* it's necessary to wave both arms in the air and say "Hey, over here, this kid could die if you don't meet his needs!" and they have to pay attention. I'm saying, I do not support a system so negligent of individual needs, they only acknowledge the existence of individual needs if they fall outside the "average" of an imaginary spectrum. It leaves a host of children with unmet needs.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

We have had dd throughtly evaluated by psychologists, her D.O. and an OT. What we got was "highly gifted" and thus intense due to the sensitivity of her brain wiring and possibly "SID" (sensory overresponsive).

I'm of the strong opinion that it is due to temperment combined with sensitive brain wiring (which is part of being gifted).
Did you see the part of my post where I said this is not, for example, what our local school system is interested in when they use the term "gifted" ?

I realize it may be different where you live. Our local public school gifted program offers self directed learning and art opportunities a few hours a week for children who have above average IQ test results, maintain a high GPA, or advance ahead of the class in overall comprehension of the curriculum.

I am opposed to *that*. It's a cop out. It's what all students deserve in the first place!

I am not here to address all the things *parents* mean when they use the term "gifted". I am opposed to an educational system based on a linear labelling process...and the process IS linear when it is based on grades, IQ, and other measures of expectations in relation to success with an arbitrary curriculum.


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
Did anyone here suggest this was OK?

I've seen it on MDC. It's the old "let children be children" refrain. WRT this thread, if someone is of the position that there should be no gifted programs, segregation based on ability, pull outs or acceleration, that's the result. FSM suggested that HJ might find he enjoys himself in K (while learning nothing) because of this... perhaps, but at what cost? Is HJ going to dumb himself down to fit in? How is that growing up to be his own person?

Unfortunately, there are many school districts in which acceleration is next to impossible. TAG programs too often service the high acheivement rather than the gifted population. They are not universal and when they exist many don't start until 4th grade. TAG programs that do exist are more often than not getting cut because of NCLB (gifted programs don't increase those all important school scores). Gifted children drop out at disproportionate rates. I'll wager this is more true as you move from HG to EG to PG.


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NoHiddenFees*
I've seen it on MDC. It's the old "let children be children" refrain. WRT this thread, if someone is of the position that there should be no gifted programs, segregation based on ability, pull outs or acceleration, that's the result. FSM suggested that HJ might find he enjoys himself in K (while learning nothing) because of this... perhaps, but at what cost? Is HJ going to dumb himself down to fit in? How is that growing up to be his own person?

I said that was ONE possible solution, and it's based on Ever-Anecdotal People I Know who found that it worked really well for their children. I didn't say it would work for your child in any case, it was for our Ever-Elusive "friend's child."

I think the popularity/uncoolness of intelligence and labelling is very much dependent upon...class and culture and where you're at. I grew up in a bumhick town where I was the only person out of my entire 8th grade class to go on to college. Ok, so there _were_ only 12 kids in my class. I was made fun of daily, my favorite "what are you, a walking dictionary? uh-huh-huh-huh." In HS, it was even worse, although we did have Honors English (taught by the Football Coach, also for nerds). However, my husband's HS (with the elite gifted programs) the popular kids WERE the "smart" kids who were in gifted programs, not the cheerleaders and football guys (like at my school). I grew up in a trailer. He grew up in a house with an ice-maker. He grew up in an affluent neighborhood. In my town, parents placed a premium on getting you out of the house before you got knocked up. When I escaped the bumhick town for greener pastures 30 minutes away, it was very cool to be a thinker, amongst the grungy-goth kids, and read philosophy, and...oh you know the rest. We were total snobs though.

Oh. The vaunted ice-maker. I knew I'd made it in life when I had a fridge with an ice-maker. Suh-weet.


----------



## key_issue (Apr 29, 2006)

Daddy key_issue here.

I've been following this thread and I have some personal experience to offer. Essentially, I am your hypothetical Johnny. I was never in any kind of enrichment or pull-out programme, never dumbed myself down, always had lots of friends. I was a terror throughout my school years and bored like everyone else. If we learned one thing it was that you are on your own in the fun compartment in a school day. I don't mean to strike a blow for boredom here but it sure taught me creativity.
I had everything going against me- I was short, hyperactive and smart. Still, I never had any problems with my peers. I don't mean to come across a pompous ass or something but I think character and intelligence do not have too much to do with each other. Yes, there are gifted children who have severe problems socializing, but there also are tons of "average" children who have the same problem.

Also, there are more (and way smarter) hypothetical Johnnys who made their mark on the world without ever having received any special schooling. Albert Einstein, for example. A, dare I say, bonvivant, almost. Who did pretty bad in almost every subject besides math and physics. I think he even failed a grade.

All in all, I am all for an overhaul of the whole school system. While I'm not a huge advocate for German schools they are better than what we have. Somehow, German students end up with more skills and knowledge. I like the system Finnland has. They do not have special ed, for no one. They have a real: "To each according to his/her needs, from each according to his/her abilities". All in one classroom. I envision a school with individual learning objectives. In my school, the classroom is a correct depiction of society. Meaning you meet peers from all walks of life, with special needs, different socio-economic backgrounds and different mental capacities. My school is no ivory tower and not a treadmill of boredom. In my school, it's not only your brain which gets trained. It's also your heart and your hand.

Another important point that (I think) hasn't been adressed yet is how different it is for boys and girls. I really think very intelligent girls have a harder time. I personally had this "well, boys will be boys" thing going for me when I acted out, but girls are supposed to be pretty and nice. Girls who did good were called nerds. Boys who did good, well, did good. No big deal. But that probably is a whole other bag of nuts.

Oh, and this is what hypothetical Johnny does when he's finished HS- he bumbles around for a bit, then decides to go to Germany and finish his studies. He becomes the father of the bestest little girl ever and writes his thesis


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

've seen it on MDC. It's the old "let children be children" refrain. WRT this thread, if someone is of the position that there should be no gifted programs, segregation based on ability, pull outs or acceleration, that's the result.
See, I don't agree the result of an educational system based on meeting individual needs is "Let children be children"...which itself is a stereotype, yes?


----------



## pookel (May 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nora'sMama*
When kids are little, the "smart" kids _are_ looked up to by the other kids, at least that was my experience. My cousins loved to brag about their little cousin who could read at such a young age. The kids in elementary school definitely seemed to admire those who were supposedly the "smartest" in the class.

I was shunned, ostracized, and called names from third grade on. I never got any of this "admiration" you talk about at school, never. I got along OK in preschool and kindergarten because the kids were too young to care - it just didn't matter to the other 4-year-olds that I was reading fluently and they were still learning letters. They didn't look up to me or down on me. But by third grade that difference had become a huge, visible gap, and they resented it greatly.


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nora'sMama*
I've been taking a break from this thread and letting my thoughts settle, but I wanted to respond to this - just to share my experience.

When kids are little, the "smart" kids _are_ looked up to by the other kids, at least that was my experience. My cousins loved to brag about their little cousin who could read at such a young age. The kids in elementary school definitely seemed to admire those who were supposedly the "smartest" in the class.

And then puberty hits, and smarts are SOOO uncool. To a "gifted" kid who has been used to nothing but positive attention and evaluation from others, to be suddenly rejected for the very thing that supposedly makes you "special" is very rough. It makes you distrust those who gave you the label, and at times it can make you cling to the label because it's all you have. I wasn't pretty, wasn't popular, but hey! I was gifted.







: In my mind I was able to deal with my feelings of hurt and anger from being rejected by my peer group by thinking that it was because I was so much smarter than them that they couldn't understand me or perhaps were jealous of me...instead of blaming my social failures on a lack of social skills, and helping me to work on those skills, my parents and teachers totally reinforced my views: "Nora'sMama, don't worry, the popular kids will end up pumping gas in 10 years and you'll be a brilliant writer. You're just thinking on a higher plane from them - don't let them bother you."

It was very confusing. Do I respect the judgment of my peer group and "dumb myself down" to fit in, and reject the "gifted" label? Or do I respect the judgment of adults and reject my peer group, and snarkily gloat about my IQ while watching their activities with envy?

I realize these are NOT the only choices, but for ME, at that time, it seemed like it. I definitely chose dumbing myself down. And then happened to meet some other "gifted", weird kids and rejected my "dumb" peers. And then was disillusioned when I didn't have as much in common with the "weird" kids as I thought.

I bounced back and forth in this silly dichotomous thinking for a long time before finally being able to view people as whole people and not members of the "smart" or "popular" groups.

gotta go, this is totally unedited, hope it makes sense

Not where I live. It is never ever considerd "uncool" to be smart. Most of the "popular kids" are in the highest level classes. The "cool' kids here are the one who get into Harvard Yale and the other Ivy's.

You can be considered a "nerd" if you have no other interests. But being smart in no way exludeds you from any "cool' group.


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NoHiddenFees*
I've seen it on MDC. It's the old "let children be children" refrain. WRT this thread, if someone is of the position that there should be no gifted programs, segregation based on ability, pull outs or acceleration, that's the result.

Ah, but the solutions you've listed aren't the only ones. Many of us here have said that dirty "D" word - differentiation or individualized education. Why is that such a horrible option, not to be considered in polite company? Parents of the gifted in my district really fight that one in the classroom, even the whole idea of it.


----------



## pookel (May 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
But most of that is not what the school intends when refering to the gifted child. "Gifted" does not mean "Had multi hour tantrums as a preschooler" or "refused to go away to strangers". It may be common for gifted children to do that, but many don't, and it's not part of what the gifted label (as used by a school) is reaching out to address.

I totally agree with you on this issue. I don't know why you disagree so strongly with me on the subject of the gifted label and special classes for gifted kids. The whole point of school is education, and the point of special classes is to meet the specifically educational needs of kids who are not getting anything out of their regular classes. This stuff about extra-sensitive, super-creative, special gifted kids - I just don't buy it. There are plenty of sensitive, creative, "weird" kids who are not especially good at academics. (And I think school in general should be more nurturing to "weird" kids - but that has nothing to do with gifted programs.)

To me the issue is simple:

One kid is in a fourth-grade math class learning to understand fractions and decimals and long division. She's got a pretty good idea of the concepts, but doesn't have it totally figured out yet. The teacher is helping her. Her math textbook is teaching her some things she didn't already know, without being so hard that she feels totally frustrated.

A second kid is in the same math class. She understands all the material in the textbook. Once in a while she catches the teacher making a mistake at the chalkboard and points it out, and the teacher resents her and the other students make fun of her. She doodles in her notebook and gets bad grades because she doesn't see the point of doing lots of math problems to show that she knows something she has known for years. She's not learning anything at all about math.

The first kid belongs in that class. The second kid does not. The first kid is having more needs met by the class than the second kid is. The second kid needs something that she isn't getting from the school. But if the school institutes an advanced math class, or starts a gifted pullout program that gives the second kid something else to learn in that period, her parents are told, "all children are gifted - there's no reason for yours to be in a special class."

Just because SOME gifted education programs are nothing more than parental ego-stroking, and SOME do nothing more than offer special activities to select kids that the other kids would benefit from, but don't get to, doesn't mean that the entire concept of giftedness is useless.


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya44*
Not where I live. It is never ever considerd "uncool" to be smart. Most of the "popular kids" are in the highest level classes. The "cool' kids here are the one who get into Harvard Yale and the other Ivy's.

You can be considered a "nerd" if you have no other interests. But being smart in no way exludeds you from any "cool' group.


Quote:


Originally Posted by *pookel*
I was shunned, ostracized, and called names from third grade on. I never got any of this "admiration" you talk about at school, never. I got along OK in preschool and kindergarten because the kids were too young to care - it just didn't matter to the other 4-year-olds that I was reading fluently and they were still learning letters. They didn't look up to me or down on me. But by third grade that difference had become a huge, visible gap, and they resented it greatly.

I'm tellin' ya - it's where you're from, class- and education-wise. You live in a upper-middle-class neighborhood of Boston, Austin, or San Francisco, the smart kids aren't going to be tormented at school but will be valorized. Even in most middle-class suburbs (today), the smart children are where it's at. You live in the sticks of Nebraska or in the inner-city, smarts aren't what will get you ahead in the School Game.

I also think there's been a sea change in the way society regards the "genius" or "prodigy" in the past 10-15 years, since we were kids. There is more interest in observing and creating them. Our parents didn't show us Baby Einstein or try to induce the Mozart Effect. Marilyn Vos Savant (the highest IQ ever!) has her own column. And what a column it is. Bah. Bad, bad parenting advice.


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flyingspaghettimama*
Ah, but the solutions you've listed aren't the only ones. Many of us here have said that dirty "D" word - differentiation or individualized education. Why is that such a horrible option, not to be considered in polite company? Parents of the gifted in my district really fight that one in the classroom, even the whole idea of it.

True, it's another option and one that is often given lip-service, but, if judging by the frustrated parents I've seen on GT-Families and other groups, is not executed well (or at all) in practice. Everyone has to be on board: TAG co-ordinator, child (who often doesn't want to do more or "harder" work than peers), parents, principal, classroom teacher. Too often differentiation just means extra worksheets or promises of "soon." Sure, lump it in with the others (oversight on my part), but it too takes resources and those resources are dwindling.


----------



## pookel (May 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flyingspaghettimama*
Many of us here have said that dirty "D" word - differentiation or individualized education. Why is that such a horrible option, not to be considered in polite company? Parents of the gifted in my district really fight that one in the classroom, even the whole idea of it.

I don't know where you live, but my parents would have killed to have that option available to me in grade school. That would have been a dream come true. It was what all the gifted kids' parents wanted. The GT program we had was a stopgap - better than nothing, but not really great. Everyone would have preferred individualized education if they'd had the choice.


----------



## sophmama (Sep 11, 2004)

Does the 'anti-gifted label' crowd here object to mildly LD students or those that just happen to be on the special ed roster for a diagnosis, having labels? Is there a cut-off point? The MR or downs label is ok? The autism label is too much? What about the mild accomodations many of my dh's students recieve (tests read aloud, etc.)? Do you object to those labels/ differentiations? Do you expect every teacher to re-diagnose each of those needs? Do you feel we need to throw out those labels *before* the small class size/ teachers having kids for several years, etc. is implemented? If you throw out the labels in *today's* school system, how do you expect those kids to survive?


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pookel*

A second kid is in the same math class. She understands all the material in the textbook. Once in a while she catches the teacher making a mistake at the chalkboard and points it out, and the teacher resents her and the other students make fun of her. She doodles in her notebook and gets bad grades because she doesn't see the point of doing lots of math problems to show that she knows something she has known for years. She's not learning anything at all about math.

Um, the second child might learn some social graces, like it's not very polite to point out another's errors in front of a large audience. It's much more polite to tell them while one-on-one. I wouldn't much care for someone who delighted in playing "caught-ya" in a classroom setting. She might also talk to her teacher about getting work at her interest, or have her mom talk to the teacher. And perhaps the teacher would listen if there was a respectful two-way dialogue established.

And, maybe the teacher is a louse and the kid can switch teachers.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pookel*
I was shunned, ostracized, and called names from third grade on. I never got any of this "admiration" you talk about at school, never. I got along OK in preschool and kindergarten because the kids were too young to care - it just didn't matter to the other 4-year-olds that I was reading fluently and they were still learning letters. They didn't look up to me or down on me. But by third grade that difference had become a huge, visible gap, and they resented it greatly.

Without going into my long sob story...

Yeah. That.


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NoHiddenFees*
True, it's another option and one that is often given lip-service, but, if judging by the frustrated parents I've seen on GT-Families and other groups, is not executed well (or at all) in practice. Everyone has to be on board: TAG co-ordinator, child (who often doesn't want to do more or "harder" work than peers), parents, principal, classroom teacher. Too often differentiation just means extra worksheets or promises of "soon." Sure, lump it in with the others (oversight on my part), but it too takes resources and those resources are dwindling.

Well, agreed, that would be crappy. Although if a child was resisting it, I would listen to him first instead of insisting on them being given harder work. If a child were requesting it, that might be more palatable to the school, teacher, etc.

People here resist it (as I understand) because they want their child to be in a classroom of peers, all at about the same level, and because they doubt that the teacher will individualize (although a chance hasn't yet been given, either). I agree though, extra worksheets are no good for anyone.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flyingspaghettimama*
I'm tellin' ya - it's where you're from, class- and education-wise. You live in a upper-middle-class neighborhood of Boston, Austin, or San Francisco, the smart kids aren't going to be tormented at school but will be valorized. Even in most middle-class suburbs (today), the smart children are where it's at. You live in the sticks of Nebraska or in the inner-city, smarts aren't what will get you ahead in the School Game.

.

FSM, for the record, what you said absolutely doesn't apply to me, and my experience was very similar to Pookel's and unfortunately started even earlier. My family was upper middle-class all the way: my father had a white-collar financial-type job, and we lived in a decidedly upscale 'hood in a major city in the Southwest, one known for being on the artsy/envirofriendly side.

In short, although what you're saying is generally true, I think that for some extreme kids, the "fit" between them and their peers will _never_ work, no matter where they are or how much cash they have.


----------



## pookel (May 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flyingspaghettimama*
Um, the second child might learn some social graces, like it's not very polite to point out another's errors in front of a large audience. It's much more polite to tell them while one-on-one. I wouldn't much care for someone who delighted in playing "caught-ya" in a classroom setting.

I guess you would have hated me as a kid, then. I didn't delight in "caught-ya" and never have, but I've always been irrationally irked at seeing errors in print, and it took me a while to understand that someone might take a correction personally. I mean, didn't they care that what they wrote on the board was *wrong*?

Anyway, I found out soon enough that teachers resented being corrected in private just as well as in public, and learned to shut up and pretend I didn't notice.

Quote:

She might also talk to her teacher about getting work at her interest, or have her mom talk to the teacher. And perhaps the teacher would listen if there was a respectful two-way dialogue established.

And, maybe the teacher is a louse and the kid can switch teachers.
But why would you suggest these options - a partial solution at best, IMHO - over putting the kid in a class that actually meets her needs? Even if the teacher is willing to give the kid a more advanced textbook and help her out with it once in a while, what's the advantage to her in spending an hour a day listening to the teacher lecture about stuff she already knows? What is so important about making her sit in a room with other kids who are actually getting something out of the class, when she isn't? What is wrong with putting her together with other kids who are learning some of the same things she is, instead of being the one who's "different" in a regular class?


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flyingspaghettimama*
Well, agreed, that would be crappy. Although if a child was resisting it, I would listen to him first instead of insisting on them being given harder work. If a child were requesting it, that might be more palatable to the school, teacher, etc.

I happen to be of the belief that we do children a disservice by not challenging them. We've heard frequently in this thread from people who didn't realize that learning might take some work until they were in college! Myself, it took me 9 years on and off and more majors than I can even recall to get my first degree. At least I got one.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NoHiddenFees*
I happen to be of the belief that we do children a disservice by not challenging them.

Yes. Even IN gifted programs I was rarely challenged. I'm not sure I EVER learned to study the way most people need to.

-Angela


----------



## pookel (May 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NoHiddenFees*
I happen to be of the belief that we do children a disservice by not challenging them. We've heard frequently in this thread from people who didn't realize that learning might take some work until they were in college!

I think this is a good point - schools should be challenging all the kids, not just the ones with the initiative to ask for it. My fifth-grade teacher handed me an algebra textbook and said "you can work out of this if you want" - but she never gave assignments, graded my work, anything. (And of course I had to do the regular assignments too.) I never really got anywhere with it. My brother, on the other hand, taught himself calculus when he was 11 just because he felt like it. But I've never had the kind of drive that he had. (He typed all the numbers from 1 to 10,000 on a manual typewriter when he was 5. He was a weird kid.)


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

Does the 'anti-gifted label' crowd here object to mildly LD students or those that just happen to be on the special ed roster for a diagnosis, having labels? Is there a cut-off point? The MR or downs label is ok? The autism label is too much? What about the mild accomodations many of my dh's students recieve (tests read aloud, etc.)? Do you object to those labels/ differentiations? Do you expect every teacher to re-diagnose each of those needs? Do you feel we need to throw out those labels *before* the small class size/ teachers having kids for several years, etc. is implemented? If you throw out the labels in *today's* school system, how do you expect those kids to survive?
I think I've already answered the first part of this.

We currently have a system that discriminates against *all* learners by imposing an arbitrary, linear concept of "average learning" to everyone. This means that children who are ahead or behind the expected average...*in order for their needs to be met*...are labeled as above or below average and shunted into a different program that will further lump them in with children of the same label (which is no guarantee, really, that their needs will be met). I am saying, this system is intrinsically flawed and wrong, and the labels that come *from this system* are flawed and wrong. It is wrong because the "average learner" is a myth. Not only does the "average classroom" fail the child labeled gifted or LD *IT OFTEN FAILS THE STUDENTS WHO REMAIN WITHIN THE EXPECTED AVERAGE AND STAY IN THAT CLASS*. And this is true of countless people who will tell you it happened to them. Being labeled "average" and being in the "average class" on no level means you will learn, grow, or develop your interests in a tangible, meaningful, personal way.

Yes, sure, I'd like to see the whole system crash tomorrow, and the money wasted oversea's on war and political favors spent here. Our entire society would alter if children grew up in a learning environment dedicated to meeting their individual learning needs.


----------



## Dechen (Apr 3, 2004)

Labels are neither good nor bad. They are constructs. They are tools. A hammer can be used to knock someone's head in, or it can be used to create life-sustaining shelter. The value of a tool is in how it is wielded, not in the tool itself.

To be sure, some tools are built more carefully or with more thought. Some tools are more useful than others.

The label "gifted" is no different. It can be used with skill, and to the benefit of children, or it can be used poorly and cause harm. You can bludgeon a person with a label, or show them how to use that label to build something useful.

I'm not the type that likes to throw the baby out with the bathwater. There ARE children with a similar set of social, emotional, and educational needs that can be grouped together under the term "gifted." The category isn't perfect, nor is it the end-all be-all of classifying children. It can still be tremendously useful.


----------



## lasciate (May 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flyingspaghettimama*
Um, the second child might learn some social graces, like it's not very polite to point out another's errors in front of a large audience. It's much more polite to tell them while one-on-one. I wouldn't much care for someone who delighted in playing "caught-ya" in a classroom setting. She might also talk to her teacher about getting work at her interest, or have her mom talk to the teacher. And perhaps the teacher would listen if there was a respectful two-way dialogue established.

And, maybe the teacher is a louse and the kid can switch teachers.

I had a teacher in *grade 10* who took great personal offense to me pointing out (after class, in private) that she had confused the definitions and spellings of two similar words on our spelling test. She brought it up to my parents at report card time and got quite upset when my parents asked if I was right instead of immediately taking her side. For the record, I was right.


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
We currently have a system that discriminates against *all* learners by imposing an arbitrary, linear concept of "average learning" to everyone. This means that children who are ahead or behind the expected average...*in order for their needs to be met*...are labeled as above or below average and shunted into a different program that will further lump them in with children of the same label (which is no guarantee, really, that their needs will be met). I am saying, this system is intrinsically flawed and wrong, and the labels that come *from this system* are flawed and wrong. It is wrong because the "average learner" is a myth. Not only does the "average classroom" fail the child labeled gifted or LD *IT OFTEN FAILS THE STUDENTS WHO REMAIN WITHIN THE EXPECTED AVERAGE AND STAY IN THAT CLASS*. And this is true of countless people who will tell you it happened to them. Being labeled "average" and being in the "average class" on no level means you will learn, grow, or develop your interests in a tangible, meaningful, personal way.

Heartmama, I heart you.

ITA.

I knew I shouldn't have gotten involved in this thread because as it continues I find my thoughts getting *less* coherent, not more, and I feel like I have nothing to add to the debate - not because I have nothing to say, but because I think I'm going to start contradicting myself all over the place. I keep seeing different sides of the issue. But I really agree with heartmama's post.

I have further thoughts but can't seem to get them to gel. I'm back to writing out long posts and deleting them. I better just







: for a while on this thread, since I'm driving myself crazy trying to express myself...at least my DD is out with daddy so I don't feel so







about being on MDC.


----------



## Roar (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar*
Perish the thought! I've never owned it but when I worked as a homeschool facilitator a couple of my families were using it, and I flipped through it a bit. It's a neat program - I think you need both the book and worksheets to truly get into it. It's very investigative, and the exercises are like puzzles to solve. I think you'd enjoy it...

dar

Coming in really late here...

Like anything I think some kids are going to love it and some aren't. Our very math oriented kid didn't particularly care for the Calculus for Young People book and his math oriented dad wasn't thrilled with it either. Ouir son took an online seminar with the author though and really liked that. So, I'd say like anything...it'll fit some and not others.


----------



## sophmama (Sep 11, 2004)

Heartmama, you didn't answer my question. You are obviously against "average learning" but do you go so far as to feel that MR and Downs and Autism are labels that should be done away with. And all the IEP's that give individual accommodations like having tests read aloud, etc. Those are a product of the labeling system that actually make education more individualized as opposed to making them a part of a homogenous group with no allowance for differences. I don't understand why some kids shouldn't get visual aids and some shouldn't get special accomodations that others don't *need* in order to be able to grasp the same material. In many cases, most of my dh's ld students (who are in team taught classes - 2 teachers for 30 students - 1 special ed, 1 gen.ed.) have accomodations that the other students aren't even aware of. Only the individual students and the teacher even know they're on the special ed roster. The other kids are never told. The severely LD students are in self-contained classes with 8 students to a teacher and they get a ton of one on one time on their areas of challenge. Your idea of getting rid of the labels, gets rid of all those accomodations for the kids that need it. I know all kids need special attention, but it's the special ed kids that are most likely to drop out.

Many MR and Autistic kids are in classes with 8 students and 2 teachers and then they also have a personal attendant that sits with them the entire day and makes sure they get their accomodations. Your objection to labels prevents them from getting that.

I know gen. ed. students need more attention and specialization, but taking it away from special ed / gifted or any other program does not help.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
Yes, sure, I'd like to see the whole system crash tomorrow, and the money wasted oversea's on war and political favors spent here. Our entire society would alter if children grew up in a learning environment dedicated to meeting their individual learning needs.

Honestly you have to realize what you're saying. For the whole system to "crash" you'd have schools closing everywhere and the only people to be educated for the decade following would be the wealthy who can afford private schools or those who have the cultural network to be able to homeschool. There are many adults in America who do not have the education themselves to be able to educate their children. Those kids would never recieve anything.

Wishing that the education system would crash and burn is the same thing as wishing for poor people to become poorer. Wishing to see solutions to fix the current system is entirely different than wishing to see it all fall apart. You should see the awesome programs that some groups are implementing in some schools today. Most schools are doing poorly but while a lot of people turn their backs, there are people trying to make things better. And those who get involved and make a difference in education are helping all our children.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

Heartmama, you didn't answer my question. You are obviously against "average learning" but do you go so far as to feel that MR and Downs and Autism are labels that should be done away with. And all the IEP's that give individual accommodations like having tests read aloud, etc. Those are a product of the labeling system that actually make education more individualized as opposed to making them a part of a homogenous group with no allowance for differences. I don't understand why some kids shouldn't get visual aids and some shouldn't get special accomodations that others don't *need* in order to be able to grasp the same material.
Oy! I have answered this question at least twice









I specifically said that labels which are the direct result of the current educational system's linear concept of average are flawed. Are Down's and Autism the result of a 3rd grade teacher's decision that little Johnny seems ahead or behind in his curriculum? No! Please do not compare apples to oranges for the sake of proving a point I never made--or to disprove a point of mine you do not seem to distinguish?

Read the tests aloud, print the tests in braille, have an aide sit and give on on one attention, type everything out in Times New Roman if it's the only text a child can read~~I'm saying YES children SHOULD have access to the resources they need in order to learn! Those needs will differ from one child to the next! Meet the need! I did not say "take away" from the kids already getting specialized help. I have the novel idea that children who go to school to learn can "have their cake and eat it too".

Our whole concept of what constitutes a "special" learning need is flawed. We only see it at the ends of an imagined spectrum. If a child can buckle up and perform under a curriculum that stifles his love of learning, that's not really cause to celebrate, is it? But that seems to be good enough for many people here.

Quote:

Wishing that the education system would crash and burn is the same thing as wishing for poor people to become poorer.
I guess it wasn't obvious that I meant for a new system to take it's place~not to just leave all the kids who go to school hanging in the streets...


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Adding this to the sub-thread~I really think students should feel free to (respectfully) correct a teacher's mistake. I can see no benefit to anyone from leaving 2+3=6 on the blackboard.


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
Adding this to the sub-thread~I really think students should feel free to (respectfully) correct a teacher's mistake. I can see no benefit to anyone from leaving 2+3=6 on the blackboard.

Sure, I'll concede that, as long as the student isn't out to "catch her making a mistake" in some sort of one-upsmanship or ha-ha-I gotcha. There's a way to point out others' mistakes in public and ways not to do so, if you want the relationship to stay amicable.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dechen*
Labels are neither good nor bad. They are constructs. They are tools. A hammer can be used to knock someone's head in, or it can be used to create life-sustaining shelter. The value of a tool is in how it is wielded, not in the tool itself.

To be sure, some tools are built more carefully or with more thought. Some tools are more useful than others.

The label "gifted" is no different. It can be used with skill, and to the benefit of children, or it can be used poorly and cause harm. You can bludgeon a person with a label, or show them how to use that label to build something useful.

I'm not the type that likes to throw the baby out with the bathwater. There ARE children with a similar set of social, emotional, and educational needs that can be grouped together under the term "gifted." The category isn't perfect, nor is it the end-all be-all of classifying children. It can still be tremendously useful.









:


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

I'm bowing out of this discussion, interesting as it has been...thinking of deleting my last two posts as they were written hurriedly and don't make too much sense (and apparently the phrase "genius worship" - badly chosen - offended at least one person). However I really hate deleting my posts, so for now I'll leave them up.

I noticed that a thread title in the Gifted forum had been deleted and when I read the edited OP, it turns out that the OP is so upset by this discussion that she is leaving MDC!

I don't see a problem with questioning *anything*, including the appropriateness of the term 'gifted' and the usefulness of classifying children as 'gifted'. And I think that doing so is very much within the spirit of MDC.

However, I hate to think that my posts have caused another person such pain that they left the community after more than 2 1/2 years. I am not really sure what it is about *this particular issue* that causes so many hurt feelings. Maybe I don't get it because I speak as the (grown-up) "gifted" child myself, not someone who has BTDT with their own child. I truly apologize if any of my posts have been insensitive. It sometimes happens but it is rarely on purpose, and I have posted in utmost sincerity on this thread with no desire to hurt anyone in any way. I take back the "genius worship" comment because I didn't express it as I meant - it was not intended as a dig, in any way, and it was not addressed to the mamas posted on this thread but was intended as a general comment on society's view of the heroic or brilliant individual.

I'm probably not expressing myself well *now*. I'm tired, have a cracked nipple (anyone who would like to give me advice? here's the thread), and am not feeling very gifted in any way.







So I hope this will be taken in the spirit that it is meant.

This topic ties me up in knots, but if you haven't noticed, it's a personal thing. I'm a person who didn't live up to the expectations others had for her or that I had for myself, and *to me* my failures (and the fact that I perceive them as failures) are inextricably intertwined with this whole giftedness thing. But I'm not gifted enough, I guess, to talk about it without getting very confused.

Peace.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Nora'smama I have loved your posts here!

I have been here for 6 years. If people left over this thread a diverse environment probably doesn't suit their needs. Sometimes people just want agreement, and that is a perfectly valid need. I'm sure there are websites that will better meet that need. If anything this thread is a refreshing throwback to the times when MDC threads really dug into the meat of an issue.

I cannot begin to count the number of threads here that did not support my feelings on a very personal issue. I have taken extended breaks from the boards but it's still the best place I know for a wide range of views on alternative parenting topics.


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nora'sMama*
However, I hate to think that my posts have caused another person such pain that they left the community after more than 2 1/2 years. I am not really sure what it is about *this particular issue* that causes so many hurt feelings. Maybe I don't get it because I speak as the (grown-up) "gifted" child myself, not someone who has BTDT with their own child. I truly apologize if any of my posts have been insensitive. It sometimes happens but it is rarely on purpose, and I have posted in utmost sincerity on this thread with no desire to hurt anyone in any way. I take back the "genius worship" comment because I didn't express it as I meant - it was not intended as a dig, in any way, and it was not addressed to the mamas posted on this thread but was intended as a general comment on society's view of the heroic or brilliant individual.

Thank you.

[Speaking for myself here.]

Please understand though that neither you nor anything you've said is "the problem." This thread in and of itself is not the problem. It's just that it keeps coming up and every time it does it feels like another attack. Feelings are still raw from a recent thread in Learning at Home. Feelings are still raw about getting kicked out of Special Needs (the place Cynthia had decided was appropriate for the lone gifted thread). This took place right before the move to the new server. When MDC was back up we got the new forum and within a day or two, this thread appears. Feelings are raw because it doesn't matter who or how much personal experience is shared, it _seems to be_ (and admittedly this is an issue of perception) devalued by those on the "other side." The problem is that at MDC that is just doesn't seem to stop even though new ground is rarely breached.

The mamas of gifted kids here at MDC are *not* the pushy stereotypes ensuring their kids get into TAG programs because it's a status thing or a rung in the ladder to success. In my time here there's only one I've seen that I thought might fit into that category. We all want what's best for our kids. It would be nice if that could be acknowledged up front by all parties. At MDC it's common to hear about tolerance and acceptance and empathy; I guess it would be nice to see a bit more of this in these discussions. _These are our kids._

Now I realize that's an emotional argument, but then again, we're talking about feelings. I'm better able to detach myself than some because I have a relatively easy time of it with DD1 (so far anyway; there are hints of intense storms in the offing).


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

I'm bowing out of this one too. Not because of hurt feelings; I just don't think there's anything more to be said.


----------



## arlecchina (Jul 25, 2006)

I was labelled gifted as well. I also think IQ tests are crap and I think I would have been better off without any of it.

like you I was also abused...also, my sister was learning disabled (so they said, I think she was very shy, had a stutter so she would not tell what she knew) at any rate that gave my parents the idea she was to be spoiled and I was to take all blame since I must know better....even if I wasnt in the room.

I think the fact she will speak to none of us to this day (nor I to them, to tell the truth) had to do with these things.


----------



## Dechen (Apr 3, 2004)

The mamas of gifted kids (those who chose to embrace that label however flawed) are not looking for a homogeneous environment. All they are looking for is an environment that isn't hostile.

The issue is bigger than this thread. I don't think this thread, out of context, is anything but a spirited discussion. On an intellectual level, I've enjoyed reading it.

Unfortunately, there has been a lot more going on. Mamas who post about giftedness face repeated hostility on this board. I'm not pointing fingers. It happens, and in many different fora. Here, there, everywhere.

I think it is callous to discount the emotions of our FELLOW MDC mamas. It is not in the spirit of MDC to say "Gee, too bad you're so sensitive. I guess you should stay out of the kitchen."

I have no intentions of leaving MDC, and my kid may or may not be gifted, but I take offense to the way mamas of so-called gifted kids are belittled and discounted. Sensitivity apparently has its limits. Whether or not any of the posters on this thread agree with the gifted construct, can we not muster some compassion for the way a portion of our community is feeling attacked?

I'd like to naively hope it isn't too much to ask.


----------



## LadyMarmalade (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dechen*
The mamas of gifted kids (those who chose to embrace that label however flawed) are not looking for a homogeneous environment. All they are looking for is an environment that isn't hostile.

The issue is bigger than this thread. I don't think this thread, out of context, is anything but a spirited discussion. On an intellectual level, I've enjoyed reading it.

Unfortunately, there has been a lot more going on. Mamas who post about giftedness face repeated hostility on this board. I'm not pointing fingers. It happens, and in many different fora. Here, there, everywhere.

I think it is callous to discount the emotions of our FELLOW MDC mamas. It is not in the spirit of MDC to say "Gee, too bad you're so sensitive. I guess you should stay out of the kitchen."

I have no intentions of leaving MDC, and my kid may or may not be gifted, but I take offense to the way mamas of so-called gifted kids are belittled and discounted. Sensitivity apparently has its limits. Whether or not any on the posters on this thread agree with the gifted construct, can we not muster some compassion for the way a portion of our community is feeling attacked?

I'd like to naively hope it isn't too much to ask.

Great post!

I think the problem is a lot deeper than this thread, and unfortunately the new forum has proven not to be a safe haven either (just like we suspected in the Q&A thread).

I really don't know what can be done, short of having a support only forum with restrictions (the same as the abuse forum). There will always be those who are against parents talking about the special needs their gifted children have ... but they don't have to follow us around repeating the same stuff over and over again. And even if they're not saying it to our face the sheer number of views vs posts in the new forum, and the cropping up of threads all over the place with the bashing of us is enough of a problem that it needs to be addressed seriously.


----------



## LadyMarmalade (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NoHiddenFees*
Thank you.

[Speaking for myself here.]

Please understand though that neither you nor anything you've said is "the problem." This thread in and of itself is not the problem. It's just that it keeps coming up and every time it does it feels like another attack. Feelings are still raw from a recent thread in Learning at Home. Feelings are still raw about getting kicked out of Special Needs (the place Cynthia had decided was appropriate for the lone gifted thread). This took place right before the move to the new server. When MDC was back up we got the new forum and within a day or two, this thread appears. Feelings are raw because it doesn't matter who or how much personal experience is shared, it _seems to be_ (and admittedly this is an issue of perception) devalued by those on the "other side." The problem is that at MDC that is just doesn't seem to stop even though new ground is rarely breached.

The mamas of gifted kids here at MDC are *not* the pushy stereotypes ensuring their kids get into TAG programs because it's a status thing or a rung in the ladder to success. In my time here there's only one I've seen that I thought might fit into that category. We all want what's best for our kids. It would be nice if that could be acknowledged up front by all parties. At MDC it's common to hear about tolerance and acceptance and empathy; I guess it would be nice to see a bit more of this in these discussions. _These are our kids._

Now I realize that's an emotional argument, but then again, we're talking about feelings. I'm better able to detach myself than some because I have a relatively easy time of it with DD1 (so far anyway; there are hints of intense storms in the offing).











Well said!


----------



## RedWine (Sep 26, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LadyMarmalade*
I really don't know what can be done, short of having a support only forum with restrictions (the same as the abuse forum). There will always be those who are against parents talking about the special needs their gifted children have ... but they don't have to follow us around repeating the same stuff over and over again. And even if they're not saying it to our face the sheer number of views vs posts in the new forum, and the cropping up of threads all over the place with the bashing of us is enough of a problem that it needs to be addressed seriously.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LadyMarmalade*
Great post!

I think the problem is a lot deeper than this thread, and unfortunately the new forum has proven not to be a safe haven either (just like we suspected in the Q&A thread).

I really don't know what can be done, short of having a support only forum with restrictions (the same as the abuse forum). There will always be those who are against parents talking about the special needs their gifted children have ... but they don't have to follow us around repeating the same stuff over and over again. And even if they're not saying it to our face the sheer number of views vs posts in the new forum, and the cropping up of threads all over the place with the bashing of us is enough of a problem that it needs to be addressed seriously.

Slightly OT-

I DO think that we need some stickies in place in the new forum stating that it is a support forum- like queer parenting has- not a place to question validity. Cynthia is agreeable if we put something together.

-Angela


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

I hear that you feel defensive and personally attacked. I'm really not sure that just because some parents have vastly different experiences with their own gifted education and their child's labelling, and the effects of labelling in general on the school systems (i.e. on all children), that we mean to be attacking you personally. Some people might feel that the valorization of high IQ is an racist, classist phenomenon and feel personally offended, too. But I think we can debate it outside of your support forum, as many of us have our personal experiences, professional observations, and parental input to share as well.

It is an internet forum, after all? The women on here - as a general rule - are independent, critical thinkers who do care for not only their children, but all children. There are entire message boards devoted to support-only for parents of gifted children, and now there's a subforum, which I encourage you to make support-only, and define the terms of "support." As in, no debating about IQ tests or acceleration, or the meaning of gifted and signs of giftedness? But there will be people you exclude by definitions, and they might also feel personally invalidated and upset. It is an internet forum, after all...


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

t is an internet forum, after all? The women on here - as a general rule - are independent, critical thinkers who do care for not only their children, but all children. There are entire message boards devoted to support-only for parents of gifted children, and now there's a subforum, which I encourage you to make support-only, and define the terms of "support." As in, no debating about IQ tests or acceleration, or the meaning of gifted and signs of giftedness? But there will be people you exclude by definitions, and they might also feel personally invalidated and upset. It is an internet forum, after all...
Agreed. A gifted support forum meets a need, and it does not change the feelings of those who feel the label was/is harmful to themselves or others. It does not mean there is a consensus here, or that a mother at MDC should expect everyone to "get over it" in every Forum, because their need for support has been acknowledged in another forum.

The Queer Parenting forum didn't create consensus in the Activism forum when the gay marriage legislation was discussed. The homebirth forum did not create an MDC consensus on where a woman should give birth. The strict no-spanking stand in GD Forum does not mean there is consensus on spanking legislation discussions in other forums (or even that forum).

Personally, I am glad there is a Gifted support forum. I have strong feelings about this issue and am not interested in a supportive discussion. My needs are better met with a separate support Forum too.


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

I was thinking of this thread as I was driving today... I'm in the middle of moving 40 minutes away and have been doing a lot of driving, and I haven't had much online time.

One of the things I was thinking was that my feelings about the "gifted" label are very similar to my feelings about the "indigo child" and "crystal child" labels. I, personally, don't buy into those labels. I can accept that certain children have certain behavior traits, but I don't see these as being part of an overall "indigo" energy pattern. When people tell me that their children are "indigos", I may have concerns that the parents are seeing the "sense of entitlement" that is a characteristic trait of indigos in that light, and therefore aren't helping their children to interact with others in a more egalitarian fashion. On the other hand, if people find it useful to characterize their children as indigos and talk about their problems within that framework, and if doing so helps their children, then more power to them. I'm not going to leap into their groups and tell them how I feel. If someone posts a thread here about the conception of indigo children, however, I may well jump in.

dar


----------



## Roar (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar*
I was thinking of this thread as I was driving today... I'm in the middle of moving 40 minutes away and have been doing a lot of driving, and I haven't had much online time. dar

I was thinking about the thread while I was driving this morning too, but we had very different thoughts. I was driving my ten year old to the university where he studies.

I thought... We could refuse to use the word gifted. We could refuse to label it. We could pretend that there isn't anything unusual about this and it is just different like everyone likes a different kind of food or a different sport. We could pretend the IQ and standardized test results are really random and no more meaningful than a lottery number or a horoscope. We could pretend that what makes this difference is noticeable is if we talk about it or label it. We could pretend that if we don't name it he'll never notice and neither will anyone else. We could pretend no one including him is aware that he's half the age of the other students. We could pretend it is all just a matter of interests and not of abilities and really any kid who had the interest would need this sort of work and do just fine with it.

Frankly it seems like a lot of work to do all that pretending and it seems to me really dishonest. I'm not sure why anyone would put the effort into that kind of pretending or what would be accomplished by it. It also seems like it could be incredibly confusing to the kid involved. They would be left to wonder without the help of honest discussion.

So for me, talking about giftedness or whatever we want to call it isn't about claiming status or looking for entitlements, but at the very core about being honest about what is not only obvious to us after ten years with our son but obvious to strangers who spend five minutes with him. It isn't particularly important to me that it be called gifted. We could call it Fred for all I care. It is important though that we have an honest way to talk about it.


----------



## Daffodil (Aug 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar*
One of the things I was thinking was that my feelings about the "gifted" label are very similar to my feelings about the "indigo child" and "crystal child" labels. I, personally, don't buy into those labels.

Hmm, that's interesting. Do you really mean that you think the "gifted" label is as unsupported by science or common sense as the "indigo" and "crystal" labels? (Which are based on things like the ability to transmit various colored "rays of incarnation and evolution.") I, personally, don't even come close to buying into those labels. But the idea that people vary in innate intellectual ability, and that it might be useful (or at least possible) to identify some of the people with particularly high ability in certain areas - well, I see that as somewhat debatable, but not at all unreasonable. Isn't that idea what we're talking about when we talk about the "gifted" label? Or are you thinking more about the idea that high IQ is connected to characteristics like high sensitivity or social ineptness?


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Roar*
I was thinking about the thread while I was driving this morning too, but we had very different thoughts. I was driving my ten year old to the university where he studies.

I thought... We could refuse to use the word gifted. We could refuse to label it. We could pretend that there isn't anything unusual about this and it is just different like everyone likes a different kind of food or a different sport. We could pretend the IQ and standardized test results are really random and no more meaningful than a lottery number or a horoscope. We could pretend that what makes this difference is noticeable is if we talk about it or label it. We could pretend that if we don't name it he'll never notice and neither will anyone else. We could pretend no one including him is aware that he's half the age of the other students. We could pretend it is all just a matter of interests and not of abilities and really any kid who had the interest would need this sort of work and do just fine with it.

Frankly it seems like a lot of work to do all that pretending and it seems to me really dishonest. I'm not sure why anyone would put the effort into that kind of pretending or what would be accomplished by it. It also seems like it could be incredibly confusing to the kid involved. They would be left to wonder without the help of honest discussion.

So for me, talking about giftedness or whatever we want to call it isn't about claiming status or looking for entitlements, but at the very core about being honest about what is not only obvious to us after ten years with our son but obvious to strangers who spend five minutes with him. It isn't particularly important to me that it be called gifted. We could call it Fred for all I care. It is important though that we have an honest way to talk about it.











Very well put.

thank you.

-Angela


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

Frankly it seems like a lot of work to do all that pretending and it seems to me really dishonest.
I'm not pretending. I fully believe that children will have unique and individual needs which should be met. If you can only think of another viewpoint as being deliberately dishonest them I'm sure you didn't understand my post well enough to dismiss it like that.


----------



## Roar (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
I'm not pretending. I fully believe that children will have unique and individual needs which should be met. If you can only think of another viewpoint as being deliberately dishonest them I'm sure you didn't understand my post well enough to dismiss it like that.

Let's try this. Let's say hypothetically you have an eight, nine or ten year old who pretty much everywhere they go folks comment about their intelligence. Not the occasional well meaning grandma in the grocery store, but their friends, their family, neighbors, most everyone who meets them because it is that noticeable and striking. The child is confused because while everyone they know likes different things and there is nothing unusual about that. But, the child, just like everyone else can't help but notice it isn't just a matter of interests but that there are significant differences in certain abilities and that his are so different that it draws a lot of commentary. So the the difference comes not from what you've called it or from a score on an IQ test, but instead from a difference in ability that the child and other people recognize as a child functioning in ways that are much more common typically for adults than for children.

Would you acknowledge this to your child. What sorts of things would you say? What words would you use? Would you pretend everyone else at the college was just taller - or you'd acknowledge they were older, but not allow discussion of how that relates to abilities?


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Snakes on a plane! This thread has suddenly taken a turn for the worse. I'm jettin'...


----------



## LadyMarmalade (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna*
Slightly OT-

I DO think that we need some stickies in place in the new forum stating that it is a support forum- like queer parenting has- not a place to question validity. Cynthia is agreeable if we put something together.

-Angela

I think it's absolutely necessary.

Truthfully? The issue here isn't whether people disagree with me or not. I would invite them to spend some time with my child because I know their minds would be changed VERY quickly. But I choose not to let my child be around negativity like that. They can disagree all they want, but I want (and deserve) some protection from their bashing and the challenges they're throwing (as part of their disbelief). Why can't we have some respect - whether others agree with it or not. Not everyone here agrees with gays having kids, but would they dare to go into the QP forum and challenge them? Or start a thread in a different form discussing them? NO! And if they did they'd quickly get set straight (hopefully it wouldn't matter if they were a moderator or not - anyone doing the wrong thing should be given a warning).

It's not our place to educate the people who have no understanding of this if all they're seeking is debate and to try to convince us that we're wrong. If they're truly seeking information and a way to support us or looking for ways to effectively deal with gifted kids in society I'm more than happy to help out.


----------



## LadyMarmalade (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar*
One of the things I was thinking was that my feelings about the "gifted" label are very similar to my feelings about the "indigo child" and "crystal child" labels. I, personally, don't buy into those labels.

Have the brains of indigo and crystal children been scientifically and medically proven to function in a different way than 'regular' children? No. Then your comparison is shoddy.

Once again - children with brains which scientifically and medically function differently to the norm - ASD, ADHD, etc ... but in a way which is perceived by society to be negative, all get support. As soon as children with a brain which scientifically and medically functions differently to the norm through giftedness is mentioned the support stops and the bashing, minimisation, challenging and ridicule start.

How about we start a thread here in Parenting with the title 'Anyone wanna talk about the conception of "autistic" status in children?' and start theorising that it doesn't exist, or that it's just a label which is unnecessary, or the parents are just looking for attention. I bet that would be a real success.


----------



## LadyMarmalade (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Roar*
I was thinking about the thread while I was driving this morning too, but we had very different thoughts. I was driving my ten year old to the university where he studies.

I thought... We could refuse to use the word gifted. We could refuse to label it. We could pretend that there isn't anything unusual about this and it is just different like everyone likes a different kind of food or a different sport. We could pretend the IQ and standardized test results are really random and no more meaningful than a lottery number or a horoscope. We could pretend that what makes this difference is noticeable is if we talk about it or label it. We could pretend that if we don't name it he'll never notice and neither will anyone else. We could pretend no one including him is aware that he's half the age of the other students. We could pretend it is all just a matter of interests and not of abilities and really any kid who had the interest would need this sort of work and do just fine with it.

Frankly it seems like a lot of work to do all that pretending and it seems to me really dishonest. I'm not sure why anyone would put the effort into that kind of pretending or what would be accomplished by it. It also seems like it could be incredibly confusing to the kid involved. They would be left to wonder without the help of honest discussion.

So for me, talking about giftedness or whatever we want to call it isn't about claiming status or looking for entitlements, but at the very core about being honest about what is not only obvious to us after ten years with our son but obvious to strangers who spend five minutes with him. It isn't particularly important to me that it be called gifted. We could call it Fred for all I care. It is important though that we have an honest way to talk about it.

Bravo!


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

ot everyone here agrees with gays having kids, but would they dare to go into the QP forum and challenge them? Or start a thread in a different form discussing them? NO!
I am sure threads were started outside the QP forum that reflected disagreement on that issue here. I can think of at least one topic that was/is banned because of the heat it generated.


----------



## LadyMarmalade (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
I am sure threads were started outside the QP forum that reflected disagreement on that issue here. I can think of at least one topic that was/is banned because of the heat it generated.

Exactly! You're not allowed to do it. Why? Because it's wrong. It should be the same for this.


----------



## LadyMarmalade (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
For the record, I am not saying I want to argue, but that I want to express my concern over our school system whether or not everyone agrees with my concerns. Obviously I could not do that in a support forum.

Perhaps you don't realise how offensive and argumentative your posts sound to someone with a gifted child who has special needs resulting from the giftedness?

It's possible to have a non-supportive discussion about the school system and your concerns without resorting to the 'giftedness doesn't really exist' debate. I'm not sure where the trouble lies.


----------



## eightyferrettoes (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LadyMarmalade*
Exactly! You're not allowed to do it. Why? Because it's wrong. It should be the same for this.

I'm not sure that the parents of "gifted" children face anything resembling the level of social censure, legal discrimination, and bigoted angst that queer parents do.

I think some of the posters here are raising some pretty valid questions about what "giftedness" really even is, what the social and socioeconomic implications are in a PS system, etc. For the most part, this has been a really respectful, thoughtful thread with a lot of good points being raised on all sides of the issue.

And I say that as a former "gifted" child. I don't buy the label for myself, and think that maybe it really was pretty counterproductive in the long run. Hearing people like FSM and Dar really kind validates a lot of thoughts I've been having on the subject for quite awhile now.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

I think it is good that the gifted children forum exists for parents, and is support only. However ITA with heartmama and others who have said it would be very unfortunate to see censorship on discussing the concept of "giftedness."


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Umm, and yeah, I was a gifted child and am a queer parent. The whole gifted thing garnered a lot more praise and welcome than the gay thing does...


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

Once again - children with brains which scientifically and medically function differently to the norm - ASD, ADHD, etc ... but in a way which is perceived by society to be negative, all get support. As soon as children with a brain which scientifically and medically functions differently to the norm through giftedness is mentioned the support stops and the bashing, minimisation, challenging and ridicule start.
2 thoughts

The gifted label as it is used by schools is not a diagnosis of a differing brain function. Locally, our system used the gifted label to describe A students or students moving ahead of the "group" with their curriculum. Period.

Also, there is a huge controversy over the ADHD label, and even LD labels. It is not all sunshine and support. It's interesting you see it that way.

I am opposed to a specific system of labeling based on a child's relationship to a standard linear curriculum. I see people attaching more to that in an effort to imply emotions and assumptions that would make my view seem more controversial than what was actually said. I cannot help you understand something I did NOT say, kwim? So please make sure you get what I'm opposed to before assuming...


----------



## key_issue (Apr 29, 2006)

Please don't take this the snarky way but I still haven't understood what exactly the special needs of a gifted child are. It's really late over here so maybe I am missing something but I don't think anybody has agreed on what those special needs exactly are.

For a deaf person, the accomodations he or she needs are obvious. But, once again, ancedotal, I personally was happy as a clam in a normal school setting. A lot of other posters have said the same thing. I know a lot of people who truly are brilliant and have said so too. Deaf people have a very definite problem, regardless of their personality, their personal situation or anything else: They simply cannot hear. Intelligence related problems are not so clear cut. A person with an IQ of 80 might do just fine, be well-liked, have a lot of friends and generally suceed in life. Or fail. A person with an IQ of 140 might be a totally mellow character who loves and lives life to the fullest. Or s/he might be a miserable person who is a total drag to be around.

I don't know and don't care too much if my daughter is average or a brainiac. She seems pretty smart to me, but I am her doting father. What I want most for her and what probably all of you want most for your kids is for her to be happy. No matter if this happiness is working at McDonalds, becoming a pro at skateboarding (my personal favorite) or the president.

I still believe that the ideal school would assess every child's needs and accomodate them. Their should be a basic curriculum for everyone and then a buffet for learning whatever you feel you want/need to know. For everyone.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Roar*
Frankly it seems like a lot of work to do all that pretending and it seems to me really dishonest. I'm not sure why anyone would put the effort into that kind of pretending or what would be accomplished by it.

Because then everyone could be different and disabled and exceptional and gifted and asynchronous and special, _just like everyone else_.


----------



## key_issue (Apr 29, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
Because then everyone could be different and disabled and exceptional and gifted and asynchronous and special, _just like everyone else_.

What's so wrong about the idea that everyone is an individual and thus as individual needs, strenghts and abilities?
See, I this clearly outlines the difference between a "disability" and "giftedness". Most parents of disabled children want nothing more than everyone realizing we all have our defects. Because if we did realize this and live accordingly, most Down children probably would have an easier time.


----------



## LadyMarmalade (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eightyferrettoes*
I'm not sure that the parents of "gifted" children face anything resembling the level of social censure, legal discrimination, and bigoted angst that queer parents do.for quite awhile now.

Oh, I totally agree here, and that's not the comparison I was drawing, I was simply trying to say that if someone feels they need support for an issue recognised and supported by MDC (as giftedness and its special needs, as well as queer parenting, as well as breastfeeding and many other things), they shouldn't be challenged (particularly in their own forum) or made to feel as though they have no right to want support.

But I do think a LOT of people have no understanding of the difficulties which can be involved in parenting a gifted child, and the special needs which come along with it. Not all gifted kids have those special needs, and not all parents of gifted kids find it tough - not all gifted kids grow up to think it was a problem for them. But that doesn't mean the experience of others should be ignored or questioned.


----------



## LadyMarmalade (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eightyferrettoes*
And I say that as a former "gifted" child. I don't buy the label for myself, and think that maybe it really was pretty counterproductive in the long run. Hearing people like FSM and Dar really kind validates a lot of thoughts I've been having on the subject for quite awhile now.

But that's your personal opinion and shouldn't have an impact on whether other grown gifted kids or parents of gifted kids need support. And it doesn't mean all others share your experience.

And for the record, seeing/hearing people like those you cited makes me even more sure we should have our own private support board where we don't have to continuously defend ourselves without our posts being picked apart (both in that forum and on other forums).


----------



## Roar (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *key_issue*
Most parents of disabled children want nothing more than everyone realizing we all have our defects.

Huh?

I can say as a parent of a disabled child, it doesn't do a lot for me for folks to pretend that all "defects" are equally challenging to deal with or the same. I can't imagine telling a parent of a child who is blind "oh really, I'm farsighted and need to wear reading glasses, see we all have our defects". Yipes.


----------



## LadyMarmalade (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
2 thoughts

The gifted label as it is used by schools is not a diagnosis of a differing brain function. Locally, our system used the gifted label to describe A students or students moving ahead of the "group" with their curriculum. Period.

Also, there is a huge controversy over the ADHD label, and even LD labels. It is not all sunshine and support. It's interesting you see it that way.

I am opposed to a specific system of labeling based on a child's relationship to a standard linear curriculum. I see people attaching more to that in an effort to imply emotions and assumptions that would make my view seem more controversial than what was actually said. I cannot help you understand something I did NOT say, kwim? So please make sure you get what I'm opposed to before assuming...

Did you see me refer to the gifted label as schools use it? No. I spoke about the scientific and medical use of the word - which defines and diagnoses a differing brain function. Your local school is of no significance to me - if you want to advocate for change so that understanding is fostered, great. Good luck. They can call the sky yellow for all I care. I'm talking here about support needed by parents of gifted children, and the challenges they face.

You say you're opposed to a specific system of labeling based on a child's relationship to a standard linear curriculum ... that's great, but that's not my issue. My issue is the treatment and lack of support - and downright hostility - parents of gifted children receive here on MDC.

I'm not assuming or implying anything - your words speak loudly enough for themselves. As I said before, perhaps you don't understand how you're coming across.


----------



## eightyferrettoes (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LadyMarmalade*
But I do think a LOT of people have no understanding of the difficulties which can be involved in parenting a gifted child, and the special needs which come along with it. Not all gifted kids have those special needs, and not all parents of gifted kids find it tough - not all gifted kids grow up to think it was a problem for them. But that doesn't mean the experience of others should be ignored or questioned.

I guess I think ALL children have "special needs" of one kind or another, and there is no amount of pigeonholing or pull-out programs or "enrichment" that will make that fact disappear.

It's just a matter of degree. I agree with the notion that the "average" child doesn't exist, and from there, you've got all kinds of variations, some of which are further from the mythical center than others. Should all parents be supported in trying to find resources to parent their kids in the best way for that kid? Yes.

Are there big problems with the way we classify kids by their ability to master a narrow preset curriculum? Yup.

Should anyone be prevented from pointing that out? Man, I hope not.


----------



## LadyMarmalade (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *key_issue*
Please don't take this the snarky way but I still haven't understood what exactly the special needs of a gifted child are. It's really late over here so maybe I am missing something but I don't think anybody has agreed on what those special needs exactly are.

Welcome - I see you're new! Go and do a search in the Questions and Answers forum, and visit a few of the locked threads linked to in it. The special needs of gifted children are addressed there. The parents of gifted kids with special needs DO agree about exactly what the needs are (and so do the professionals) but unforunately a lot of people here disagree with us (and the experts).


----------



## LadyMarmalade (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *key_issue*
What's so wrong about the idea that everyone is an individual and thus as individual needs, strenghts and abilities?
See, I this clearly outlines the difference between a "disability" and "giftedness". Most parents of disabled children want nothing more than everyone realizing we all have our defects. Because if we did realize this and live accordingly, most Down children probably would have an easier time.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with the idea that everyone is an individual and thus has their own needs, strengths and abilities.

However, gifted children are a group of people who have a medical condition where their brain fuctions differently to the norm. Their experiences, therefore, are different to the rest of society. As parents of those children we like to get together to provide support and encouragement, to share ideas and to advocate for understanding and change. We also need a sounding board for the times when society kicks us in the guts repeatedly or when our child struggles with the enormity of daily life (for them). Asynchrony is probaby the biggest 'special need' in gifted parenting - it gets to the stage where some gifted kids can't function normally in society and to have the support and ideas and encouragement from other parents dealing with it is wonderful.


----------



## eightyferrettoes (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LadyMarmalade*
Did you see me refer to the gifted label as schools use it? No. I spoke about the scientific and medical use of the word - which defines and diagnoses a differing brain function[...] I'm talking here about support needed by parents of gifted children, and the challenges they face.


Except that, AFAIK, there is no real consensus on what this "differing brain function" entails. Where do you go to get a diagnosis of "giftedness?"

From what I've seen of the forum, there are a lot of "My child is 5 years old and learned to read by herself when she was 3 which her teacher has never seen before







so what do I do now?" type posts.

I'm not saying that people don't sometimes have trouble dealing with a kid who doesn't march in lockstep with the academic program, for all kinds of reasons. I DO disagree that "giftedness," as it's used in school systems and by parents, is some kind of culturally universal standard.

What's so dreadful about saying that?


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LadyMarmalade*
Support only? Have you even seen some of the things which were said in there? The mods deleted them, but there's a very good reason a lot of us refuse to post in there.

Yeah, and sometimes members come into the EC board and tell us it's nutty to "toilet train" infants. I don't let it stop me from posting. Report it to a mod, it will be removed. Once again, this is an internet message board. It's not really a place I entrust to be remarkably free of debate.

The MDC gifted board regulars have even started their own Yahoo group, so you could even join there if you PM'd one of them.

I mean, if you _really_ want to see a debate, try asking about a "bumbo" in the Life With Babe area. Now _that_ gets nasty.


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Oh Dechen, you slay me. Please stop now.


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LadyMarmalade*
But that's your personal opinion and shouldn't have an impact on whether other grown gifted kids or parents of gifted kids need support. And it doesn't mean all others share your experience.

I think everyone needs support... but that doesn't require me to validate your viewpoint. And clearly we've all had different experiences, and have different belief systems because of those experiences. My experiences as a "gifted child" and as an unschooler have led to my not buying into the construct of "giftedness". I consider it an artifact of the public school system and I think it's based on erroneous beliefs about learning. YMMV... but that doesn't mean I have to agree with you.

Quote:

And for the record, seeing/hearing people like those you cited makes me even more sure we should have our own private support board where we don't have to continuously defend ourselves without our posts being picked apart (both in that forum and on other forums).
This thread was created to discuss the "conception of 'gifted' status". That's what we're doing. If you don't want to discuss it - if you only want to hear ideas that are in line with the ideas that you currently hold - then it's probably not the right thread for you.

dar


----------



## LadyMarmalade (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flyingspaghettimama*
The MDC gifted board regulars have even started their own Yahoo group, so you could even join there if you PM'd one of them.

Yes, we're having some fantastic discussions over there, and have been for weeks.


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LadyMarmalade*
Yes, we're having some fantastic discussions over there, and have been for weeks.

I know. They are interesting.


----------



## Shiloh (Apr 15, 2005)

Quote:

and other people recognize as a child functioning in ways that are much more common typically for adults than for children.
thats a common misperception that gifted children are more adult like in their intelligence and that when a gifted child becomes an adult the playing field is evened, its not. Gifted is a different intelligence, like you can't teach someone to be picasso.

labels help people understand who they are, not labelling me gifted as a kid would not have changed who I was, I am different in some respects and that will always set someone apart regardless if its a label or not, you can't hide being gifted even as an adult and most gifted children actually do try especially as teens as like most people they'd rather fit in and not be mircroscoped or actually be different.

why do people think being gifted is better? its not, its not a great experience for a variety of reasons outlined here its political, people argue if it exists if you aren't just 'smart' well academically smart is different many gifted people aren't that smart. The kids I feel sorriest for are the ones that parents are convinced they are gifted when they are smart and high achieving. Having a gifted child having been through the gifted wringer myself is not something I am actually all that proud of, I'd rather my children's lives be easier, that they enjoy school, that adults don't focus on them for those silly benchmark type things. sigh....


----------



## LadyMarmalade (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eightyferrettoes*
Except that, AFAIK, there is no real consensus on what this "differing brain function" entails. Where do you go to get a diagnosis of "giftedness?"

Psychologists, neurologists, pediatricians and social workers all studied my son's brain scans and after a week long testing period (both intellectual, scientific and medical) came to the conclusion that his brain fuctions differently to a normal child's.

Quote:

From what I've seen of the forum, there are a lot of "My child is 5 years old and learned to read by herself when she was 3 which her teacher has never seen before







so what do I do now?" type posts.
Exactly. And if you've read some of my other posts concerning this before the new forum was made, it's something we DIDN'T want to have happen.

Quote:

I'm not saying that people don't sometimes have trouble dealing with a kid who doesn't march in lockstep with the academic program, for all kinds of reasons. I DO disagree that "giftedness," as it's used in school systems and by parents, is some kind of culturally universal standard.

What's so dreadful about saying that?
That's not how I use 'giftedness' and it's not how my son's school uses it either. Nor is it how any of the specialists and therapists we see on a weekly basis use it. There's nothing wrong about saying what you did - it's not dreadful at all. But it's not the experience that many parents of gifted kids have had.


----------



## LadyMarmalade (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Shiloh*
thats a common misperception that gifted children are more adult like in their intelligence and that when a gifted child becomes an adult the playing field is evened, its not. Gifted is a different intelligence, like you can't teach someone to be picasso.

labels help people understand who they are, not labelling me gifted as a kid would not have changed who I was, I am different in some respects and that will always set someone apart regardless if its a label or not, you can't hide being gifted even as an adult and most gifted children actually do try especially as teens as like most people they'd rather fit in and not be mircroscoped or actually be different.

why do people think being gifted is better? its not, its not a great experience for a variety of reasons outlined here its political, people argue if it exists if you aren't just 'smart' well academically smart is different many gifted people aren't that smart. The kids I feel sorriest for are the ones that parents are convinced they are gifted when they are smart and high achieving. Having a gifted child having been through the gifted wringer myself is not something I am actually all that proud of, I'd rather my children's lives be easier, that they enjoy school, that adults don't focus on them for those silly benchmark type things. sigh....


----------



## Shiloh (Apr 15, 2005)

all I wanted to ever be was left alone not some political topic for adults as a child. No kid wants to be different, no kid wants to be crapped on or teased, tortured, tested by adults who feel threatened by a child's intelligence.

The biggest lie my mother ever told me was I will find adults to be 'like me' they are not I am different and I accept that. Gifted isn't something to brag about, we call it the trained seal in my house







I would never make my kids show off, also what difference does it make that I read at 2 1/2 I'd have settled for naturally slim







I also have many other things/nerosis that go along with being gifted ocd, sid.

We talk about attachment parenting here..... the world does not practice AP with gifted children they are pushed out in the harsh world very early on by teachers, members of the family. And to discuss wether we exist please how many tears I shed in highschool wanting to be attractive to boys..... if a gifted child can't 'change' and become ungifted.....

I exist even if people don't like that, even if people want to dumb me down.
My son exists even if people want to excuse the label away as they think it means I think he's better, he's not better than my other kids.


----------



## LadyMarmalade (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eightyferrettoes*
Then... you can talk about it in your forum. Knock yourself out.







Really, I have very little invested in the matter one way or the other-- but to think that people are somehow "wrong" to even open up this discussion about what "giftedness" IS just won't fly in my book.

MOST parents with "gifted" kids haven't sat through a bunch of brain-scannin' and psychologists' appointments (who has the _money?_ or the time?) but get their kids classified that way through standardized testing, which we all know is far from bias-free in so many ways.

I think it's relevant and valid to talk about that.

Please try to understand - I'm not saying people can't talk about what giftedness is, I'm saying it should be done without the challenges, hate and hostility.

We didn't have the time or money either, but we want what's best for our kid and when his special needs mean he's suffering, you do whatever you can to help them. But. Offer me ramen and I'll kill you. Making sacrifices for your kid is great, but it's not easy









Talking about the problems with standardised testing and schooling is fantastic, but I think it can be done in a way which promotes understanding, education, advocacy and activism. It can be done without the nastiness which people seem compelled to add to the gifted threads when they don't believe in it.


----------



## LadyMarmalade (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Shiloh*
all I wanted to ever be was left alone not some political topic for adults as a child. No kid wants to be different, no kid wants to be crapped on or teased, tortured, tested by adults who feel threatened by a child's intelligence.

The biggest lie my mother ever told me was I will find adults to be 'like me' they are not I am different and I accept that. Gifted isn't something to brag about, we call it the trained seal in my house







I would never make my kids show off, also what difference does it make that I read at 2 1/2 I'd have settled for naturally slim







I also have many other things/nerosis that go along with being gifted ocd, sid.

We talk about attachment parenting here..... the world does not practice AP with gifted children they are pushed out in the harsh world very early on by teachers, members of the family. And to discuss wether we exist please how many tears I shed in highschool wanting to be attractive to boys..... if a gifted child can't 'change' and become ungifted.....

I exist even if people don't like that, even if people want to dumb me down.
My son exists even if people want to excuse the label away as they think it means I think he's better, he's not better than my other kids.

Damn, I love you.


----------



## LadyMarmalade (May 22, 2005)

PS recognition of our existence isn't enough, IMO - we need support and acknowledgement as well!!


----------



## Shiloh (Apr 15, 2005)

I think people think gifted isn't special needs it is in so many ways.
Gifted children are at risk for a wide range of issues, depression, suicide, dropping out, drug addiction. Pretty common symptoms for growing up being misunderstood, left out, targeted.

gifted isn't better its different, very different.
I hate it when 'special ed' thinks that kids who have struggles are more worthy than kids who are gifted....every child deserves to have an enironment they can positively learn in period.


----------



## Shiloh (Apr 15, 2005)

Quote:

PS recognition of our existence isn't enough, IMO - we need support and acknowledgement as well!!
amen
I think people don't understand what gifted is, they don't touch the experience, really unless you've walked in those shoes how can anyone?

being gifted is one of the most lonely experiences you could ever inflict on someone its not a 'positive' thing you aren't accepted by society, people are always trying to disect you or to show you you aren't really smart.... people accuse you of being nerdy, a know it all, we become overly appologetic about ourselves, we have few real friends as people don't like to have gifted people around, people like to brag about themselves and often surround themselves with people who make them feel better about themselves.....


----------



## eightyferrettoes (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LadyMarmalade*
Talking about the problems with standardised testing and schooling is fantastic, but I think it can be done in a way which promotes understanding, education, advocacy and activism. It can be done without the nastiness which people seem compelled to add to the gifted threads when they don't believe in it.

I've got to be honest-- I have not seen this nastiness of which you speak on this thread.

What I have seen are a lot of folks who made some very thoughtful posts in support of their thinking on the subject, and for most of them, this position is part of their entire outlook and philosophy about education in general.

If anyone is being somehow persecuted for their approach to parenting, I'd say it's the unschoolers, the radicals, the ones outside the medical and educational establishment. "Giftedness" is viewed as being a laudatory label in every institutional educational setting I can think of, in a way that really sort of glosses over the fact that ALL kids have unique abilities and needs. Even the "average" ones. Maybe ESPECIALLY the "average" ones.

If your personal view of giftedness is so divorced from this linear-ed model that you're offended by being lumped in with what someone here called the "Volvo Vigilantes" then why take offense to some probing questions about the nature of this hard-and-fast diagnosis you believe you've found?


----------



## LadyMarmalade (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eightyferrettoes*
I've got to be honest-- I have not seen this nastiness of which you speak on this thread.

I think it's partly because people often don't perceive a problem when it's not their issue. Not comparing the anti-gifted crowd to racists, but often whites don't understand ingrained racism or white privilege and how small comments or remarks can be inflammatory or offensive or ignorant or just plain wrong. It might also be that you haven't seen some of the downright nasty attacks (which is why a lot of us don't post in the subforum). They were deleted, so it's understandable that you haven't seen them. There was even one made in a breastfeeding forum, for goodness sakes!

Quote:

What I have seen are a lot of folks who made some very thoughtful posts in support of their thinking on the subject, and for most of them, this position is part of their entire outlook and philosophy about education in general.
I see posts like that too







. It's not all bad.

Quote:

If anyone is being somehow persecuted for their approach to parenting, I'd say it's the unschoolers, the radicals, the ones outside the medical and educational establishment.
Definitely. But it's not a competition. We can recognise that lots of parents have challenges without having to compete for who has it hardest.

Quote:

"Giftedness" is viewed as being a laudatory label in every institutional educational setting I can think of, in a way that really sort of glosses over the fact that ALL kids have unique abilities and needs. Even the "average" ones. Maybe ESPECIALLY the "average" ones.
That's where a LOT of the problem lies - a lot of people see giftedness as a good thing, when it's not. It's classed in the same bracket as ASD and ADHD by most experts. Having a smart child is great, and it's rewarding to think they're advanced and clever and wonderful and all things happy. But it's not the same as seeing your child suffer and struggle due to giftedness and the asynchrony which comes with it.

Quote:

If your personal view of giftedness is so divorced from this linear-ed model that you're offended by being lumped in with what someone here called the "Volvo Vigilantes" then why take offense to some probing questions about the nature of this hard-and-fast diagnosis you believe you've found?
It's not just my personal view - the majority of parents with gifted kids feel the same way. Usually it's only parents without a gifted child who think it's a good thing. Which is what we're trying to educate people about - there are SO many misconceptions being perpetuated on this thread ... why wouldn't we want people to see how it really is? I know a lot of people don't (and won't) understand, but it's worth a try.

Volvo vigilantes is funny







, I haven't heard that one before.


----------



## Shiloh (Apr 15, 2005)

I think the whole 'testing' issue is wrong.
People test their children to legitimize what they know about their child, most of us don't need the tests to know but we need them to prove to others that these children need to have thier needs met. Its not a system any gifted parent would have put in place and sadly there are parents who push to have their intellectually smart kids labeled gifted even if they aren't. Gifted isn't about being smart its a whole different bird entirely.

The kids whose parents pushed them for the tests, who were just high achievers didn't ever do well in the gifted classes as if your child is smart and learns well in a classroom then they should be where they will do their best. I cringe about people wanting their kids to be labeled gifted when the kids are probably just smart who would want that for their kids....

I'd love to have a labeless, testless world where we can all just be ourselves and all differences are respected, and every single kid has their educational needs met......


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Shiloh*
I think people think gifted isn't special needs it is in so many ways.
Gifted children are at risk for a wide range of issues, depression, suicide, dropping out, drug addiction. Pretty common symptoms for growing up being misunderstood, left out, targeted.

gifted isn't better its different, very different.
I hate it when 'special ed' thinks that kids who have struggles are more worthy than kids who are gifted....every child deserves to have an enironment they can positively learn in period.









:


----------



## LadyMarmalade (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Shiloh*
I think the whole 'testing' issue is wrong.
People test their children to legitimize what they know about their child, most of us don't need the tests to know but we need them to prove to others that these children need to have thier needs met. Its not a system any gifted parent would have put in place and sadly there are parents who push to have their intellectually smart kids labeled gifted even if they aren't. Gifted isn't about being smart its a whole different bird entirely.

The kids whose parents pushed them for the tests, who were just high achievers didn't ever do well in the gifted classes as if your child is smart and learns well in a classroom then they should be where they will do their best. I cringe about people wanting their kids to be labeled gifted when the kids are probably just smart who would want that for their kids....

I'd love to have a labeless, testless world where we can all just be ourselves and all differences are respected, and every single kid has their educational needs met......

Again,























No person who truly knows what having a gifted child is like would *ever* want that label for them. It's like saying you wish you kid could fail at life, or that they were showered with struggles and difficulties. Not something I'd ever want. Unfortunately, I don't have the choice.


----------



## Shiloh (Apr 15, 2005)

Quote:

I think it's partly because people often don't perceive a problem when it's not their issue. Not comparing the anti-gifted crowd to racists, but often whites don't understand ingrained racism or white privilege and how small comments or remarks can be inflammatory or offensive or ignorant or just plain wrong.
honestly I think it is a fair comparison in many aspects. You cannot understand what another culture/identity goes through if you aren't from that group and don't really want to believe that they exist or have their own issues.

Quote:

That's where a LOT of the problem lies - a lot of people see giftedness as a good thing, when it's not.
amen

Quote:

Having a smart child is great, and it's rewarding to think they're advanced and clever and wonderful and all things happy. But it's not the same as seeing your child suffer and struggle due to giftedness and the asynchrony which comes with it.
amen


----------



## eightyferrettoes (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LadyMarmalade*
I think it's partly because people often don't perceive a problem when it's not their issue. Not comparing the anti-gifted crowd to racists, but often whites don't understand ingrained racism or white privilege and how small comments or remarks can be inflammatory or offensive or ignorant or just plain wrong.

Well, OK, but let me remind you that I WAS classified as a "gifted" kid and retain a lot of the supposedly agonizing quirks that people on this thread are discussing-- the tendency to not socialize easily, the sheer inability to focus on slow-moving curricula, etc.

So, um, it IS my issue.







I just don't see how more educational pigeonholing does anything to fix the fundamental problems in our educational systems, because the problems that exist for "gifted" kids are just as real for "average" ones. Our current model is doing a good job of really serving no one.

Quote:

That's where a LOT of the problem lies - a lot of people see giftedness as a good thing, when it's not. It's classed in the same bracket as ASD and ADHD by most experts. Having a smart child is great, and it's rewarding to think they're advanced and clever and wonderful and all things happy. But it's not the same as seeing your child suffer and struggle due to giftedness and the asynchrony which comes with it.
Again, I think almost every kid on earth is asynchronous to some extent, and our current PS system does very little to acknowlege that fact.







"Gifted" kids aren't really all that special in that respect, from what I can see.

Quote:

It's not just my personal view - the majority of parents with gifted kids feel the same way. Usually it's only parents without a gifted child who think it's a good thing. Which is what we're trying to educate people about - there are SO many misconceptions being perpetuated on this thread ... why wouldn't we want people to see how it really is?
Well, I don't think that _most_ parents of what we call "gifted" children do see that label as being a negative or difficult one. Unless your definition of "giftedness" is a lot different than the standard one that schools hand out like candy.

I HAVE heard a lot of barely-disguised gloating, though. And I see nothing inherently wrong with gloating about a kid's accomplishments-- don't we all do that?-- but I disagree that we need institutions of learning to reinforce that kind of parental glee.

I don't know what misconceptions you're talking about. So far, I've seen several side discussions about anti-intellectualism in America, the socioeconomic stacked deck of GATE/TAG programs, and a few others. Differing viewpoints, but nothing that screamed "WRONG WRONG WRONG" to me.


----------



## Shiloh (Apr 15, 2005)

Quote:

Well, I don't think that most parents of what we call "gifted" children do see that label as being a negative or difficult one. Unless your definition of "giftedness" is a lot different than the standard one that schools hand out like candy.
well of course if gifted is by mensa definition for intellectual you are talking 2% max of the population (subtract the homeschoolers







but in a gradeschool of 300 kids thats a max of 6 kids who are gifted. Most 'gifted and talented' programmes in schools tend to have a kid to three or so from each class, thats statistically impossible IMO









Quote:

I HAVE heard a lot of barely-disguised gloating, though. And I see nothing inherently wrong with gloating about a kid's accomplishments-- don't we all do that?
I don't gloat about my kids accomplishments its not a great thing when your 8 month old runs trust me, people think bench marking is positive the earlier the better...not really, gifted kids are more work and more worry. But I don't ever brag about my kids their accomplisments are not mine they are theres to share.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

Did you see me refer to the gifted label as schools use it? No. I spoke about the scientific and medical use of the word - which defines and diagnoses a differing brain function. Your local school is of no significance to me - if you want to advocate for change so that understanding is fostered, great. Good luck. They can call the sky yellow for all I care. I'm talking here about support needed by parents of gifted children, and the challenges they face.

You say you're opposed to a specific system of labeling based on a child's relationship to a standard linear curriculum ... that's great, but that's not my issue. My issue is the treatment and lack of support - and downright hostility - parents of gifted children receive here on MDC.

I'm not assuming or implying anything - your words speak loudly enough for themselves. As I said before, perhaps you don't understand how you're coming across.
You don't care that many, many people use the gifted label this way? I have not lumped anything together in this thread. My words have been very specific. *This Use* of the gifted label is a problem to me. And it's a very common use, not something strange they only do in my town...

People are not being hateful here. If they were, I guarantee a mod would pull the post.

If you cannot handle anything less than agreement, this probably isn't the thread for you.


----------



## eightyferrettoes (May 22, 2005)

I'm at least moderately curious about these brain scans.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

eightyferretos glad to see you here!


----------



## eightyferrettoes (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Shiloh*
well of course if gifted is by mensa definition for intellectual you are talking 2% max of the population (subtract the homeschoolers







but in a gradeschool of 300 kids thats a max of 6 kids who are gifted. Most 'gifted and talented' programmes in schools tend to have a kid to three or so from each class, thats statistically impossible IMO









Well, yes. Though the MENSA org relies exclusively on standardized IQ testing, doesn't it? And we've all pretty well agreed that IQ testing is a very culturally subjective measure of a rather limited spectrum of human possibilities.

Quote:

I don't gloat about my kids accomplishments its not a great thing when your 8 month old runs trust me, people think bench marking is positive the earlier the better...not really, gifted kids are more work and more worry. But I don't ever brag about my kids their accomplisments are not mine they are theres to share.
Running at 8 months is a mark of giftedness? Hadn't heard that one...


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Shiloh*
I don't gloat about my kids accomplishments its not a great thing when your 8 month old runs trust me, people think bench marking is positive the earlier the better...not really, gifted kids are more work and more worry. But I don't ever brag about my kids their accomplisments are not mine they are theres to share.

Why was it not a great thing that your 8 month old ran? I'm lost. My 8 month old ran all over the place, and I certainly never considered it to be a negative thing...

And maybe you've missed the part about how many of us who are arguing against the gifted label carried that same label as children, and have children who would qualify for the gifted label, if we wanted it. I certainly know what it's like to be "gifted" kid. I know what it's like to have a child who meets the criteria for gifted but hasn't been given that label, because as unschoolers we've never found it relevant. I can tell you that my child is doing much better socially and emotionally than I was at 13. I certainly don't believe that refusing to view her through the "gifted" lens has harmed her.

dar


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

I see two very different uses of the term gifted here.

The vast majority of complaints over the gifted label address the misuse by many public school systems in equating "smart" (ie straight A's) with placement in the "gifted" program.

This isn't some weird obscure use of the term gifted. I'd venture to guess this is how most people are introduced to the term.

Having multiple brain scans that reveal altered brain function and a diagnosis of "profoundly gifted"....I haven't seen anyone challenge this use of the term, but maybe I missed it?


----------



## eightyferrettoes (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
Having multiple brain scans that reveal altered brain function and a diagnosis of "profoundly gifted"....I haven't seen anyone challenge this use of the term, but maybe I missed it?

I'm most curious about this one. I don't keep up with the latest in neuroimaging, but AFAIK, its application to cultural concepts like "pedophilia" or "intelligence" or "race" are still sorta on the controversial fringes of medicine.

But I could be wrong about that one.







:


----------



## Shiloh (Apr 15, 2005)

Quote:

Running at 8 months is a mark of giftedness? Hadn't heard that one...
achieving developmental milestones early is often one of the first signs of gifted.

Quote:

Why was it not a great thing that your 8 month old ran? I'm lost. My 8 month old ran all over the place, and I certainly never considered it to be a negative thing...
I didn't mean negative but its not 'great' like better, a child who does more early on presents challenges in themselves that a child who is not doesn't...am I making sense? A kid that does things early and is advanced presents its own challengers its not 'better' than another kid because he did things early its just who he is.

Quote:

And maybe you've missed the part about how many of us who are arguing against the gifted label carried that same label as children, and have children who would qualify for the gifted label, if we wanted it.
I don't think that labeling someone gifted makes them gifted you are or you aren't. Now the educational label is a whole different story. But you are gifted or you aren't you can mislabel someone but that doesn't make them gifted. I think its high time the gifted community got input into 'gifted' programmes but no one really wants our input into the school system right?

Quote:

certainly know what it's like to be "gifted" kid. I know what it's like to have a child who meets the criteria for gifted but hasn't been given that label, because as unschoolers we've never found it relevant. I can tell you that my child is doing much better socially and emotionally than I was at 13. I certainly don't believe that refusing to view her through the "gifted" lens has harmed her.
oh I totally agree ds isn't school age and I have taken an unschooling approach with him and allowing him to direct his learning not forcing him to read when he doesn't want to or encouraging him to build bench mark skills. I don't view my one child as gifted my other as average I hate the 'label' gifted but I am part of the gifted culture/identity.

I hate that that identity is defined by a narrow scope of school 'educators' who know so little about the different intelligences and seek to warp what good could really be done but unlabelling, unstructuring education as kids can learn in all environments.

I love the unschooling ideas as I think children should not be confined to age peers for their education.


----------



## LadyMarmalade (May 22, 2005)

Quote:

I'm most curious about this one. I don't keep up with the latest in neuroimaging, but AFAIK, its application to cultural concepts like "pedophilia" or "intelligence" or "race" are still sorta on the controversial fringes of medicine.

But I could be wrong about that one.
Yep, you could be. Neurobiologically, the scans have a lot to show. What were you curious about?


----------



## eightyferrettoes (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LadyMarmalade*
Yep, you could be. Neurobiologically, the scans have a lot to show. What were you curious about?

What do they show? I read your link in the other thread; it points out that their brain scans are "atypical" and their "heads are larger" which strikes me as being just a little silly.







Like phrenology.


----------



## LadyMarmalade (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
I see two very different uses of the term gifted here.

The vast majority of complaints over the gifted label address the misuse by many public school systems in equating "smart" (ie straight A's) with placement in the "gifted" program.

This isn't some weird obscure use of the term gifted. I'd venture to guess this is how most people are introduced to the term.

Having multiple brain scans that reveal altered brain function and a diagnosis of "profoundly gifted"....I haven't seen anyone challenge this use of the term, but maybe I missed it?

There wasn't a direct challenge, it's being done through hostility and disbelief. Oh, and maybe the words "all children are gifted" dismiss the profound effect giftedness has on the brain of a child who is truly gifted rather than just smart, talented or advanced.

Also, it's not only the public school system who misuses the word


----------



## eightyferrettoes (May 22, 2005)

From the same, er, interesting link:

"Chinese drawing instruction produces the same kinds of dramatic juvenile output, but doesn't lead to true artistry, or to spontaneous learning of artistic principles."

I am wondering _whose_ "artistic principles" we're talking about here, and whether the Chinese themselves might not disagree with that assessment.

hmmmm.


----------



## Daffodil (Aug 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar*
And maybe you've missed the part about how many of us who are arguing against the gifted label carried that same label as children, and have children who would qualify for the gifted label, if we wanted it. I certainly know what it's like to be "gifted" kid. I know what it's like to have a child who meets the criteria for gifted but hasn't been given that label, because as unschoolers we've never found it relevant.

When you say your daughter hasn't been given the "gifted" label, what exactly do you mean? That you haven't told her she could be considered gifted? That you don't tell other people she's gifted? That you haven't had her "officially" declared gifted? That you don't dwell on her giftedness or see it as her most defining characteristic?

I'm not clear on exactly what the people who are opposed to "labelling" are actually opposed to. If I recognize, like Dar, that my daughter would probably meet the criteria for giftedness, and I tell someone else that, have I just labelled her in a way that someone here finds troublesome? Or is it only a problem if I tell my daughter herself that she's gifted? Or if I put her in a gifted program in school? Or if I dwell on her giftedness and see it as the characteristic that most defines her?


----------



## Shiloh (Apr 15, 2005)

I think its not the label but how people use it,
like a kid who is dislexic (lol like me








is labeled learning disabled...
you can be very smart, even gifted but have a 'learning disablity' label on it it can be a confining definition...and when it comes to gifted its so misused and abused and I think we need a new term for the tribe personally...


----------



## LadyMarmalade (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eightyferrettoes*
I just don't see how more educational pigeonholing does anything to fix the fundamental problems in our educational systems, because the problems that exist for "gifted" kids are just as real for "average" ones. Our current model is doing a good job of really serving no one.

Educational pigeonholing is an issue, especially with every Tom, Dick and Harry claiming giftedness, I agree. It really takes away from the reality of dealing with true giftedness and the support that those parents need. But educational pigeonholing is different to recognising the special needs associated with true giftedness and addressing them in children who suffer from those needs. The problems which exist for gifted kids are, of course, just as real as the problems average kids face, but it's a whole different kettle of fish. Average kids don't have a brain which functions differently causing them those problems. Lots of different kids have lots of different problems - they ALL need to be recognised and supported. Average kids DO NOT face the same challenges that gifted kids do.

Quote:

Again, I think almost every kid on earth is asynchronous to some extent,
but not to the point where they find it difficult to function in society - and if they did, they deserve support

Quote:

and our current PS system does very little to acknowlege that fact.








If the American public school systems don't provide support to children who are struggling it's definitely a problem!!

Quote:

"Gifted" kids aren't really all that special in that respect, from what I can see.
You can't be looking very hard.

Quote:

Well, I don't think that _most_ parents of what we call "gifted" children do see that label as being a negative or difficult one.
Again, you can't be looking very hard









Quote:

Unless your definition of "giftedness" is a lot different than the standard one that schools hand out like candy.
Of course it is - the 'gifted' label American schools hand out isn't what true giftedness is ... and I've been saying that for years!!!

Quote:

I don't know what misconceptions you're talking about. So far, I've seen several side discussions about anti-intellectualism in America, the socioeconomic stacked deck of GATE/TAG programs, and a few others. Differing viewpoints, but nothing that screamed "WRONG WRONG WRONG" to me.
I don't doubt that at all. I believe you see nothing wrong with what has been said.


----------



## LadyMarmalade (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eightyferrettoes*
From the same, er, interesting link:

"Chinese drawing instruction produces the same kinds of dramatic juvenile output, but doesn't lead to true artistry, or to spontaneous learning of artistic principles."

I am wondering _whose_ "artistic principles" we're talking about here, and whether the Chinese themselves might not disagree with that assessment.

hmmmm.

Which link?

Edited to ask:
Are you talking about the link I posted in the support forum? So you've taken something from the support forum to ridicule or challenge it on another thread?

Thanks for proving my point! I guess you've shown you really DON'T see the problem.


----------



## eightyferrettoes (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LadyMarmalade*
Educational pigeonholing is an issue, especially with every Tom, Dick and Harry claiming giftedness, I agree.

Then, er, who's the gatekeeper of the "gifted" diagnosis? I've seen it asserted that parental intuition is the ultimate marker of giftedness. And if not them, then who? The testmakers? the pricey neurologists? the teachers' union?

Quote:


It really takes away from the reality of dealing with true giftedness and the support that those parents need. But educational pigeonholing is different to recognising the special needs associated with true giftedness and addressing them in children who suffer from those needs. The problems which exist for gifted kids are, of course, just as real as the problems average kids face, but it's a whole different kettle of fish. Average kids don't have a brain which functions differently causing them those problems. Lots of different kids have lots of different problems - they ALL need to be recognised and supported. Average kids DO NOT face the same challenges that gifted kids do.


What, again, is "true giftedness?" And someone please, please tell me how these kids are so biologically different from "normal" kids that they need special support that the "normal" kids are routinely denied?


----------



## LadyMarmalade (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eightyferrettoes*
What point? That you don't like to put up with dissent in the ranks? I didn't post to the thread, because it is "support-only." Is that not enough respectful space?

No. The point that the support forum should be closed, like the abuse forum, because of situations where information is taken from there and shared/ridiculed/challenged/dismissed on other threads. It's hostile and disrespectful. Didn't you see the thread in the breastfeeding forum? Can you call that respectful? Making fun of people (and their children) in a support forum in a totally different place? I really don't think that's the kind of thing MDC should tolerate.


----------



## LadyMarmalade (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eightyferrettoes*
Then, er, who's the gatekeeper of the "gifted" diagnosis? I've seen it asserted that parental intuition is the ultimate marker of giftedness. And if not them, then who? The testmakers? the pricey neurologists? the teachers' union?

What, again, is "true giftedness?" And someone please, please tell me how these kids are so biologically different from "normal" kids that they need special support that the "normal" kids are routinely denied?

Honestly, for someone who claims to have grown up with the difficulties associated with giftedness, you really don't have much understanding of the topic.


----------



## eightyferrettoes (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LadyMarmalade*
No. The point that the support forum should be closed, like the abuse forum, because of situations where information is taken from there and shared/ridiculed/challenged/dismissed on other threads. It's hostile and disrespectful.

Goodness, I had failed to realize that dissent and probing equalled hostility and disrespect. As the parent of a "gifted" child, one hopes that you'll learn to cope with it. We're a tough bunch to shush, us "gifted" folks.







:

Quote:

Didn't you see the thread in the breastfeeding forum?
Nope.

Quote:

Making fun of people (and their children) in a support forum in a totally different place? I really don't think that's the kind of thing MDC should tolerate.
Dude, you are NOT being made fun of, and neither is your kid! Your viewpoint is being challenged, and that's all. Me saying that giftedness is a load of bunk in no way belittles your child.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

There wasn't a direct challenge, it's being done through hostility and disbelief. Oh, and maybe the words "all children are gifted" dismiss the profound effect giftedness has on the brain of a child who is truly gifted rather than just smart, talented or advanced.
But you just summed up the criteria a majority here and in the school system were gauged with for placement in a gifted program. "Smart, talented, advanced"....

How are you defining the difference between the widespread use of the term gifted in the school system, and what you are calling truly gifted?

I am wondering whether the term "truly gifted" makes any sense as a medical diagnosis. If a doctor is seeing a difference in brain function on an MRI, wouldn't a term that identified the different function be more helpful in distinguishing the condition than the abstract description of the brain as profoundly "gifted"?

That seems about as unhelpful as my doctor saying my son has "a broken heart". It's a loaded term that already has a very different meaning. It's completely unrelated to the actual function of his heart.

Is there any discussion of naming this specific brain difference so that it is understood apart from the common perception of catch-all academic gifted programs as described here?


----------



## eightyferrettoes (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LadyMarmalade*
Honestly, for someone who claims to have grown up with the difficulties associated with giftedness, you really don't have much understanding of the topic.

Hmmm. That still doesn't answer my question. How, biologically speaking, do the "gifted" differ from the "average?" And who is the arbiter of what giftedness is?

I think those are fairly basic questions about this subject. If I lack understanding, I'm willing to gain it.


----------



## LadyMarmalade (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eightyferrettoes*
Dude, you are NOT being made fun of, and neither is your kid! Your viewpoint is being challenged, and that's all. Me saying that giftedness is a load of bunk in no way belittles your child.

I'm not talking about this thread - I'm talking about the other numerous threads which have been deleted, and they started this exact same way ... people challenging whether giftedness existed, whether there were special needs involved etc - it soon turns into a really nasty thing. You're lucky you didn't see the things which were said - people deleted their membership over it. Sorry for not making that part clearer.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

The point that the support forum should be closed, like the abuse forum, because of situations where information is taken from there and shared/ridiculed/challenged/dismissed on other threads. It's hostile and disrespectful. Didn't you see the thread in the breastfeeding forum? Can you call that respectful? Making fun of people (and their children) in a support forum in a totally different place? I really don't think that's the kind of thing MDC should tolerate.
You are not allowed to take info here and move it to another forum. If someone did, report it. Keep reporting it until it's removed.

I do not see anyone making fun of you here.

The abuse forum is the only support forum MDC keeps closed. That is because unlike ALL other support forums, what is shared in the abuse forum may put a person in danger in real life at the hands of their abuser. All other forums are kept support only via reporting and deleting of controversial threads.

Use the system here, that's what it's for--if someone crashes your forum, report it!


----------



## LadyMarmalade (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
But you just summed up the criteria a majority here and in the school system were gauged with for placement in a gifted program. "Smart, talented, advanced"....

How are you defining the difference between the widespread use of the term gifted in the school system, and what you are calling truly gifted?

I am wondering whether the term "truly gifted" makes any sense as a medical diagnosis. If a doctor is seeing a difference in brain function on an MRI, wouldn't a term that identified the different function be more helpful in distinguishing the condition than the abstract description of the brain as profoundly "gifted"?

That seems about as unhelpful as my doctor saying my son has "a broken heart". It's a loaded term that already has a very different meaning. It's completely unrelated to the actual function of his heart.

Is there any discussion of naming this specific brain difference so that it is understood apart from the common perception of catch-all academic gifted programs as described here?

We're on the same page with regards to schools using those attributes as markers for giftedness.

Just to be clear - truly gifted were my words, as a way of separating children who are truly gifted from those parading the label given out 'like candy'. They were not a medical term.

Yes, there are many discussions which name the brain difference.

I personally define the difference between true giftedness and wannabe giftedness medically and scientifically.


----------



## sophmama (Sep 11, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eightyferrettoes*
Me saying that giftedness is a load of bunk in no way belittles your child.

Just change out the word "giftedness" to "autism", "SID", or even "unschooled" and see how that statement changes everything. Should I say that the terms you use to describe any particular thing are invalid? Do I have that right? Do you have that right to do it to others? To _devalue_ their experiences and observations because yours differ? Would you do the same to parents who are in the socially accepted "special needs" bracket? Would you call them out on 'labeling' their child?


----------



## LadyMarmalade (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sophmama*
Just change out the word "giftedness" to "autism", "SID", or even "unschooled" and see how that statement changes everything. Should I say that the terms you use to describe any particular thing are invalid? Do I have that right? Do you have that right to do it to others? To _devalue_ their experiences and observations because yours differ? Would you do the same to parents who are in the socially accepted "special needs" bracket? Would you call them out on 'labeling' their child?









Great point, Becky.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sophmama*
Just change out the word "giftedness" to "autism", "SID", or even "unschooled" and see how that statement changes everything. Should I say that the terms you use to describe any particular thing are invalid? Do I have that right? Do you have that right to do it to others? To _devalue_ their experiences and observations because yours differ? Would you do the same to parents who are in the socially accepted "special needs" bracket? Would you call them out on 'labeling' their child?


I've been trying and trying to find a nice way to say that. Thank you.

-Angela


----------



## sophmama (Sep 11, 2004)

Also - I've seen a lot of articles and research posted here by the 'gifted' label defenders. Can the detractors please post some links to something besides their personal experiences that uphold their view that we're all homogenously the same or should atleast be referred to as such? That recognizing our differences is damaging? Can someone please post some research?


----------



## eightyferrettoes (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sophmama*
Just change out the word "giftedness" to "autism", "SID", or even "unschooled" and see how that statement changes everything. Should I say that the terms you use to describe any particular thing are invalid? Do I have that right? Do you have that right to do it to others? To _devalue_ their experiences and observations because yours differ? Would you do the same to parents who are in the socially accepted "special needs" bracket? Would you call them out on 'labeling' their child?

Well, I have never experienced being labeled with autism or SID, though I suppose someday there may well be threads challenging the formerly-accepted criteria of either diagnosis or questioning the accepted treatments, especially by kids who grew up under the label.

So no, I personally wouldn't question the label, though I wouldn't be shocked and horrified if someone came along to try to deconstruct it based on research or personal experience.

I WAS unschooled for awhile, though. And I wouldn't take offense to someone saying that unschooling is a load of bunk. Hasn't that been done to death at MDC, anyway?







How is that belittling a child? Might be belittling the parent, but I expect _anyone_ to be able to discuss intelligently why she chooses a particular educational philosophy over others.


----------



## sophmama (Sep 11, 2004)

Does everyone here recognize that people who were gifted as children have shared a variety of viewpoints on the gifted label - some thought it was a good thing - others harmful? There has not been a consensus on the label's affect on our own childhoods. There have been people who were treated wrongly because of the label and put in lame programs that did nothing for them and some had their egos inflated and then it came crashing down when they hit a brick wall at some point.

I see that as society's mistreatment of a mis-understood group of people. And that same animosity is being projected by those who were mistreated as children onto others that they percieve are doing the same to children today.

I see it personally that it's not the label / the tool / the diagnosis but actually PEOPLE that inflicted the harm that creates all this animosity we see today. That same animosity is being perpetuated here against a term when it's not the term - it's the way we treat those children who find themselves under that umbrella.

I wish we could change the label to something so much less attractive. Then I would not feel so hesitant to post my questions about the topic. It's sad to know that if I post a question about my 2 year old learning to read or the many other things she's so eager about, that I'm "one of those" parents. People here are going to think ugly things about me. It's sad.


----------



## sophmama (Sep 11, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eightyferrettoes*
All the opposition is arguing is that "giftedness" is a cultural construct that weights SOME abilities more heavily than others.

Would you argue so vehemently with parents whose children fall under the "mildly LD" label? That also weights some abilities more heavily than others. So does "low muscle tone" or "dislexia". Many of those things kids have found ways of coping on their own without intervention for decades in our modern school system, but once they get the label, they get assistance they need. Do you confront those parents the way you do the "gifted" labelers? Or do you not because it's still PC to do it to the one crowd but not the other?

BTW- thanks for posting the link. It's 1:30 am here and I need to be in bed but I will read tommorrow! Thanks!


----------



## eightyferrettoes (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sophmama*
Would you argue so vehemently with parents whose children fall under the "mildly LD" label? That also weights some abilities more heavily than others. So does "low muscle tone" or "dislexia". Many of those things kids have found ways of coping on their own without intervention for decades in our modern school system, but once they get the label, they get assistance they need. Do you confront those parents the way you do the "gifted" labelers? Or do you not because it's still PC to do it to the one crowd but not the other?

BTW- thanks for posting the link. It's 1:30 am here and I need to be in bed but I will read tommorrow! Thanks!

Kids who have "mild LD" are historically underserved by the public school system, IMO, even if they do now get the label that gets them an IEP.







The system just isn't set up for _anyone_ who gets out of line.

And unfortunately, the system that rewards kids for "asynchronous" development when it happens to jive with the academic calendar tends to punish the ones whose "asynchronous" development doesn't. That greasy sullen "learning-disabled" kid sitting the in back of the classroom and pulling straight D's may be a friggen mechanical genius, but the school system will never acknowlege that or offer any recognition.

An IEP is a cold comfort to a kid like that.

I think it's suspect that talents valued by the white middle-class parents on school boards are the talents that schools nurture, to the exclusion of practically everything else.







Writing skills, mathematical skills, maybe even a little drawing or piano-playing are all much more heavily rewarded.


----------



## Shiloh (Apr 15, 2005)

or combinations I have dislexia, SID, OCD and am gifted.
lol and labeled as motivation challenged and underachieving...

but aren't we all complex?
are there normal kids out there?


----------



## eightyferrettoes (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sophmama*
Do you feel that that uniqueness can only thrive in an environment where we don't use descriptive words to define or gain a greater understanding of those differences? That they should be unreckognized?

I agree that the term "gifted" is loaded and should be replaced, but do you agree that we should have some room in our language to describe the people who bear the commonality of experiences that is loosely gathered under the umbrella of "gifted"? That although IQ tests are debatable by many, those who test high on them, share some common traits?

Do you feel we'd all get along better without descriptive language that can be used to divide us but also can be used to bring us together through understanding?

Ok I really am going to bed now.

I would disagree that all people who score highly on IQ tests have a whole lot in common with each other. That seems as ridiculous to me as saying that people who score in the 80s on the IQ tests share enough common traits to make them into a single group... as someone here pointed out, family stability, personality, educational opportunities, etc, have a lot more to do with a person's success in life than any test.

Descriptive language is one thing; value-laden language is another. Nobody can deny that "learning disabled" is a much more negative label than "gifted and talented." I don't think that giving those labels out to kids at the tender age of three or five or ten or fifteen does anyone any good, and if those are the only labels we can use, I'd rather go without.

Universities don't feel the need to bandy around labels like that; you work with all kinds of students, where it becomes obvious that talent + hard work + basic intelligence sometimes come together in a brilliant outburst, and that sometimes they don't.







And mostly that no one person gets it right all the time.

There are hardworking kids with no talent, talented kids who don't work hard, intelligent kids with no talent at a particular subject, talented people whose intelligence seems suspect at best....







YKWIM.

So no, I don't think that dividing kids like that is really productive. Not anymore than dividing kids by race.

I also take issue with the medicalization of intelligence. I mean, this is all so speculative-- we have only the scantest ideas about how it all works in there, chemically speaking. How can we place our faith in science when it freely admits it understands very little about the workings of our minds?


----------



## sophmama (Sep 11, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Shiloh*
or combinations I have dislexia, SID, OCD and am gifted.
lol and labeled as motivation challenged and underachieving...

but aren't we all complex?
are there normal kids out there?

I don't think there is any such thing as a completely normal kid out there but I also don't think that defining our differences hurts us. I think it brings us a step closer to true understanding of our complexities.

(pregnant girl had to get up to pee again - back to bed).


----------



## eightyferrettoes (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sophmama*
I don't think there is any such thing as a completely normal kid out there but I also don't think that defining our differences hurts us. I think it brings us a step closer to true understanding of our complexities.

I am merely questioning who is doing the defining here. Anyone with an interest in the politics of language knows that he who defines the terms, owns the debate.


----------



## Shiloh (Apr 15, 2005)

I don't think self defining ourselves hurts us, but its when the labels are thrust on us or are misunderstood.

Quote:

I would disagree that all people who score highly on IQ tests have a whole lot in common with each other.
totally my dh and are are both above mensa requirments, I am a generalist I love social things, history, politics, religion etc... dh is very bright and is a great conversationalist but he's a hardcore computer genius, he eats lives breathes computers he's totally left brained where I am almost perfectly balanced.

Quote:

That seems as ridiculous to me as saying that people who score in the 80s on the IQ tests share enough common traits to make them into a single group... as someone here pointed out, family stability, personality, educational opportunities, etc, have a lot more to do with a person's success in life than any test.
gifted does not equal successful, thats such a myth that hurts gifted people just because you have higher abilities doesn't translate into success partly because we are excluded and learn not to function for test scores, grades, external achievements but to make ourselves happy hence into the inner world where we are safe. However just like a minority group we all do share a common EXPERIENCE of how our intellects are percieved not every Italian person has the same life experiences, traits, likes, but there's a common thread of a similiar cultural experience that does bind us. For us Italians food is important and at this hour I am thinking about lots of food I can't get now


----------



## littlest birds (Jul 18, 2004)

I think most people who have any real experience with profound giftedness fully realize that it is both a blessing and a curse. *We* did not choose this word for what we live. *We* did not ask for a positively-loaded term that only exacerbates the strange air of superiority that haunts us. I did not design this particular bit of the English language.

Hmmm. How can I be the most disrespectful kid in the class toward the teacher and still be considered the teacher's pet? Who _wants_ to be considered the teacher's pet?

I, like many others here, am not fond of bragging threads or bragging comments about giftedness. I tend to get into my share of little conflicts about it because certain things, certain tones get to me. However, I have to say that the complaints about the existence of the label, and the fact that we use it, are ridiculous. No, really, you don't know. No, really, the word gifted does not mean that other kinds of "gifts" are less valuable. Because when the word gifted is used is does not mean the same thing. It does not mean "this child has _The Gift_" and the others don'tr have anything so superior or splendid.

It really means that this child has a mixed bag of weirdness most recognizable by an extremely divergent academic/creative abiltity (in comprehensive measurable cognitive areas) that sets them teetering on the brink of possible extraordinary accomplishment or extraordinary failure in this particular world. It sets them up to be extraordinarily isolated. It sets them up to have far more going on in their heads than they are given credit for, for better or for worse. Sometimes it's better sometimes it's worse.

This is not about "better than" even if gifted folks are easily caught up in feelings of superiority. Feelings of superiority don't get us to very good places, but neither does pretending giftedness is just a quirk of personality or just another potential aptitude out of many.


----------



## Shiloh (Apr 15, 2005)

Quote:

How can I be the most disrespectful kid in the class toward the teacher and still be considered the teacher's pet? Who wants to be considered the teacher's pet?
no kidding its really odd to have teachers hate you but consider you the 'feather in their cap'....

Quote:

teetering on the brink of possible extraordinary accomplishment or extraordinary failure in this particular world.
amen! and according to whose standards of accomplishment? many accomplished gifted people would have rather had emmotional success, happy not conflicted inner life..

Quote:

This is not about "better than" even if gifted folks are easily caught up in feelings of superiority. Feelings of superiority don't get us to very good places, but neither does pretending giftedness is just a quirk of personality or just another potential aptitude out of many.
well said! its kinda like big boobs... people who don't have big boobs think bigger boobs must be better..... (burden maybe







) society says more is better more of everything if a little is good more is so much better but if we see ourselves as lacking boobs we want more boobs we might resent those big breasted flaunting people among us...

gifted people are targeted because the person putting them down has their own issues as if you are secure with yourself you can celebrate other people's talents. Most gifted adults and children I have met enjoy other people's talents much more than their own.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Now that this thread is back...








:

The point that seems unresolved to me is the use of the word gifted to describe a medical condition.

Would a medical term for measurable differences in brain function meet the needs of such a child better, and gain more understanding, than a value oriented term like "gifted"? I think this is why terms like "retarded" and "slow" were offensive...they are not a medical diagnosis of what is actually different about the child. Thus there is negative energy and misunderstanding around those terms because of values held towards the *idea* of something (anything!) being "slow" or "retarded".

Is the word gifted offensive for the same basic reasons?


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
Now that this thread is back...








:

The point that seems unresolved to me is the use of the word gifted to describe a medical condition.

Would a medical term for measurable differences in brain function meet the needs of such a child better, and gain more understanding, than a value oriented term like "gifted"? I think this is why terms like "retarded" and "slow" were offensive...they are not a medical diagnosis of what is actually different about the child. Thus there is negative energy and misunderstanding around those terms because of values held towards the *idea* of something (anything!) being "slow" or "retarded".

Is the word gifted offensive for the same basic reasons?

I completely agree that it would, which is why I personally like the term "asynchronous development," although I acknowledge that it's quite a mouthful. At the very least, the term doesn't sound like Christmas just came just for your sacred kid, KWIM?


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

I completely agree that it would, which is why I personally like the term "asynchronous development," although I acknowledge that it's quite a mouthful. At the very least, the term doesn't sound like Christmas just came just for your sacred kid, KWIM?
Gracious, I've swooned...pass me the smelling salts.

After 33 pages we agree!


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
Gracious, I've swooned...pass me the smelling salts.

After 33 pages we agree!

It had to happen sometime.







:


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

So in the past few days I've done some reading and have discovered (bwa ha ha) that psychologists have the same debates we do, except with more fancy words and without personal attacks. Often.









What is giftedness?

Quote:

Although interpretations of the word "gifted" seem limitless, there are a handful of foundational definitions that may be categorized from conservative (related to demonstrated high IQ) to liberal (a broadened conception that includes multiple criteria that might not be measured through an IQ test).
What is Known and Unknown about Intelligence?

You can also find the full-text APA report on an individual's website if you Google it. I would post it, but unfortunately it's a very racist website. Bah.

Intelligence - One Vs. Many

Quote:

There are basically two camps on the theory of intelligence: those who believe in one unilinear construct of general intelligence (g), and those who believe in many different intelligences.
Intelligence Across Cultures

Quote:

Many psychologists believe that the idea that a test can be completely absent of cultural bias--a recurrent hope of test developers in the 20th century--is contradicted by the weight of the evidence. Raven's Progressive Matrices, for example, is one of several nonverbal intelligence tests that were originally advertised as "culture free," but are now recognized as culturally loaded.

Patricia Greenfield, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, argues that nonverbal intelligence tests are based on cultural constructs, such as the matrix, that are ubiquitous in some cultures but almost nonexistent in others. In societies where formal schooling is common, she says, students gain an early familiarity with organizing items into rows and columns, which gives them an advantage over test-takers in cultures where formal schooling is rare.

Similarly, says Greenfield, media technologies like television, film and video games give test-takers from cultures where those technologies are widespread an advantage on visual tests, while test-takers from cultures where the language-based media are more common have advantages on verbal tests.

"I think it's important to point out that nonverbal tests or visual tests are the most culture-bound of all," she says. "They are not 'culture free' and they are not 'culture fair'; in fact, they are less fair than verbal tests."
What do Intelligence Tests Measure?

Quote:

Intelligence tests are also sometimes called "potential-based assessments" because they provide an educated guess as to how well an individual may be expected to perform in school. In fact, there is much statistical data evidencing the power of such tests to predict future scholastic achievement.
And

Quote:

Giftedness. Those with extremely high IQs do not necessarily become creative geniuses. They do, however, usually become very successful in this society or culture.
What do Intelligence Tests NOT measure?

Quote:

The tasks for academic intelligence tests usually are (1) formulated by others, (2) have little or no intrinsic interest, (3) have all needed information available from the beginning, (4) are disembedded from an individual's ordinary experience, (5) are well-defined, have but one correct answer, and (6) have just one method of obtaining the correct solution. In direct contrast, the tasks for practical, real life work problems often (1) are unformulated or in need of reformation, (2) are of personal interest, (3) are lacking in information necessary for solution, (4) are related to everyday experience, (5) are poorly defined, (6) have multiple "correct" solutions, and (7) have multiple methods for picking a problem solution
And

Quote:

Creativity is often assessed by tests of divergent thinking, which measure the ability to generate many different but plausible responses to a problem. Expertise in the field, a set of creative skills, and intrinsic motivation are necessary for creativity. External rewards can deter creativity. The correlation between IQ scores and creativity is not very high. IQ tests measure convergent thinking, whereas creativity is characterized by divergent thinking.
Almost all of the sites have additional resources linked.


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

'cause those are great links, FSM!


----------



## eightyferrettoes (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*
*But do not deny children the programming they need in school in order to be successful merely because you are jealous that "ordinary" or "regular" kids don't get to do those activities.*

In a perfect world, every child would have an enriched education, at all levels.

Hmmm. Bolding is always dramatic and attention-getting.









Well, I'm just not quite down with the idea that "ordinary" children really are all the "ordinary." Call me crazy. I don't think that can be brushed aside as mere jealousy-- especially since I'm one of the kiddos who got the special lovin'.









I also don't think that "gifted" programs, as they function in most PSes, are actually even providing the level of individualized attention that most kids in general really ought to have, if we're in the business of providing good education for all kids.

What of the sullen withdrawn kid with a genius for agriculture or ceramics or mechanical drafting? Why are those kids just "problems" while the ones with proclivities toward the hallowed subjects of reading, writing, and arithmetic (and MAYBE science) get individualized attention?

And, yeah, I think that's what it boils down to... a question of deservingness. (it's 3 am; is that a word?







) and I am just not willing to say, "hey, such-and-such kid is specially talented enough to merit a decent individualized education, and the other 95 percent of the kids in here just need to trudge along with the same ol' junk we've always offered."

Right now, I'm reading about a certain very famous artist who didn't get into art school, _barely_ graduated from a two-year program in mechanical drafting, starved his way through an MFA program in Kansas City, threw his thesis project in the nearest dumpster immediately after his show, and is today regarded as a pioneer in his field and a genius without peer.










Where are the tests to "measure" kids like that? If you had a quiet, irritable kid with "no special talents" in the classroom, what programs would serve him?

That's all I'm asking.

I disagree that the only talents worth nurturing are the ones that show up in the classroom, and I think that continuing to pretend that "giftedness" is a universal biological phenomenon that can be accurately picked up via any sort of testing does all kids a disservice. Even the so-called gifted ones.

I asked how "gifted" kids _biologically_ differ from their "average" peers. Lots of people have offered me touching personal cultural anecdotes, but nobody has gotten into the nitty-gritty of how, chemically, a kid with "giftedness" is in any way different from any other child whose needs are not being met by the System.

Can we get pull-out programs for possible budding agricultural pioneers? I bet we need those kids more than we need another wave of brilliant budding novelists.


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*
Just as it is obvious to most people that a child with an IQ of 70 or below needs a different kind of educational programming than an average IQ child, so it should be obvious that a child with an IQ of 130 or above also needs a different kind of programming than the average child.

Okay, I have heard this argument before and I am not being snarky but then can you say:

"Just as it is obvious to most people that an ADULT with an IQ of 70 or below needs different social services and other assistance than an average IQ adult , so it should be obvious that an ADULT with an IQ of 130 or above also needs different social services than the average adult."


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eightyferrettoes*
Can we get pull-out programs for possible budding agricultural pioneers? I bet we need those kids more than we need another wave of brilliant budding novelists.









Thing is, no one here is saying that we SHOULDN'T have the program you mention. Why SHOULDN'T we have the gifted programs?

-Angela


----------



## eightyferrettoes (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna*
Thing is, no one here is saying that we SHOULDN'T have the program you mention. Why SHOULDN'T we have the gifted programs?

-Angela

Well, I think all most folks in here are arguing for is the consideration and inclusion of _all_ kids' special needs in classroom environments-- not just the ones whose talents have been sanctioned as particularly worthy by the academic tastes of middle-class America.

And I think a lot of folks here feel like giving these so-called "gifted" kids special programs makes it easier for parents with clout (you, me, the unusually literate masses that comprise MDC in general) to continue blowing off the fact that public schools are failing "average" kids left and right.

Though I also question how helpful it is to dump all "gifted" kids in the same program, if they're all so unique, anyway.

I'm very discomfited, and I think reasonably so, by the gap between racial and socioeconomic groupings in matters of "giftedness." Are black kids and poor kids and kids whose first language isn't English less "gifted" than the more affluent white ones?

I just have a hard time buying that line of thinking.

bottom line for me-- yeah, all kids deserve individualized attention. Not just the ones who taught themselves to read before they turned four. Hell, even I did THAT, and what, I ask, has it brought me but a lifetime of cleaning toilets and wiping poopy butts?


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya44*
Okay, I have heard this argument before and I am not being snarky but then can you say:

"Just as it is obvious to most people that an ADULT with an IQ of 70 or below needs different social services and other assistance than an average IQ adult , so it should be obvious that an ADULT with an IQ of 130 or above also needs different social services than the average adult."

Right. And just as there are awards for gifted children (Davidson), whereas there are awards for _curing_ children's issues that contribute to the IQ of 70 and below (i.e. autism, developmental issues along the spectrum, etc). I haven't ever heard of someone saying they needed their gifted child to be cured of giftedness, lest it create an undue difficulty in adulthood. If you go by what IQ tests are intended to measure, they're measuring likelihood of success in adulthood and society via schooling. Not too shabby.

I guess I'd be more sympathetic to the plight of the gifted child in the classroom and society if I often heard the parents arguing for better, expanded, and more wonderful services for all children, instead of continually saying "For NORMAL/AVERAGE children, the system works great! No problems for them! Now, what about my kid, who's gifted, and needs to be with her peers..." When in fact, we know that for many/most children who aren't in honors/gifted programs, the "system" does not work great for many of the same reasons - the kids are bored, NCLB and standardized testing is a zero-sum game, and there aren't enough creative teachers - or teachers in general - to go around for individualized attention.

Many children aren't lucky enough to get the label of "gifted" and have the exact same sorts of issues that parents of gifted children describe - intensity, OCD, introversion, rebelliousness, etc., but don't achieve or have clearly-defined academic interests? Take a look at the discipline board sometime. What about them? I used to think my daughter's issues were special as well, but they're not. It's like the story of the Buddha (hey, it's MDC- at some point in every discussion, you get to the story of the Buddha, don't you? I think I get points on my Crunchy Card for it) - suffering visits every household.

I also would not chalk this up to the personal emotion of jealousy, because that's often what parents who question The Way Things Are are accused of... It's why I made an effort to mention that my daughter would qualify for our district's gifted program. It's not sour grapes here. Is Alfie Kohn really "jealous?" I doubt it.


----------



## Dechen (Apr 3, 2004)

slightly OT, but I think it isn't all that great to be extremely smart. I don't have a measure of what extremely means, but I'm thinking of the people I've known who stood out like neon lights among other very smart people. Maybe its because society reinforces that intelligence is great, but I know a handful of people who over-rely on their intelligence to the detriment of social and emotional skills. They also unintentionally alienate people around them, because their thought processes are so hard to follow.

I'm not a doctor, and I don't know much about official ideas about intelligence. I just know I've thought that their intelligence was getting in their way - that it was a kind of handicap to living a balanced life.


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*
Why is it so hard to understand that a child with an IQ of 150 is just as difficult for a teacher in a regular classroom to teach as a child with an IQ of 50? Why is that so hard to understand? Why do we have to justify that gifted kids deserve special programming when they are so different? ...

To everyone who is denying that gifted kids need special programming, please find me some research that states that gifted kids do not need special classes. Find me some research saying that giftedness is non-existant.

Ah. The ol' logical fallacy of then negative proof. How shall we prove that? About the same way we prove that there isn't a flying spaghetti monster. Find _me_ a place where people actually agree on what constitutes "giftedness," who qualifies, and what services they should get out of the label.









I don't think "it's so hard to understand" that we aren't saying that gifted children shouldn't be served, it's just that all children should be served, without a fairly affluent, vocal, self- or institutionally-defined group getting to take cuts to the better programs. If I could channel all the money, I'd do something similar to what you proposed earlier - two teachers for every classroom, individuated instruction not based on grade-based curriculum (or heck, make it grade-based if that floats people's boats). I just find asking for acceleration or enrichment is doing little but reinforcing children's experience of the System. Man (I feel I should add that in).

Ok, I have to go answer my little inquisitor as to why I bought a jar of Earth's Best when we are so obviously trying to boycott them due to their faulty information on cosleeping. I can't wait until she becomes someone else's prosecutor. Must a mama be on trial every morning?


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

*


boongirl said:



Why is it so hard to understand that a child with an IQ of 150 is just as difficult for a teacher in a regular classroom to teach as a child with an IQ of 50? Why is that so hard to understand? Why do we have to justify that gifted kids deserve special programming when they are so different? /QUOTE]

Click to expand...

*


boongirl said:


> Well like I said ONE of the reasons is that while no one would deny that an ADULT with an IQ of 50 needs special services and allowances from the government/social services/employers pretty much everyone woud find it VERY hard to understand why an ADULT with an IQ of 150 would be entitled to anything "special".
> 
> So since there is no question that adults with high IQ's are clearly expected to manage and fit in with the "rest of us" people find it hard to understand why children with high IQ's should not be expected to do the same.
> 
> I am NOT saying that I am against gifted education just that your analogy rings false for many people because of this....that's why its "so hard to understand"


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

Well like I said ONE of the reasons is that while no one would deny that an ADULT with an IQ of 50 needs special services and allowances from the government/social services/employers pretty much everyone woud find it VERY hard to understand why an ADULT with an IQ of 150 would be entitled to anything "special".

So since there is no question that adults with high IQ's are clearly expected to manage and fit in with the "rest of us" people find it hard to understand why children with high IQ's should not be expected to do the same.

I am NOT saying that I am against gifted education just that your analogy rings false for many people because of this....that's why its "so hard to understand"
Well said.

You cannot lift an issue out of it's social context in order to make your point.

You will not get the support and understand you need that way.

"My child's IQ is 150 and he needs a special program just as much as a child with an IQ of 50".

Just as much? By what standard of values?

The child with a low IQ is NOT put in a program that succeeds by lowering him down to 30!

There is a current moving under any discussion of IQ and the positive values only flow in one direction.

You will always piss people off with comparisons that deny it.

Which brings me back to my point about a medical diagnosis.

Press doctors to identify the underlying condition some believe exists for the gifted child, and you won't need a value loaded comparison. Don't let doctors brush parents off with a term like "gifted" if they say a child has an abnormal MRI. Something is going on there that could be named for what it is, and should be named, so that everyone can understand it.


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*
from an interview with E. Paul Torrance, Educator and Psychologist on the website of The National Foundation for Gifted and Creative Children

But see, the evidence isn't really in on that. There aren't actual studies that say that gifted people are more at risk for suicide. There are certain correlations drawn (i.e. gifted people get depressed, and depressed people commit suicide at higher rates, so therefore gifted people commit suicide at higher rates), but those are questionable, as correlations are. However, many people get depressed, or have bipolar, or schizophrenia, and it's not a unique issue to the gifted community.

For example, here:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ide...al_tendencies/

is a study that states the opposite - the lower your IQ score, the more likely you are to commit suicide. There are also other studies cited in the article that back up the opposing argument - that rising IQ has led to increased suicide, but they are - once again -based on correlation rather than following a population. There could be many elements that lead to suicide in developed nations, and giving a culture-bound IQ test is probably not going to expose the underlying issues.

Quote:

The study also suggested a complicated relationship between IQ, suicide, and education. Men with low IQ scores and only a primary education were no more likely to kill themselves than men with high IQ scores and a higher level of education. But men with low IQ scores and higher education were at a greater risk of suicide. And men with low IQ scores and highly educated parents were at the highest risk of all.

''If you can't live up to the expectations of well-educated parents,'' said Rasmussen, ''it could make you more vulnerable.''
And

Quote:

"We looked at the association between scores of intelligence tests and later suicides," Gunnell said. "There was about a two- to three-fold difference among those scoring best on the test and those scoring least well, with the higher risk being those at the lower end of the scale."
BUT speaking of suicide, did anyone here read the New Yorker piece on Brandenn Bremmer from Jan 16, 2006? If your library has full-text resources, it's a great read. That to me, was the ultimate harbinger of reality where labelling and parental pressure is concerned, and the questionable nature of the gifted industry (Davidson Institute, Linda Silverman, etc). Other people can obviously have a different reading of the article.

Quote:

Societies have always had to depend upon a creative, gifted minority for its images of the future, and I think we always will. I'm willing to accept some charges of elitism to accomplish that.
Um, this makes me sorta queasy. Because we're labelling and tracking our "creative, gifted minority" as _children_. And we're setting up the gifted, creative minority for potential failure (and the sense of not meeting others' expectations, as we've heard from people on this board) and the "average, noncreative majority" for just...no potential at all. Maybe we could send all the average kids into, I dunno, wood shop at 3rd grade, so they can learn to be good little worker bees? They'll never amount to anything worthwhile anyhow...indeed, as we've seen from the previous articles, giftedness and creativity are not usually even measured with the same tests.


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*
So, if the is research defining the nature of giftedness. (See this thread) and the federal government acknowledges it and the need for specialized instruction, how can you justify stating that gifted kids do not deserve specialized education? And, please do not use as your answer the dea that all kids deserve specialized instruction. Of course they all do but when funds are limited, and they are, school focus their specialized instruction dollars on the extremes.

Because the government isn't always right, but legislation and policy usually bends to whatever special interest group has the money, means, and time to campaign to get those needs met?

There is not really research defining the nature of giftedness, beyond the gifted industry (i.e. special institutes and think tanks that specialize in promoting the idea of giftedness and advocate for resources to be channeled to gifted issues). There is research that shows correlates between high IQ and future success in schools and larger society. And much controversy on all other related topics. I don't think we'll agree on this board, if psychologists themselves cannot even determine what "intelligence" IS.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

But, it just kills me to have to constantly be part of a debate about whether or not kids deserve to have special treatment in school merely because they have a higher IQ.
Well, part of the problem is your failure to accept that being at the low end of the IQ spectrum has no social value, while a high IQ has great social value. So your position is one of arguing to give something extra to children that already have greater social value. You are not leveling the playing field, you are widening the gap. "Low level learning programs" are accepted because they are working towards a level playing field, not away from it (working towards normal, not away from normal, by giving something extra to the "have nots").

So yes, yours is a controversial position.

The only way to get out of this debate, if you want out, is to find a non linear definition of your child's needs (ie a medical diagnosis), or to advocate for a system that does not use a linear value scale like IQ to identify educational needs.

I am doing the latter because, while I have no doubt ds would meet all criteria for the "profoundly gifted" and that his IQ would be above average if tested, I believe nurture has a greater influence on "intelligence" than nature.

But if I thought his brain was actually biologically different, and I needed a name for that, I would
advocate for a medical definition of the different function in his brain.

I would not, in either case, define needs according to a value loaded scale such as IQ.


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
Well, part of the problem is your failure to accept that being at the low end of the IQ spectrum has no social value, while a high IQ has great social value. So your position is one of arguing to give something extra to children that already have greater social value. You are not leveling the playing field, you are widening the gap. "Low level learning programs" are accepted because they are working towards a level playing field, not away from it (working towards normal, not away from normal, by giving something extra to the "have nots").

Yup, pretty much. Good explanation.


----------



## Roar (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flyingspaghettimama*

BUT speaking of suicide, did anyone here read the New Yorker piece on Brandenn Bremmer from Jan 16, 2006? If your library has full-text resources, it's a great read. That to me, was the ultimate harbinger of reality where labelling and parental pressure is concerned, and the questionable nature of the gifted industry (Davidson Institute, Linda Silverman, etc). Other people can obviously have a different reading of the article.

.

I've read the article.

So let me understand... Other folks are posting studies with correlations and you respond that it isn't causation and not acceptable proof. But, on theo the other hand you consider it appropriate to question everyone involved in working with gifted children, because of one case?


----------



## mamawanabe (Nov 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flyingspaghettimama*
But see, the evidence isn't really in on that. There aren't actual studies that say that gifted people are more at risk for suicide. There are certain correlations drawn (i.e. gifted people get depressed, and depressed people commit suicide at higher rates, so therefore gifted people commit suicide at higher rates), but those are questionable, as correlations are. However, many people get depressed, or have bipolar, or schizophrenia, and it's not a unique issue to the gifted community.

For example, here:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ide...al_tendencies/

is a study that states the opposite - the lower your IQ score, the more likely you are to commit suicide. There are also other studies cited in the article that back up the opposing argument - that rising IQ has led to increased suicide, but they are - once again -based on correlation rather than following a population. There could be many elements that lead to suicide in developed nations, and giving a culture-bound IQ test is probably not going to expose the underlying issues.

And

BUT speaking of suicide, did anyone here read the New Yorker piece on Brandenn Bremmer from Jan 16, 2006? If your library has full-text resources, it's a great read. That to me, was the ultimate harbinger of reality where labelling and parental pressure is concerned, and the questionable nature of the gifted industry (Davidson Institute, Linda Silverman, etc). Other people can obviously have a different reading of the article.

Um, this makes me sorta queasy. Because we're labelling and tracking our "creative, gifted minority" as _children_. And we're setting up the gifted, creative minority for potential failure (and the sense of not meeting others' expectations, as we've heard from people on this board) and the "average, noncreative majority" for just...no potential at all. Maybe we could send all the average kids into, I dunno, wood shop at 3rd grade, so they can learn to be good little worker bees? They'll never amount to anything worthwhile anyhow...indeed, as we've seen from the previous articles, giftedness and creativity are not usually even measured with the same tests.

you rock.


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Roar*
I've read the article.

So let me understand... Other folks are posting studies with correlations and you respond that it isn't causation and not acceptable proof. But, on theo the other hand you consider it appropriate to question everyone involved in working with gifted children, because of one case?

Um, no, it's statements in the article by Linda Silverman like this:

Quote:

"Well, I can tell you what the spirits are saying," [Hilton Silverman] said. "He was an angel."

[Linda] Silverman turned to face me. "I'm not sure how much you know about my husband. Hilton is a psychic and a healer. He has cured people of cancer."

"It kind of runs in my family: my grandfather was a kabbalistic rabbi in Brooklyn, and my father used to heal sick babies with kosher salt," Hilton said. "Brandenn was an angel who came down to experience the physical realm for a short period of time."

I asked Hilton how he knew this. He paused, and for a moment I wondered if he was pulling my leg and trying to think up something even more outlandish to say next. "I'm talking to him right now," he said. "He's become a teacher. He says right now he's actually being taught how to help these people who experience suicides for much messier reasons. Before Brandenn was born, this was planned. And he did it the way he did so that others would have use for his body. Everything worked out in the end."








That cause me to question her. And the fact that she has rather "unconventional" methods of testing children, that result in absurdly high IQ scores. The suicide had nothing to do with it.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
Well, part of the problem is your failure to accept that being at the low end of the IQ spectrum has no social value, while a high IQ has great social value. So your position is one of arguing to give something extra to children that already have greater social value. You are not leveling the playing field, you are widening the gap. "Low level learning programs" are accepted because they are working towards a level playing field, not away from it (working towards normal, not away from normal, by giving something extra to the "have nots").

Well if that's all that special ed is about let's go ahead and figure out a way to cause some brain damage to those annoying "high IQ" kids so we can all have an even playing field. What'll it be? Drugs? A big rock?








:







:







:







:

Just sayin'....

-Angela


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

OK, I was gonna stay out of this, but it's such an infuriating muddle that I can't help it.

1. The argument of how to determine who should be in a gifted program is entirely separate from the debate about whether gifted programs should exist at all. You can't say that because some gifted programs right now don't actually service gifted kids, none should exist. It doesn't flow logically.

2. Most school systems don't cater to ANY talents or interests students might have outside what schools normally teach. Even then, children rarely get specialized art or music education outside of special school, in the few jurisdications such exists. For the agricultural example, I'm not sure the question is acceleration so much as specialization. Those are not the same thing. I'm not sure how the lack of existence of an agricultural specialization in schools negates the need for acceleration or other accomodation for children who are exceptionally capable in areas that actually are taught in most schools.

3. Studies of "gifted" children do not necessarily apply to the highly gifted.

4. Finally, after almost 700 posts, I think we are getting to the essence of the real debate:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
Well, part of the problem is your failure to accept that being at the low end of the IQ spectrum has no social value, while a high IQ has great social value.

Hmmmm. Social value? However is THAT defined?








Potential social value is probably more difficult to measure than potential or realized intelligence. Most classrooms _that currently exist_ service highly gifted children less well than other children. How does that wasted potential impact social value? Are we all supposed to have the same social value?

Quote:

So your position is one of arguing to give something extra to children that already have greater social value. You are not leveling the playing field, you are widening the gap. "Low level learning programs" are accepted because they are working towards a level playing field, not away from it (working towards normal, not away from normal, by giving something extra to the "have nots").
Wow. Thank you for being so frank. I happen to believe that everyone deserves the chance to realize their potential. The fact that many highly gifted children do not do so within the public school system is worrisome to me, whether or not they are being measured according to their social value.


----------



## Roar (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flyingspaghettimama*
Um, no, it's statements in the article by Linda Silverman like this:

The question isn't can you find something crazy that Linda Silverman said. Or, is Linda Silverman a person we should listen to. The question is how can you question other people citing a study that doesn't prove causation and at the same time attempt to isolate one individual and proclaim they speak for or represent all involved with gifted children? This is inaccurate and irresponsible.


----------



## lasciate (May 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
Well, part of the problem is your failure to accept that being at the low end of the IQ spectrum has no social value, while a high IQ has great social value. So your position is one of arguing to give something extra to children that already have greater social value. You are not leveling the playing field, you are widening the gap. "Low level learning programs" are accepted because they are working towards a level playing field, not away from it (working towards normal, not away from normal, by giving something extra to the "have nots").

Define social value - I have no idea what that is but apparently I have a lot of it







:

Also, I had always been under the impression that special ed programs were to help learning disabled kids function in the world around them.


----------



## Roar (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
Well, part of the problem is your failure to accept that being at the low end of the IQ spectrum has no social value, while a high IQ has great social value. So your position is one of arguing to give something extra to children that already have greater social value. You are not leveling the playing field, you are widening the gap. "Low level learning programs" are accepted because they are working towards a level playing field, not away from it (working towards normal, not away from normal, by giving something extra to the "have nots").

My position is that EVERY child deserves to be able to learn. Every child who attends school deserves to have new material introduced that they don't already know and that they are capable of learning. When a kid is ready to learn calculus they deserve to be allowed to learn calculus no matter how old they are because learning should be a basic right of all children in school. Obviously we are nowhere near that for kids at any IQ level - but for some kids we are farther from hitting the mark than we are for others.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
I am doing the latter because, while I have no doubt ds would meet all criteria for the "profoundly gifted" and that his IQ would be above average if tested, I believe nurture has a greater influence on "intelligence" than nature.

Is this belief based on anything - like research or just a general feeling? Believing it is nurture is the equivalent of saying that you are an exceptionally wonderful and brilliant parent to have nurtured such a brilliant child, isn't it?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
But if I thought his brain was actually biologically different, and I needed a name for that, I would
advocate for a medical definition of the different function in his brain.

I would not, in either case, define needs according to a value loaded scale such as IQ.

Are you aware that there is research now finding that brains scans of kids who score as having higher IQs mature differently.


----------



## Daffodil (Aug 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NoHiddenFees*
Most classrooms _that currently exist_ service highly gifted children less well than other children.

Hmm - I'm not sure I agree with that. I hate to pick on you, because I agree with most of what you've said, but I do think maybe some of us (including me) can get so caught up in thinking about all the ways schools fail gifted kids that we forget how many "non-gifted" kids are failed by them, too.

If you think about a gifted kid who already reads well, who is in a class full of other kids who don't know how to read and are learning, it's easy to come to the conclusion that most of the kids are getting appropriate instruction, while the gifted kid is not. But then think about all the "non-gifted" kids in the class who aren't going to end up getting useful instruction in reading for one reason or another - maybe they have such troubled home lives that they can't concentrate on learning, or they have so much physical energy they can't handle sitting still for as long as they're expected to, or they're not yet interested in learning to read, or so bored by the teaching methods that they refuse to participate. And then there are the kids who go along with what they're supposed to do and learn enough to meet the teacher's expectations, but don't enjoy it and decide they hate reading. None of those kids are getting appropriate instruction. None of them are getting any closer to reaching their potential than the gifted kid. If there are a lot more of those kids in a typical classroom than there are gifted kids (and I wouldn't be surprised if there are), then does it really make sense to say that gifted kids are, in general, in greater need of special treatment than other kids?

I'm not saying special programs for gifted kids are a bad idea. I'm just saying that we might be stretching it if we claim that gifted kids have greater unmet needs than most other kids in school.


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Roar*
The question isn't can you find something crazy that Linda Silverman said. Or, is Linda Silverman a person we should listen to. The question is how can you question other people citing a study that doesn't prove causation and at the same time attempt to isolate one individual and proclaim they speak for or represent all involved with gifted children? This is inaccurate and irresponsible.

Where is this proclamation that you speak of? Where did I say she spoke for all involved with gifted children? I said I thought _she_ was nuts. Were you reading this thread or another? Perhaps I should have said that [This article] for me, was the ultimate harbinger of reality where labelling and parental pressure is concerned, and the questionable nature of the gifted industry (Davidson Institute, Linda Silverman, etc).

I obviously said it was a harbinger of reality for me, not for you or her or Krusty the Klown. I didn't say it was a study that attempted to prove anything to anyone, unlike other research that has been provided by the Gifted Industry. It was an anecdotal article that had some very interesting anecdotes that shed insight (for me) on the pitfalls. But now I remember how you do like to twist words so that they say what you want them to say, and that's why I avoid responding to you generally. It's not a good debate tactic, as everyone can easily scroll back and see what was said.

Regardless, Linda Silverman is cited positively 65 times on Hoagies, and is certainly well regarded in the G/T community. And what of the Davidson Institute, indeed? Here is another recent article from the NY Times.

Quote:

Nobody, of course, expects to handpick the next Einstein. Still, it is worth remembering that the solicitously individualized "scaffolding" for the highly gifted that experts currently recommend, and the pre-professional alacrity that programs like the Hopkins Center for Talented Youth and the Davidson Fellowships often reward, are themselves experiments in progress. Look at eminences in the past, and what stands out in their childhoods is an animus toward school, a tolerance for solitude and families with lots of books. What also stands out is families with "wobble" - which means stress and, often, risk-taking parents with strong opinions - rather than bastions of supportiveness where a child's giftedness is ever in self-conscious focus.
Irresponsibly yours,
With hearts and ponies on top,
FSM


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Daffodil*
Hmm - I'm not sure I agree with that. I hate to pick on you, because I agree with most of what you've said, but I do think maybe some of us (including me) can get so caught up in thinking about all the ways schools fail gifted kids that we forget how many "non-gifted" kids are failed by them, too.

I'm not making the claim that most children's needs are adequately met by schools. Quite the contrary, which is why I'd decided to homeschool even before DD1 came on the scene. I was referring to material (and should have said so... we've been talking about soooo many things in this thread); if a child in a classroom has already mastered all the material to be presented that year (except perhaps a few factoids from social studies, etc.) then she isn't going to learn anything sustantial in the classroom outside of free reading. Having gifted classes or school or specialist teachers or enlightened teaching methods would be wonderful, but if the material isn't new, there's nothing to learn. Wholesale or subject acceleration is the least we should be doing for gifted kids because all children deserve to be challenged.

I think we can fight to change the school system too; advocating for gifted programming and improved overall education are not mutally exclusive.


----------



## Roar (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flyingspaghettimama*
Where is this proclamation that you speak of? Where did I say she spoke for all involved with gifted children? I said I thought _she_ was nuts. Were you reading this thread or another? Perhaps I should have said that [This article] for me, was the ultimate harbinger of reality where labelling and parental pressure is concerned, and the questionable nature of the gifted industry (Davidson Institute, Linda Silverman, etc).

Okay thanks for clarifying. I am personally not going to characterize all of the thousands of people involved in working with gifted children from one article I read in the New Yorker or based on the actions of one person. Nor, will I see a sign of terrible things to come based on one article I read in the New Yorker. I recognize there are crazy people every where and prefer to give them less, not more of my energy.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flyingspaghettimama*
But now I remember how you do like to twist words so that they say what you want them to say, and that's why I avoid responding to you generally. It's not a good debate tactic, as everyone can easily scroll back and see what was said.

I prefer to talk about the issues not personalities.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flyingspaghettimama*
Regardless, Linda Silverman is cited positively 65 times on Hoagies, and is certainly well regarded in the G/T community.

Gosh did you read all 65 times just to make sure they were positive? That must have kept you really busy!

Are you involved in the gifted community? What is the basis for your inside information about how people feel about Linda Silverman? My personal observation is that she is considered a highly controversial figure in the gifted community. She is loved by some and not particularly well respected by others. I personally haven't met her, have never read anything she's read, haven't had my child tested by her and can't think of any way in which she is relevant to my experience as the parent of a gifted child so I can't see why she'd be worth giving the energy to spend a lot of time thinking about anymore than I'd consider any one individual to be representative of the way that homeschoolers think no matter how many times they were cited on a homeschooling site.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flyingspaghettimama*
And what of the Davidson Institute, indeed?

And, what of them? Folks who decided to dedicate their fortune toward helping kids with scholarships and support. Not a lot evil there in my book.


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flyingspaghettimama*
And what of the Davidson Institute, indeed? Here is another recent article from the NY Times.

I've read _Cradles of Eminence_ (the NYT paragraph quoted was most likely cribbed from the back cover) and I wouldn't advocate psychological abuse for the sake of producing an eminent individual. Giftedness doesn't necessarily produce eminence (if this were the case, we wouldn't need to fight for gifted education), but eminence more often than not rests on giftedness. Giftedness may not have been labeled as such in many of those families, but the expectation of performance was usually there... and talk about pushy parents!

IIRC, that NYT article was pretty hostile, albeit in a passive aggressive way, what with the hints of the "freaks" in the background, not trotted out for public consumption.

I'm not sure what your criticism of the Davidsons is intended to be.


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Roar*

I prefer to talk about the issues not personalities.

Gosh did you read all 65 times just to make sure they were positive? That must have kept you really busy!

Yes, Roar, you really take debate to a brand new level, in every discussion I've observed. All while simultaneously taking the high road. Quite the feat. I'm all done with you.


----------



## meowee (Jul 8, 2004)

I think recognizing giftedness is important, as a gifted child won't do well in a traditional school setting (generalizing, but this is more or less true) and it's vital to offer that child alternatives, whether it's homeschool or a gifted program.

Personally I don't think any truly gifted child should be in an instutionlized setting like school... I too was labelled gifted and it just stigmatized me further among my schoolmates. And there was a lot of pressure to perform.

However, I think it's unfair to make a child capable of fifth grade work sit in second grade.


----------



## Daffodil (Aug 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NoHiddenFees*
if a child in a classroom has already mastered all the material to be presented that year (except perhaps a few factoids from social studies, etc.) then she isn't going to learn anything sustantial in the classroom outside of free reading.

Yeah, but I think there are probably a lot of other kids who aren't learning anything substantial either, for different reasons. If the gifted kid who's learning nothing is just one of many kids who are learning nothing, it's hard for me to see her as uniquely at risk just because she's gifted. I do think it would be a good idea for the school to put her in a situation where she can learn something useful, though.

But, you know, I also wonder whether the idea that schools ought to be doing whatever it takes to help all students reach their full potential is one that ought to just be abandoned as unrealistic and unworkable. Maybe the job of schools ought to be seen as simply trying to get as many students as possible to a basic level of proficiency, and kids who want more than that should largely be left to their own devices to achieve it. You could argue that that's what's happening now anyway in most schools. Sure, that would mean school didn't have much to offer to gifted kids - but maybe we shouldn't see that as a problem any more than we see it as a problem if speech therapy doesn't have much to offer to kids without speech difficulties. (But we shouldn't make kids sit through instruction they don't need, any more than we should make kids go to speech therapy if they don't need it. If we're not going to offer them something useful, they should be free to do what they want at their desks or in the library.)








:







:

Don't hate me for any of these ideas, please! I'm not committed to them - just, you know, exploring.







(It's easy for me to suggest we give up on expecting anything great from schools, since I gave up on them long ago and want to homeschool my kids.)


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Daffodil*
Yeah, but I think there are probably a lot of other kids who aren't learning anything substantial either, for different reasons. If the gifted kid who's learning nothing is just one of many kids who are learning nothing, it's hard for me to see her as uniquely at risk just because she's gifted. I do think it would be a good idea for the school to put her in a situation where she can learn something useful, though.

Schools can't improve the family situation; schools can't get kids off drugs; schools don't really have control over anything that goes on outside of school hours. Schools do have control of their curriculum abd academic services do fall under the authority of the school.

Quote:

Maybe the job of schools ought to be seen as simply trying to get as many students as possible to a basic level of proficiency, and kids who want more than that should largely be left to their own devices to achieve it.
The problem with this argument (one I've actually heard some teachers make) is that the middle and upper middle class kids will thrive while the rest will be left to the mercy of Walmart and McDonalds. There's actually a fair bit of cross-cultural evidence (and at least one US study) showing that most students would benefit from a more rigorous curriculum overall (as opposed to the drilling of basic skills earlier and earlier, which is what they're doing now). Moderately gifted kids would probably thrive in this type of situation. How is it that other nations manage to educate their children without drilling phonics at 5 years old?

Quote:

You could argue that that's what's happening now anyway in most schools.
I have









Quote:

Don't hate me for any of these ideas, please! I'm not committed to them - just, you know, exploring.







(It's easy for me to suggest we give up on expecting anything great from schools, since I gave up on them long ago and want to homeschool my kids.)
Nothing wrong with throwing out ideas for discussion; it's far better than presenting a fully formed opinion from which you steadfastly refuse to be swayed.







Not much room for meaningful debate there. Unfortunately, there are some families that have no alternative than to send their children to public schools. It would be wonderful if everyone could homeschool or had access to alternative schools that complemented their children's learning styles, but that just isn't a viable option for most.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Daffodil*
Hmm - I'm not sure I agree with that. I hate to pick on you, because I agree with most of what you've said, but I do think maybe some of us (including me) can get so caught up in thinking about all the ways schools fail gifted kids that we forget how many "non-gifted" kids are failed by them, too.

If you think about a gifted kid who already reads well, who is in a class full of other kids who don't know how to read and are learning, it's easy to come to the conclusion that most of the kids are getting appropriate instruction, while the gifted kid is not. But then think about all the "non-gifted" kids in the class who aren't going to end up getting useful instruction in reading for one reason or another - maybe they have such troubled home lives that they can't concentrate on learning, or they have so much physical energy they can't handle sitting still for as long as they're expected to, or they're not yet interested in learning to read, or so bored by the teaching methods that they refuse to participate. And then there are the kids who go along with what they're supposed to do and learn enough to meet the teacher's expectations, but don't enjoy it and decide they hate reading. None of those kids are getting appropriate instruction. None of them are getting any closer to reaching their potential than the gifted kid. If there are a lot more of those kids in a typical classroom than there are gifted kids (and I wouldn't be surprised if there are), then does it really make sense to say that gifted kids are, in general, in greater need of special treatment than other kids?

I'm not saying special programs for gifted kids are a bad idea. I'm just saying that we might be stretching it if we claim that gifted kids have greater unmet needs than most other kids in school.

I don't know if you've had the patience to read through all the replies, but this issue has come around before.

I don't think there's a parent on this board that thinks the schools are doing a bang-up job meeting the needs of all students, or even most students. I think, speaking as a teacher, that they're doing an _adequate_ job meeting the needs of most _average_ students. Obviously, some schools are doing an outstanding job and others are doing what could even generously be called an abysmal job, but on the whole, I think they do a reasonably decent job meeting the needs of the majority -- which is, statistically speaking, a large group of average students.

For some of the students you mentioned, there is often abundant support for them -- reading specialists, learning specialists, school psychologists and counselors, dropout prevention programs, and so on. In fact, schools have concentrated a great deal of time, money, effort, and energy into helping kids on the left-hand side of the bell curve...and for the record, I don't think there's even one parent who begrudges one penny of that money to those kids because we do recognize that the system can't adequately meet the needs of all learners, so it has to concentrate its limited resources on 1) the average majority and then 2) the people on the fringes.

I also don't think you'll get an argument to the idea that in an ideal educational system, the different needs of those kids you mentioned would ideally all be met. Personally speaking, that's why we are homeschooling: so that the Baudelaire School for a Girl can appropriately meet the needs of all learners. Sorry. All learneR.







This is not _in spite of_ the fact that I'm a teacher; rather, it's BECAUSE I'm a teacher.

That said, though, whereas tremendous resources are spent on the middle and the left of the bell curve, there are almost no resources for the kids on the right of the bell curve. Again, in some schools, there really are wonderful programs, but by and large, what "gifted program" means in most schools in most places is a once- or twice-weekly pullout.

In that pullout, they don't have a fabulously entertaining time going to the Louvre; they mostly have a day where they get to do logic games or work on a project that's basically irrelevant to the curriculum they're studying in what is thought of -- and treated as -- the "real" classes. They're not actually _allowed_ to progress ahead in the curriculum for their "real" classes because that would raise the aggrieved ire of the "real" teacher, who views the gifted pullout as an imposition and the kid as a goldbricking rectalgia for whom they have to construct a packet of make-up work that he missed when he should've been in his "real" class.

Meanwhile, the school -- taking full credit for high test scores provided by some of those selfsame gifted students -- can pat itself on the back and say it's accomodating the needs of gifted learners.

Hogwash.

The fact is, of _course_ gifted kids aren't deserving of _special_ treatment. They're deserving of _appropriate_ treatment -- as indeed, ALL KIDS ARE, and are entitled to by the law that promises a "free and appropriate education" to all students. All parents I know -- and certainly all the ones on this board -- believe that special needs students should be given an appropriate education and recognize that for some of them, the mainstream classroom is not the most appropriate place. Appropriately for those students, they receive special classrooms with specifically-trained teachers and learn with their peers because that is what is appropriate -- not special, not above-and-beyond, but what they need just to get along. For students with emotional or personal problems (ongoing), or mild learning disabilities, the same thing applies and they are, most of the time, offered consideration or services to help the classroom BE more appropriate for what they need. Finally, for the vast majority of most students in most places, the classroom may not be the _ideal_ place to meet their needs, but it's appropriate enough. To borrow an analogy from the clothing world, the education they receive is not tailored but ready-to-wear.

Of all these groups, gifted students are the ones who are left to sink or swim most often in most places, and the further they are from the norm, the less the education is at all appropriate.

Parents who advocate for their gifted children face some unique challenges. The parent of an intellectually or physically challenged student is regarded, accurately or not, appropriately or not, as a hero. Their child and his or her plight often evokes feelings of pity and guilt.

In sharp contrast, the parents of a gifted child are automatically thought of (to steal a term someone put on this thread, and wonderfully) as "Volvo vigilantes," yuppie pushfreaks who are trying to prep their kid for Harvard before the kid has learned to poop in a potty. Their children will "do just fine" in a regular class because the school "challenges all students," and besides that, they "all even out by third grade" -- something I'm sure the parents of special needs children would be very surprised to hear...and I only wish it were really true. People who aren't attacking that parent for élitism question the meaning of the word "gifted" or blur the definition with the Gardnerian hooey about multiple intelligences to the point where "all children are gifted in their own unique ways."

I know all this pretty well, not from my own experience, but from the experience of others. It's partly why we're HSing -- I recognize a lost cause when I see one. I have no anticipation that the school will even _try_ to meet her needs adequately or appropriately, so fuhgeddaboutdit -- it's infinitely more rewarding (and ultimately more appropriate) to teach her at home.

But not everyone can afford to do that or has the confidence to do that. We have the good fortune to be American natives, well-educated, and confident in our ability to educate our child up to high school and possibly beyond. We also have the good fortune to have few material desires and a small house that allows us to survive on one income. What if I were a single mother? Or my DH were a single father? What if I were desperately poor? Or a recent immigrant? Or someone with no education? Boy, we'd be royally screwed then. It's for that reason alone (and there are a host of others) that I believe genuine gifted programs need to exist -- again, not as a "special" consideration, but as a way to provide the free and appropriate education ALL children are promised under the law.


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

For the record, I didn't come up with the term volvo vigilantes - it's Alfie Kohn's phrase for parents of the gifted, in his experience.

Gardner's theories (and Thurstone's and Sternberg's) is certainly hooey to those who believe in a unilinear construct of intelligence. The latter philosophy benefits few with giftedness, the former benefits many more with giftedness. Can we really deny Sternberg's theory of a practical intelligence, which is far more useful in daily life? I personally don't understand what's to be so stingy with. I imagine that's what causes much of the antagonism and eh...cold pricklies from other parents and teachers - the constant insistence upon exceptionalism and a narrowing of definitions to where only the very few can benefit from services tailored to their needs. Were that every child in school had an IEP...it would be pretty cool.


----------



## Dechen (Apr 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flyingspaghettimama*
For the record, I didn't come up with the term volvo vigilantes - it's Alfie Kohn's phrase for parents of the gifted, in his experience.

It's Jeannie Oakes' term, as Kohn mentions.

"White, rich, and high achieving" does not = gifted.

And c'mon. A kid earns a bumper sticker for being an honor student, and we're equating that with gifted?

I like Kohn quite a bit, but his terminology in that essay (which I've read before) is sloppy and misleading. Affluent pushy parents are a problem. THAT has eff all to do with giftedness.


----------



## Periwinkle (Feb 27, 2003)

I'm still confused by the term "gifted". I think it's used MUCH more broadly (and with far lower standards) in the U.S. than how a lot of of people here are using the term. There are plenty of kids labeled "gifted" who probably aren't.







Meaning, maybe they are just good at math, but not exceptionally so, and have only modestly above-average IQs (e.g., 120-130's+...). Or they are just "bright kids" who "do well in school" and thus are considered gifted. In other words, the term is NOT synonymous with the term "genius" and is inconsistently applied.

I believe that if a child has a particular ability or capacity*, it should be supported and encouraged with gusto but only with the child's consent and only as long as its not at the detriment of the emotional well-being of the child and only if it is not done on the backs of the "regular" kids who must suffer through large class sizes, mediocre materials, B-list teachers, one-size-fits-all teaching methods, etc, etc., etc. *And when I say "ability or capacity" I mean to include sports, music, arts, theater, handiwork and crafts, writing, etc... not just math whizzes and spelling bee champs.


----------



## Periwinkle (Feb 27, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dechen*
"White, rich, and high achieving" does not = gifted.

I beg to differ. In fact, I would argue that being white and rich (enough) are precisely the two things that would give one significant advantage to sail through an IQ test, ace an SAT test or other standardized test, be singled out in a positive way by teachers, speak and write in a way that pleases the powers that be, and so on. I would bet my bottom dollar that there are many non-white and non-rich kids who are actually gifted whom nobody's noticed, and just as many white and rich kids currently labeled "gifted" who are far from it.


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Periwinkle*
I beg to differ. In fact, I would argue that being white and rich (enough) are precisely the two things that would give one significant advantage to sail through an IQ test, ace an SAT test or other standardized test, be singled out in a positive way by teachers, speak and write in a way that pleases the powers that be, and so on. I would bet my bottom dollar that there are many non-white and non-rich kids who are actually gifted whom nobody's noticed, and just as many white and rich kids currently labeled "gifted" who are far from it.

<sigh> We've been down this road and with the exception of individually administered IQ tests, you are correct (there are biases that can lower scores, but no amount of coaching will inflate them significantly). Those other tests you mention are achievement tests... very different things. No one is claiming that the all kids in TAG programs are actually gifted. On the contrary, hence: ""White, rich, and high achieving" does not = gifted." I think you're misreading Dechen.


----------



## Periwinkle (Feb 27, 2003)

ok doke. I and am just trying to catch up after being gone 2 weeks. I did read several pages but got fed up when all I was reading about were anecdotes about geniuses and very Hollywood-esque stereotypes. Sorry.... shoulda known you all had blasted that already.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flyingspaghettimama*
For the record, I didn't come up with the term volvo vigilantes - it's Alfie Kohn's phrase for parents of the gifted, in his experience.

Gardner's theories (and Thurstone's and Sternberg's) is certainly hooey to those who believe in a unilinear construct of intelligence. The latter philosophy benefits few with giftedness, the former benefits many more with giftedness. Can we really deny Sternberg's theory of a practical intelligence, which is far more useful in daily life? I personally don't understand what's to be so stingy with. I imagine that's what causes much of the antagonism and eh...cold pricklies from other parents and teachers - the constant insistence upon exceptionalism and a narrowing of definitions to where only the very few can benefit from services tailored to their needs. Were that every child in school had an IEP...it would be pretty cool.

Please define "unilinear." Did you mean "unilateral"?

Anyway, Gardner's theory is hooey for a number of reasons:

1. Several of his "intelligences" are unverifiable and unmeasurable. How do you quantify or compare "intrapersonal intelligence," for example? How do you even tell that it's a particular intelligence -- "I know _myself_ better than you know _yourself_!"? And in what way does one measure, say, environmental intelligence? This is nothing more than shoddy scholarship.

2. He blurs the distinction between intelligence and talent.

3. Anything can be an intelligence because his theory is so porous.

The other reason I genuinely dislike this theory, FSM, is that it's been used and over-used by schools to theoretically accomodate for all learners and to effectively prevent gifted students from receiving accomodations they actually need. It's blurred the understanding of what intelligence is to the point where people can basically say that there is no such thing, and now we're in happy Harrison Bergeron territory.

I'm absolutely willing to acknowledge that some quality of perception, retention, synthesis, and application of knowledge is a form of intelligence, but like many other people, I actually have to have, you know, _data_.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dechen*
It's Jeannie Oakes' term, as Kohn mentions.

"White, rich, and high achieving" does not = gifted.

And c'mon. A kid earns a bumper sticker for being an honor student, and we're equating that with gifted?

I like Kohn quite a bit, but his terminology in that essay (which I've read before) is sloppy and misleading. Affluent pushy parents are a problem. THAT has eff all to do with giftedness.

I can't agree more. I absolutely cannot agree more. I wish with all my heart that "gifted" would disappear as a term, or certainly as a designation with any social cachet, because the "Volvo vigilante" crowd of pushy parents makes it twelve zillion times more difficult for students with a genuine and demonstrable need to get services -- and moreover, makes POC believe that "gifted" is a whites-only club. It's not. It's also not a rich people's club. In this, I blame school administrators for being a bunch of spineless, parent-pleasing weasels.


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
Please define "unilinear." Did you mean "unilateral"?

Anyway, Gardner's theory is hooey for a number of reasons:

1. Several of his "intelligences" are unverifiable and unmeasurable. How do you quantify or compare "intrapersonal intelligence," for example? How do you even tell that it's a particular intelligence -- "I know _myself_ better than you know _yourself_!"? And in what way does one measure, say, environmental intelligence? This is nothing more than shoddy scholarship.

2. He blurs the distinction between intelligence and talent.

3. Anything can be an intelligence because his theory is so porous.

The other reason I genuinely dislike this theory, FSM, is that it's been used and over-used by schools to theoretically accomodate for all learners and to effectively prevent gifted students from receiving accomodations they actually need. It's blurred the understanding of what intelligence is to the point where people can basically say that there is no such thing, and now we're in happy Harrison Bergeron territory.

I'm absolutely willing to acknowledge that some quality of perception, retention, synthesis, and application of knowledge is a form of intelligence, but like many other people, I actually have to have, you know, _data_.

CB, did you read the links that I found? It describes unilinear or psychometric intelligence (which is the type most in the gifted community believe in). Even the APA agrees that there is no agreement on what intelligence "is," in their report (which you can find via google - it's called Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns Report of a Task Force established by the Board of Scientific Affairs of the American Psychological Association, Released August 7, 1995) and describes issues surrounding the many different hypotheses on the constitution of intelligence. It's called the psychometric approach because it's easiest to measure via test-taking instruments. But, unless you define "intelligence" as simply "those who are most likely to do best in school," as IQ and most tests do, then we have a rather limited working of intelligence, and are providing special services already most likely to succeed in society. Not that there's anything wrong with that, if we're providing them all equally.

That's interesting that you mention synthesis, because that is one of the abilities most easily measured by current IQ tests - the ability to synthesize disparate pieces of information into a whole (the comparisons section, for example, of the WISC).

I also find it interesting that so many make a distinction between Volvo Vigilantes (those parents) and Truly Gifted (my people). Who's deciding who is that kind of parent vs. this kind of parent, that kind of Poseur Gifted vs this kind of Truly Gifted? I imagine it's a very subjective assessment. I highly doubt that any of Those Parents would agree with the assessment and would plead for support also.


----------



## Dechen (Apr 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flyingspaghettimama*
I also find it interesting that so many make a distinction between Volvo Vigilantes (those parents) and Truly Gifted (my people). Who's deciding who is that kind of parent vs. this kind of parent, that kind of Poseur Gifted vs this kind of Truly Gifted? I imagine it's a very subjective assessment. I highly doubt that any of Those Parents would agree with the assessment and would plead for support also.

Well, unlike the VV, I have yet to see a parent on this board argue that grades and whatnot are important to making sure "our" kids come out on top.

Its a bummer these issues are being confused, because I loathe schooling based on performance, grades, and comparison. According to Kohn, these are the things "gifted parents" are pushing for. Kohn's gifted parents/VV sabotage attempt to reform schools to the benefit of all.

I don't see that here. At all. Which is not to say that I accept your tongue-in-cheek division of the world into us vs. them. I simply do not buy, for a second, that anyone has been arguing for a preservation of her child's status at the expense of other children.

Now, I know some will make the arguement that it is impossible to retain the status of gifted without it coming at the expense of others. Fine, ditch the term. Ditch grades, ditch class ranking, and for the love of all things holy please ditch those nausea-inducing bumper stickers. The only thing I'd ask we not ditch is a variety of learning environments for children with different needs.

I grew up poor, in a school full of poor kids. The district was kind enough to fix the boundaries so that 99% of the white (and middle class) students got to be bussed to a better school. I was the only non-hispanic girl in the 6th grade. There were at least 3 students in my year that stood out as the-term-whose-name-I-will-not-speak, and frankly our school did not serve us in the slightest. We taught ourselves, and the administrators smiled and took credit for our test scores. While I'm white, I've been in the group of people the VV's were happy to keep down. I have no love and no respect for people who give poor and minority students the shaft. FTR, the other two students were a boy of Mexican descent and a boy from a family of Polish immigrants who still spoke Polish at home.

The fact that the school system screws over the socially unpriviledged is not a reason to be bitter about kids who need accomodation due to their "giftedness." (Darn, I said that word. Hate the word.) The kids? They don't give a rat's behind that affluent America thinks they have special standing. They just want an education that means something.

- being called, need to run -


----------



## Daffodil (Aug 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
I don't know if you've had the patience to read through all the replies, but this issue has come around before.

I don't think there's a parent on this board that thinks the schools are doing a bang-up job meeting the needs of all students, or even most students. I think, speaking as a teacher, that they're doing an _adequate_ job meeting the needs of most _average_ students.

Yep, I've read the whole thing, and it certainly does seem that if there's one thing everyone agrees on, it's that the public school system could benefit from some drastic changes. But one of the big sources of dissension seems to be this idea that schools are generally adequate for most average students and inadequate for most gifted students. I guess if you believe that _every_ gifted student, by definition, needs something beyond a "regular" curriculum to get what you would consider an adequate education, then if at least _some_ "non-gifted" students are being served adequately by the regular curriculum, you could justify a claim that gifted kids, on average, have greater needs. But I think the reality is that many gifted kids are also able to get an adequate education in regular classes. Not an education that unlocks their full potential - but _no_ kid is really likely to get that in a typical classroom. I suspect the average "average" kid doesn't really get any closer to reaching her full potential in the classroom than the average gifted kid.

I certainly wouldn't argue that gifted kids don't have special needs - I'm just not sure they're really being shortchanged more than the "average" kids. But then I'm not a teacher and don't even have kids in school, and never had the experience of being an "average" kid in school, so maybe I don't know what it's really like - maybe the education those "average" kids are getting is a lot better than I imagine.


----------



## orca (Jun 13, 2005)

I'm on holidays and have been sporadically reading this thread with no time to respond meaningfully. However, I am surprised that Vygotsky and his Zone of Proximal development have not yet surfaced in the conversation. As a teacher, I think it is a critical philosophy that must be understood before engaging in any kind of classroom instruction. It would be particularly relevant for a homeschooling family as well since the theory depends so heavily on interaction with a significant adult.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lev_Vygotsky

His theory allows for all children (regardless of IQ) to succeed in a classroom when the teacher is aware of each child's proximal zone. It is a mini IEP, if you like&#8230;

I disagree that Gardiner's theory is hooey. It is a valuable tool for young learners to define and embrace their own style of learning. In every grade I've ever taught I spend time at the beginning of the year helping students recognize where their strengths are and then develop goal setting through the portfolio process to strengthen their identified weaknesses. Intelligence can not be measured by academic standards alone and, in my experience, students find it comforting to have their individual strengths acknowledged and equally valued in an inclusive classroom.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flyingspaghettimama*
CB, did you read the links that I found? It describes unilinear or psychometric intelligence (which is the type most in the gifted community believe in).

To my best understanding of the term, and I'm not claiming expertise here, all that "psychometric" means in this context is intelligence that can be objectively measured. That's partly why I distrust Gardnerian theory: it can't be measured, it can't be compared, and it can't be independently assessed. As science, it stinks.

Quote:


Even the APA agrees that there is no agreement on what intelligence "is," in their report (which you can find via google - it's called Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns Report of a Task Force established by the Board of Scientific Affairs of the American Psychological Association, Released August 7, 1995) and describes issues surrounding the many different hypotheses on the constitution of intelligence.
But there's also some idea of what it may be and what it is not. In that respect, these discussions remind me of the famous statement by (I believe) Edwin Meese on pornography: that he can't define it, but he knows it when he sees it.

Quote:

It's called the psychometric approach because it's easiest to measure via test-taking instruments. But, unless you define "intelligence" as simply "those who are most likely to do best in school," as IQ and most tests do,

I'm sorry, but I strongly believe this is factually inaccurate. Most IQ tests test verbal, spatial, logical, and mathematical skills, and those tend to be skills schools theoretically value, if that's what you mean. However, I don't define intelligence that way, and to be honest, I don't think IQ tests do either. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say they generally define intelligence as the abilityto learn quickly, retain information, process information, synthesize it, and apply it -- often uniquely or creatively, and do these things at a more rapid rate than the norm for one's age. That's not a perfect definition of intelligence by any means, but I think it works decently well.

Quote:

then we have a rather limited working of intelligence, and are providing special services already most likely to succeed in society. Not that there's anything wrong with that, if we're providing them all equally.
But my points are these:

1. It's not equal, and
2. It's not special, and
3. They're not succeeding in society, and
4. Should #3 be the point anyway?

It's not equal because the education is not appropriate or adequate to meet their needs. I don't think anyone is asking for "special" on this board -- just _appropriate_, for God's sakes!

Sorry to be so frustrated, FSM, but kee-rist, when it's your kid whose needs would completely not be met by the school system -- and when you'd be excoriated or ignored even for trying, it's really frustrating to argue about the issue of whether giftedness (or whatever you want to call it) exists or not.

Quote:

That's interesting that you mention synthesis, because that is one of the abilities most easily measured by current IQ tests - the ability to synthesize disparate pieces of information into a whole (the comparisons section, for example, of the WISC).

I also find it interesting that so many make a distinction between Volvo Vigilantes (those parents) and Truly Gifted (my people). Who's deciding who is that kind of parent vs. this kind of parent, that kind of Poseur Gifted vs this kind of Truly Gifted? I imagine it's a very subjective assessment. I highly doubt that any of Those Parents would agree with the assessment and would plead for support also.
Well, subjectively enough, I'm deciding for the students in my experience, not that my decision has any kind of value or changes anything. All I know is this: that _every single_ parent who's told me their child is gifted has failed to provide evidence of this from an outside source, and I've failed to see demonstration of their giftedness in English, though I certainly and readily admit they may be gifted in another area. OTOH, I've had many gifted students who didn't need _anyone_ to tell me they were gifted because it was screamingly apparent (sometimes literally, in the case of at least one dude I taught my first year out).

Unfortunately, the "My child is gifted" parents did in fact meet the Volvo Vigilante stereotype: snotty suburb SUV-driving soccer moms. The _actual_ gifted kids' parents were a mixed bag -- single moms (in the case of the Screamer and one talented --but addicted -- drama student I'll call METHod Actor), single dads (friend of METHod Actor), lower-SES parents, computer-dweeb parents, and far more than one POC. Those were parents that basically knew their kid was truly gifted and by that point, had given up on school as much as their kids: they knew their kids weren't actually getting much of an education and by that point, they didn't care. They also knew that their kid had a great deal of potential, but knew that school had largely warped and twisted that potential in a variety of ways.

I don't have a magic solution here, but if I were in charge of determining who's going to receive an appropriate education as a gifted kid, I'd look for objective data (e.g., I.Q. or ability assessment, demonstration of their area of giftedness such as evidence they can do math, English, etc., on a markedly higher level than is normal for their age. I'd also ask for parents' feedback because despite the VVs, _parents know their children_ and are more accurate at determining their child's giftedness, not surprisingly, than a teacher. I'd also ask the teachers for their opinion). The overall focus would be on subject-level acceleration, NOT pullouts. For instance, if Billy's specialty was math, Billy could be with Mrs. Jones' fifth-grade math class during math time and in Mrs. Smith's first-grade regular class for the other stuff. I realize that's not a perfect solution either, but within the existing context of the school system as it stands, that's about the best I can think of.

Anyway, hope that helps clarify.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Daffodil*
I guess if you believe that _every_ gifted student, by definition, needs something beyond a "regular" curriculum to get what you would consider an adequate education,

Not precisely. Gifted runs along a spectrum, and I think those closest to the norm generally do well -- they're the ones getting As, who are challenged (but not challenged beyond what they're able to do), and because they find school a positive experience, are able to thrive in it. Highly and profoundly gifted students? Whole 'nother story. They're the ones who find school boring as hell and act out about it -- or tune out. They criticize their teachers or blow them off and are viewed as troublemakers. They're the ones who are genuinely in need of services and aren't getting any "special" attention unless you count suspensions.

Quote:

then if at least _some_ "non-gifted" students are being served adequately by the regular curriculum, you could justify a claim that gifted kids, on average, have greater needs. But I think the reality is that many gifted kids are also able to get an adequate education in regular classes.
Not an education that unlocks their full potential - but _no_ kid is really likely to get that in a typical classroom. I suspect the average "average" kid doesn't really get any closer to reaching her full potential in the classroom than the average gifted kid.
Some are, sure, like I said -- but some really, really aren't, and aren't to a degree that I think intervention is really necessary.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *newmom22*
I'm on holidays and have been sporadically reading this thread with no time to respond meaningfully. However, I am surprised that Vygotsky and his Zone of Proximal development have not yet surfaced in the conversation. As a teacher, I think it is a critical philosophy that must be understood before engaging in any kind of classroom instruction. It would be particularly relevant for a homeschooling family as well since the theory depends so heavily on interaction with a significant adult.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lev_Vygotsky

But that's precisely what we've been talking about -- that for many HG and PG gifted students, the teachers don't give a rat's caboose about their ZPD. Oh, in an ideal world, if every teacher actually calibrated their ZPD and taught right in that zone for every student, it would be great -- and in fact, it's one of the super strengths of homeschooling, as you're implying, particularly since the parent can definitely adjust and fine-tune as needed. In a class of thirty, this is far less possible. However, most teachers really don't do that. They teach to the middle, and I certainly understand how come -- but what I find exasperating is that schools, administrators, and teachers are bitterly resistant to the idea of early admission and acceleration -- which would at least get closer to putting the kid in a class that adequately addresses that delicate balance between "too easy" and "too hard" that Vygotsky was talking about.

Quote:

I disagree that Gardiner's theory is hooey. It is a valuable tool for young learners to define and embrace their own style of learning.
Please don't take what I am saying as a personal attack or as snark, because it's not -- I don't know you, and I am assuming you meant what you said with sincerity. What I will say (and this is directed at the discourse you're using, not you personally) is that these very edspeak-inspired statements, whereas they mean to sound lovely on paper and in parent conferences, don't actually _mean anything concrete_. I find it about as useful as getting children to define and embrace their zodiac signs or the numerological significances of their names (e.g., "I am a Scorpio with a life value number of 3, so I need more time in math"?)

Seriously, in terms of actual practice, multiple intelligence theory doesn't matter much at all to gifted children, and in terms of non-gifted children, the Gardner-based teaching methods have _not_ been demonstrated by research to improve the learning of the students for whom they are used. Good teachers -- good professional anyones, actually -- have to base their methodology not on what sounds good or what the latest ed-fad happens to be, but on what actually works as demonstrated by research, and I'm afraid that Gardner really does not meet that test.

Quote:

In every grade I've ever taught I spend time at the beginning of the year helping students recognize where their strengths are and then develop goal setting through the portfolio process to strengthen their identified weaknesses. Intelligence can not be measured by academic standards alone and, in my experience, students find it comforting to have their individual strengths acknowledged and equally valued in an inclusive classroom.
Again, I'm sure you really mean that and I'm not leveling my criticism at you or your sincerity, but I am distressed by the edspeak and its lack of relevance to reality. In my experience -- and not just mine -- the issue with gifted students, particularly with those who are HG and PG, is that their "individual strengths" are not just not acknowledged and not just not valued in an inclusive classroom, but that they are actively squelched.

Seriously, I have sympathy for teachers who get an extremely gifted kid because they're really not prepared to deal with one and it's not fair to either the teacher or the student to make it fit when it simply won't. I don't know what grade you teach, but let's take a test case: in your classroom -- let's say it's a kindergarten class -- just _precisely and exactly_ (please, no edspeak, I beg you...please) what would you do with a kid like this:

1. At five, reads at an eighth-grade level. Recently finished the entire Tolkien _Lord of the Rings_ trilogy on his or her own.

2. Mathematically, this kid is doing long division, addition and subtraction of fractions, and negative numbers. Overall, math skills are at a mid-third grade range.

3. In terms of socialization, the child is happy and works well with others.

4. In terms of composition and handwriting, the child is used to writing one- to two-page compositions on a given topic with minimal scaffolding and all handwriting is clear and neatly legible.

5. On a typical spelling list chosen from the Scripps National Spelling Bee Championship list of words (including words such as _staphylococci, vivisepulture, and propitiatory_), the child normally gets a grade of 80%-100% on a regular basis.

Really, I would be very curious to find if a child such as Hypothetical Kid here would really be ZPD'd in your classroom or whether this child's abilities would basically mean that you were having to do an entirely separate prep just for them, which (as I think we'll all agree) is a giant pain in the butt.

(Moreover, a bit OT here, the research into gifted education suggests very strongly that inclusion in a heterogeneous classroom for the way-beyond-normal gifted students _simply doesn't work_. It works decently well with _mildly_ gifted students, absolutely, but just like in quantum theory, the rules change the further out you go. )


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*

I'm sorry, but I strongly believe this is factually inaccurate. Most IQ tests test verbal, spatial, logical, and mathematical skills, and those tend to be skills schools theoretically value, if that's what you mean. However, I don't define intelligence that way, and to be honest, I don't think IQ tests do either. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say they generally define intelligence as the abilityto learn quickly, retain information, process information, synthesize it, and apply it -- often uniquely or creatively, and do these things at a more rapid rate than the norm for one's age. That's not a perfect definition of intelligence by any means, but I think it works decently well.

Er, no, most psychologists agree that IQ tests, ultimately, predict who will do well in our schools and in our society. They are so culturally loaded that one cannot say that they are an ultimate assessment tool for much else. Did you read the article speaking about Raven's Matrices? Even the supposedly non-loaded tests are so culturally relevant that they are among the MOST loaded. It's the one thing psychologists do agree upon. It's no accident that most of the gifted classrooms are filled with white, upper-middle class children. Creativity is not part of the package for WISC or CoGAT or S-B, nor uniqueness. There is usually one right answer for every question.

Quote:

*IQ scores only give the information about one specific facet of intelligence as displayed in children who excel in verbal and logical thinking in the most traditional sense*. This type of ability is often called general intellectual ability. Of the 49 states that have policies on gifted education, every one includes general intelligence ability as one type of giftedness to be identified. *IQ is the best overall predictor of school achievement and educational success*; hence intelligence tests are often one of the assessments used to identify exceptional general intellectual ability in children.
http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=960

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
Sorry to be so frustrated, FSM, but kee-rist, when it's your kid whose needs would completely not be met by the school system -- and when you'd be excoriated or ignored even for trying, it's really frustrating to argue about the issue of whether giftedness (or whatever you want to call it) exists or not.

See, I _don't_ assume my child's needs would be met. But I also don't think that it meets _anyone else's_ needs either. And I do think giftedness exists - but I feel it exists for everyone else's child as well, in whatever form that may take, which may not be of a sort that can be psychometrically assessed. If you have a parent who believes and trusts in their child, and allow the child to follow and pursue their passions - how lucky we would all be. I think asynchronicity exists for every child as well, if one buys into grade-based levels of cognition and learning outcomes.

And I suppose I am finished with my part in this conversation. I feel it's such a personal matter for some of us (who have been through the labelling/education as children, or want it for our kids, or don't want it for our kids) that we'll just go round and round about 1) whether giftedness exists as defined by the government/institutions/parental observations; 2) what constitutes giftedness; 3) what constitutes intelligence; 4) socio-economic and cultural influences confounding definitions of the above; and 5) what appropriate services should result from the definitions. Or at least, that's how I see it.

It's been lovely (with a few exceptions) and I do think that children are lucky who have parents who care so much for their overall health, happiness, and personal curiosity, in whatever form that takes.


----------



## pookel (May 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
But there's also some idea of what it may be and what it is not. In that respect, these discussions remind me of the famous statement by (I believe) Edwin Meese on pornography: that he can't define it, but he knows it when he sees it.

It wasn't Meese, it was a 1970s-era Supreme Court Justice, but I've forgotten which one. I remember a vivid description from The Brethren of court clerks having viewing sessions of porn videos from obscenity cases, and yelling out "I see it! I see it!" when something particularly interesting popped up on the screen.









Also,







: to pretty much everything you've been saying on this thread.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flyingspaghettimama*
Er, no, most psychologists agree that IQ tests, ultimately, predict who will do well in our schools and in our society.

Quite honestly, I haven't seen that. I'm not doubting you have, but I haven't. I would think that would be a very irresponsible claim on their part, especially as regards very high-IQ people, who don't tend to "do well" in either one. I read your link quote below, and I'm more convinced that this is true for people closer to the center than it is true for people at the extremes.

Quote:


They are so culturally loaded that one cannot say that they are an ultimate assessment tool for much else. Did you read the article speaking about Raven's Matrices? Even the supposedly non-loaded tests are so culturally relevant that they are among the MOST loaded. It's the one thing psychologists do agree upon. It's no accident that most of the gifted classrooms are filled with white, upper-middle class children. Creativity is not part of the package for WISC or CoGAT or S-B, nor uniqueness. There is usually one right answer for every question.
I agree there's been a problem with cultural bias, definitely, but there's also been aggressive research to try to minimize this as much as possible. The Ravens, while not a perfect instrument, was at least a step toward that goal. There need to be more steps.

Quote:


[

See, I _don't_ assume my child's needs would be met. But I also don't think that it meets _anyone else's_ needs either. And I do think giftedness exists - but I feel it exists for everyone else's child as well, in whatever form that may take, which may not be of a sort that can be psychometrically assessed.
I disagree -- I think, like I said above, that school is adequate for most people most of the time and that not every child is gifted, although all children are unique and should be valued and respected. Many have talents; talents aren't the same as acute intellectual difference from the norm. That's not a value judgment; I think talents are valuable and should be nurtured, but I think we'd all acknowledge that schools can only do that with certain talents and not others, and no, that's not fair. They're theoretically supposed to teach academic subjects, so I think it's more appropriate for schools to provide appropriate education for intellectually different children.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pookel*
It wasn't Meese, it was a 1970s-era Supreme Court Justice, but I've forgotten which one. I remember a vivid description from The Brethren of court clerks having viewing sessions of porn videos from obscenity cases, and yelling out "I see it! I see it!" when _something particularly interesting popped up_ on the screen.








.

BOOOIINNNG!


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
Please don't take what I am saying as a personal attack or as snark, because it's not -- I don't know you, and I am assuming you meant what you said with sincerity. What I will say (and this is directed at the discourse you're using, not you personally) is that these very edspeak-inspired statements, whereas they mean to sound lovely on paper and in parent conferences, don't actually _mean anything concrete_. I find it about as useful as getting children to define and embrace their zodiac signs or the numerological significances of their names (e.g., "I am a Scorpio with a life value number of 3, so I need more time in math"?)

I agree. Gardner has a tiny bit of usefulness as I see it- remind teachers that they need to do DIFFERENT types of activities- sometimes get kids up and moving, talk, show, demonstrate, encourage practice, let them talk and teach. Beyond that, like so much education theory, 'tis crap IMO.

-Angela


----------



## Brisen (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flyingspaghettimama*
Er, no, most psychologists agree that IQ tests, ultimately, predict who will do well in our schools and in our society.

Just here to "yeah, that" this. I have no links, just what I remember from introductory psych. Up until then, I thought that IQ tests were a nearly infalliable measure of how smart someone was (and since I scored well on the test that got me labeled "gifted" in elementary school, who was I to question that?







), but then I found out that they were originally developed to predict who would do well in school. And then there's the cultural bias to factor in. From the way it was taught in that class, I thought it was generally accepted today that IQ tests only serve to test how well you perform on an IQ test, and that no one really relied on them any more.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna*
I agree. Gardner has a tiny bit of usefulness as I see it- remind teachers that they need to do DIFFERENT types of activities- sometimes get kids up and moving, talk, show, demonstrate, encourage practice, let them talk and teach. Beyond that, like so much education theory, 'tis crap IMO.

-Angela

I even thought of saying that in order to be generous, and I couldn't even do that. In practice, I've seen teachers waste an infinite amount of time doing different types of activities to appeal to multiple intelligences, but I haven't seen a corresponding improvement in student _learning_, which (for me) is where the feces hits the air current generator.

To be honest, I've seen actually _less_ learning since the multiple intelligences fad (and it IS a fad) took hold of the ed. system, specifically less analysis and less ability to plan and execute a sustained writing project, because (after all), writing isn't appealing to people with visual and auditory and kinesthetic intelligence. Consequently, they get to me in senior English and find that they can't write an essay -- which, of course, will ensure their placement in English 98 (i.e., Dumnutz English) and waste both money and time in college.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Yeah, I was being generous- what I really wanted to say was it's been a tiny help for really stupid or really bad teachers.... IMO any teacher worth anything already teaches in a way to render that advice silly....

-Angela


----------



## orca (Jun 13, 2005)

[But that's precisely what we've been talking about -- that for many HG and PG gifted students, the teachers don't give a rat's caboose about their ZPD. Oh, in an ideal world, if every teacher actually calibrated their ZPD and taught right in that zone for every student, it would be great -- and in fact, it's one of the super strengths of homeschooling, as you're implying, particularly since the parent can definitely adjust and fine-tune as needed. In a class of thirty, this is far less possible. However, most teachers really don't do that. They teach to the middle, and I certainly understand how come -- but what I find exasperating is that schools, administrators, and teachers are bitterly resistant to the idea of early admission and acceleration -- which would at least get closer to putting the kid in a class that adequately addresses that delicate balance between "too easy" and "too hard" that Vygotsky was talking about]

I think the problem goes back to teacher education programs. Too few teachers graduate with this knowledge. I've never had a student teacher who had any sense of educational philosophy when they arrived in my classroom.

Telling teachers that educational theory or philosophy is "crap" is like telling parents that parenting philosophy is nonsense. How can you parent without a philosophy?


----------



## orca (Jun 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
Really, I would be very curious to find if a child such as Hypothetical Kid here would really be ZPD'd in your classroom or whether this child's abilities would basically mean that you were having to do an entirely separate prep just for them, which (as I think we'll all agree) is a giant pain in the butt.


CB are you asking me to role play?









To answer your question I have to first say that your "case study" is incomplete and difficult to respond to, but I will do my best to play along. And let's remember that your reality is not mine. So while I appreciate your perspective, as a high school teacher in America your job description is vastly different then my elementary teaching position in Canada.









In short, yes! I would absolutely ensure I knew everything I could about that child's ZPD and if it took every prep to sort it out&#8230;so be it. That is my job and I find these sorts of children a fascinating challenge, not a pain in the butt. However, I sense I am preaching to the proverbial choir here as we are both quite obviously interested in the complexities of this profession and the students we teach, which is not the norm for many teachers today.


----------



## orca (Jun 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*

Please don't take what I am saying as a personal attack or as snark, because it's not -- I don't know you, and I am assuming you meant what you said with sincerity. What I will say (and this is directed at the discourse you're using, not you personally) is that these very edspeak-inspired statements, whereas they mean to sound lovely on paper and in parent conferences, don't actually _mean anything concrete_.

I don't know what grade you teach, but let's take a test case: in your classroom -- let's say it's a kindergarten class -- just _precisely and exactly_ (please, no edspeak, I beg you...please) what would you do with a kid like this:


In order to do so, however, I will have to use some "edspeak" as it is the vernacular of our profession and is necessary to some extent in order to speak coherently about these issues. I'm not sure why you take issue with "edspeak" in proper context since all professionals have their own terminology for dialogue within the parameters of their "job".


----------



## orca (Jun 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*

Seriously, I have sympathy for teachers who get an extremely gifted kid because they're really not prepared to deal with one and it's not fair to either the teacher or the student to make it fit when it simply won't. I don't know what grade you teach, but let's take a test case: in your classroom -- let's say it's a kindergarten class -- just _precisely and exactly_ (please, no edspeak, I beg you...please) what would you do with a kid like this:

A Kindergarten scenario? Geez, I haven't taught primary in years, but here goes&#8230;

Generally speaking...Since said student is socially amiable, I would likely ensure that centers were an integral part of the day. They create an environment that permits students to work cooperatively or alone, according to individual preference. Also, it frees me up to work one on one with individual students throughout the day, as need be. I am also interested in Dr. William Glasser's finding that:

We learn
10 percent of what we read,
20 percent of what we hear,
30 percent of what we see,
50 percent of what we both see and hear,
70 percent of what is discussed with others,
80 percent of what we experience personally, and
95 percent of what we TEACH to someone else.

We must understand something in order to teach it and gifted students often struggle with explanations of their understanding. Centres allow these students an opportunity to solidify and make sense of their knowledge while socializing at the same time. Two valuable skills.


----------



## orca (Jun 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
1. At five, reads at an eighth-grade level. Recently finished the entire Tolkien _Lord of the Rings_ trilogy on his or her own.

If the child was reading advanced text then let him continue to read advanced texts. The foundational skills of literacy still must be taught and it is unlikely that this child knows the conventions of print in the context of what s/he is reading. So instead of discussing the characters that are in whichever text "average kid" is reading, we would look at the protagonists/antagonists and their relationships within the story "HG" kid is reading. Really, I don't think it is all that complicated. Take a skill and scaffold it for whatever level the learner is at. The individual attention and time spent with that learner is the most critical part of the equation.


----------



## orca (Jun 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
.2. Mathematically, this kid is doing long division, addition and subtraction of fractions, and negative numbers. Overall, math skills are at a mid-third grade range.

Math is another subject that is easily addressed because I teach almost the entire curriculum using games. The follow up activities span the curriculum expectations from Pre- K understanding to advanced intermediate math whiz. I have students keep Math journals and while some students will draw out their explanations, others will write lengthy "essays" describing their learning process. But see, I'm open to that because I think it is important to value different types of learners and not assess them based on the correct numerical answer alone. How they got there is just as important to me.

And I know that this is not the "usual" way of doing things... I'm just telling you how one renegade does it!


----------



## orca (Jun 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
3. In terms of socialization, the child is happy and works well with others.


I think I've addressed socialization. The whole centres thing works really well for me. Keeps the kids on task and allows the ones who want to talk and play and work together to do so while I work one on one with the kids who need me for that particular task


----------



## orca (Jun 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
4. In terms of composition and handwriting, the child is used to writing one- to two-page compositions on a given topic with minimal scaffolding and all handwriting is clear and neatly legible.

Composition would be treated the same as reading. You write well? Good for you, where are your skills and lets build on them. Literacy can effectively be integrated into all curriculum areas and Subjects such as Science, Social Studies and Math provide ample opportunities to take advantage of proficient writers.

With regards to handwriting, I'll assume you mean that the child has learned cursive and is bored with formal instruction in that arena. So next step? Calligraphy! Kids love it and it is perfect for those artsy types who excel in fine motor skills. I usually teach it in art anyways so all the kids can have a crack at it. There are so many styles they can go on and on perfecting their skills. Kindergarten would be too young for this as a whole class activity, but for this particular child it might be worthwhile.


----------



## orca (Jun 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
5. On a typical spelling list chosen from the Scripps National Spelling Bee Championship list of words (including words such as _staphylococci, vivisepulture, and propitiatory_), the child normally gets a grade of 80%-100% on a regular basis.

Every study I've ever read says that spelling tests do not produce long term retention of correct spelling. I don't use them. If the child was spelling that many difficult words correctly and their vocabulary was equally as high then they would have more time to focus on their creative expression rather then technical errors. However, in Kindergarten I would not be correcting any spelling since it is developmentally normal for children at this age to use invented spelling. As an extension, I have many dice games that the child could play to expand their understanding of our bizarre English language rules and spelling irregularities.


----------



## orca (Jun 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*

Seriously, in terms of actual practice, multiple intelligence theory doesn't matter much at all to gifted children, and in terms of non-gifted children, the Gardner-based teaching methods have _not_ been demonstrated by research to improve the learning of the students for whom they are used. Good teachers -- good professional anyones, actually -- have to base their methodology not on what sounds good or what the latest ed-fad happens to be, but on what actually works as demonstrated by research, and I'm afraid that Gardner really does not meet that test.


Finally, I have to say that I agree with your assessment that educational theories are a fad. They are repackaged and sold as "new" when they often have a basis in older theories long forgotten. The pendulum swings and teachers jump on the bandwagon to keep themselves up to date with the newest "fashions". However, I would prefer to see teachers doing that then pulling out their "September" box and handing out the same tired worksheets year after year.

Interestingly, you are very judgmental of educational theory and I think you are wrong to dismiss those of us who appreciate the Science behind it (regardless of whether it is qualitative or quantitative) as insincere. The thing is you have to have something to cling to in this job, just like parenting, or you are no more effective then a sail flapping in the wind. Without any sort of rigging to steer you (general you) in some direction you will become paralyzed with analysis paralysis and your students will suffer without leadership. I think any teacher who questions philosophy and teaching methodology is taking a step in the right direction! We all try out new styles and toss the ones that don't work for us. No one is suggesting that one is better then another. To each his or her own...

I sincerely am interested in your personal philosophy. I'd love to hear more about it, but if it is taking this thread OT then PM me. I have a feeling I have already gone too far off the garden path. I have a specific interest in this since my graduate thesis was on this topic.

Whew! I hope that answers your questions. Bring on the flames!







:


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *newmom22*
Telling teachers that educational theory or philosophy is "crap" is like telling parents that parenting philosophy is nonsense. How can you parent without a philosophy?

First point: I didn't use the word "crap." Second, I didn't say all educational theory or philosophy was "crap," I said that Gardner's theories -- which, for the record and according to Gardner himself, were never intended for application in the educational system -- were "hooey." By no means do I believe that all educational philosophies are either hooey or crap, but I tend to need to see actual data as measured in unbiased studies over time before I actually implement it in my classroom or else I'm being entirely unprofessional. One would never want a surgeon to use an untried technique because it was the politically correct thing to do, and one should not expect a teacher to do the same.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *newmom22*
In order to do so, however, I will have to use some "edspeak" as it is the vernacular of our profession and is necessary to some extent in order to speak coherently about these issues. I'm not sure why you take issue with "edspeak" in proper context since all professionals have their own terminology for dialogue within the parameters of their "job".

I have a particular problem with edspeak -- and a related problem with the various shibboleths used in a variety of professions -- because the primary goal of any "terminology," for want of a better word, is not to communicate, but to obfuscate; not to clarify, but to obscure.

Edspeak, however, is distinctive in a variety of ways, specifically because its intent is not _just_ to obfuscate, but to do so in order to make the speaker sound more professional and more educated and more intelligent than she actually tends to be. Teachers suffer greatly from the fact that their profession is inhabited and taught by some of the least capable students and professors on any given campus, so in order to achieve that lovely professional glow, they dress up common-sense words and phrases in edspeak so that even the simplest task becomes buried in and obscured by the jawing jargon. Give me any edspeak term, and there is a simple, commonsense word or phrase that it actually _means_ and that real people actually use -- and, I will argue, the commonsense word or phrase tends to convey the meaning in a more concrete, specific, and succinct fashion than the edspeak ever could or does.

I'm very fond of concrete specifics and clear communication for a variety of reasons, not the least of which being that I feel no need to dress up what I do as a profession to make it sound more impressive or technical than it is. I do not teach "communication in a variety of language arts processes." I teach reading and writing.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *newmom22*
A Kindergarten scenario? Geez, I haven't taught primary in years, but here goes&#8230;

Generally speaking...Since said student is socially amiable, I would likely ensure that centers were an integral part of the day. They create an environment that permits students to work cooperatively or alone, according to individual preference. Also, it frees me up to work one on one with individual students throughout the day, as need be. I am also interested in Dr. William Glasser's finding that:

We learn
10 percent of what we read,
20 percent of what we hear,
30 percent of what we see,
50 percent of what we both see and hear,
70 percent of what is discussed with others,
80 percent of what we experience personally, and
95 percent of what we TEACH to someone else.

We must understand something in order to teach it and gifted students often struggle with explanations of their understanding. Centres allow these students an opportunity to solidify and make sense of their knowledge while socializing at the same time. Two valuable skills.

Ah. So what I'm actually hearing is this. Please correct me if I am wrong. If I were the parent of Hypothetical Johnny here, you would have HJ do the following:

1. Play by himself
2. Teach other kids
3. Not bother you while you're teaching the struggling ones.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *newmom22*
If the child was reading advanced text then let him continue to read advanced texts. The foundational skills of literacy still must be taught and it is unlikely that this child knows the conventions of print in the context of what s/he is reading.

What does this actually mean? The conventions of _print_, or the conventions of _literature_? Quite obviously, if you're referring to the blunt, mechanical act of _reading_ (edspeak: decoding), Hypothetical Johnny can certainly do that. Surely you don't think they're sitting there turning the thousand-odd pages of Tolkien one by one without knowing what the words mean?

Quote:


So instead of discussing the characters that are in whichever text "average kid" is reading, we would look at the protagonists/antagonists and their relationships within the story "HG" kid is reading.
_How_, exactly, would you "look at" the character relationships? By what means would this looking be accomplished? In short, how would you determine -- and by what _demonstrable or concrete means_ -- what the child knows or doesn't know about the characters in this book?

Quote:


Really, I don't think it is all that complicated. Take a skill and scaffold it for whatever level the learner is at. The individual attention and time spent with that learner is the most critical part of the equation.
I don't think it's all that complicated either, but the problem is that a teacher has only so much time during the day. A sustained discussion on a piece of literature can and does take a great deal of class time, and one of the problems that I have with heterogeneous classrooms is the fact that the teachers, for NCLB reasons that Canadians can blissfully count themselves free of, are compelled to spend any extra time with the lowest-scoring students in the classroom. I don't blame them for that, but if I were the parent of Hypothetical Johnny, I wouldn't be delighted by the fact that HJ was being left on his own to educate himself without significant challenge.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *newmom22*
Every study I've ever read says that spelling tests do not produce long term retention of correct spelling. I don't use them. If the child was spelling that many difficult words correctly and their vocabulary was equally as high then they would have more time to focus on their creative expression rather then technical errors. However, in Kindergarten I would not be correcting any spelling since it is developmentally normal for children at this age to use invented spelling. As an extension, I have many dice games that the child could play to expand their understanding of our bizarre English language rules and spelling irregularities.

So you'd have Johnny playing dice games.

How would that _actually_ challenge him?
What new words currently existing in the English language would that _actually_ teach him?


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *newmom22*
Interestingly, you are very judgmental of educational theory

This is a serious misreading. I am not judgmental of all educational theory as a whole. I am very judgmental of _unproven_ educational theory that is based on insufficient research, not intended for use in the classroom, and generally ineffective as an educational method.

Quote:


and I think you are wrong to dismiss those of us who appreciate the Science behind it (regardless of whether it is qualitative or quantitative) as insincere.
Again, I am afraid you have misread my statements. Please quote precisely where I dismissed anyone as insincere, actually, much less people who appreciate the science behind educational theory. Indeed, if you consult what I said earlier regarding Gardner, you'll see that I distrust and dislike his theory precisely _because_ it is bad science, and moreover, gave you the benefit of the doubt precisely _for_ being sincere.

Quote:

The thing is you have to have something to cling to in this job, just like parenting, or you are no more effective then a sail flapping in the wind. Without any sort of rigging to steer you (general you) in some direction you will become paralyzed with analysis paralysis and your students will suffer without leadership. I think any teacher who questions philosophy and teaching methodology is taking a step in the right direction! We all try out new styles and toss the ones that don't work for us. No one is suggesting that one is better then another. To each his or her own...
Some _should_ suggest that one is better than another. Although I certainly agree that no one method works with all students all the time, there is a substantial body of research to demonstrate that some techniques work well most of the time and others do not. Therefore, logically, one definitely IS better than another for the majority.

Again, to yank this discussion back on topic here, I do have the feeling that you mean what you say and that you're a conscientious teacher who cares about her students, but with all due respect, what concerns me greatly about the hypothetical gifted student in your inclusive classroom is that you're not providing this student with actual challenge to improve and stretch his skills or teaching him new things. I apologize for being blunt here, but you're really _not_, at least in the data you gave me.

For what it's worth, I think most teachers would and do respond as you did, and also for what it's worth, I think it's very difficult for many teachers to have a HG or PG kid in their class because that child is so different from the norm that the teacher's having to scramble around looking for what amounts to an entirely different curriculum for them. However, speaking as a parent here, the centers-and-games solutions you're proposing really wouldn't teach anything _new_. Yes, you'd have them teaching others and -- to slide in some edspeak here -- metacognitively reflecting on their own learning process, but that _doesn't actually teach them new content_. It doesn't give them anything new to read, any new math concept to learn, any new writing skill to practice. Bottom line, you'd have them learn better what they already know. Very sorry, but that only goes so far so long.

Post script: I have a very strong objection to using gifted children as peer tutors. For one, they're not union.







For another, and more seriously, the research demonstrates abundantly that this solution only works for children who are advanced or mildly gifted -- one step ahead of their classmates. The classmates perceive the advanced student's achievement as a realizable goal and don't feel patronized, and the advanced student really does clarify their understanding of a concept. However, with the HG or PG student, the struggling student feels talked down to and "stupid," while the HG student feels penalized for learning fast and then socially excluded otherwise.

Again, this is said with all due respect to you. I have no doubt that for the vast majority of the students in your class, you're a great teacher.


----------



## sophmama (Sep 11, 2004)

: This discussion is becoming quite interesting to read.


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *newmom22*
So instead of discussing the characters that are in whichever text "average kid" is reading, we would look at the protagonists/antagonists and their relationships within the story "HG" kid is reading. Really, I don't think it is all that complicated.

Umm, I went through the Ontario school system and have friends working there, and I would be very suprised if the majority of K teachers in Ontario even know what an antagonist or protagonist is (and lest you think I'm picking on Ontario, I'm not). I'm assuming you've either read LOTR or seen the movie; what if HJ's reading choices was less familiar?

It looks like you're really talking about keeping HJ in a K level class to be used as an unpaid assistant for the sake of a few minutes each day of one on one time. Even with a teacher as dedicated as you appear to be (and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt on the antagonist/protagonist thing







) that doesn't appear to be very beneficial to HJ. CB has already addressed most of the other issues, but it's worth reiterating that what is good for the moderately gifted child is not necessarily of benefit to HG/EG/PG kids.


----------



## pookel (May 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
However, with the HG or PG student, the struggling student feels talked down to and "stupid," while the HG student feels penalized for learning fast and then socially excluded otherwise.

In my experience, the biggest problem with being used as a peer tutor is that as soon as the teacher's back is turned, the struggling student turns to the gifted student and says, "you're smart, this is easy for you, can't you just do my work for me? I don't really want to learn this." And if the gifted student tries to say, "no, that's not my job, I'm just supposed to help you," they're resented as being on the side of the teacher. (Which means that most of them pick up these social dynamics pretty quickly and get in the habit of just doing the other kid's work in situations like these instead of actually teaching them anything.)


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pookel*
In my experience, the biggest problem with being used as a peer tutor is that as soon as the teacher's back is turned, the struggling student turns to the gifted student and says, "you're smart, this is easy for you, can't you just do my work for me? I don't really want to learn this." And if the gifted student tries to say, "no, that's not my job, I'm just supposed to help you," they're resented as being on the side of the teacher. (Which means that most of them pick up these social dynamics pretty quickly and get in the habit of just doing the other kid's work in situations like these instead of actually teaching them anything.)









This was me all the way through university. And how I hated those group projects; everyone else relied on me for the grade. If I hadn't had to keep my scholarship, I'd have been tempted to write up something truly ridiculous and let them all fail. Bwah, ha, ha ha.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NoHiddenFees*







This was me all the way through university. And how I hated those group projects; everyone else relied on me for the grade. If I hadn't had to keep my scholarship, I'd have been tempted to write up something truly ridiculous and let them all fail. Bwah, ha, ha ha.

Yeah, yeah, same here, which partly explains my prejudice (and then the research substantiated it). I'm not claiming any particular giftedness for myself, but I am saying that I hated being the group donor for the brain vampires, KWIM?


----------



## teachma (Dec 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
I'm not claiming any particular giftedness for myself, but I am saying that I hated being the group donor for the brain vampires, KWIM?

I liked it...after all I was the only one I could trust to do it right!

And back to the topic...this really IS getting interesting. CB, you don't need edspeak; your posts, in your natural voice, usually come across as the epitome of eloquence. And so natural.

What about Guided Reading at the elementary level? This requires stratified (heterogeneous) groupings at appropriate literature for the students at each level. In my classes, groups at the "average" level usually consist of 5-6 students. In the lower and higher ranges, smaller groups. Occasionally, a student from a lower grade level will bump up into my classroom for readng, to work with peers at her level. I generally feel I do meet the needs of my gifted and accellerated readers; moreover, their parents feel the same, and the students are lively participants in class. But, I feel that most of my skill as a teacher to gifted readers comes to me naturally, in my questioning style and my desire to engage the students in meaningful written and oral dialogue, because I generally love the stuff myself. I am not sure how a teacher can be "taught" to teach this way...it's just in me.

I make no claims for bring a great math instructor to gifted students. But I am super flexible and willing to go with parents' suggestions about how to tailor the program to their students' specific needs. I am open-minded and wil listen to anything reasonable.

Just looked at the title of this thread...how did we get HERE?


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *teachma*
I liked it...after all I was the only one I could trust to do it right!

And back to the topic...this really IS getting interesting. CB, you don't need edspeak; your posts, in your natural voice, usually come across as the epitome of eloquence. And so natural.

What about Guided Reading at the elementary level? This requires stratified (heterogeneous) groupings at appropriate literature for the students at each level. In my classes, groups at the "average" level usually consist of 5-6 students. In the lower and higher ranges, smaller groups. Occasionally, a student from a lower grade level will bump up into my classroom for readng, to work with peers at her level. I generally feel I do meet the needs of my gifted and accellerated readers; moreover, their parents feel the same, and the students are lively participants in class. But, I feel that most of my skill as a teacher to gifted readers comes to me naturally, in my questioning style and my desire to engage the students in meaningful written and oral dialogue, because I generally love the stuff myself. I am not sure how a teacher can be "taught" to teach this way...it's just in me.


Well, if Hypothetical Johnny were with other kids whose reading level was comparable, I think it would be great because then the teacher could conduct a group discussion with "meaningful written and oral dialogue" and constant reference to the actual text, e.g., "Why does Jack go up the beanstalk a third time?" "Because he's greedy." "What in the text makes you think so?"

Quote:

I make no claims for bring a great math instructor to gifted students. But I am super flexible and willing to go with parents' suggestions about how to tailor the program to their students' specific needs. I am open-minded and wil listen to anything reasonable.
I think acceleration might work here too -- I see it not as a panacea (nothing is!) but it's the one that causes the least amount of grief and extra planning for teachers: they can just teach what they're teaching already to the upper-grade group and work with the accelerated student if needed -- and it may not be needed. I wish more teachers were as open to that option as you obviously are: speaking for myself, I would have no problem as a senior AP teacher in high school with teaching a Hypothetical Johnny who was still reckoning his age in the single digits.

Quote:

Just looked at the title of this thread...how did we get HERE?








!


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Do your kindergarten really do that much "teaching" like the teacher sits there and explains concepts to the kids for alot of the day?

At my school that is not how it seems to be. First of all in kindergarten, there is nothing being "taught" by the teacher. It is heavily project based. "Let's build an art museum" kind of thing. I don't think a social HG kid would be that much better or worse at making some of the decisions that are made then most of the kids. (how many paintings should we put up. for how long do we dispaly them...theme...work on painting etc...) Other than that the short 2 hr day is made up of being read to by the librarian (a real storyteller, no matter your level you'd enjoy her stories, I do), show and tell, computer time (easily adapted to the needs of the HG, just ask the district for an appopriate level program, my hg niece got a Zoo Tycoon program that she worked her way through and then a Sims program, and play time running around like a maniac on the play ground and then a nature walk.


----------



## lasciate (May 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *newmom22*
A Kindergarten scenario? Geez, I haven't taught primary in years, but here goes&#8230;

Generally speaking...Since said student is socially amiable, I would likely ensure that centers were an integral part of the day. They create an environment that permits students to work cooperatively or alone, according to individual preference. Also, it frees me up to work one on one with individual students throughout the day, as need be. I am also interested in Dr. William Glasser's finding that:

We learn
10 percent of what we read,
20 percent of what we hear,
30 percent of what we see,
50 percent of what we both see and hear,
70 percent of what is discussed with others,
80 percent of what we experience personally, and
95 percent of what we TEACH to someone else.

We must understand something in order to teach it and gifted students often struggle with explanations of their understanding. Centres allow these students an opportunity to solidify and make sense of their knowledge while socializing at the same time. Two valuable skills.

I haven't the slightest clue what centres are, but I think it's unfair to both children to make a highly gifted child peer tutor an average child. If the HG child can't easily explain what they already know, the average child isn't going to learn from them and will probably end up calling the HG child stupid and teacher's pet. I don't see why people assume HG kids would be good tutors - they don't usually know how they themselves learn, let alone how someone else needs the material presented in order to learn.


----------



## meemee (Mar 30, 2005)

here is one of my biggest issue. being HG, MG or whatever doesnt make them good teachers does it?!!! why does one assume that just because you can figure something out that you would be able to explain it to others.


----------



## lasciate (May 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *meemee*
here is one of my biggest issue. being HG, MG or whatever doesnt make them good teachers does it?!!! why does one assume that just because you can figure something out that you would be able to explain it to others.

Based on my experience and observations, I think HG kids would be lousy teachers at best. But I also think peer mentoring/tutoring and group work is all garbage.


----------



## orca (Jun 13, 2005)

Sorry, CB. It was this post I was referring to&#8230;

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna*
I agree. Gardner has a tiny bit of usefulness as I see it- remind teachers that they need to do DIFFERENT types of activities- sometimes get kids up and moving, talk, show, demonstrate, encourage practice, let them talk and teach. Beyond that, like so much education theory, 'tis crap IMO.

-Angela


----------



## orca (Jun 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
Ah. So what I'm actually hearing is this. Please correct me if I am wrong. If I were the parent of Hypothetical Johnny here, you would have HJ do the following:

1. Play by himself
2. Teach other kids
3. Not bother you while you're teaching the struggling ones.

This is unfair. You set up the scenario with a social child who interacts well with others. I based my response on that information assuming the child was agreeable to the situation. I totally agree that many children are not interested in peer tutoring and I would never ask a child to "teach" on my behalf if they were not already chomping at the bit to do so. That was the easiest response considering I have limited time right now and wanted to be sure to answer your questions. Many kids enjoy the opportunity and are good at it. It was just a suggestion&#8230;


----------



## orca (Jun 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
I have a particular problem with edspeak -- and a related problem with the various shibboleths used in a variety of professions -- because the primary goal of any "terminology," for want of a better word, is not to communicate, but to obfuscate; not to clarify, but to obscure.

I'm very fond of concrete specifics and clear communication for a variety of reasons, not the least of which being that I feel no need to dress up what I do as a profession to make it sound more impressive or technical than it is. I do not teach "communication in a variety of language arts processes." I teach reading and writing.

I see what you are saying about "edspeak" becoming a barrier between parents and teachers, but the vast majority of "edspeak" is made up of acronyms and catch phrases that best describe the scenario at hand. I'm sure anyone new to this board would be boggled by the abbreviations and terms used here to succinctly describe commonly used phrases. Once you spend a little time reading up and asking questions you can join in. I think it's the same thing in educational circles. Imagine a doctor coming out to you and telling you your loved one was "very sick" but refused to indulge you in the details for fear of making you feel inferior or overwhelmed. You would demand a proper diagnosis, even if you didn't understand the true meaning of what the doctor was saying at the time, and then would read your heart out to know everything about it.

I think there is certainly a time and a place for "edspeak" and communication with other teachers is at the top of my list of appropriate contexts.


----------



## teachma (Dec 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
Well, if Hypothetical Johnny were with other kids whose reading level was comparable, I think it would be great because then the teacher could conduct a group discussion with "meaningful written and oral dialogue" and constant reference to the actual text, e.g., "Why does Jack go up the beanstalk a third time?" "Because he's greedy." "What in the text makes you think so?"

Scary...you've been lurking somewhere inside my classroom recently!


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *newmom22*
This is unfair. You set up the scenario with a social child who interacts well with others. I based my response on that information assuming the child was agreeable to the situation.

But interacting well with others and enjoying or liking to teach them are not the same thing, especially since right away, that establishes a hierarchical relationship based on intellect that few children are comfortable with on either end.

Secondly, haven't we all heard how class time isn't for socialization? I'm only being slightly facetious here; I don't think class time is primarily for socialization at all, though that might occur. I think it's primarily for _learning and practicing new knowledge and skills_. A child may be "agreeable" to the prospect of being an unpaid, nonunion, untrained teacher's aide who's not learning anything new while performing a free peer tutorial service, but _that doesn't make it professionally or ethically right_.

Quote:

I totally agree that many children are not interested in peer tutoring and I would never ask a child to "teach" on my behalf if they were not already chomping at the bit to do so. That was the easiest response considering I have limited time right now and wanted to be sure to answer your questions. Many kids enjoy the opportunity and are good at it. It was just a suggestion&#8230;
Whether chomping at the bit or no, the research is very clear that HG kid tutor paired with struggling learner is a dreadful combination and it doesn't help either one. Moreover, like I said earlier, it doesn't make it ethically or professionally right. Finally, you're hearing several posters offer their anecdotal evidence as students in this situation, and in all frankness, it parallels mine.

All students deserve to _learn new content_ in a classroom, not just be left largely on their own to play at centers for a large part of the day or to tutor their peers and not learn anything new. It's simply unfair. Just to be clear here, I think you might have thought (and maybe still think) that this method appropriately meets the needs of a hypothetical highly gifted child, but I'm trying to show you that it really _doesn't_, despite what I honestly believe is a sincere desire to have a class in which all different types of students are accomodated.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *newmom22*
I think it's the same thing in educational circles. Imagine a doctor coming out to you and telling you your loved one was "very sick" but refused to indulge you in the details for fear of making you feel inferior or overwhelmed. You would demand a proper diagnosis, even if you didn't understand the true meaning of what the doctor was saying at the time, and then would read your heart out to know everything about it.

I think there is certainly a time and a place for "edspeak" and communication with other teachers is at the top of my list of appropriate contexts.

But it's not quite like that -- using edspeak is more like a doctor explaining that they've discovered a benign lipoma on C3 that needs excision due to cellular dysplasia and not explaining what the heck she just said: you have a fatty tumor on your neck and they need to cut it out before it gets all out of whack.


----------



## orca (Jun 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
Secondly, haven't we all heard how class time isn't for socialization? I'm only being slightly facetious here; I don't think class time is primarily for socialization at all, though that might occur. I think it's primarily for _learning and practicing new knowledge and skills_.

All students deserve to _learn new content_ in a classroom, not just be left largely on their own to play at centers for a large part of the day or to tutor their peers and not learn anything new. It's simply unfair. Just to be clear here, I think you might have thought (and maybe still think) that this method appropriately meets the needs of a hypothetical highly gifted child, but I'm trying to show you that it really _doesn't_, despite what I honestly believe is a sincere desire to have a class in which all different types of students are accomodated.

We are not talking about your high school English class here. You gave me a scenario in which a highly gifted child was in a regular Kindergarten classroom. I'm not sure I'd want to see what a Kindergarten that offered no socialization or play time looked like. Definitely not something I'd want to be involved in.

I think we disagree on what it looks like IRL to have a cooperative learning environment in a Primary classroom. Frankly, if you have not seen it in action it would be hard to describe the beauty and rhythm of the children all working and playing together. We all learn from one another. It is no different with children. They observe, listen and copy one another all the time. (With good and bad results!) Some children seek out opportunities to teach their peers and others shy away for various reasons. I think peer tutoring works wonderfully if everyone involved is agreeable and willing. Remember we are talking about a Kindergarten class here, these kids are not teaching their peers abstract or difficult concepts. They often simply seek to clarify what may not have been understood the first time.

I know that this is just a conversation about a topic that has no definitive answers, but it distresses me how pessimistic everyone seems to be. I know many, many teachers who work day and night to ensure their students needs are being met. (And yes, I'm aware that not all needs can be met all the time&#8230 Perhaps the situation is much worse in America, but I've (thankfully) always worked in schools with terrific parental support. I can't imagine how disheartening it would be to be constantly bombarded with negative stereotypes about your chosen profession.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *teachma*
Scary...you've been lurking somewhere inside my classroom recently!

How I wish your discussion style were the norm...


----------



## orca (Jun 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
But it's not quite like that -- using edspeak is more like a doctor explaining that they've discovered a benign lipoma on C3 that needs excision due to cellular dysplasia and not explaining what the heck she just said: you have a fatty tumor on your neck and they need to cut it out before it gets all out of whack.

I agree. But can you imagine a Doctor actually speaking to you like that? I'm sure many would appreciate such candor, but others would be taken aback and the Doctor reprimanded for having an unprofessional bedside manner. Dr. House anyone?


----------



## sophmama (Sep 11, 2004)

Anecdotal personal experience:

As someone who was a student somewhere on the G spectrum (probably not HG or PG I think), I loved volunteering to tutor kids because I always saw a lot of progress in the kids I worked with. At times I actually "student taught" some classes. Teachers had me grading their papers as punishment for talking in class (funny that's not the same punishment other kids received). If I was absent teachers would tell me I didn't have to make up work because they knew that I knew the material and that it was a waste of their time and mine to grade papers that we both knew that I knew the answers. I often graded my own class's homework and tests (other than my own).

I RESENTED group projects with a passion. All the other kids got so excited to have me in their group because they knew I'd do all the work if they refused to do it and it would get a top grade.

In my dh's grad school classes he's sometimes required to do group projects, but the students also give each other grades on how they did in the group, so it helps. But I don't think that could work well with younger kids - the peer pressure to not tell if they got dumped on.

*Question:*

What do those who prefer inclusion feel can be done about peer pressure to not be seen excelling? Even in some of the more 'pro-education' classrooms that I was involved in, it was never 'cool' to be the smartest kid in the room and I ALWAYS played dumb a good portion of the time so other kids could participate. Teachers asked me to not raise my hand so much so other kids could 'have a chance'. Does the inclusive classroom not promote self-'dumbing-down'?


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *newmom22*
We are not talking about your high school English class here.

No, we're talking about a FAR more important grade than the one I teach, one that sets the tone for a child's school experience to follow.

Quote:


You gave me a scenario in which a highly gifted child was in a regular Kindergarten classroom. I'm not sure I'd want to see what a Kindergarten that offered no socialization or play time looked like. Definitely not something I'd want to be involved in.
Nope, nope







, I'm crying foul because this is out of bounds. You're engaging in a straw man fallacy, specifically where you accuse me of an extreme position (e.g., "no socialization") and attack me for having this extreme position. Nope, dirty pool and I'm callin' you on it.

Here's what I actually said: _"I don't think class time is *primarily* for socialization at all, *though that might occur.* I think it's *primarily* for learning and practicing new knowledge and skills._ "

A few things:

1. Notice how I did not say "no" socialization.
2. The *primary* job of a school is to educate: that is, to impart and practice new knowledge and skills. It is not to socialize.
3. *The agents of socialization are not the government.* They are the child's parents and family, friends and relatives, associates, co-worshipers, and others whom the family includes and with whom the child interacts. It is not the job of a hired government employee to socialize a child.

Quote:

I think we disagree on what it looks like IRL to have a cooperative learning environment in a Primary classroom.
Sorry, but the "You don't know what you're talking about, so my argument is unassailable" method won't work here either, because despite the fact that I do teach high school, my mother, brother, SIL, and others are primary-school teachers and therefore I'm more than merely passingly familiar with cooperative grouping at the primary level and how and why it works and why it doesn't.

Quote:

Frankly, if you have not seen it in action it would be hard to describe the beauty and rhythm of the children all working and playing together. We all learn from one another. It is no different with children. They observe, listen and copy one another all the time. (With good and bad results!) Some children seek out opportunities to teach their peers and others shy away for various reasons. I think peer tutoring works wonderfully if everyone involved is agreeable and willing.
But it is unethical to do it _as a substitute for learning_ and as a way of keeping a highly gifted child occupied. Moreover, it is unprofessional for one good reason: _it doesn't work_.

I regret that I am apparently calling into question a dearly-held part of your teaching philosophy, specifically the idea that children of all ability ranges can be successfully accomodated in a heterogeneous classroom, specifically yours. I am absolutely sure that the techniques of collaborative learning and peer tutoring have worked well almost all of the time with few if any exceptions during the entirety of your career, and that makes perfect sense: for the kids in the center of the bell curve and to a little left and right, it _does_ work pretty well if it's well-managed, and I'm assuming yours are.

However, kids like Hypothetical Johnny change the rules. It's like quantum physics: the ideas we held to be immutable truths in the macroworld don't work at the quantum level, and it's the same with highly gifted kids. Techniques that always worked with other kids fail bitterly with them; grouping ideas that always worked don't work, and so on. I don't blame you for thinking inclusion will work, like I said, because statistically speaking, a teacher might teach for an entire career and _never even once_ have a child at the level of a Hypothetical Johnny in her class, ever. I can't blame you for thinking that what works with every other kid will work with him. Unfortunately, though, it won't.

Quote:

Remember we are talking about a Kindergarten class here, these kids are not teaching their peers abstract or difficult concepts. They often simply seek to clarify what may not have been understood the first time.

I know that this is just a conversation about a topic that has no definitive answers, but it distresses me how pessimistic everyone seems to be. I know many, many teachers who work day and night to ensure their students needs are being met. (And yes, I'm aware that not all needs can be met all the time&#8230 Perhaps the situation is much worse in America, but I've (thankfully) always worked in schools with terrific parental support. I can't imagine how disheartening it would be to be constantly bombarded with negative stereotypes about your chosen profession.








Regrettably, the reason negative stereotypes become stereotypes at all is because they tend to be true for people more often than not. With sincere regret, I say that one of my negative stereotypes has been abundantly confirmed, specifically that teachers with a HG kid in their classroom basically turn them into peer tutors or have them work on their own while the teachers aid the struggling learners. In the meantime, the HG kid learns almost nothing.

This is unethical, plain and simple. Every child, regardless of ability, deserves to learn new content and skills in a classroom, but from the data you've presented, that's really not what would happen to a HG kid in your classroom. Unfortunately, this stereotype is one very strong reason why many parents of HG kids I know both IRL and OL are homeschooling their children: they want their children to _learn new stuff_.

Listen, you may never have a kid like that. Probably not. I'd lay money on your never having a kid like that even if you keep teaching full-time for the next forty years. However, if you ever do, what I am sincerely hoping with all my heart is even if you never remember this conversation at all, that you say to yourself, "So, what _new_ skills and knowledge can I teach this child?" and seek to address that very ZPD you began this conversation by invoking.

Best of luck. I mean that.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *newmom22*
I agree. But can you imagine a Doctor actually speaking to you like that? I'm sure many would appreciate such candor, but others would be taken aback and the Doctor reprimanded for having an unprofessional bedside manner. Dr. House anyone?









If that's what is needed to communicate the truth of the situation, they ARE being professional. When my father was in the pharmaceutical business, they learned various slang terms for conditions or diseases in order to communicate with a variety of patients, including the fact that many of them referred to "alzheimer's disease" as "Al's Hammer disease," and so on. The point was, whether you refer to it as "sickle cell anemia" or "sick as hell anemia," _you need to communicate_. Doctors are being unprofessional if they use various Latinate words and phrases to communicate their social and intellectual superiority to their patients at the expense of clarity -- not that anyone who's ever had a baby in a hospital in this country would know what _that's_ like. Snort.


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sophmama*
What do those who prefer inclusion feel can be done about peer pressure to not be seen excelling? Even in some of the more 'pro-education' classrooms that I was involved in, it was never 'cool' to be the smartest kid in the room and I ALWAYS played dumb a good portion of the time so other kids could participate. Teachers asked me to not raise my hand so much so other kids could 'have a chance'. Does the inclusive classroom not promote self-'dumbing-down'?


I don't know where you grew up or live, but where I live, an upper middle class Jewish suburb, being smart is very important. Everyone wants to excell. Going to an Ivy League university is considered the goal.

Being smart does not make you "cool" by itself, but most of the the "cool" kids are smart and many are gifted or hg. It's considered a good thing in a town filled with doctors/scientists and computer "geek" multi-millionaires!

No ONE "dumbs" themself down, not even the couple of pg kids. And having grown up here, I can say I never heard of a teacher telling anyone not to raise their hand "so much"


----------



## sophmama (Sep 11, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya44*
I don't know where you grew up or live, but where I live, an upper middle class Jewish suburb, being smart is very important. Being smart does not make you "cool" by itself, but most of the the "cool" kids are smart and many are gifted or hg. It's considered a good thing in a town filled with doctors/scientists and computer "geek" multi-millionaires!

Anti-intellectualism is rampant in many parts of America. I would love to have grown up somewhere where it wasn't. I've never actually been anywhere that it wasn't atleast mildly at play. (And I have been many places. I've lived in 7 states in a variety of cultural/economic situations.) Look at the things American culture is obsessed about - Pop stars, fads, ...


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sophmama*
Anti-intellectualism is rampant in many parts of America. I would love to have grown up somewhere where it wasn't. I've never actually been anywhere that it wasn't atleast mildly at play. (And I have been many places.) Look at the things American culture is obsessed about - Pop stars, fads, ...

Maybe its a Jewish thing. Every place I have lived has a heavily Jewish population and a very Jewish culuture. Anti-intellectualism is an anathma to this culture. So you must not have been anywhere where this culture is the dominant one. I assure you, they exist!


----------



## sophmama (Sep 11, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya44*
Maybe its a Jewish thing. Every place I have lived has a heavily Jewish population and a very Jewish culuture. Anti-intellectualism is an anathma to this culture. So you must not have been anywhere where this culture is the dominant one. I assure you, they exist!

If more cultures valued the mind that way, I think life would be much better. I have only visited NYC once and it's the only place I know of in off the top of my head that is famous for its Jewish population. I do recall Jewish people I've known over my life have been more interesting to me overall. I live in a metropolitan area now, but even though the population here is composed of more highly educated people than anywhere else I've lived, many, many people, even those with Master's degrees, don't want to be seen as intelligent. It's considered 'snotty' in every place I've lived to show that you have a larger vocabulary or superior reasoning abilities that overshadow another's. You can drop a lengthy word or two here or there, but only with the right people. I married into a family of teachers and my dh is the only one who is passionate about his subject matter outside of the classroom. (Although to be fair they express care about their students often).

In many places in America, an ideal of humility is a central character trait ground into children from birth. That includes hiding your greatest abilities and being shamed by all you meet if you don't. Even as an adult, in many environments, I limit my speech to what is culturally acceptable for the audience. It is so rare to find people unabashed about using more thorough language and scientific arguments that I am surprised to discover them. I'm afraid I feel a bit silly when I have really engaging discussions like that because it's so rare to encounter. I'm not that polished as that is not a cultural norm for many.

I wish I'd have grown up Jewish.







:


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sophmama*
If more cultures valued the mind that way, I think life would be much better. I have only visited NYC once and it's the only place I know of in off the top of my head that is famous for its Jewish population. I do recall Jewish people I've known over my life have been more interesting to me overall. I live in a metropolitan area now, but even though the population here is composed of more highly educated people than anywhere else I've lived, many, many people, even those with Master's degrees, don't want to be seen as intelligent. It's considered 'snotty' in every place I've lived to show that you have a larger vocabulary or superior reasoning abilities that overshadow another's. You can drop a lengthy word or two here or there, but only with the right people. I married into a family of teachers and my dh is the only one who is passionate about his subject matter outside of the classroom. (Although to be fair they express care about their students often).

In many places in America, an ideal of humility is a central character trait ground into children from birth. That includes hiding your greatest abilities and being shamed by all you meet if you don't. Even as an adult, in many environments, I limit my speech to what is culturally acceptable for the audience. It is so rare to find people unabashed about using more thorough language and scientific arguments that I am surprised to discover them. I'm afraid I feel a bit silly when I have really engaging discussions like that because it's so rare to encounter. I'm not that polished as that is not a cultural norm for many.

I wish I'd have grown up Jewish.







:


It defintiely makes it easier to be living in a community where smarts are highly valued. Having grown up and worked in such an environment its easy to forget that most of the country isn't like this.


----------



## pookel (May 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya44*
Maybe its a Jewish thing. Every place I have lived has a heavily Jewish population and a very Jewish culuture. Anti-intellectualism is an anathma to this culture. So you must not have been anywhere where this culture is the dominant one. I assure you, they exist!

This makes sense to me. Although my family isn't that religious and I grew up in an area with very few Jews and never went to any kind of services, I found that Jewish youth group events were the only place I could go to other than academic summer camps where I wasn't seen as weird and geeky and too smart. It was almost cool in this culture to be extra geeky, like the Woody Allen stereotype. (And in my experience, we were all in awe and a little unnerved by the Israeli Jews, because *they* these tough, strong, badasses instead of being skinny little geeks like us. But that's neither here nor there. It's 4 a.m. and I'm sick and rambling.)


----------



## teachma (Dec 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*

All students deserve to _learn new content_ in a classroom, not just be left largely on their own to play at centers for a large part of the day or to tutor their peers and not learn anything new.

This hits the nail on the head for me, as a teacher, anyway. The belief that a teacher should meet her students where they are and take them futher guides my practice. It's a HUGE challenge, and exhausting. But it's what I feel I signed up for way back when I selected a career.

However, I will now express what I think is a very unpopular sentiment. For my almost 6 year old son, I have different goals. I'm honestly okay with his teacher(s) exposing him to limited new content in the classroom. He is a child who struggles with peer relationships and has anxiety, and I before he entered kindergarten, I dreamed of his school as... a place in which he is guided as he learns to interact with other children, an environment in which he learned to open up and take risks, perhaps shed some of the diabling perfectionism that prevented him from attempting new activities...along these lines. I am confident that I can supplemet the academic part of his education, and in that way, I guess I kind of home-school part time. I would never rely on the public system to satisfy all of my child's needs, whether a gifted or average student, or one in need of support. And by the way, his teacher more than lived up to my expectations last year.

I guess I do believe there is a difference between the gifted kid in kindergarten and the one in high school. In the early grades, some of the "content" is, legtimately, social skills, etc. Whether you think it should be is another story, but peruse the curricula of many public districts, and you'll see those skills included in the younger grade levels.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

I am considered gifted (Mensa qualified), and I agree with the criticism of the way the "gifted" label is so freely applied and has become a bourgeois status symbol rather than an actual educational designation. I do believe that giftedness exists, and that gifted students have special educational needs, but I don't think it's a medical condition. I think there are too many medical diagnoses in our society as it is, and, honestly, I see no reason why gifted people should only be recognized if giftedness is considered a medical diagnosis. It is not. There is nothing wrong with us; we do not need to be "treated" or "cured."

I would also question whether the problems suffered disproportionately by gifted people are more or less exclusive to the school environment. My giftedness caused me plenty of problems in school, both academic and social, but less so in college, and hardly at all since I've graduated. Perhaps others' experiences are different. But the elements of school that are problematic for the gifted, specifically, being expected to conform to a boring, illogical curriculum beneath one's level and being expected to blend in socially with one's age group, would not apply (or at least would not apply as much) to someone outside the conventional school system. So rather than saying that gifted people have a condition that causes them to have problems in school, perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the school system makes life difficult for gifted kids.

At some point, I would like to see society recognize that institutional education of children is a miserable failure which should be abandoned in favor of something better. The classroom model is an efficient way of teaching a specific subject to a large group of adults, but as a primary socializing agent of young children, it is inadequate at best. Of course, the trend is for more and more school at earlier and earlier ages, so I predict the list of "medical conditions" causing children to have problems with school will continue to expand, with very little mainstream consideration of the possibility that school itself is the problem.


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Where I live the ONLY purpose of kindergarten is socalization and learning to use some basic school tools, like the computer (not how to use "a computer", but how to navigatet the in house system at the school) the library (rules, checking in and out which is self done)

There are some letter and number related acitivities (putting the dinosaurs in alphabetical order in the just built dino museum....Finding objects in magazines for every letter of the alphabet... more advance learners are urged to find objects that are meaningful to them and then building elablorate and beautiful collages(which is the kind of project that anyone of any level could enjoy).

There is no need for peer led learning.

Even in much of the upper primary grades so much of what is done is not "conventional" "learning.

Here is a typical third grade project: Learn about the different planets through assigned reading. Different books for different level kids. (Highest level is seventh grade). Then write a post card from your planet home. Include information about your planet and what it is like there. Explain what kind of devices that you are using to protect you from the elements. Draw pictues and diagrams of your devices as the front of your postcard.

Next take the post card to the post office for a field trip. Learn about the differnt kinds of postage and how mail is sorted and delivered from postmaster.

Finally kids have to work together from clues to figure out where a missing space ship is. The kids are told that there are "false leads" mixed in and they have to sort things out. I have a friend whose son is pg. One of the things my friend loved about it was that it taught her son, how to work with others and to value the skills others brought to the table. While he was able to use his high level mathmatical skills to figure out where the probe "should have been" according to the messages sent out by the "lost in space" crew, it was a smart (but "not gifted") little girl in his group who said "maybe they are so scared they are mixing up the numbers when they send out their messages" She was right!


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Boongirl:

You responded to me pages ago, ds was in the hospital this week, and I have not been back here until today.

Briefly:

I was objecting to the comparison of high and low IQ as being equal in value. You can go back and read my post and see that I quoted the statement I objected too. I see this was addressed by Charles Baudelaire in detail while I was gone...ie. the Volvo crowd and their "gifted and talented" high achieving bumper stickers.

I do believe in nurture over nature and I think there is a wealth of evidence to support me. The correlation between poverty and low academic performance is strong. You can take that however you want, but I am less inclined than some here to believe that IQ scores are fixed at birth.

Quote:

My position is that EVERY child deserves to be able to learn. Every child who attends school deserves to have new material introduced that they don't already know and that they are capable of learning. When a kid is ready to learn calculus they deserve to be allowed to learn calculus no matter how old they are because learning should be a basic right of all children in school.
I've said this at least two dozen times over the last 30 pages. Do you realize that?

Quote:

Obviously we are nowhere near that for kids at any IQ level - but for some kids we are farther from hitting the mark than we are for others.
I don't think IQ is a realiable measure of needs. I think the problem lies in our faith that intelligence is linear, and that we can teach along a predermined continuum and still meet the real needs of any child.

Oh, you mentioned the MRI scans, to which I say, good, get a name for the brain function so you can identify it and end the use of value loaded terms like "gifted".


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Hey, is this thread longer than the Duggar thread now?


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
I do believe in nurture over nature and I think there is a wealth of evidence to support me. The correlation between poverty and low academic performance is strong. You can take that however you want, but I am less inclined than some here to believe that IQ scores are fixed at birth.

I'm sure that parents of children with low IQ's or academic achievement (which is actually what you're talking about) will be lining up to support your belief that it's primarily nurture.

Research is pretty clear that it's both, but not to the degree you are suggesting. WRT intelligence, we're born with a potential range. Nutrition, early intellectual stimulation (I'm not talking academics), exposure to environmental toxins, certain illnesses, physical abuse and other factors can affect where we end up on the range (though IIRC, like personality traits, this becomes less true as we age). There are also prenatal and early childhood factors that afftect gene expression (level and timing of testosterone exposure in the uterus is one). No amount of nurture will move us up to the next range, but it can certainly have an effect on achievement. Since most people fall fewer than 2 standard deviations of normal (i.e. ranges of potential all bunched up together), the correlation between SES and achievement (and to some degree, IQ) is not surprising. In this thread, however, we're talking about children who are more than 2 standard deviations from the norm. No amount of coaching or nurturing will turn a moderately gifted child into a highly gifted one any more than it could turn a child with and IQ of 110 into a highly gifted child (though it can have an effect on achievement).


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NoHiddenFees*
No amount of coaching or nurturing will turn a moderately gifted child into a highly gifted one any more than it could turn a child with and IQ of 110 into a highly gifted child (though it can have an effect on achievement).

Well put.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

I'm sure that parents of children with low IQ's or academic achievement (which is actually what you're talking about) will be lining up to support your belief that it's primarily nurture.
I know parents who strongly believe their child's poor academic performance was due to a poor educational environment, and resented the implication that it was due to an organic issue with the child.

I think the idea that nature determines intelligence has justified far more prejudice and discrimination than the idea that nurture influences intelligence. I realize this has been misunderstood too (ie. the "frigid mother" explaination of autism).

Quote:

In this thread, however, we're talking about children who are more than 2 standard deviations from the norm. No amount of coaching or nurturing will turn a moderately gifted child into a highly gifted one any more than it could turn a child with and IQ of 110 into a highly gifted child (though it can have an effect on achievement).
We are talking about many things in this thread that relate to the term gifted. You clearly have rigid idea's about IQ and that is your right. The focus of my participation here is to identify the failure of our educational system to have any understanding of intelligence and learning needs, beyond the vague and damaging constraints of an IQ scale of "intelligence".


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

No amount of coaching or nurturing will turn a moderately gifted child into a highly gifted one any more than it could turn a child with and IQ of 110 into a highly gifted child (though it can have an effect on achievement).
Highly gifted in terms of _what_ exactly? IQ?


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
I know parents who strongly believe their child's poor academic performance was due to a poor educational environment, and resented the implication that it was due to an organic issue with the child.

Their academic performance may have been due to a poor educational environment, but academic performance and IQ are certainly not the same thing.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

Their academic performance may have been due to a poor educational environment, but academic performance and IQ are certainly not the same thing.
She put them together as situations in which a parent might resent the idea of nurture over nature, and I was responding to that.

I will say though, I think the IQ concept is subjective, fallible, and limited to a very narrow concept of intelligence. It's little more helpful than academic performance, IMO, as a means of understanding the needs or potential of any child.


----------



## pookel (May 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
I've said this at least two dozen times over the last 30 pages. Do you realize that?

But, IIRC - I have a toddler at my knee and no time to search the thread! - you also said you opposed acceleration. How can you say you support meeting each child's needs, even if it's for calculus, if you don't support acceleration? Isn't that what acceleration IS?


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
I know parents who strongly believe their child's poor academic performance was due to a poor educational environment, and resented the implication that it was due to an organic issue with the child.

The level the child is at when she reaches school is probably the single biggest indicator of future academic success (generally speaking, there are exceptions of course). Nurture begins at home, not school.

Quote:

We are talking about many things in this thread that relate to the term gifted. You clearly have rigid idea's about IQ and that is your right.
Did you actually read what I wrote?


----------



## teachma (Dec 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pookel*
How can you say you support meeting each child's needs, even if it's for calculus, if you don't support acceleration? Isn't that what acceleration IS?

Is that a rhetorical question? I'll answer it anyway. : ) Yes, the education community does understand acceleration as bringing a student from a lower grade up to a higher grade, where the level of academic instruction more appropriately meets her learning needs. And it is exceedingly rare in the public schools. I felt quite pleased when, several years ago, my principal asked if, as an experiment, I would be willing to have a student from a younger grade cme to my room and learn with my older students for a portion of each day...and, as the family of said student deemed the experiment successful, acceleration is now practiced (in MAJOR moderation, I might add) in my school.

The only problem I've seen is that older peers are not necessarily what the gifted student needs. Let's see if I can explain what I'm thinking...Last year, SJ from third grade came into my fourth grade class for reading. She was reading at Level 50, and the highest group in her third grade class was reading at 38. So, she joined my fourth grade group of Level 50 readers. Seems idyllic, right? Well, Level 50 readers in the beginning of 4th grade are just slightly above average, whereas SJ's intelligence was superior. She could more easily make connections within the literature, comparisons between the group book and others she had read, and she could understand more of the figurative language more quickly. She did not require multiplie exposures to content topics as did her more "average" fourth grade peers. Despite acceleration, they weren't the best group for her. She needed more stimulating discussion about the books the group was reading. I still think my classroom was the best place for her, but just because I trust my methods as being sufficiently challenging for a gifted student...moreso than those of typical teachers. So I think her needs were met, but not in such an easy way as one might assume. Still, acceleration acknowledges the need for something else, and so it is certainly preferable to leaving the child and failing to recognize or address the situation.

Sorry- left a couple of typos in here by accident and can't find them now...lacking patience at the moment!


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

But, IIRC - I have a toddler at my knee and no time to search the thread! - you also said you opposed acceleration. How can you say you support meeting each child's needs, even if it's for calculus, if you don't support acceleration? Isn't that what acceleration IS?
"Acceleration" is a term tied to a view of learning that is linear and comparitive; a system in which a child's "needs" are defined, grouped, and mapped out in advance. It's a comparitive term...the child is "accelerated" in the sense that they are learning beyond *what adults expect a child their age to learn*. Acceleration only exists when adults are sitting there deciding for a child what and when they should learn something.

I reject that entire model of education.

You can look to homeschoolers for an inkling of the potential for "average" people with "average" kids to disprove the manufactured idea of "accelerated learning". Once free of expectations and comparisons, learning beyond your "age group" is just what happens at home. But it's just called "learning". There is nothing accelerated about it.

And it could happen at school too. It absolutely could if we as a society understood and really valued learning. To love learning is infinite. A person who loves to learn and is given the resources to pursue what they want to learn...that is powerful. _That_ is potential.


----------



## pookel (May 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
"Acceleration" is a term tied to a view of learning that is linear and comparitive; a system in which a child's "needs" are defined, grouped, and mapped out in advance. It's a comparitive term...the child is "accelerated" in the sense that they are learning beyond *what adults expect a child their age to learn*. Acceleration only exists when adults are sitting there deciding for a child what and when they should learn something.

I reject that entire model of education. .

But the fact is that that model of education is what we have in our school system, and it is not going away. As far as I can tell, you won't support letting a fourth-grader learn calculus in school, just because it would be tied to this term "acceleration" which you are philosophically opposed to. It sounds nice in theory, but if I were the parent of that fourth-grader, I'd care more about getting her some instruction that was useful to her, whether they called it "gifted" or "acceleration" or "green cheese."


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Wow, jumping in late here, I have read most of the thead, but confess that I haven't read every.single.post. My apologies









I was considered *gifted* at a young age and let me tell you, knowing that did more harm to me than good I believe. I was tested as having an IQ of 147 and immediately put into the *gifted* program -- which, other than a fun trip to NYC, sucked. They basically tried to cram as much information into us as they could -- I remember learning Spanish, French, and Braille (sp) all at once ... very little of which I managed to retain. I *dropped out* of the gifted program after one year. Being in *regular* school didn't help much either, as it was boring and uninteresting to me. I am a very social person too by nature, but never felt as though I fit in with my peers, but I digress.

On the topic at hand, being considered *gifted*, having that label put on me, and living through it and still dealing with it today -- i have to say I am a huge fan of homeschooling, particularly unschooling, as we are planning on doing with our daughter. I think children are so unique and learn at such varying degrees, the current method of education system fails most children who don't fall completely within the federally mandated "average" range. Anyone who shows a hint of *giftedness* or the hint of being challenged in certain areas seems to be left to their own devices, save the intervention of a caring devoted teacher, or of caring, aware, educated (in their child's unique learning needs) devoted parents -- --- which I don't seem to see a lot of (except on mdc







)

Our daughter shows signs of being *gifted*, as my husband is also *gifted*... We won't place that label on her though. We will unschool her and allow her the freedom to learn what she wants, how she wants, when she wants, and at what pace she wants ---

I can only speak for myself when I say being "gifted" didn't give me a great one up on anyone, but only (imo) more pressure to succeed and less of an opportunity to make mistakes or get things *wrong* (all of which were mandated by the powers that be of course).

Interesting reading, I will be subbing.


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pookel*
But the fact is that that model of education is what we have in our school system, and it is not going away. As far as I can tell, you won't support letting a fourth-grader learn calculus in school, just because it would be tied to this term "acceleration" which you are philosophically opposed to. It sounds nice in theory, but if I were the parent of that fourth-grader, I'd care more about getting her some instruction that was useful to her, whether they called it "gifted" or "acceleration" or "green cheese."

I don't think the model currently used in schools serves _children_ well, and I think it's pointless to try to "fix" a faulty model. Putting a "gifted" public school 4th grader in a public school calculus class is like putting a new paint job on an old ford pinto... you may have made it look a little prettier, but it's still a crappy car that's likely to catch fire and burn up...

If there's no way to divorce the discussion of "giftedness" from the public school system, then it seems to me that the true issue is the schools...

dar


----------



## LeftField (Aug 2, 2002)

I know I said I was leaving this thread, but I am sitting on my hands trying not to type. If you'll humor me, I'm popping back in because I think I have an analogy that might work here, wrt nature vs nurture, linear development, accomodations, etc.

People are born with a genetic range of potential height; nurture then plays a powerful role in determining if the person will reach their genetic potential. I think IQ is like that. Neglect or a very poor educational experience, for example, can keep a person from growing within their genetic potential for (er...we haven't agreed on a term here, have we?) IQ. OTOH, a very nurturing home and the right sort of encouragement can help a person absolutely thrive and hit the ceiling of their genetic potential. The differences in humans in terms of IQ (i.e. the "ceiling") is not very significant at all. Everyone is good at something and we all have different talents. But you have a few on either side of the curve who are very different, i.e. more than 2 std deviations from the norm.

Everyone wants their kid to be tall, it seems like. But when they say they want their kid to be tall, or that being tall runs in their family, they generally don't mean 7 feet tall. People seem to want their sons to be 6 ft, you know, a little above average, comfortably tall, if you will. Once you get past 6 ft 4 and maybe 5 ft 10 for girls, people get kind of uncomfortable with that. Intellectually gifted is a status that many people seem to want and revere, but again, they don't mean like a child doing calculus in elementary. They want their kids to be comfortably smart, a little "smarter" than expected, like the mental equivalent of 6 ft tall, not 7ft tall because that just seems too odd. Once you get into the territory of being 7 ft tall or having an IQ in what pyschologists term the "highly gifted" range, it gets awkward and different accomodations must be made or the person suffers. No one really wants their kid to suffer or go through life being really really different, but we obsess over the idea of "gifted" because it seems to describe having gifts and blessings, being well-liked and successful, basically being the 6 ft tall equiv,...when in fact, a better term needs to be created to describe someone who is 2 std deviations above the norm. Also, I think that it's hard for many people to conceive of someone being 2 std deviations above the norm, because we always hear about these 6 ft tall men and how wonderful it is to be 6 ft tall and what a blessing it is. In my niece's school, it is nauseating in terms of how competitive parents are about this. Again, they are using gifted or hoping for gifted, meaning smarter than average, but not 2 std deviations or anything too out there. So, those people and their competitive issues kind of water down the situation for the highly gifted who really are that different and genuinely need some different accomodations.

My husband's aunt is less than 5 ft tall. She needed wooden blocks affixed to the pedals in her car to allow her to drive. I have no idea how someone 6 ft 8 or 7ft tall comfortably drives a car. My husband, who is 6 ft tall and is considered "tall" but within the approved societal idea of "tall" often complains that his legs feel crunched up on long car drives or on airplanes. But it's not affecting his life to the point where he can't cope without accomodations. It's not ideal, but he can live his life reasonably comfortably. I wish he got the leg room he needs to be completely comfortable on an airplane but I think they need to do something for the less common 7 ft tall person first, because it's so much more uncomfortable. Also, my husband is able to forget about being tall much of the time, whereas the 7 ft tall person is constantly bumping his head, searching for comfortable clothes, dealing with weird reactions from other people, etc; that person can't forget he is tall!

Kid's growth is not truly predictably linear. My sons were taller than average babies. Then, my oldest one dropped down into the 50th percentile for height at one point; they said he would be 5 ft 8 one day. We fed him very well, but he was no longer tall. Then, he had a big growth spurt and he went into the 75th percentile, putting him at a predicted height of 6 ft, where he has stayed since. I'm sure there were kids who were taller than my son when they were 1 year olds and they may be shorter than him as adults. Physical growth is not incrementally linear, but yet my son could never ever be 7 ft tall. If I fed him protein shakes and gave him a perfect diet, he could never be 7 ft tall, because it's not in the genetic cards. I feel confident that he will grow near the ceiling of his genetic potential for height but he can't surpass it. My father, OTOH, is the runt of his family and he blames poor nutritrion; he was cheated out of genetically possible height by insufficient nurture.

Everyone wants to be tall and everyone wants to be gifted (again, within a cultural range of comfort). But we don't say, "all people are tall!". I'm very thin and "thin" is considered wonderful. But I was truly underweight and kids really mocked me. As I got older, people accused me of being anorexic, when in fact, it's just genes. I didn't like being thin. I tried very hard not to be. I tried to hide being thin with loose clothess. I hated my body for most of my life. But if I were ever to say anything like this, people would say, "What are you complaining about??? You're thin!!" and they would totally brush of my real issues because society likes the idea of thin (but not too much!) and people are really really tired of being bombarded with "thin". I've had girls tell me, "Gosh, you're so thin!!! I *hate* you." I would have given anything to gain a little weight and have curves and look less sickly. No one would really like to be that thin, but I was supposed to have no issues, because it's what people want to be. Or is it?

I am tired of hearing about whose kid gets straight As and is the top of her class and who has a great, thin body and who is "nice and tall". I'm sick of the competition too. But at the same time, I would never deny the fact that some people are so far down that alley that they need help. I can keep the two separate in my mind: the bright, hard-working kid with academic accolades and the highly gifted child who is ostracized, bored to tears and desperately wants to be inside the cultural comfort range instead of way outside it. You can't compare the two. 6ft and 7ft are both tall, but they are vastly different in life needs. And yet, being tall doesn't make them better people or guarantee success or matter more than kindness, hard work, etc. We do people a disservice when we say the equivalent of "all people are tall"", plus it's just not true. And yeah, maybe someone should come up with a more descriptive term to differentiate 6ft vs 7ft.


----------



## pookel (May 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar*
I don't think the model currently used in schools serves _children_ well, and I think it's pointless to try to "fix" a faulty model.

Look, I agree that it's a faulty model. I think we all agree on that.

What I want to know is, what, specifically, is the advantage to a fourth-grader who is doing calculus at home, to being placed in a fourth-grade math class where long division is being taught?

She doesn't have the option of going to a school that isn't broken. This is the only school she is in. She can sit in a class where she isn't learning anything, or she can go to a class where she would be learning something new. These are the only options THIS kid has, at the moment, in a school system that is not going to be fixed anytime before she graduates.

What's wrong with giving her the best accommodation the school has to offer?


----------



## pookel (May 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LeftField*
Everyone wants to be tall and everyone wants to be gifted (again, within a cultural range of comfort). But we don't say, "all people are tall!". I'm very thin and "thin" is considered wonderful. But I was truly underweight and kids really mocked me. As I got older, people accused me of being anorexic, when in fact, it's just genes. I didn't like being thin. I tried very hard not to be. I tried to hide being thin with loose clothess. I hated my body for most of my life. But if I were ever to say anything like this, people would say, "What are you complaining about??? You're thin!!" and they would totally brush of my real issues because society likes the idea of thin (but not too much!) and people are really really tired of being bombarded with "thin".

*applause*


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

I need a show of hands on something:

Which of the participants feel that an IQ score range determines the use of the labels gifted, highly gifted, and profoundly gifted.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar*
If there's no way to divorce the discussion of "giftedness" from the public school system, then it seems to me that the true issue is the schools...

I agree 100% (and said so some number of pages back....







) The problem is the public school system stinks and should be thrown out and re-created.

BUT, until that happens, we should identify and attempt to accomodate for "gifted" students.

-Angela


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pookel*
What's wrong with giving her the best accommodation the school has to offer?









:


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
I need a show of hands on something:

Which of the participants feel that an IQ score range determines the use of the labels gifted, highly gifted, and profoundly gifted.

I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you asking if that is what we THINK should determine the use? Are you asking if that's what determines the use in our individual school districts? Are you asking of that's what's accepted as what determines the use?

confused....

-Angela


----------



## Roar (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LeftField*

But we don't say, "all people are tall!".

And, it makes no sense to pretend no one notices who is tall and who isn't or that tall is an artifical construct of the school system and if everyone homeschooled no one could recognize who was tall anymore.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you asking if that is what we THINK should determine the use? Are you asking if that's what determines the use in our individual school districts? Are you asking of that's what's accepted as what determines the use?
Sorry, I'll try to clarify?

For the people who, in this thread, advocate using this group of terms :gifted, highly gifted, and profoundly gifted (were there more, I can't remember?)

could you clarify how you determine who falls under which label?


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

Look, I agree that it's a faulty model. I think we all agree on that.

What I want to know is, what, specifically, is the advantage to a fourth-grader who is doing calculus at home, to being placed in a fourth-grade math class where long division is being taught?

She doesn't have the option of going to a school that isn't broken. This is the only school she is in. She can sit in a class where she isn't learning anything, or she can go to a class where she would be learning something new. These are the only options THIS kid has, at the moment, in a school system that is not going to be fixed anytime before she graduates.

What's wrong with giving her the best accommodation the school has to offer?
We went through this already. Go through the thread and look for the tangent we went off on when someone said 'If homeschooling and private schools were not an option, what advice would you give". I answered there.


----------



## Roar (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
"Acceleration" is a term tied to a view of learning that is linear and comparitive; a system in which a child's "needs" are defined, grouped, and mapped out in advance. It's a comparitive term...the child is "accelerated" in the sense that they are learning beyond *what adults expect a child their age to learn*. Acceleration only exists when adults are sitting there deciding for a child what and when they should learn something.

I think this is why this discussion goes around and around. Some folks are talking more about philosophically what they believe things should be and other folks are thinking more directly about the realities of life with their children and what it takes to get their needs met.

My reaction to reading this passage is that it would make perfect sense if I was living in a yurt in Montana with very little interaction or intention of interaction with the outside world. But, that isn't the life I have or the life I want. It would also make perfect sense if I had a child who was closer to typical age norms.

Instead I'm a homeschooler living in real time and in real space and interacting with other people. I have a child who enjoys learning with other people and seeks particular kinds of learning that are atypical for his age. We could pretend as we are out in the world that no one ever notices anything out of the norm. Just like I suppose I could pretend that I wouldn't notice a six foot tall nine year old or a eight year old piano prodigy, but honestly I would because we are all perfectly aware that these things fall outside of the norm. To notice isn't to place a value judgement of good or bad, it is just to be honest.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
You can look to homeschoolers for an inkling of the potential for "average" people with "average" kids to disprove the manufactured idea of "accelerated learning". Once free of expectations and comparisons, learning beyond your "age group" is just what happens at home. But it's just called "learning". There is nothing accelerated about it.

I disagree. I know a lot of homeschoolers. I see clear patterns of development. They aren't exactly the same as what may be expected for the child's chronological age in school. It may be a bit wider band - but it is an identifiable pattern. Are you actually claiming you see absolutely no pattern whatsoever? If you were asked to identify you'd say it is equally likely that an nine year old is reading a book with the level of vocabulary and complexity of sentence structure of War and Peace as it is Harry Potter? Equally likely to find a child who would be asked to play violin in front of an orchestra with one who is working on Twinkle Twinkle?


----------



## Roar (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar*
I don't think the model currently used in schools serves _children_ well, and I think it's pointless to try to "fix" a faulty model. Putting a "gifted" public school 4th grader in a public school calculus class is like putting a new paint job on an old ford pinto... you may have made it look a little prettier, but it's still a crappy car that's likely to catch fire and burn up...

If there's no way to divorce the discussion of "giftedness" from the public school system, then it seems to me that the true issue is the schools...

dar

If the fourth grader is homeschooled and taking that calculus class at a college is a different for you? If so, how?


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
Sorry, I'll try to clarify?

For the people who, in this thread, advocate using this group of terms :gifted, highly gifted, and profoundly gifted (were there more, I can't remember?)

could you clarify how you determine who falls under which label?

Ah, okay. In that case, yes, I would use the most up to date IQ tests currently available. Not perfect, but improving. The best method I'm familiar with.

-Angela


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

People are born with a genetic range of potential height; nurture then plays a powerful role in determining if the person will reach their genetic potential. I think IQ is like that.
There seems little debate over what "height" measures. It generally means the vertical distance from point a to point b. Have we all agreed what is meant by intelligence? No. The definition differs from society to society, even person to person. So, without having agreement on *that*, we come to the IQ test. What does it measure? Well, we don't agree, and there is a wealth of research to prove or disprove the IQ test.

I could go on but this is why the phrase "All people are tall" seems inaccurate, but the phrase "all people are gifted" seems accurate to many here, and in general society. We share a common definition of height, but we are not in agreement as to what is meant by the term "gifted", or what is meant when we refer to "intelligence".


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *teachma*
The only problem I've seen is that older peers are not necessarily what the gifted student needs. Let's see if I can explain what I'm thinking...Last year, SJ from third grade came into my fourth grade class for reading. She was reading at Level 50, and the highest group in her third grade class was reading at 38. So, she joined my fourth grade group of Level 50 readers. Seems idyllic, right? Well, Level 50 readers in the beginning of 4th grade are just slightly above average, whereas SJ's intelligence was superior. She could more easily make connections within the literature, comparisons between the group book and others she had read, and she could understand more of the figurative language more quickly. She did not require multiplie exposures to content topics as did her more "average" fourth grade peers. Despite acceleration, they weren't the best group for her. She needed more stimulating discussion about the books the group was reading. I still think my classroom was the best place for her, but just because I trust my methods as being sufficiently challenging for a gifted student...moreso than those of typical teachers. So I think her needs were met, but not in such an easy way as one might assume. Still, acceleration acknowledges the need for something else, and so it is certainly preferable to leaving the child and failing to recognize or address the situation.

Sorry- left a couple of typos in here by accident and can't find them now...lacking patience at the moment!

Just a question -- would she have been better off with 5th-graders, do you think??


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar*
I don't think the model currently used in schools serves _children_ well, and I think it's pointless to try to "fix" a faulty model. Putting a "gifted" public school 4th grader in a public school calculus class is like putting a new paint job on an old ford pinto... you may have made it look a little prettier, but it's still a crappy car that's likely to catch fire and burn up...

If there's no way to divorce the discussion of "giftedness" from the public school system, then it seems to me that the true issue is the schools...

dar

I agree with you Dar. Knew it had to happen.







Anyway, I think you're right: the system stinks. However, for some parents, it's literally the only viable choice.


----------



## eightyferrettoes (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Roar*
If the fourth grader is homeschooled and taking that calculus class at a college is a different for you? If so, how?

I'd say the entire atmosphere at a college calculus course is different. There is a lot more individual freedom-- the kid could drop the class, the teacher could drop the student, etc. The kid can take 3 credit hours, or 15, or even 21 if he can hack it.

Profs have office hours for individual help if need be, but ultimately your responsibility for taking whatever away from the class that you wanted to is YOURS.

I'd actually like to see our public ed system go to a more university cafeteria-style approach for ALL kids, instead of the rigid age-based systems that force people to categorize kids as "above" or "below" some mythical "average."


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LeftField*
Intellectually gifted is a status that many people seem to want and revere, but again, they don't mean like a child doing calculus in elementary. They want their kids to be comfortably smart, a little "smarter" than expected, like the mental equivalent of 6 ft tall, not 7ft tall because that just seems too odd. Once you get into the territory of being 7 ft tall or having an IQ in what pyschologists term the "highly gifted" range, it gets awkward and different accomodations must be made or the person suffers. No one really wants their kid to suffer or go through life being really really different, but we obsess over the idea of "gifted" because it seems to describe having gifts and blessings, being well-liked and successful, basically being the 6 ft tall equiv,...when in fact, a better term needs to be created to describe someone who is 2 std deviations above the norm.
... We do people a disservice when we say the equivalent of "all people are tall"", plus it's just not true. And yeah, maybe someone should come up with a more descriptive term to differentiate 6ft vs 7ft.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Roar*
And, it makes no sense to pretend no one notices who is tall and who isn't or that tall is an artifical construct of the school system and if everyone homeschooled no one could recognize who was tall anymore.









Yep!


----------



## eightyferrettoes (May 22, 2005)

The height/intelligence analogy, while cute, doesn't pan out for me, since nobody here agrees on what intelligence IS, how it's measured, or even whether it has a single demonstrable linear dimension.








:

Breaking out the tape measure is comparatively simple.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eightyferrettoes*

I'd actually like to see our public ed system go to a more university cafeteria-style approach for ALL kids, instead of the rigid age-based systems that force people to categorize kids as "above" or "below" some mythical "average."

ME TOO. Giving students the freedom of choice makes all the difference in the world.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

CB I'm a tiny bit surprised. I imagined you seeing, quicker than I did, the problem of comparing ambiguous controversial terms to universally accepted ones, in order to stabilize the former? Kwim? Or maybe not. Shoot just when I thought I understood what you were saying here....ah well!


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eightyferrettoes*
The height/intelligence analogy, while cute, doesn't pan out for me, since nobody here agrees on what intelligence IS, how it's measured, or even whether it has a single demonstrable linear dimension.








:

Breaking out the tape measure is comparatively simple.









Okay, how about race? To say that "all children are gifted" is like saying "all children are black." Discuss.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

The height/intelligence analogy, while cute, doesn't pan out for me, since nobody here agrees on what intelligence IS, how it's measured, or even whether it has a single demonstrable linear dimension.
I think one form of intelligence is your repeat ability to say what I said in a much smaller amount of space. So thanks, again


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

CB I'm lost.

Most of the people I know who identify as black would also be identified by others as black. For most people (in the south anyway) there is no disagreement over what is meant when someone speaks of a person who is "white" or "black". The rigid idea's about it are quite depressing.

So I'm not sure whether you are saying "All children are black" to point out that obviously, a white child is not black, or to point out that "black" like "gifted" is ambiguous? If so I just need you to clarify in what sense you mean it to be ambiguous. If all humans originally came from Africa...is this the ambiguity you see in the term "Black"?


----------



## eightyferrettoes (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
Okay, how about race? To say that "all children are gifted" is like saying "all children are black." Discuss.

Both "race" and "intelligence" are purely cultural constructs, and nobody should be entitled to preferential treatment on the basis of either...

Does that work?


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
CB I'm a tiny bit surprised. I imagined you seeing, quicker than I did, the problem of comparing ambiguous controversial terms to universally accepted ones, in order to stabilize the former? Kwim? Or maybe not. Shoot just when I thought I understood what you were saying here....ah well!

Heartmama, I don't give a rat's pink sphincter what the heck we all call giftedness. I prefer "asynchronous development" because like I said earlier on this Tolstoi-length thread, it has less élitist cachet and doesn't sound like it was Christmas just for your special kid.

Really, you can call it "fried cheese" if you want. I don't care. However, what I was specifically responding to was the idea -- of which I am terribly, terribly tired -- that "all children are gifted." Or "all children are asynchronously developed," or "all children are fried cheese," or whatever. Like I've said before, they're all special, unique, valuable, and worthy of respect and fair treatment, but they're not all gifted, black, or tall.


----------



## LeftField (Aug 2, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
There seems little debate over what "height" measures. It generally means the vertical distance from point a to point b. Have we all agreed what is meant by intelligence? No. The definition differs from society to society, even person to person. So, without having agreement on *that*, we come to the IQ test. What does it measure? Well, we don't agree, and there is a wealth of research to prove or disprove the IQ test.

We can't agree on what gifted and what intelligence means in this thread, which is why, I guess, we keep going around in circles. I'm sure you feel the same way, that it's like trying to hit a moving target. Different societies probably have different opinions of what constitutes "tall" too. When I am talking about intelligence in this particular discussion, I am referring to mental processing. IQ tests are an imperfect way of measuring that, but they come closest to what I'm talking about. You asked for clarification on how various people were defining "highly gifted", "exceptionally gifted" and "profoundly gifted". When I refer to those terms, I am referring to IQ scores. I know that people can score lower than they should for a variety of reasons but I don't believe one can score much higher than they should (i.e. false positive). This article describes how some researchers found differences in brains scans between children in different IQ ranges. http://talentdevelop.com/BDRLTI.html
The higher the IQ, the later the cortex matured (and more rapid growth was seen, I believe). The difference in brain maturation was up to four years; they did not measure any children with IQs higher than 145. It was interesting to me, because it showed that, however imperfect IQ is, that there is some difference in brain scans between different IQ levels. (I have no opinion or knowledge on that site, btw, but my news page link expired and I found the same news article on that random site). Oh, and I dislike how they throw the word "smart" around in that article but it's a news article based on the research and they choose words to catch people's attention; I would love to read the actual research paper.

I don't know how else to describe what I mean. Maybe you feel the same way. I feel like we're not talking about the same thing (?), which is making it tricky. But, it's interesting nevertheless.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eightyferrettoes*
Both "race" and "intelligence" are purely cultural constructs, and nobody should be entitled to preferential treatment on the basis of either...

Does that work?









Purely cultural? Some -- and I'm not taking a stand here, for the record -- would argue otherwise. It's my understanding that forensic investigators are able to identify with some degree of accuracy the basic "race" of a human skull based on typical morphological differences between them. Also, it's my understanding that race can be genetically identified by the presence of particular haplogroups within a person's DNA that are characteristic of people from a particular region.

Am I incorrect? I'm an English teacher who watches CSI and really thinks the National Geographic Genographic Project is awesome, so what the heck do I know? However, if it _is_ true, this argues that race is not merely cultural, but measurable, objective, and physical -- at least for now, until or if marriage between and among people of diverse races makes the subject entirely irrelevant.

Although I heartily DO agree that neither race nor intelligence entitles _anyone_ to preferential treatment.

To complicate the issue a bit more, if it's purely cultural, do you think most people accept Eminem as black because he sings in a musical genre pioneered by and identified with black artists? Music is doubtlessly a cultural product; if race is merely cultural, is it just a matter of deciding, "Well, I feel Asian today," or "I feel rather ****** inside"?


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

However, what I was specifically responding to was the idea -- of which I am terribly, terribly tired -- that "all children are gifted." Or "all children are asynchronously developed," or "all children are fried cheese," or whatever. Like I've said before, they're all special, unique, valuable, and worthy of respect and fair treatment, but they're not all gifted, black, or tall.
So you object to any statement that begins with "All children are..." regardless of how it ends?

Are you simply offended by the possibility that all children could be anything captured by a single word?

If so, I can see that. It's consistent at least


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Leftfield I heartily agree that the term "moving target" is appropriate for this thread









Now, looking at that article you posted what stood out to me were these statements:

Quote:

"Even though they end up at pretty much the same place, the shape of the [development] curve and the age at which they peak is very different between the three groups," he said. "We would have missed it if we had looked at adults."

Quote:

No one knows whether such subtle developmental changes in the cortex are caused by the genes inherited from a child's parents, by the biochemical influences of life experience, or by the interplay of both.

"It is tempting to assume that this developmental change in brain structure is determined by a person's genes," said psychologist Richard Passingham at the University of Oxford, who wrote a commentary accompanying the Nature paper. "But one should be wary of such a conclusion."
The article was dated March 2006.

Honestly I took it to support my own view of intelligence and IQ.

It is so interesting that you took it to support your own view of IQ.

...and the ambiguity and confusion over this topic continues...


----------



## eightyferrettoes (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
Purely cultural? Some -- and I'm not taking a stand here, for the record -- would argue otherwise. It's my understanding that forensic investigators are able to identify with some degree of accuracy the basic "race" of a human skull based on typical morphological differences between them. Also, it's my understanding that race can be genetically identified by the presence of particular haplogroups within a person's DNA that are characteristic of people from a particular region.

Am I incorrect? I'm an English teacher who watches CSI and really thinks the National Geographic Genographic Project is awesome, so what the heck do I know? However, if it _is_ true, this argues that race is not merely cultural, but measurable, objective, and physical -- at least for now, until or if marriage between and among people of diverse races makes the subject entirely irrelevant.

Although I heartily DO agree that neither race nor intelligence entitles _anyone_ to preferential treatment.

Still, a guy working with ancient skulls and classifying their measurements on the basis of "race" is working from a cultural construct-- otherwise, he'd just have a pile of skulls with measurements "A-B" and "B-C" and "C-D" instead of feeling the need to classify them into little piles with arbitrary cutoffs, titled "Caucasoid" or "*******" or whatever the tidy little labels de jour are in the field.

And, without the background cultural emphasis on the use of physical features to delineate "race," as it's defined in the culture from which the scientist came, it might never even occur to him to bust out the calipers to measure nasal bridges or whatnot.







Maybe he'd find something entirely different and perhaps more useful to zoom in on.

I'm just sayin.' I'm all about dismantling public education as we know it. It's a mess. Anybody with a half smidge of that cultural construct we call "common sense" and a tiny bit o' interest in the subject agrees it's got problems.

But crap, don't assert that it's "working" for the "majority of average kids" except for YOUR kid. Acknowlege that it's failing practically everyone in some serious respects, and then I guess we can all start to get somewhere!

Revolt!







Power to the people!


----------



## Roar (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eightyferrettoes*
The height/intelligence analogy, while cute, doesn't pan out for me, since nobody here agrees on what intelligence IS, how it's measured, or even whether it has a single demonstrable linear dimension.


That strikes me as so far removed from my life experience that it just seems like a word game. The reality is that there is quite a bit of public consensus on intelligence. Certain people are recognized as being particularly intelligent.
My experience is that often it is quite obvious to people in the real world. Our child's intelligence is spotted just as easily as it would be spotted if he was seven foot tall or if he was green or if he had three arms. It happens every day from people who meet him for just a few minutes.


----------



## eightyferrettoes (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Roar*
That strikes me as so far removed from my life experience that it just seems like a word game. The reality is that there is quite a bit of public consensus on intelligence. Certain people are recognized as being particularly intelligent.
My experience is that often it is quite obvious to people in the real world. Our child's intelligence is spotted just as easily as it would be spotted if he was seven foot tall or if he was green or if he had three arms. It happens every day from people who meet him for just a few minutes.

Hey, my kid's cuteness is spotted from a zillion miles away, by nattering grannies and total strangers alike. There is quite a bit of public consensus that the kid is cute.

Doesn't mean that "cute" isn't purely a function of the culture I live in.










I'm difficult, yes?


----------



## pookel (May 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
I need a show of hands on something:

Which of the participants feel that an IQ score range determines the use of the labels gifted, highly gifted, and profoundly gifted.

Since I think those labels were devised by people using an IQ score range, I guess I agree, sort of. I don't think that IQ scores or labels matter a whole lot, though. My only concern is that kids be allowed to work at their ability level in any given subject, and if a school can do that without using labels, good for them.


----------



## LeftField (Aug 2, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eightyferrettoes*
Doesn't mean that "cute" isn't purely a function of the culture I live in.

I'm difficult, yes?

Yeah, but "tall" is a cultural construct too, and yet some people are still taller than others. This thread is just going in circles, as interesting as it's been. The problem with intelligence is that you have to compare people to define it. And people at MDC don't like comparing children. So, it's distasteful topic to most. But it doesn't change the fact that a 2 year old who spontaneously reads, writes, does math, does 100 piece puzzles or ponders philosophical topics is "more than" what is typical for human mental processing. I don't think you'd find one culture in the world that would say, "nah, that's really common." In my world, some people learn quicker than others, have a greater intuitive grasp of math or spatial concepts than others, can extrapolate abstractions with greater depth than others...and normally, it all sort of works itself out because everyone is good at something...I suck at math unlike my human calculator husband but I'd kick his butt in any language class. Different people have different strengths and some are curiously valued more than others. Like, in my school experiences, mechanical tasks are not highly valued or taught, despite the fact that they use a lot of mental processing, like spatial skills. Anyway, when you have a person who is that significantly different from the vast majority of people in terms of mental processing as I've described, then it's difficult to brush it off. That 2 year old would be a curiosity anywhere, I'm sure. It's not better or worse, but different, very very different.

Some people are way more charismatic than I and they have a wonderful way of putting people at ease. Some people play tennis better than I do. Some people are better cooks. But I don't call that 'intelligence'. To me, and to (I would argue) most people, intelligence refers to mental processing...speed, depth, retention and divergent thinking.


----------



## pookel (May 6, 2006)

Another thought:

What if I said: "All children have special needs - for instance, my kid needs to be driven around in the car before he goes to sleep at night."

Do you see the problem with that statement? Do you see how it functions to invalidate the very real concerns that the phrase "special needs" connotes, by subverting the meaning of the phrase in such a way that it applies to everyone? Like "gifted," "special needs" is a euphemism - it doesn't mean a kid who needs a car ride at night, it means a kid with a real medical problem, and pretending that "special needs" applies to all kids does a disservice to everyone.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
So you object to any statement that begins with "All children are..." regardless of how it ends?

Are you simply offended by the possibility that all children could be anything captured by a single word?

If so, I can see that. It's consistent at least









No, I'm totally cool with the idea that they're all unique, special, valuable, and so on. I just don't think that any word that tries to describe a mental or physical difference applies equally to everyone, that's all.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eightyferrettoes*
Still, a guy working with ancient skulls and classifying their measurements on the basis of "race" is working from a cultural construct-- otherwise, he'd just have a pile of skulls with measurements "A-B" and "B-C" and "C-D" instead of feeling the need to classify them into little piles with arbitrary cutoffs, titled "Caucasoid" or "*******" or whatever the tidy little labels de jour are in the field.

No, I wasn't talking about _ancient_ skulls, actually -- I was talking about forensics, not anthropology. And again, without taking sides on this issue (just presenting data), when some hiker discovers a Mystery Skeleton off the beaten path, that's one thing that forensic pathologists do, at least according to the data I've read: identify it for race (or at least make an attempt) based on the characteristics of the skull in question. Obviously, I'm thinking this issue is not always easy to determine, given that there are many people of diverse heritage, but at least it gives the investigators a place to start.

Quote:

But crap, don't assert that it's "working" for the "majority of average kids" except for YOUR kid.
I don't say it's working for my kid!!! Absolutely not!! I based my statement on the following data. Please tell me which one of my assumptions is false:

1. The vast, vast majority of children 5-17 in this country attend school.
2. Of that vast majority, the vast majority of _them_ attend public school.
3. Despite what we and others acknowledge to be serious faults, most parents continue to send their children to school throughout the entire 12+ years available to them.

Okay, so based on those assumptions, I drew the following conclusions: that for the vast majority, school must be acceptable _enough_ to _most_ people _most_ of the time, or there would be a mass withdrawal of people from the system. Homeschoolers, obviously, are an example of one group that's dissatisfied with the system and has left it, and their numbers are indeed growing every year; however, I do not think that homeschooling will ever become the norm in this culture.

Moreover, though there are other alternatives -- charter schools, long-distance education, and private school -- they still don't compare to public school in terms of numbers. Now, obviously there are some people who basically have no choice BUT to send their kid to public -- I'm thinking of a poor single mom with few resources, friends, or family who has to work 12 hours a day just to make ends meet. That woman's just plain not going to be able to homeschool. However, she and others in a similar position aren't the majority overall. In short, I have to conclude that, problematic and dysfunctional as it is, the school system is sufficiently or adequately meeting the needs of most people most of the time. A "tipping point" of dissatisfaction has not been reached.

Quote:

Acknowlege that it's failing practically everyone in some serious respects, and then I guess we can all start to get somewhere!
Heck, yeah! I just wish people were more dissatisfied with it than they are.

Thanks for yankin' this conversation back to giftedness...or at least education.


----------



## CalebsMama05 (Nov 26, 2005)

CB-as sad as it is the reason public school is *good enough* for the *vast majority* (ie: mainstream in my mind) is that a.) the parents are actually the ones *teaching* while thinking that its just being proactive about their education or b.) the parents just don't care. a sad fact in this world is that it is ALL ABOUT THE GRADE. I learned nothing in high school (that I remember) and hated it and bored out of my skull. I turned in little to no homework and still i passed. why? b/cuz i was able to regurgitate memorized information. I got the grade. that's what matters. main problem #1 with our public school systems. and as a poor single mama who plans to work 10 hour days AND homeschool I hope I have it in me. I would die rather than send my boys to the hell i went through with public school. and I was not even classified in any way shape or form as "gifted" in fact I got a different more destructive label. i was "almost gifted" sorry too bad 2 points off you will do just fine in regular school/class. you didn't quite make it you weren't good enough blah blah blah.

ok that was long and rambly. I always get that way when I discuss public school.


----------



## Daffodil (Aug 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
Okay, so based on those assumptions, I drew the following conclusions: that for the vast majority, school must be acceptable _enough_ to _most_ people _most_ of the time, or there would be a mass withdrawal of people from the system.

Just because school is acceptable to most people, that doesn't mean it's actually serving their kids well. I agree that most people think schools are doing a reasonably good job. I also think those people are dead wrong. In fact, I see their willingness to accept the current system as a symptom of just how bad their "education" was.


----------



## Roar (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eightyferrettoes*
Hey, my kid's cuteness is spotted from a zillion miles away, by nattering grannies and total strangers alike. There is quite a bit of public consensus that the kid is cute.

Doesn't mean that "cute" isn't purely a function of the culture I live in.










I'm difficult, yes?

If the cuteness could only be recognized by people of exactly the same culture, then yes.

That isn't what I'm talking about with intelligence.


----------



## Rivka5 (Jul 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eightyferrettoes*
Both "race" and "intelligence" are purely cultural constructs, and nobody should be entitled to preferential treatment on the basis of either...

Does that work?









Is it really "preferential treatment" to give a child the chance to learn something new at school? In order to avoid "preferential treatment," is it really necessary to make kids sit at a desk all day, every day, for years, and pretend to be interested in familiar material that doesn't challenge them?


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Rivka5*
Is it really "preferential treatment" to give a child the chance to learn something new at school? In order to avoid "preferential treatment," is it really necessary to make kids sit at a desk all day, every day, for years, and pretend to be interested in familiar material that doesn't challenge them?

Do your kids really sit at a desk all day. Here is what my 5th grade dd's day looked like;

8:00 Breakfast Club: Before school activity involving rock music, cereal, milk and math. Teacher posts numerous math problems on board (from addition to algebra and calculus). Kids work in groups or independantly (they form their own) to solve as many as they can/want to) This is purely voluntary x-tra activity that my dd loved

8:30-8:45 Outside to play

8:45 Opening Bell, come inside, Announcemnts and thought for the day by the principal always ending with "Make it a great day or not. The choice is yours"

9:00 "America's Past" A discussion of King George and why exactly the 13 colonies were growing increasing fed up with the King. Alot of emotional isssues were discussed about how it feels to have others tell you what to do.(Kids had assigned reading the night before based on one of four different historical novels. Kids could choose which they wanted to read. Reading levels can be made higher if necessary for a child whose needs are higher)

9:30 Gym (Pilates)

10:00 "Puzzling" Three main groups: one (first day learning basics of long division with the teacher (seated on floor around teacher) second (with resource teacher using maniuplatives to divide in resource room) third (with enrichment teacher using alegebraic problem solving to answer questions written by kids as homework the night before). School District did send two kids in years past who were pg to high school located down the block for an AP calculus class. They were escoted by an aide and back after DEAR.

10:30 DEAR (drop everything and read). Almost all kids choose to do this on the comfy couches in the room.

11:00 Recess

11:40 Lunch

12:15 Ad presentations (from homework...try to "sell" your class on a product...) Discussions of which felt "dishonest" or overselling.

1:15 "Nature and Inquiry". Planned topic: The Human Body.... Actual Topic: Hurricanes (this is in the thick of Hurrican Katrina clean up.

The kids have been asking alot of questions...so Teacher drops planned topic and does a Q and A going into the history of hurricances in the U.S. as she used to be an intern at the National Weather Service.

Kids given alot of interesting info about what happened at the NWS when things got bad.

Kids also submit questions in a box which is passed around and the teacher tries to anwer them. She also suggests that since they all want to do something to help they think about it that night and discuss it the next day at the Community Service Committee meeting

[BTY, they did and decided to look into sponsering a school in Texas where many former NO residents were living. They raised money by running a flea market and sent the money to Texas)

2:00 Snackcess (combines snack time and recess)

2:20 Mural: The 5th graders are paiting a giant mural with a hired artist in resdence. Each works on an idea for a panel and discusses with AIR.

2:40 Government: Hmmm. Normally Teacher just moderates as kids discuss issues and commitees.

But today the Teacher is taking control. How strange. And being kind of well "dictatorial" Wow

Oh wait, the Teacher has been replaced with her evil twin "Queen Georgina" how awful. No wonder those colonies needed to break away!









Day over...

Now I think there are many areas where a hg or even pg kid would get alot out of this. For the most part they are not going to be sitting there just going over "familiar material."

I don't think are school is that unusual but maybe it is.


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya44*
I don't think are school is that unusual but maybe it is.

Many elementary schools here have dropped recess. I think gym has been cut back too. DEAR/SSR is not a recommended program under NCLB







but I don't know how many schools here do it anyway. So far as I'm aware, there are no couches in the classroom.


----------



## teachma (Dec 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
Just a question -- would she have been better off with 5th-graders, do you think??

Worse, actually. The Level 50 fifth graders are those students on the LOW end of the spectrum in terms of reading ability. In our district, the "average" fourth grader, with average intelligence, is reading Level 50 in the beginning of the year. So, to take my friend S and bump her up to 5th grade, she would actually be in a group with below average students. In no way would those be suitable academic peers for her. It's like saying, Take the kindergartener who's ready for long division and bring her up to fifth grade, where those learning long division should actually have done so LAST year in 4th, but they couldn't get it then and they're struggling through it now. So the gifted kindergartener is working through curriculum with the struggling 5th grader. I wouldn't sugggest that! Does my reasoning make sense to you now? Happy to clarify further if need be.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya44*
I don't think are school is that unusual but maybe it is.

Quite. Even in the "gifted" programs here it's unlikely to see a day that great. And no way that 5th graders would have two recesses here (or snack at all)

-Angela


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
CB I'm lost.

Most of the people I know who identify as black would also be identified by others as black. For most people (in the south anyway) there is no disagreement over what is meant when someone speaks of a person who is "white" or "black". The rigid idea's about it are quite depressing.


Similarly, for someone who's HG or PG, they'd also be identified by others as gifted. For most people (not in school administration, anyway) there is no disagreement over what is meant when someone speaks of a person who is "nongifted" or "gifted." School administrators' rigid ideas about it are quite depressing.

Quote:

So I'm not sure whether you are saying "All children are black" to point out that obviously, a white child is not black, or to point out that "black" like "gifted" is ambiguous?
There's certainly ambiguity about the definition of both "black" and "gifted"; however, neither race nor intelligence are _merely_ social constructs. There are people in the middle of the human bell curve who are a lovely café au lait color, just as there are people in the middle of the human bell curve who are of "normal" intelligence within a range. Those two truths might lead someone to think that "all children are gifted" and "all children are black" because there's ultimately very little variation along that middle-of-the-bell-curve range of skin color and intelligence. However, in skin color and intelligence both, there is an area of extremes on either end (very melanin-enhanced people vs. very melanin-deficient people) where there is no confusion at all that "everyone" is black or white. Similarly, with extreme ranges of intelligence, it's quite clear that not all children are "gifted" any more than all children are "intellectually challenged." To ignore this truth and declare that everyone is gifted/everyone is black/everyone is tall/everyone is...? is absurd.

(Again, just to be CRYSTAL CLEAR, _difference_ does not imply _hierarchy_.)


----------



## teachma (Dec 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
So you object to any statement that begins with "All children are..." regardless of how it ends?

Are you simply offended by the possibility that all children could be anything captured by a single word?

If so, I can see that. It's consistent at least









What about...All children are young ??? Then I guess you could say, well some are older than others...
Come on, I think this conversation is turning a little ridiculous.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CalebsMama05*
CB-as sad as it is the reason public school is *good enough* for the *vast majority* (ie: mainstream in my mind) is that a.) the parents are actually the ones *teaching* while thinking that its just being proactive about their education or b.) the parents just don't care. a sad fact in this world is that it is ALL ABOUT THE GRADE.

Yo, sister, sing it to me. I hear ya.

Quote:

and as a poor single mama who plans to work 10 hour days AND homeschool I hope I have it in me.
Bravissima!!!


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Daffodil*
Just because school is acceptable to most people, that doesn't mean it's actually serving their kids well. I agree that most people think schools are doing a reasonably good job. I also think those people are dead wrong. In fact, I see their willingness to accept the current system as a symptom of just how bad their "education" was.

If it helps, Daffodil, I also think they're dead wrong too. I think that their inability to understand this is probably deliberate on the part of the government because at heart, I love a good conspiracy theory. Still, conspiracy theory or just plain dumb bureaucracy, it's pretty sad either way and that's why we're homeschooling.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya44*
Do your kids really sit at a desk all day. Here is what my 5th grade dd's day looked like;

8:00 Breakfast Club: Before school activity involving rock music, cereal, milk and math. Teacher posts numerous math problems on board (from addition to algebra and calculus). Kids work in groups or independantly (they form their own) to solve as many as they can/want to) This is purely voluntary x-tra activity that my dd loved


Okay, but with all due respect here, this is a completely voluntary activity that will not actually have any impact on the child's overall curriculum. Moreover, there's no instruction going on -- if you can solve the problem, great; if you can't, too bad.

Quote:


9:00 "America's Past" A discussion of King George and why exactly the 13 colonies were growing increasing fed up with the King. Alot of emotional isssues were discussed about how it feels to have others tell you what to do.(Kids had assigned reading the night before based on one of four different historical novels. Kids could choose which they wanted to read. Reading levels can be made higher if necessary for a child whose needs are higher)
Great! When did they bring in the issues of taxation of the richest landowners and how those richest landowners were primarily responsible for inciting the rest of the colonists to rebellion? That doesn't sound anything like Iraq! And how did they connect the four independent readings to the current discussion? And where were the students compelled to find _proof_ for their assertions other than a reflection on their own personal feelings?

To me, Maya, this sounds a great deal like the Narcissism School of Instruction, where all history, geography, literature, and so on revolves around the central principle of "What Does This Have to Do With Me?"

Not only does it teach a fundamental, destructive, and pervasive narcissism in which "I" am the center of the known world, but it also cripples students when you ask them to find proof beyond their own personal feelings or personal experience. There have been many debates on these boards between two factions: the "Fact vs. Feeling" people, with the "feeling" people believing that if they state any random, factless absurdity, the absurdity is worthy of consideration in an argument because "IT'S MY OPINION" -- usually uttered in a tone of aggrieved high dudgeon. I see them as students and I have the same problem when I require them to, say, substantiate their opinion with, you know, like, _proof_.



> Quote:
> 
> 
> 10:00 "Puzzling" Three main groups: one (first day learning basics of long division with the teacher (seated on floor around teacher) second (with resource teacher using maniuplatives to divide in resource room) third (with enrichment teacher using alegebraic problem solving to answer questions written by kids as homework the night before). *School District did send two kids in years past who were pg to high school located down the block for an AP calculus class*. They were escoted by an aide and back after DEAR.
> ...


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

Similarly, for someone who's HG or PG, they'd also be identified by others as gifted. For most people (not in school administration, anyway) there is no disagreement over what is meant when someone speaks of a person who is "nongifted" or "gifted." School administrators' rigid ideas about it are quite depressing.
Well it hasn't been true in this thread, and many parents who identify with the gifted terms have complained repeatedly of real life family/friends/neighbors who fail to see/agree that their child is gifted.

As far as I can tell there are MANY definitions, just in this thread, of what it means to be "gifted". Enough so that quite a few people strongly believe "all children are gifted". I'm just explaining why this statement is, in fact, logical for those people to say so. If you don't define gifted according to IQ, then right there, you need to know what that person means by gifted, in order to get what they mean by the term "all children are gifted".

Black? Honestly, I've seen this to be a very consistent reigional perception.I think the question "What does a black person look like?" would be answered with pretty consistent regional prejudice. But "What does a gifted person look like" would be diverse. Some would reject the very idea of giftedness immediately. Some here would consider it a sin, the sin of vanity, to define what God saw fit to bless. Others would say book smarts were useless and instinct was the greatest gift. Gifted means knowing when to shut up. Gifted means good with numbers. Gifted means they make a lot of money. Gifted means they went to college. You get the idea? People have very diverse reactions to the term gifted. Veeerrrry Diverse.


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
I wonder how come they get to me and can't analyze anything or provide any reasons for why they "feel" what they feel, or think their "oPINions" are just as good as (or better than) facts, or how come facts got to be synonymous with fascism, which they can't spell or define.

It sure sounds like you have a dim view of your students. Do most of these students go on to a poor educational future? What colleges do they attend. What kinds of jobs do most of your students end up with?

Do you think they suffer in adulthood based on their obviously poor early education?


----------



## eightyferrettoes (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Rivka5*
Is it really "preferential treatment" to give a child the chance to learn something new at school? In order to avoid "preferential treatment," is it really necessary to make kids sit at a desk all day, every day, for years, and pretend to be interested in familiar material that doesn't challenge them?

I suspect that a lot of that is going on even with perfectly "average" students in any given public school system. The sheer amount of time spent reviewing old material is kinda shocking, last I heard.

and no, no kid ought be subjected to the kind of one-size-fits-none education going on in PSes. It stunts them all, in terms of reaching their potentials. Not just the "gifted" ones, and probably not even disproportionately the "gifted" ones, IMO.

The way I see it, all education is learning geared toward meeting a specific set of goals (whatever the surrounding culture deems important and valuable.) I merely question the legitimacy of the set of goals our public school system has in place for ALL kids.

In an an agricultural society, wouldn't mastering the art and science of animal husbandry and grain cultivation be viewed as nobler ends than reading the Aeneid in the original Latin? Kids did it, to be sure, but learning Latin at the age of 7 wasn't necessarily a harbinger of "genius," either.

So I'm not sure I buy this argument that "giftedness" is free of cultural bias. Someone here rejected the idea of agricultural giftedness on the basis that that is "specialized" education, not "accelerated learning."

But what kind of education isn't directed toward some subset of specialized skills? Even reading is a specialized skill... just one that we happen to place a lot of value on doing early, fluently, and well.


----------



## Alenushka (Jul 27, 2002)

They know that they are different. Just like gay kids. I knew I was diffirent at age 5.....and I knew my kids were different since they were little. Ther eis no point in hiding or denying one's gift. IN fact repressing a gifted kid does just as mcuh good as trying to make a gay kid straight. You are who you are and be proud of it. Like it or not my kids math ability is better than that of 97% of kids around it. They are born this way. They still have to do chores, be polite and kind, but HELL YES, will ask for special program for them at shcool. Providing appropritate education for a gifted child is not differet or prefferentail thatn providing speech therapy for a child with articualtion problem (whcih my son did have). WHy is OK for lD, disabled or ESL kids to receive special service but not for gifted kids (incedentily, some gifted kids also have LD, are disabled or ESL). Gifted chil has different needs that need to be met.
I feelt hat it is my repsobility as mother to protec and nurture my child's gift and teach them to sue is to the good or the sosiety, jsut like my mother taught me


----------



## RubyWild (Apr 7, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Alenushka*
They know that they are different.

How are they different? Most kids are in the upper 90th percentile on something. I guess that means that most kids are gifted.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya44*
It sure sounds like you have a dim view of your students. Do most of these students go on to a poor educational future? What colleges do they attend. What kinds of jobs do most of your students end up with?

Do you think they suffer in adulthood based on their obviously poor early education?

I have no idea, but I do my best to make sure that they don't suffer in adulthood, get into decent colleges if it's what they want to do, and so on. As annoying as I find that opinion-based narcissism -- and I do -- _it's not their fault_ if they've been trained to think that their experience and feelings are the be-all and end-all of their education, and in multifold ways, they certainly have. In some ways, I don't even blame the teachers, because they've been educated to think that this teaching method is the be-all and end-all. It's not. At best, it's a brief beginning point, a way of connecting to the text as a _first_ step toward understanding something _outside_ yourself, but all too often, exploration of one's feelings becomes the goal, not understanding an historical situation or an author's point. So yeah, it's very frustrating when just the _concept_ -- the simple concept of understanding what an author's message is, particularly when it doesn't fit their own paradigms or opinions -- is difficult to communicate to them.

I'll give an example, if you all will pardon this considerable digression: I was teaching poetry and as an intro to the unit, was bridging the gap between poetry and music by looking at Roger Waters' "Mother." For those of you who've not blown the dust off _The Wall_ since Sting had a hairline near his forehead and no one knew George Michael was gay, the song includes lyrics like, "Mother's gonna keep baby under her wing / She won't let you fly, but she might let you sing..." "Mother's gonna put all of her fears into you / Mother's gonna make all of your nightmares come true..." and so on. Bottom line, it's a portrait of an someone who puts the "mother" in "smother."

Despite the many obvious lines in this poem, time after time, students aren't able to get past what they believe the song _should be_ about according to their own feelings. Time after time, they've told me it's a song about a woman who really is a good mother.







. Remind me never to go to their house. They can't see past their preconceived notions. It's like the evidence isn't even there.

Want proof on a large scale that people can't see evidence when it conflicts with their own view of what they want to be true? 50% of Americans believe that there were WMDs in Iraq. Q.E.D.

So no, I don't have a dim view of my students. I have a very dim view of how they've been (under-, non-) educated.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *RubyWild*
How are they different? Most kids are in the upper 90th percentile on something. I guess that means that most kids are gifted.

Sorry to sound skeptical here, Ruby, but would you mind linking to a source or quoting/referencing the source of that information?


----------



## Alenushka (Jul 27, 2002)

You do not udnerstand, maybe math is not your gift. (-:. It is not mine either
My 6 yo explained to me how to calculate with postitive and negative numbers around the campfire. He overhead soem odler kids talking about and he figure it out.
We were solving a word problme and he told me "Mom, do not bother, it is tirck, they gave us the wrogn fact to begin with". It was word problme for kids of mcuh older age.
He is now solving equations with his logic teacher I hired him becuase it was clear that the summer academic packet with 3 plus 5 problmes is not gonna hold his interest.
My 10 ye perused a college text on Electronics and dismanteled a few old thing from the attic....and made an Ipod docking staion for his Ipod and a little robot.
He also was very determined to amke his water rocket fly as high as porriblae to he made little table on paper and kept bulduing launching pads untill he figured out optimal pressure and angles...and the rocket flew far far away.
and yes, he is taking a logic class in sumemr too. FOr fun, ebcuase he likes it not because I bribed him or threatened him
He read about DNA replicationa and knows what cholesterol does to your artteries. etc etce tc
The lsit can go on
My kids are firend with mnay kids, not jsut ofrm their GATE programa and I know that other kid do not do math ont heir level, coul not be forced or bribed into a logic class and will not bulit nifty thing fomr broken electronics in the attic.


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *RubyWild*
How are they different? Most kids are in the upper 90th percentile on something. I guess that means that most kids are gifted.

Gifted is usually defined as at least two standard deviations from average -- almost the 98th percentile -- including moderately gifted kids. Are most children gifted in the areas actually taught at school?


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
I have no idea,

Want proof on a large scale that people can't see evidence when it conflicts with their own view of what they want to be true? 50% of Americans believe that there were WMDs in Iraq. Q.E.D.

So no, I don't have a dim view of my students. I have a very dim view of how they've been (under-, non-) educated.

Why do you have "no idea"? You don't actually know what schools your students end up attending? Or what jobs they end up with? Do you, or at least your school, not track this sort of thing?

Is your school one where a significant number of students end up at top Ivy League Universities? Or where few do?

Is your school district one that routinely turns out the kind of student who would be likely to be part of that 50 percent of Americans?

Mine turns out those who end up lawyers, doctors and top reserach scientists, heads of corporations etc... You can critisize them or their education but if you took a survey of this demographic, how many do you think would believe in the WMD issue?


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

A sincere question for those who don't believe that IQ tests should determine gifted status: do you believe that IQ tests measure anything (besides test-taking ability, that is)? I mean, do you think that IQ tests are an accurate measurement of a certain type of ability, but that there are other, equally important types of ability, or do you think that they aren't an accurate measure of *any* ability?


----------



## RubyWild (Apr 7, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NoHiddenFees*
Gifted is usually defined as at least two standard deviations from average -- almost the 98th percentile -- including moderately gifted kids. Are most children gifted in the areas actually taught at school?

Some kids are gifted with high kinesthetic intelligence, others with intuitive intelligence, still others with analytical intelligence or some subform of these or other types of intelligence. Yes, most kids are gifted in some area that is covered in some manner in the schools, however most schools teach "subjects" (e.g. math, science, art) as if they are dismembered parts of a body without any reference to how they work together. It's often impossible in our school system to recognize the gifts of each child. When schools do recognize them, they are usually recognizing only those parts of a gift that fit into their extremely limited system.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya44*
Why do you have "no idea"? You don't actually know what schools your students end up attending? Or what jobs they end up with? Do you, or at least your school, not track this sort of thing?

Maya, I don't know how many students you teach in an average year, but I teach from 150-180. If you think I have either the time or the desire to go through and see exactly where they go after they leave me, you must think I have much more time on my hands than I do. Really. I assume most of them, since you're apparently interested, go to the state university because the state university offers them a cheap -n- easy deal for its crap education -- kind've like McDonalds' Dollar Menu, only for "higher" education. Some aspire higher and lots deserve higher, but they're poor.

Quote:

Is your school one where a significant number of students end up at top Ivy League Universities? Or where few do?
My whole *state* is one where few students end up at top Ivy League universities. However, let me add that at this stage in my career, I have taught at three different high schools in three different states, all of which have ranged drastically in quality. The emphasis on Narcissism 101 has remained fairly constant throughout and has proven to be a detriment not only to me, but to teachers and researchers who recognize it as academically and personally harmful.

Quote:


Is your school district one that routinely turns out the kind of student who would be likely to be part of that 50 percent of Americans?
Yes.

Quote:

Mine turns out those who end up lawyers, doctors and top reserach scientists, heads of corporations etc... You can critisize them or their education but if you took a survey of this demographic, how many do you think would believe in the WMD issue?
Heads of corporations? Like Halliburton? I dunno, Maya, depends on how they voted in the last election. That 50% is coming from _somewhere_. As a nation, I think we've gotten quite good at raising sheep.


----------



## Periwinkle (Feb 27, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*
A sincere question for those who don't believe that IQ tests should determine gifted status: do you believe that IQ tests measure anything (besides test-taking ability, that is)? I mean, do you think that IQ tests are an accurate measurement of a certain type of ability, but that there are other, equally important types of ability, or do you think that they aren't an accurate measure of *any* ability?

I think good IQ tests are a measure of intelligence, yes. In that I would postulate that the children who score 3 standard deviations above the mean are noticably different to just about anyone from any culture than the children who score 3 standard deviations below the mean. So I do think that it is tapping SOMETHING actually related to cognitive ability -- what I'm not sure -- but I also think there is significant enough bias in the test not to mention reliability issues (i.e., taken on a different day under a different set of circumstances the same child may score differently) that the differences between children who are say 115 vs. 125 could be nearly indistinguishable.


----------



## RubyWild (Apr 7, 2004)

oops


----------



## teachma (Dec 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Periwinkle*
I think good IQ tests are a measure of intelligence, yes. In that I would postulate that the children who score 3 standard deviations above the mean are noticably different to just about anyone from any culture than the children who score 3 standard deviations below the mean. So I do think that it is tapping SOMETHING actually related to cognitive ability -- what I'm not sure -- but I also think there is significant enough bias in the test not to mention reliability issues (i.e., taken on a different day under a different set of circumstances the same child may score differently) that the differences between children who are say 115 vs. 125 could be nearly indistinguishable.

I basically agree with this. By way of personal example, my 6 year old took some IQ tests last year as part of a complete psychoeducational evaluation we pursued privately to help us understand why he seemed so "different" from other children his age. His therapist (whom he saw weekly for anxiety issues) suggested he might be gifted (in the "high IQ" sense of the term) and recommended we pursue testing to help us understand him better. His scores, if I correctly recall, were V-129 and P-119. Dh and I suspected his Verbal abilities would show up stronger on the test because he is very language-driven and has always been. Is he "verbally gifted?" According to the test, no...by one point. However, when the tester presented me with a brief list of some of the questions he failed to correctly answer, I understood why. Two of them were: Why would a child need a babysitter? and What does a policeman do? To each, he responded, "I don't know." Of course he knew, and later he gave me elaborate answers. But these questions relate directly to some of his greatest anxieties: being left alone, lost, potentially harmed by a stranger...And when he is scared, he shuts down. He didn't even want to HEAR about babysitters and police officers because both ideas make him uncomfortable. He was unwilling to discuss. There were more like this on the test, all of which were part of the Verbal portion. So could his score have been higher than 129? Of course. But his anxiety prevented him from demonstrating that. His experience showed me how the tests can be unreliable, to a degree, depending on other "issues" an evaluated child might have. A highly gifted student may have more significant and numerous interfering issues than does my son, and this may lead to more drastically skewed results.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *RubyWild*
Some kids are gifted with high kinesthetic intelligence, others with intuitive intelligence,


Ruby, we went around the Gardnerian bend before, but it's still hooey. Not only has it been routinely discredited by serious researchers in the field of human intelligence, but it's also just plain bad science. Not only does he deliberately obfuscate the distinction between "intelligence" and "talent," blurring them so that anything and everything can be an "intelligence," but he selects AS "intelligences" skills that are largely unmeasurable, uncomparable, and completely culturally relative.

For example, let's take this idea of kinesthetic intelligence, shall we? Unlike general intelligence, which *can* be measured, albeit imperfectly, how are we to measure, with any kind of objective criteria, kinesthetic intelligence? And talk about subjective and culturally relative...wow. Who is more kinesthetically intelligent? Baryshnikov, or Michael Jordan? What about John Travolta in the Saturday Night Fever era? For that matter, what about porn star John Holmes -- now that's a kinesthetic intelligence for you! What about my personal favorite -- Elaine from _Seinfeld_. What if I claimed she was highly gifted as a dancer because her moves were so...unexpected?

Y'see?

Oh, and how, really, do we measure intuitive intelligence? With an intu-o-meter? Calling Deanna Troi! And how do we compare whether, for example, I am more intuitive than you? Or whether I am really not very intuitive relative to the population?

Really.

I apologize for sounding sarcastic and I want to make clear that my sarcasm is not directed at you personally, nor is it a personal attack. It's a sarcastic attack on Gardner's theories, which (for the record) were never intended to be used in pedagogy, and which -- not surprisingly -- have not worked.

Quote:

Yes, most kids are gifted in some area that is covered in some manner in the schools,
Really! What a surprise. Please share your data. A link? A quote? The title of a book? Really, any objective data on which you're basing this surprising statement would be most welcome.


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
Really! What a surprise. Please share your data. A link? A quote? The title of a book? Really, any objective data on which you're basing this surprising statement would be most welcome.

Even assuming Gardner's theories hold weight (which I don't believe they do _per se_), I think RubyWild is confusing predominent relative strengths with giftedness. Assuming his intelligences could be measured, it is statistically impossible for all children to be gifted under Gardner. If no child was in the 98th or better percentile in *more than one* of his 7 categories, that's still only, what, 14% of all children? The actual number would be lower, because one would expect some overlap.


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

A little more on Gardner:

From Wikipedia:

Quote:

In addition, many educators feel that the theory of multiple intelligences gives support to the idea that every child is equally gifted, which leads to the cutting of funding for Gifted and Talented Education programs, or their broadening to include all students. *Gardner himself has attacked the latter view*, saying that he felt there was a lot of nonsense propagated about the supposed consequences of his theory for Gifted and Talented Education, and that *he never intended his theory to affirm that all children are equally gifted*.
Gardner's wife, Ellen Winner (presumably well acquainted with his theories) concurs in her book Gifted Children.


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
Maya, I don't know how many students you teach in an average year, but I teach from 150-180. If you think I have either the time or the desire to go through and see exactly where they go after they leave me, you must think I have much more time on my hands than I do. Really. I assume most of them, since you're apparently interested, go to the state university because the state university offers them a cheap -n- easy deal for its crap education -- kind've like McDonalds' Dollar Menu, only for "higher" education. Some aspire higher and lots deserve higher, but they're poor.

I don't teach. I am an attorney. But our district tracks these statistics and the teachers are certainly aware of it. I thought that was a standard thing. Guess not.

I think our students are fairly well prepared for critical thinking and analysis. I know that, I, who went through this district with the same 5th grade teacher as my dds, certainly was. My job as an attorney with a focus on Constitutional Issues certainly requires it.

BTY, My soon to be 4th grader has no problem analyzing your "Mother" song lyrics. (Here reaction: "Oooh creepy. I bet that mom wouldn't let her kids go to summer camp, huh?". She just returned yesterday from four weeks away, so this is why she though of that)


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

There is no conclusive research that defines intelligence. None of the links in this thread provided evidence that humans have more than subjective perspectives of what is even being referred too when speaking of "intelligence". Defining it by an IQ test is tatamount to admitting your grasp of intellect is limited by anticipation.

You don't know what it is. You think you do, it feels good to say you know, but you do not. Not a single definition of intelligence has been given in this thread that is not, with one single click to Google, disproven by another definition.

Somebody had to say it







:


----------



## Roar (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NoHiddenFees*
RL]:

Gardner's wife, Ellen Winner (presumably well acquainted with his theories) concurs in her book Gifted Children.

Wow Gardner and Ellen Winner are married? Wild, I didn't realize that. They must have some great conversations at their house.


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
Defining it by an IQ test is tatamount to admitting your grasp of intellect is limited by anticipation.

Show me where on this thread anyone has absolutely equated achievement with intelligence or IQ (yes, there is correlation, at least through moderate giftedness, but it's not absolute). Please stop insisting on conflating these ideas. Furthermore, show me where anyone has stated that intellectual potential is fixed and not part of a range? Nature and nurture, remember? Care to further address the nurture part? That discussion got cut short. As I recall, you'd cited some parents of low achieving children blaming their schools for this, but didn't follow up on their perceptions of their own responsibility for at home nurture. You had stated that nurture was more important than nature.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
Not a single definition of intelligence has been given in this thread that is not, with one single click to Google, disproven by another definition.

Umm, I can prove practically anything with one single click to Google. What counts is how reputable the source is. There are controversies in any field and about any theory. There are a couple consensus definitions (again, for the sake of ease, from Wikipedia):

From the APA:

Quote:

Individuals differ from one another in their ability to understand complex ideas, to adapt effectively to the environment, to learn from experience, to engage in various forms of reasoning, to overcome obstacles by taking thought. Although these individual differences can be substantial, they are never entirely consistent: a given person's intellectual performance will vary on different occasions, in different domains, as judged by different criteria. Concepts of "intelligence" are attempts to clarify and organize this complex set of phenomena.
From "Mainstream Science on Intelligence", which was signed by 52 *intelligence researchers* in 1994:

Intelligence is:

Quote:

a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. *It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts.* Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings-"catching on", "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do.
No one claims that IQ tests (good ones) are perfect, but they remain the best instrument we have at this time for approximating a measure of intelligence. Bias factors can cause lower scores, but a real IQ test will rarely if ever show a higher score.

Quote:

Somebody had to say it
You keep saying it. You keep stating your "beliefs." That doesn't mean I have to agree or that your beliefs necessarily have a basis in reality.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

NohiddenFee's your argument here is self reinforcing.

There are multiple theories of intelligence. You have defined what is "reliable" and what is "based in reality" and taken one popular view of "intelligence" and now insist on being "proven" otherwise...but you did not "prove" your definition of it to be objective in the first place. All you have given me are your "beliefs" and the beliefs of those who agree with you. Does everyone agree with you? No. Is your view the universal view? No. Are there entire countries of people who would find your definition and measurement of intellect irrelevant, ambiguous, even...unintelligent? Yes.


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

nak

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
There are multiple theories of intelligence. You have defined what is "reliable" and what is "based in reality" and taken one popular view of "intelligence" and now insist on being "proven" otherwise

"Popular" typically means for lay folk. Is that what you mean? You stated that the were many definitions and I returned that there are some consensus definitions among a substantial number of experts in the field, but controversy still exists. I'm not talking about popular opinion.

Quote:

...but you did not "prove" your definition of it to be objective in the first place. All you have given me are your "beliefs" and the beliefs of those who agree with you.
My beliefs based on research I've read and researchers I respect. If I acknowledge controversy in the field, how exactly is it I'm expecting everyone to agree with me. You seem to be ascribing to me the same kind of intransigency I pick up from your posts. My point remains that when shopping for facts on the Internet, some people's opinion's hold more weight than others.

How about responding to the rest of the post?


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

How about responding to the rest of the post?
What part did you feel wasn't addressed?


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
What part did you feel wasn't addressed?


Quote:


Originally Posted by *NoHiddenFees*
Show me where on this thread anyone has absolutely equated achievement with intelligence or IQ (yes, there is correlation, at least through moderate giftedness, but it's not absolute). Please stop insisting on conflating these ideas. Furthermore, show me where anyone has stated that intellectual potential is fixed and not part of a range? Nature and nurture, remember? Care to further address the nurture part? That discussion got cut short. As I recall, you'd cited some parents of low achieving children blaming their schools for this, but didn't follow up on their perceptions of their own responsibility for at home nurture. You had stated that nurture was more important than nature.

And for the record, I didn't define "based in reality". What I said was:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NoHiddenFees*
You keep saying it. You keep stating your "beliefs." That doesn't mean I have to agree or that your beliefs necessarily have a basis in reality.

The word "necessarily" makes a big difference. I am often less precise than I'd like when posting because of time constraints and fuzzy head from lack of sleep but in this case I said exactly what I mean.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NoHiddenFees*
A little more on Gardner:

From Wikipedia:

Gardner's wife, Ellen Winner (presumably well acquainted with his theories) concurs in her book Gifted Children.


Well, good for Gardner. My opinion of him has just risen, in all seriousness.


----------



## bczmama (Jan 30, 2006)

Maya says that her school system:

"Mine turns out those who end up lawyers, doctors and top reserach scientists, heads of corporations etc... You can critisize them or their education but if you took a survey of this demographic, how many do you think would believe in the WMD issue."

Is this really anything to do with the school system, or rather than these kids come from homes where their parents are lawyers, doctors, scientists and heads of corporations?


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bczmama*
Maya says that her school system:

"Mine turns out those who end up lawyers, doctors and top reserach scientists, heads of corporations etc... You can critisize them or their education but if you took a survey of this demographic, how many do you think would believe in the WMD issue."

Is this really anything to do with the school system, or rather than these kids come from homes where their parents are lawyers, doctors, scientists and heads of corporations?

I was also wondering why these people are theoretically more intelligent -- at least about WMDs in Iraq -- than the 50% of Americans who believe they exist. I'm sure Maya is not saying that being a doctor or a lawyer or a corporation head makes you less likely to support Republican positions.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

NohiddenFee's~

That was the point of my post. There is no way to persuade you on a point about intelligence (or achievement) because you are speaking of it as though you know all about it. What else can anyone say to you? Or several others here. You know what it is, how to measure it, what to do with the children who have this or that number. The people who have been harmed by that view, it's not that I think you don't care about them, it's that you aren't communicating an awareness of the scale of damage done by this view. It justifies classism, racism, and all manner of prejudice. It's a damaging view, a divisive view. In fact I'd venture to say this view has hurt far, far more people than it has helped.


----------



## bczmama (Jan 30, 2006)

Well, there is "intelligent" and there is "informed" and I'm always surprised at how infrequently the two actually meet.


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
That was the point of my post.

Sorry, I just don't see it.

Quote:

There is no way to persuade you on a point about intelligence (or achievement) because you are speaking of it as though you know all about it. What else can anyone say to you? Or several others here. You know what it is, how to measure it, what to do with the children who have this or that number.
On the contrary, we've talked about weaknesses in measuring IQ, and a number of different methods of accomdating gifted kids. I don't recall anyone pouncing on teachma for suggesting that it was best for her son to be in a regular kindergarten class. The studies that show acceleration works for most gifted kids, also show about 1/5 that were dissatisfied with that solution. However, if there are no gifted classes or accomodations and (as it too often the case) acceleration is not offered, there are no options for these students except to stay in the regular classroom.

Quote:

The people who have been harmed by that view, it's not that I think you don't care about them, it's that you aren't communicating an awareness of the scale of damage done by this view.
"That view?" I've read about people being damaged by expectations (theirs, the schools, parents). I've read about gifted kids who weren't challenged and didn't have to do a lick of work through public school and bombed in college. I've read elsewhere about a lot of damaged gifted adults who went through the "regular" school system and didn't even realize they were gifted until years later. I've read about gifted adults who regret never coming close to what they felt was their potential for a variety of reasons: some didn't get adequate guidance; some were good at so many things they couldn't decide where to specialize; some got so wrapped up in grades and perfectionism they stopped trying anything new for fear of failure. There are far more ways to screw up a gifted kid than just to label them and misuse the label.

Quote:

It justifies classism, racism, and all manner of prejudice. It's a damaging view, a divisive view. In fact I'd venture to say this view has hurt far, far more people than it has helped.
You'd venture to say, but have no data, right?


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
I was also wondering why these people are theoretically more intelligent -- at least about WMDs in Iraq -- than the 50% of Americans who believe they exist. I'm sure Maya is not saying that being a doctor or a lawyer or a corporation head makes you less likely to support Republican positions.

It's not a matter of intelligence, its a matter of people in these professions being more likely to be informed. The people I am referring to ( and lots are Republicans) read the New York Times and the WSJ. They watch Face the Nation and This Week with...Not one of them believes that WMD's were in Iraq. All accept the idea that a major mistake was made in believing that they existed. (The Republicans may believe it was an "honest mistake" the Democrats that the administration was lying, but none believe that WMD's existed.)

These are people who follow and accept the mainstream media. That media is NOT asserting that WMD's existed. It's taken as a fact that they did not.

I think it's the 50 percent of the nation who is NOT reading a daily newspaper or watching the Face the Nation's who may believe differently.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Periwinkle*
I think good IQ tests are a measure of intelligence, yes. In that I would postulate that the children who score 3 standard deviations above the mean are noticably different to just about anyone from any culture than the children who score 3 standard deviations below the mean. So I do think that it is tapping SOMETHING actually related to cognitive ability -- what I'm not sure -- but I also think there is significant enough bias in the test not to mention reliability issues (i.e., taken on a different day under a different set of circumstances the same child may score differently) that the differences between children who are say 115 vs. 125 could be nearly indistinguishable.

Okay. I agree. Of course, any method of testing or evaluation would have the same problems, but there isn't much alternative, is there? (short of every child being homeschooled, which I would fully support, but most people would not)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
There is no conclusive research that defines intelligence. None of the links in this thread provided evidence that humans have more than subjective perspectives of what is even being referred too when speaking of "intelligence". Defining it by an IQ test is tatamount to admitting your grasp of intellect is limited by anticipation.

You don't know what it is. You think you do, it feels good to say you know, but you do not. Not a single definition of intelligence has been given in this thread that is not, with one single click to Google, disproven by another definition.

Somebody had to say it







:

"Intelligence" is a slippery term. But, would you agree that if two people take a test, and one scores significantly higher, that the difference in scores does reflect a difference in ability in the area which is being tested, even if not in overall intelligence or giftedness?


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*
Just because I feel like throwing a wrench in this argument, I would like to point out a personal anecdote. I had pneumonia the day I took the GRE and while I scored well enough to qualify for the state university masters in education program I was aiming for, I am sure I did not score as well as my general intelligence capabilities. Occasionally, people demonstrate less intelligence than they actually have, for a variety of reason: being tired, being hungover, being on drugs, being sick, being hungry, being anxious, being focused on a different problem, etc.

That is a valid point. Any testing is going to be flawed this way. There are also going to be people who score higher than they otherwise would because they are just better at taking tests.

But, the reason I'm asking is because there seem to be two separate arguments being used against IQ tests as a measure of giftedness--one is that IQ tests measure only one of many equally valid kinds of giftedness, and the other is that the kind of giftedness measured by IQ tests does not actually exist. I'm trying to differentiate between the two.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*
Can I also point out something about this comparison of different types of people in schools, those who go to state universities and those who become the well educated folks who read the New York Times? If 50% of Americans believe WMDs exist and the other 50% do not and this latter 50% is supposedly better educated, then how do you explain that 75% of Americans do not believe in evolution? Usually, one learns, in our nation's finest institutions of higher education, that evolution not only exists but that there are defensible arguments in its favor. So, logically, some of that supposedly well-read, intelligent 50% are not believing in the most basic tenet of scientific thought. They are substituting faith for science. As such, how are we supposed to believe anything they say? There is clearly a subset of this group that does not have a very clear and basic understanding of science. If the study of intelligence is a field of science, and there are supposedly intelligent people who do not hold truthful the basic tenet of science, then clearly this subset is not as intelligent as they have been made out to be.


75% of Americans don't believe in evolution? The statistic I heard was that 46% believe in direct creationism, which would leave 54% who believe in evolution. And I would guess that there is a strong overlap between those who believe in direct creationism and those who believe in WMD, but I could be wrong.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*
My horrified biologist hubby actually called me on the phone to tell me he was listening to an NPR report that said this. I think it was last week or the week before but I am positive they said 75%. We have been talking about it in disgust ever since. In the am, I will ask him if he has a reference, just to be sure.

here is an article where they say one third of americans do not believe in evolution.

This one says 40% do not believe

This one says that Gallup Polls have repeatedly shown that only about 10 percent of Americans believe the version of evolution commonly taught in public schools and, despite massive public school indoctrination in Darwinism, that number has not changed much in decades.

I think maybe there is a disagreement of what it actually means to believe in evolution. Anti-evolutionists like Phyllis Schlafly like to use belief in evolution as synonomous with atheism, which it isn't. Anyway, I don't think that people who don't believe in evolution are necessarily unintelligent or disbelievers in science so much as not understanding it. I know that I don't understand much about biology beyond the basics. But then I am living proof that a high IQ doesn't necessarily equal being "smart" in the conventional sense...


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*
My point was that just because you went to a top university and read the new york times does not mean you are necessarily any more or less intelligent than anyone else.


Well I said that if you went to a top university and read a daily well written newspaper you are more likely to be INFORMED than if you did not.

Less than 1/3 of the U.S. population over 25 has graduated from college. It would not be suprising that the tiny percentage of those who went to the nation's top universities are much more likely to be in the better informed more knowledgable part of the population is it?


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

You'd venture to say, but have no data, right?
Have no data? Where do you live? Have you seen what state care looks like for a mentally "handicapped" child? Our society has no value for that kind of person at all. None, beyond the barest sense of moral obligation to let them exist. Is it like this in every culture? No. It wasn't always like that here, either.

There was never a good time to be born with mental delays, but there was a time when such a person was free to pick up skills and have social value for what they could actually do. This is still true in many places around the world. Little Johnny might never speak, but he's the best at mending a broken axle and nobody would go elsewhere from abstract intellectual prejudice against Johnny. Intelligence was tangible, a view that better served a segment of society that is now neglected. Here and now, first and foremost you "are" your label. If you have an IQ of 50 it's doubtful you will ever find a place of intrinsic social value in society. People may take a charitable interest, but even a real honest to goodness talent will not free you from intellectual prejudice.

Then the untidy business of race and IQ...certain races score lower overall on IQ tests. Scientists are "perplexed". Now, without going to Wikipedia first (or searching for reputable sources), would you like to guess which two races routinely score lower than others? Then you have to ask yourself, who benefits from this view of measurable intelligence? And then you really stick your foot in it. Once you start connecting with people held down by this view, I at least can't even concede it's "the best system we have right now". For some it was never helpful at all.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya44*
It's not a matter of intelligence, its a matter of people in these professions being more likely to be informed. The people I am referring to ( and lots are Republicans) read the New York Times and the WSJ. They watch Face the Nation and This Week with...Not one of them believes that WMD's were in Iraq. All accept the idea that a major mistake was made in believing that they existed. (The Republicans may believe it was an "honest mistake" the Democrats that the administration was lying, but none believe that WMD's existed.)

These are people who follow and accept the mainstream media. That media is NOT asserting that WMD's existed. It's taken as a fact that they did not.

I think it's the 50 percent of the nation who is NOT reading a daily newspaper or watching the Face the Nation's who may believe differently.

Ah, the classism...and of course, the people in the lowest strata of this country, the people who are most likely, due to economic pressures, to join the military and actually deal with the Iraqis, have no stake in this issue whatsoever. Again, as I said, _someone_ is believing in this issue, and given the fact that the richest people in this country have the most to gain from supporting the Republican administration and their absurd assertions that Iraq was possessed of a WMD collection worse than Saddam's bad breath, my suspicions tend to rest with them.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya44*
It's not a matter of intelligence, its a matter of people in these professions being more likely to be informed. The people I am referring to ( and lots are Republicans) read the New York Times and the WSJ. They watch Face the Nation and This Week with...Not one of them believes that WMD's were in Iraq. All accept the idea that a major mistake was made in believing that they existed. (The Republicans may believe it was an "honest mistake" the Democrats that the administration was lying, but none believe that WMD's existed.)

These are people who follow and accept the mainstream media. That media is NOT asserting that WMD's existed. It's taken as a fact that they did not.

I think it's the 50 percent of the nation who is NOT reading a daily newspaper or watching the Face the Nation's who may believe differently.

But listen, this is completely OT now. If you'd like to reply, perhaps using PM would be best.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*
, then how do you explain that 75% of Americans do not believe in evolution? .

Uh...where did you get that statistic?? I haven't made some kind of exhaustive study or anything, but this figure seems wildly exaggerated to me.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

Again, as I said, someone is believing in this issue, and given the fact that the richest people in this country have the most to gain from supporting the Republican administration and their absurd assertions that Iraq was possessed of a WMD collection worse than Saddam's bad breath, my suspicions tend to rest with them.
Amen to that.

I know your taking it to pm so I'll say no more...


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
Have no data? Where do you live? Have you seen what state care looks like for a mentally "handicapped" child? Our society has no value for that kind of person at all. None, beyond the barest sense of moral obligation to let them exist. Is it like this in every culture? No. It wasn't always like that here, either.

You honestly believe that having a gifted designation is the cause of this?

Quote:

There was never a good time to be born with mental delays, but there was a time when such a person was free to pick up skills and have social value for what they could actually do. This is still true in many places around the world. Little Johnny might never speak, but he's the best at mending a broken axle and nobody would go elsewhere from abstract intellectual prejudice against Johnny.
Hmmm. I'd say that LJ is more the victim of a capitalist society that doesn't adequately provide for the people who fall through the cracks. Unfortunately, when the LJ's of America are able to find employment today, the are too often taken advantage of by people out oply to make a buck.

Quote:

Intelligence was tangible, a view that better served a segment of society that is now neglected.
It was fashionable in the US to hold this view; it was a reaction againt Old World intellectualism. That didn't prevent owning property being a requirement to vote.

Quote:

Then the untidy business of race and IQ...certain races score lower overall on IQ tests. Scientists are "perplexed". Now, without going to Wikipedia first (or searching for reputable sources), would you like to guess which two races routinely score lower than others? Then you have to ask yourself, who benefits from this view of measurable intelligence? And then you really stick your foot in it. Once you start connecting with people held down by this view, I at least can't even concede it's "the best system we have right now". For some it was never helpful at all.
Please, we've already addressed everything you've stated here. Nature, *nurture*, testing bias, institutional bias. It's a fact that African Americans are less likely to read aloud to their children (new edition of The Read Aloud Handbook). I see every day in my neighborhood high achieving African American girls with brothers who've dropped out because school isn't a thing to do. The lower SES position a child has, the greater the likelihood of being exposed to environmental toxins. The list goes on and on.


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
Ah, the classism...and of course, the people in the lowest strata of this country, the people who are most likely, due to economic pressures, to join the military and actually deal with the Iraqis, have no stake in this issue whatsoever. Again, as I said, _someone_ is believing in this issue, and given the fact that the richest people in this country have the most to gain from supporting the Republican administration and their absurd assertions that Iraq was possessed of a WMD collection worse than Saddam's bad breath, my suspicions tend to rest with them.

This is not classism. It's a simple fact that if you read and buy into the mainstream media you are more likely to hold the postions of that media than people who don't. The mainstream media position is that there were not WMD. Indeed even the administrtion's current position is that there were no WMD. The administration's position is that their error was a good faith one, based on the information they had. Many would disagree. Certainly the people I know would. About 75 percent are liberal democrats, which is not suprising despite their "establishement" jobs as most are Jewish and have deep feelings of animosity for an administration that they believe hates them.

Moreover, your 50 percent is not really accurate. The latest statistics show that only around 18 percent believe that Iraq had WMD but that another 32 percent believe that Iraq had a "program" for building those weapons.


----------



## jkpmomtoboys (Jun 1, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*
Hubby is busy at work but I will ask him for the name of the npr article he listened to and heard this stat. But, did you follow the links I cited above? One study says only 10% of americans believe in evolution the way it is taught in schools!

Just popping in to say I really liked the juxtaposition of your post and your sig here...


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya44*
This is not classism. It's a simple fact that if you read and buy into the mainstream media you are more likely to hold the postions of that media than people who don't. The mainstream media position is that there were not WMD. Indeed even the administrtion's current position is that there were no WMD. The administration's position is that their error was a good faith one, based on the information they had. Many would disagree. Certainly the people I know would. About 75 percent are liberal democrats, which is not suprising despite their "establishement" jobs as most are Jewish and have deep feelings of animosity for an administration that they believe hates them.

Moreover, your 50 percent is not really accurate. The latest statistics show that only around 18 percent believe that Iraq had WMD but that another 32 percent believe that Iraq had a "program" for building those weapons.

Maya, please take this to PM if you want to continue because it's unfortunately gotten way too far afield of the original topic.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

Please, we've already addressed everything you've stated here.
You "addressed" the consistent lower scoring of minorites on IQ tests? What do you think "cultural bias" and "institutional bias" translate to in that person's ear? "Psst...we have to make allowances for your ignorant social culture". Putting a clinical name on it doesn't remove the prejudice.

Quote:

Nature, nurture, testing bias, institutional bias. It's a fact that African Americans are less likely to read aloud to their children (new edition of The Read Aloud Handbook). I see every day in my neighborhood high achieving African American girls with brothers who've dropped out because school isn't a thing to do. The lower SES position a child has, the greater the likelihood of being exposed to environmental toxins. The list goes on and on.
Sounds like a great test. So objective. I particularly like the part about how black people don't read to their kids. What a tidy explaination of the lower scores. Don't blame the test. It's objective. Translate: If you black people were better parents your kids would do better on the IQ test. Better, of course, meaning more like....what race of people? You know, those people who DO read to their kids?

So who does this IQ test serve best? Well, one group it serves better than others are "people who read to their kids". Now, why is it that black parents don't read so much to their kids. Any, history there? Any particular reason for that? A test that favors parents who read to their kids screams fundamental bias and prejudice. Our "most reliable" method of measuring intelligence...

Quote:

Hmmm. I'd say that LJ is more the victim of a capitalist society that doesn't adequately provide for the people who fall through the cracks. Unfortunately, when the LJ's of America are able to find employment today, the are too often taken advantage of by people out oply to make a buck.
The above does not address the fact that our popular view of intelligence celebrates the functionally illiterate--Harvard grads who can tell you the history of Chinese political reform but cannot find their way out of a paper bag. We forgive a "genius" any degree of idiosyncratic behavior that would *repulse* us in a "slow" person. There was a wonderful scene in the move "I am Sam" where a "mentally delayed" man orders his food saying childishly something like " No circle and squares touching, no yellow and green touching!" and everyone looks at him embarrassed. Then a woman orders saying "Non dairy, hold the sugar, I want low carb and leave the cheese off my pasta". Nobody bats an eye.

We actually have an "IQ test" that puts children in numerical intellectual order. It's so incredible...so barbaric and grotesque... its ALMOST impossible to believe it's the way things really are right now.

And it just will not get better if we sit around agreeing it's the best we've got...


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
You "addressed" the consistent lower scoring of minorites on IQ tests? What do you think "cultural bias" and "institutional bias" translate to in that person's ear? "Psst...we have to make allowances for your ignorant social culture". Putting a clinical name on it doesn't remove the prejudice.

Addressed, not excused. The issue is much too complex to blame IQ tests or acknowledging differing intellectual abilities. My point was that you're bringing up issues that have already made the rounds in this discussion.

Quote:

Sounds like a great test. So objective. I particularly like the part about how black people don't read to their kids. What a tidy explaination of the lower scores. Don't blame the test. It's objective. Translate: If you black people were better parents your kids would do better on the IQ test. Better, of course, meaning more like....what race of people? You know, those people who DO read to their kids?
Umm, "less likely to" and "don't" are not the same thing. I was giving examples of some environmental factors that can affect test scores. Most kids don't get "real" IQ tests (individual) when screening for gifted programs, they get group tests based on achievement instead. This is not a good way to catch gifted kids that are underachieving. I'm not defending this practice, nor the cultural bias of IQ tests. I support enhanced screenings for giftedness in minority populations; I support testing kids with "behavioral" problems for giftedness early, before they fall through the cracks; I support doing everything possible to make sure that all children are allowed to meet their intellectual potential, including those at the other end of the spectrum. I'm sorry, but _all other things being equal_, children in an intellectually stimulating environment will, on average, perform better than those that aren't. This includes, but it not exclusive to, things like: reading aloud; travel; exposure to different people and cultures, heck, even food; access to a bicycle; access to a good library; the number of books at home; and, having an interesting backyard. Yes, a child can have a intellectually stimuating environment without ever hearing a book read-aloud.

IIRC every major assertion of "The Bell Curve" regarding race and intelligence was completely debunked. There is no relationship between race and inherited intelligence. Where does that leave us? In some areas lead poisoning is rampant. Here a middle school was kept open for years despite the presence of toxic mold. "Nurture" doesn't only refer to interactions with people; environmental toxins, poor nutrition and many other factors exist as well. However, do I believe that if two children were identical in every way except colour that the person of colour would experience discrimination? Of course I do.

Quote:

We actually have an "IQ test" that puts children in numerical intellectual order. It's so incredible...so barbaric and grotesque... its ALMOST impossible to believe it's the way things really are right now.
Children aren't given IQ tests when they enter the school system but they are regularly given achievement tests. Going through elementary school I witnessed teachers treat Native and poor children very differently than the others. I saw a poor boy strapped because he refused to take his dog's collar from around his neck. The dog had been his only friend and had died the day before. I was the only child in a class of 30 who spoke out about it and I still get teary eyed thinking about it. These kids were never given a chance and that was just wrong. However, my being at the top of the class had nothing to do with them being at the bottom. [For the record, I'm anti-grading, because grades are not constructive criticism or about learning.]

My refusing to acknowledge that my daughter is "fast" is not going to change how people react to those who are "slow." If DD1 were in the public school system (she won't be), she would be in the local gifted magnet program starting in Gr. 1. I fail to see how meeting her needs is a bad thing. She would be accepted on the basis of an individual IQ test. IIRC, any parent can request PPS to test their child for gifted programs or ACCESS eligiblity. It would be great if they would use portfolios, interview or other methods, but this would still miss the underachieving children.

This discussion has taken on an emotional tone I'm uncomfortable with. I feel strongly about the situation in most public schools, but as my family will not be in the system, there's no personal stake beyond my hopes for my community.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
The above does not address the fact that our popular view of intelligence celebrates the functionally illiterate--Harvard grads who can tell you the history of Chinese political reform but cannot find their way out of a paper bag. We forgive a "genius" any degree of idiosyncratic behavior that would *repulse* us in a "slow" person. There was a wonderful scene in the move "I am Sam" where a "mentally delayed" man orders his food saying childishly something like " No circle and squares touching, no yellow and green touching!" and everyone looks at him embarrassed. Then a woman orders saying "Non dairy, hold the sugar, I want low carb and leave the cheese off my pasta". Nobody bats an eye.

We actually have an "IQ test" that puts children in numerical intellectual order. It's so incredible...so barbaric and grotesque... its ALMOST impossible to believe it's the way things really are right now.

And it just will not get better if we sit around agreeing it's the best we've got...

But shouldn't everyone's idiosynchratic behaviors be tolerated, regardless of IQ? I don't think gifted people should get special privileges, but I don't think they should get less benefit, either. Why shouldn't a person who is an expert on Chinese political reform be respected for that, even if it isn't a marketable skill? Look at how mainstream society idolizes the athletically gifted through the pro sports industry--that isn't any more "beneficial to society" than obscure knowledge about Chinese political reform, but it's much more respected. What is wrong with respecting people's abilities and skills, even if they aren't "socially useful" by some standard? Respecting people's abilities doesn't have to mean disrespecting people with different abilities.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*

. I particularly like the part about how black people don't read to their kids. What a tidy explaination of the lower scores. Don't blame the test. It's objective. Translate: If you black people were better parents your kids would do better on the IQ test. Better, of course, meaning more like....what race of people? You know, those people who DO read to their kids?

First of all, I don't believe she was claiming anything to the effect of, "Black people score lower on IQ tests because they don't read to their children." You are implying a false causality here. Trelease's book is about reading, period, so the question I would have here is, "Provided that Trelease's data is true, why _don't_ black people read to their children and how can we all work together to help?"

Unfortunately, I suspect that black parents who want their children to succeed in school and are willing to take time and effort to read to their children have to deal with an obstacle white people don't face: the obstacle of prejudicial and divisive statements like, "You're just trying to be white"... or the attitude you've expressed above. For the record, Asian people tend to outperform white people on IQ tests -- but white people never get told, "You're just trying to be more like...what race of people?" if they read to their children or emphasize the importance of academic excellence.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

But shouldn't everyone's idiosynchratic behaviors be tolerated, regardless of IQ?
Yes. How do you think this will happen when IQ is rated numerically? How will you avoid greater value given to the higher scores?


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

"Provided that Trelease's data is true, why don't black people read to their children and how can we all work together to help?"
I've venture to guess that white people forbidding black slaves to read, and later forbidding them to use decent public schools or public facilities (like libraries) might have shaped the attitude in black culture towards reading...

Then there is the very real phenomenon today of the "black part of town" (especially in the south) which tends to be aka "the worst schools in town".

So, the fact remains that blacks routine score lower in IQ tests than whites. "Fixing" this by changing their culture so that they do BETTER on the IQ test tiptoes around the question of WHY an intelligence test COULD be influence by culture...and WHY the culture it seems to oppress is the one historically held down by whites.

There is no unbiased answer to this. You can say it's because black children are more likely to xyz and I can say it may be as sinister as the test bias deliberately favoring certain cultures on purpose...and neither really helps the fact that the test can be influenced by factors that have no bearing on actual intelligence. We do not have an objective universal definition of intelligence or a way to measure it. We won't find it if we put all of our efforts into a definition as fragile and (I daresay) ambiguous as this one.

And really the white/asian attitude is not comparable. It's apples to oranges. The history is totally different. I'm sure you know that.


----------



## LeftField (Aug 2, 2002)

Quote: "But shouldn't everyone's idiosynchratic behaviors be tolerated, regardless of IQ?"

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
Yes. How do you think this will happen when IQ is rated numerically? How will you avoid greater value given to the higher scores?

This may in out in left field, but I've known a few profoundly gifted adults with highly idiosynchratic behaviors and those behaviors were not tolerated very well by those around us. One guy in my high school, who was amazingly brilliant, used to wear the same shirt two or three days in a row. He smelled bad. Anyway, even though this guy was brilliant, was in all the AP classes, and was respected for his intellect, other people were not very tolerant of his other tendencies.

Also, I knew a guy in college who was working on a PhD in maths. He was only a grad student, but he was teaching the same type of courses as tenured professors. This guy was brilliant. I cannot stress how "out there" his brain was. One day in a club meeting, someone made a joke about something being the word for something or other in Ukranian. It was a really silly joke and everyone laughed. The math guy spoke up and said, "Actually the word for (whatever it was) in Ukranian is <xyz>." There was stunned silence, a bit of staring and then everyone abruptly changed subject. He was very very odd by societal standards and very child-like in many ways. I never noticed people treating his odd ways in a more tolerant manner than they would in anyone else. Most people, who knew he was brilliant, thought he was too weird to deal with, plain and simple. Some people, thankfully, made an effort to see him as the human being that he really was and to treat him with respect.

My husband's relative is mentally disabled. He used to have some odd outbursts and he has some mannerisms. Of course, family is more forgiving than society, but he is treated with much love and respect. While he must live at home or in some care, he also holds a job in construction, belongs to a club for mentally disabled adults, has a girlfriend and has many friends.

I have witnessed societal intolerance of idiosyncratic behaviors. But I have, personally, never seen a double-standard for the higly intelligent. If anything, I think that people are often less forgiving of those behaviors in the highly intelligent because the U.S. is a pretty anti-intellectual society and it's Ok to make jokes about the nerds, geeks, dorks and egg-heads. No one is going to laugh at a joke about a mentally disabled person, but it's Ok to openly view the profoundly gifted as weirdos.

When I was in high school, I saw some kids torment the mentally disabled. It was horrible and my stomach churns just recalling it. I've also seen those same kids torment the "geeks", but the geeks had the advantage of knowing how to avoid the bullies. I've seen a lot of unforgivable harshness, meanness and intolerance of people's idiosyncratic behaviors. But I've never, personally, seen a higher tolerance of those behaviors in the highly gifted.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

1. I fail to see how meeting her needs is a bad thing.
You keep coming back to this as though someone said otherwise. Ds could be the poster child for a gifted and talented program. He looks exactly like a ten year old Harry Potter, right down to the wire rimmed glasses. He speaks with the articulation of a 40 year old professor, has a riotously keen sense of wit, and is altogether a refreshingly different 10 year old than "average". Intellectual adults are completely taken with him. He eats up conversation and abstraction with genuine enthusiasm and devotion. People just like him because he's friendly and actually answers questions like "Is it raining outside" with more than "uh huh" or blank staring. We own a bookstore and we don't have a television. He earns money filing books alpha by author. There is no way on earth he would survive a mainstream public school 4th grade. They'd have to mainline a GT program intravenously to have any hope of him surviving.

I would just like you to acknowledge that the statement "Having an IQ of 40 is like having an IQ of 150" is absurd. Someone said this 3 (?) pages ago and the bulk of my response has been towards debunking *that*.

Even doing as badly as he would in public school with an IQ of 150 (no idea what it is, but, objectively, it's going to be over 120) it would be far, far worse for ds if he were perceived as mentally handicapped and had an IQ of 40. Far worse in every possible sense! A child with an IQ of 150 has value somewhere--a child with an IQ of 40 has little value anywhere.

Value is according in one direction with our view of intelligence. And, it's a culturally biased view. There has GOT to be a better view than one loaded with cultural and value inconsistencies. I refuse to accept this system even as being "the best we've got". We should do better.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

When I was in high school, I saw some kids torment the mentally disabled. It was horrible and my stomach churns just recalling it. I've also seen those same kids torment the "geeks", but the geeks had the advantage of knowing how to avoid the bullies. I've seen a lot of unforgivable harshness, meanness and intolerance of people's idiosyncratic behaviors. But I've never, personally, seen a higher tolerance of those behaviors in the highly gifted.
Then I guess we just see this differently. I was geek. But I had the comfort of straight A's and the approval of intelligent adults to inspire me. I was teased and unpopular, but nobody actually looked the other way in embarassment or shame when they walked passed me. The way people glance away from people mental handicaps. If they aren't teased, it's usually because nobody can bear to look at them or consider they are worth bothering with in the first place.

Really, I am not buying the idea that it's all happening to an equal degree. I know which end of the spectrum I'd rather be seen at if I had to be. Very few people would choose to a low IQ over a high one if they could....


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

I don't think you can avoid valuation and I don't think we should. Why should we avoid giving value to things? All people are not equal.
A statement that controversial deserves it's own thread.


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
You can say it's because black children are more likely to xyz and I can say it may be as sinister as the test bias deliberately favoring certain cultures on purpose...and neither really helps the fact that the test can be influenced by factors that have no bearing on actual intelligence. We do not have an objective universal definition of intelligence or a way to measure it. We won't find it if we put all of our efforts into a definition as fragile and (I daresay) ambiguous as this one.

There is some cultural bias in IQ tests. However, the cultural factors (like reading aloud, exposure to environmental toxis) we're talking about aren't tangential to the idea of intelligence, they actually help form it: Our experiences literally help shape our brains. Inherited intelligence is a _range of potential_. But before a baby is even born, factors are at work to help shape it. I would rather see HeadStart have the funds to give its children all the life experiences it can and do more read-aloud rather than work on "pre-phonics" and basic skills as it is increasingly be required to do. The HeadStart kids don't lose their initial measured advantage (compared to similar children who don't do HeadStart) because they lack potential, what they lack is experience and such things as vocabulary relative to their more affluent peers.


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
Value is according in one direction with our view of intelligence. And, it's a culturally biased view. There has GOT to be a better view than one loaded with cultural and value inconsistencies. I refuse to accept this system even as being "the best we've got". We should do better.

Do other children only know who the "smart kids" are because they've had their IQ tested? Likewise for "slow" kids? As far as being _satisfied_ with the "best we've got," I'm not exactly seeing a host of indignant posts saying we shouldn't try to do better to meet the needs of underserved populations.


----------



## LeftField (Aug 2, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
Then I guess we just see this differently. I was geek. But I had the comfort of straight A's and the approval of intelligent adults to inspire me. I was teased and unpopular, but nobody actually looked the other way in embarassment or shame when they walked passed me. The way people glance away from people mental handicaps. If they aren't teased, it's usually because nobody can bear to look at them or consider they are worth bothering with in the first place.

Really, I am not buying the idea that it's all happening to an equal degree. I know which end of the spectrum I'd rather be seen at if I had to be. Very few people would choose to a low IQ over a high one if they could....

No, it's terrible. It's a really terrible thing. Kids, in particular, can be so cruel and I often wonder where or who they learn in from.







: I remember kids in 8th grade homeroom physically assaulting a Vietnamese boy and saying, "Hey, do you know karate?" My homeroom teacher was trying very hard to ignore us by reading his newspaper. I wish I were lying about this.

And I agree that no one would choose a lower IQ over a higher one. But I do not believe, for one minute, that most people would chose an astronomically high IQ over a regular or moderately high one, if they knew what it meant. I was a geek too and I was bullied as well, but not anywhere near the degree the mentally disabled were. But, I did not have an astronomically high IQ, like the very few I've met in my life have (not even knowing their IQ, it was glaringly obvious). I did not have idiosyncratic behaviors. I was not unaware of social cues. I did not forget to change my clothes because my brain was too engaged in other things. I did not have any of the variety of legitimate disorders that often affect the profoundly gifted. To use my earlier analogy, I was not the equivalent of the 7ft tall guy. I still maintain that idiosyncratic behaviors are tolerated poorly in whoever demonstrates them, whether disabled or profoundly gifted.

Anyway, we can agree that kids can be really mean to other kids.


----------



## LeftField (Aug 2, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*
When you spend as much time on playgrounds as I have in 10 years of teaching, you come to realize that children are closer to their animal behaviors than we are as adults. There is a pecking order on every playground and every school I have ever worked or taught at has been trying to teach the kids to respect each other and treat each other as equals at the same time as the pecking order is establishing itself and creating hierarchies amongst groups of kids. These hierarchies ebb and flow; they are not necessarily consistent. But, children rank themselves and group themselves and there is, in my opinion, nothing we can do about it. It is human nature. We can try to teach them respect each other and value each other but we are never going to be able to teach them to value each other equally all the time. We adults do not value each other equally all the time. Watch a group of animals sometime. They do not value each other equally. There is a pecking order.

This is completely OT so I shouldn't derail this, but I wanted to say that I think the ranking that occurs in children is the result of being put in large groups of children with limited adult attention. My kids have a 2:1 ratio during the day and I've never had to teach them to avoid ranking others. The homeschooled children I've met so far have been completely unaware of or disinterested in age groupings and gender groupings and many of the pecking order stuff I've seen elsewhere. I have seen children change from being very gregarious to being very cliquish right after starting preschool, however. I think it's learned, adaptive behavior that results from being in a large group of kids that end up devising their own rules of order. I think we see this as "natural" because early schooling has been the default for so long.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

There is some cultural bias in IQ tests. However, the cultural factors (like reading aloud, exposure to environmental toxis) we're talking about aren't tangential to the idea of intelligence, they actually help form it:
Help form *what* exactly? The ability to score more points on an IQ test? You are still blaming the environment of black children here, rather than asking yourself what kind of test would lead us to suspect the environment of black children in the first place.

A minute ago I ran through my head the words "White children score lower on IQ tests than other races".

How popular would IQ tests be if that were true....obviously, something is wrong with the _test_....


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

but I wanted to say that I think the ranking that occurs in children is the result of being put in large groups of children with limited adult attention. My kids have a 2:1 ratio during the day and I've never had to teach them to avoid ranking others. The homeschooled children I've met so far have been completely unaware of or disinterested in age groupings and gender groupings and many of the pecking order stuff I've seen elsewhere. I have seen children change from being very gregarious to being very cliquish right after starting preschool, however. I think it's learned, adaptive behavior that results from being in a large group of kids that end up devising their own rules of order. I think we see this as "natural" because early schooling has been the default for so long.
I agree.


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
Help form *what* exactly?

The brain. Literally. Connections in the brain. The more reinforcement, the stronger the connection, connections that don't get used get pruned, literally. It's like sculpture, except it is your life experiences doing the sculpting.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

Do you really think that we can exist without valuation? Do you really think a school system can exist without valuation? Without some sort of system of ordering children so as to better teach them?
Your original statement was controversial. "Why should we avoid giving value to things? All people are not equal."

If you want to clarify that, it's probably a good idea. It sounds like you mean all people are not equal in value.

As to the above, yes it is entirely possible to approach education without someone "ordering" children. That is teacher-centric thinking. If the goal is simply to assist each child in learning where they are at, while small natural groups may assemble (and naturally disband once new abilities take them in new directions), I guarantee it would become counter productive for a teacher to waste time anticipating where children belonged long enough to put them in order. Children change too quickly for that kind of approach do keep up. It's just more efficient to let children move to whatever level they are ready to work at, without judging or qualifying it to fit a predetermined order in your head.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

The brain. Literally. Connections in the brain. The more reinforcement, the stronger the connection, connections that don't get used get pruned, literally. It's like sculpture, except it is your life experiences doing the sculpting.
But don't you see, this is a self reinforcing paradigm? Unless you are saying black children generally form fewer brain connections than whites. In which case that idea deserves it's own thread. At best I think you are really saying that the kinds of experiences common to certain socio-ethic groups form a response (brain connections) compatible to this test. It's a big leap to say the remedy lies in changing the life experiences of other socio-economic groups so they do better on this precious test. Seems much simpler to say "The test is biased. Let's scrap it and start over".


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
But don't you see, this is a self reinforcing paradigm? Unless you are saying black children generally form fewer brain connections than whites. In which case that idea deserves it's own thread. At best I think you are really saying that the kinds of experiences common to certain socio-ethic groups form a response (brain connections) compatible to this test. It's a big leap to say the remedy lies in changing the life experiences of other socio-economic groups so they do better on this precious test. Seems much simpler to say "The test is biased. Let's scrap it and start over".

Hello!?! I'm not even talking about the "precious test" nor what "is" is. I'm talking about life experiences and life opportunities. Race isn't a factor, except as disproportionately represented at _lower SES levels_. There's a big difference between advocating (or accepting) the use of IQ tests to find highly gifted children who may be in need of specialized education and saying all kids should be tested and slotted, alpha-ed, gamma-ed or beta-ed for life. Poverty, not genes in this case is the enemy. No amount of side stepping or political correctness on my part is going to change the fact that kids who start school coming from an intellectually stimulating environment will tend to perform better than kids who don't. When you further consider that the quality of schools is often substandard for the poorest kids, that's a travesty.

Not all poor kids grow up in an intellectually impoverished environment (my best friend is an example of someone who didn't), but they are far more likely to.


----------



## Dechen (Apr 3, 2004)

One of the biggest reasons I am leery of sending my dd to a conventional school is because of the distorted "values" inherent in the current American educational environment.

I strive to value all people equally. While I may not be the greatest at the follow through, it is one of my moral values that all people are of equal worth. Period.

We are not all the same, and we not have equal stengths and weaknesses.

We are all of equal value, and deserve equal respect, kindness, and consideration.

Grades are like money. It can be convenient to have good grades or a lot of money, but neither says a thing about who you are as a person, or what your worth is. Neither does achievement.

I'm not anti-money, good grades, or achievement *when* they are taken for what they are and not invested with extra meaning. They are societal tokens that ultimately mean nothing, and you can cause yourself a lot of unhappiness if you take any one of them too seriously.

Which leads to IQ tests. I'm not against IQ tests. I'm not against IQ tests being a part of how we discover what a child's needs are. I don't think an IQ test should be used as the end-all be-all, and I don't like the way IQ is being used to define gifted.

If we allow a test to tell us what we are, we just allowed the test-creator to invent our reality. Tests don't tell a truth, they point towards qualities. This is true for any test. Tests measure "reality" as conceived by human beings. All tests are biased.

- - -

Heartmama, the biology of humans (and other animals) is such that the environment of babies and young children has a profound effect on brain development. This is a totally different issue from IQ. All kids deserve a rich and stimulating environment.


----------



## LeftField (Aug 2, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NoHiddenFees*
No amount of side stepping or political correctness on my part is going to change the fact that kids who start school coming from an intellectually stimulating environment will tend to perform better than kids who don't. When you further consider that the quality of schools is often substandard for the poorest kids, that's a travesty.

Not all poor kids grow up in an intellectually impoverished environment (my best friend is an example of someone who didn't), but they are far more likely to.

Here's an interesting link with a reference to the 32 million word difference:
http://www.trelease-on-reading.com/r...ul_differences

And another:
http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/amer...tastrophe.html

If children hear more vocabulary in their first years of life, the brain creates more synapses, which puts them closer to the ceiling of their inherited range of intelligence. The root cause is not race. The root cause is poverty. You can then look at the distribution of race in socio-economic levels, but poverty is the root problem. Children who hear less vocabulary and who have limited life experiences do not have the same opportunities to stretch their brains to grow within their genetic range of intelligence. It's like height. Children who eat a limited diet of junk food are not going to grow as tall as those who eat a balanced diet. The kids who are not hearing as much vocabulary, who are not being taken to interesting places like the art museum, who are not read to very often, who don't have many books in their home, who don't have access to developmental toys and art supplies and who do not get the 1:1 attention of an adult...those children are not less intelligent, but they are simply not getting the same chance to stretch their brains to their genetic potential.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
I've venture to guess that white people forbidding black slaves to read, and later forbidding them to use decent public schools or public facilities (like libraries) might have shaped the attitude in black culture towards reading...

Okay, for the record, I am not black and that being so, I'm probably not qualified to give an opinion, however remote, on this issue, but that being said, I recall that one of the most literate and well-spoken of Americans, Frederick Douglass, was a man who had a direct and painful experience with slavery and thought it absolutely crucial that he and other people of color become literate. He did so by dribs and drabs, taking into his incredibly expansive mind whatever teeny grains of education from his white mistress and from white children he could possibly glean and multiplying it tenfold. A magnificent role model for anyone, I would think, and particularly for black Americans.

If that weren't enough, what about the more modern and (in some ways) more powerful example of Martin Luther King, Jr., whose power as a rhetoretician came from his ability to assimilate and manipulate discourse as diverse as the Bible, the Constitution, and the black Baptist tradition? Clearly a highly literate man in all senses of the word, as any of the briefest examinations of his writing will show.

Now if THAT weren't enough, what about the practical reality that says that in any "first world" society, whether black, white, Asian, or other, literacy is fundamental to success within that culture regardless of color?

Last but not least, though I'm by no means discounting the considerable lingering effects of slavery and segregation in this society, not one black American living today has had the direct experience of slavery practiced in this country, nor have their parents or their parents' parents. Segregation from good public schools and libraries is of course more recent, but the counterargument could be made that black people would use them with a vengeance when desegregation made that outrageous mistreatment illegal.

In short, I am not sure I buy it as a reason, but as I said before, I am not black and my perspective on this issue is limited by my experience.

Quote:



Then there is the very real phenomenon today of the "black part of town" (especially in the south) which tends to be aka "the worst schools in town".

Yes, but why would one's neighborhood necessarily prevent one from reading to one's child? We live in a lower middle-class neighborhood with a school that's been on the "watch list" now for three or four years, very low SES, and very high free lunch and ESL population -- all earmarks of "the worst schools in town." That doesn't stop us from reading to our kids.

Quote:

So, the fact remains that blacks routine score lower in IQ tests than whites. "Fixing" this by changing their culture so that they do BETTER on the IQ test tiptoes around the question of WHY an intelligence test COULD be influence by culture...and WHY the culture it seems to oppress is the one historically held down by whites.
Wow, it's like I never posted what I posted earlier: "_First of all, I don't believe she was claiming anything to the effect of, "Black people score lower on IQ tests because they don't read to their children." You are implying a false causality here_."
For what it's worth, perhaps we all need to be studying _Asian_ culture, because Asian people routinely outperform Europeans on measures of intelligence.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LeftField*
One day in a club meeting, someone made a joke about something being the word for something or other in Ukranian. It was a really silly joke and everyone laughed. The math guy spoke up and said, "Actually the word for (whatever it was) in Ukranian is <xyz>." There was stunned silence, a bit of staring and then everyone abruptly changed subject. .

This sounds like something I would do. Except not in Ukranian.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
Help form *what* exactly? The ability to score more points on an IQ test? You are still blaming the environment of black children here, rather than asking yourself what kind of test would lead us to suspect the environment of black children in the first place.

A minute ago I ran through my head the words "White children score lower on IQ tests than other races".

How popular would IQ tests be if that were true....obviously, something is wrong with the _test_....

Apparently popular enough. As I said before, whites score lower, on the whole, than Asians -- on a test designed, as I believe, by white people.

Interesting.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LeftField*
Here's an interesting link with a reference to the 32 million word difference:
http://www.trelease-on-reading.com/r...ul_differences

And another:
http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/amer...tastrophe.html

If children hear more vocabulary in their first years of life, the brain creates more synapses, which puts them closer to the ceiling of their inherited range of intelligence. The root cause is not race. The root cause is poverty. You can then look at the distribution of race in socio-economic levels, but poverty is the root problem. Children who hear less vocabulary and who have limited life experiences do not have the same opportunities to stretch their brains to grow within their genetic range of intelligence. It's like height. Children who eat a limited diet of junk food are not going to grow as tall as those who eat a balanced diet. The kids who are not hearing as much vocabulary, who are not being taken to interesting places like the art museum, who are not read to very often, who don't have many books in their home, who don't have access to developmental toys and art supplies and who do not get the 1:1 attention of an adult...those children are not less intelligent, but they are simply not getting the same chance to stretch their brains to their genetic potential.

Playing devil's advocate for a second, are you sure it's poverty as the sole cause and not social values? It costs nothing to not have a television or not turn it on if you do have one. It costs nothing to use the public library. It costs nothing to read the free public library books.


----------



## LeftField (Aug 2, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charles Baudelaire*
Playing devil's advocate for a second, are you sure it's poverty as the sole cause and not social values? It costs nothing to not have a television or not turn it on if you do have one. It costs nothing to use the public library. It costs nothing to read the free public library books.

No, no, no, you are right. I wonder the same thing. In my town, the art museum is free, but we rarely see other children there unless they are on a school field trip. We have tons of library branches all over town with free storytime programs. I agree that the opporunity is there. I was incorrect in saying that poverty was the root cause, when it's a strong correlation instead.

But OTOH, if one comes from a poor family, I would imagine that both parents are probably working one or more jobs full-time and therefore have less time to do these things. Some things are puzzling to me, however. We have a free parenting magazine that advertised a series of free children's concerts at the library on Saturdays. I think they were doing a second location at the mall on Saturday as well. Do you know who attends? The overwhelming majority of people who go are white and appear to be well-off. There was an amazing African drums concert on one of those Saturdays, performed by black people who came from the very worst neighborhood in town. They gave this inspiring talk about what it means to come from "the hood" and how there is much love in the hood and how people should not be afraid of it. It was so moving. Do you know who the overwhelming majority of audience members?--white people who looked very well-off. It's puzzling to me. I don't know the answer to that, nor am I implying anything at all. It's just an observation that I'm making.

Anyway, I would guess that the biggest factor in poor families not utilizing the library and museums as much comes down to working multiple jobs and not being at home as much. I'm just guessing.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

Not all poor kids grow up in an intellectually impoverished environment (my best friend is an example of someone who didn't), but they are far more likely to.
For Charles Baudelaire too...

This is worthy of it's own thread. When we get close to talking about race we turn it into a talk about poverty. I do not believe these are unrelated issues. The relationship between blacks, whites, views towards intelligence, and poverty is just too important and serious for me to do justice to it alone in this thread. You can't tease out one issue from the other and let it stand alone as a clinical view of this issue.

It's true that no blacks alive in America were slaves. It's also true that my immediate family can remember the years before segregation fondly and wish for all white schools again. We have not crawled out from under the rock of racism far enough to look back collectively and appreciate how far reaching it is, how vast, how deeply entrenched in our culture.

Just sitting here talking about this as one white person to (at least one other) white person makes me feel kind of shallow; grotesquely priveleged. Like I'm being part of the problem, sitting here at my computer dissecting and discussing something I'll never have to really experience. That I would not want myself, or my kids, to ever have to experience. I really don't know what else to say without sounding like a jackass.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

Heartmama, the biology of humans (and other animals) is such that the environment of babies and young children has a profound effect on brain development. This is a totally different issue from IQ. All kids deserve a rich and stimulating environment.
I had no idea. I guess you are telling me this because I've been arguing otherwise. Thank you for reading my posts so carefully.








:














:


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Aha! And the "gifted child thread" has entered into conversation the ever-fascinating favorite topic of pseudo-sociologists everywhere on the 'net, the "Culture of Poverty Argument" or "why can't those poor people just not be so darn poor? What in the world is wrong with _them_? It's their own fault gifted programs are full of the white and the rich."

It has officially jumped the shark.

I'm unsubscribing from this train wreck completely, lest ever-more repulsive arguments be offered as to why some kids just can't seem to score high enough on IQ tests, or be as intellectually gifted as the middle-class white people. Gosh, I just can't imagine. These kinds of arguments are exactly why I don't want to hang with the "gifted" community, nor have my child associate exclusively with the children of these parents. Have fun in the small-minded, exclusive soup of one's own definitions, comprised of comparisons, and heavily spiced with insecurity.


----------



## LeftField (Aug 2, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flyingspaghettimama*
Aha! And the "gifted child thread" has entered into conversation the ever-fascinating favorite topic of pseudo-sociologists everywhere on the 'net, the "Culture of Poverty Argument" or "why can't those poor people just not be so darn poor? What in the world is wrong with _them_? It's their own fault gifted programs are full of the white and the rich."

It has officially jumped the shark.

I'm unsubscribing from this train wreck completely, lest ever-more repulsive arguments be offered as to why some kids just can't seem to score high enough on IQ tests, or be as intellectually gifted as the middle-class white people. Gosh, I just can't imagine. These kinds of arguments are exactly why I don't want to hang with the "gifted" community, nor have my child associate exclusively with the children of these parents. Have fun in the small-minded, exclusive soup of one's own definitions, comprised of comparisons, and heavily spiced with insecurity.

Honestly, the caustic sarcasm and oversimplification of pages of thoughtful posts makes it almost impossible to reply to a post like this.


----------



## LeftField (Aug 2, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
For Charles Baudelaire too...

This is worthy of it's own thread. When we get close to talking about race we turn it into a talk about poverty. I do not believe these are unrelated issues. The relationship between blacks, whites, views towards intelligence, and poverty is just too important and serious for me to do justice to it alone in this thread. You can't tease out one issue from the other and let it stand alone as a clinical view of this issue.

It's true that no blacks alive in America were slaves. It's also true that my immediate family can remember the years before segregation fondly and wish for all white schools again. We have not crawled out from under the rock of racism far enough to look back collectively and appreciate how far reaching it is, how vast, how deeply entrenched in our culture.

Just sitting here talking about this as one white person to (at least one other) white person makes me feel kind of shallow; grotesquely priveleged. Like I'm being part of the problem, sitting here at my computer dissecting and discussing something I'll never have to really experience. That I would not want myself, or my kids, to ever have to experience. I really don't know what else to say without sounding like a jackass.

You are right and I totally know what you're saying in the last paragraph. I'm going to step out of this specific portion of the thread, because it is really too complex to address here.


----------



## darien (Nov 15, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flyingspaghettimama*
These kinds of arguments are exactly why I don't want to hang with the "gifted" community, nor have my child associate exclusively with the children of these parents. Have fun in the small-minded, exclusive soup of one's own definitions, comprised of comparisons, and heavily spiced with insecurity.

Oh, for pete's sake. Do you exit every discussion in this manner?


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
When we get close to talking about race we turn it into a talk about poverty.

IIRC, you are the one who started talking about race. Since inherited intelligence doesn't vary as to race, there have to be other factors.

FSM: Blame poor people?


----------

