# 'gifted' children an American trend?



## Boot (Jan 22, 2008)

This is coming on the back of the 'first child exceptional' poll and also noticing there is a forum for parents of 'gifted' children. I am not American and don't live in America now but I spent Grade 4 in New Orleans and remember being confused by the 'Gifted and Talented' class at school. It wasn't what I was used to. I also remember children telling me they were 'gifted' and it is the only time in my life I ever had an IQ test. I've lived in other parts of the world and taught school in 2 countries but I haven't come across this phenomena anywhere else. Granted, I attended and taught Waldorf schools which don't do streaming, so maybe that's where the difference lies. I'm surprised to see it mentioned so much here though.

My question is, do you think this is a uniquely American obsession and do you think it is helpful to label a child as 'gifted'?


----------



## wannabe (Jul 4, 2005)

I'm not American either, I'd assumed it was a new label that they'd come up with for specialised education in the last decade or so, but apparently not. I'd never heard of it outside of message boards.


----------



## Viola (Feb 1, 2002)

That's a good question. My thought is that it arose as a way of dealing with different levels and abilities of students within the very homogenous curricula of the public school, and that schools in other countries probably had their own ways of dealing with these issues. I don't know how long the term gifted has been around, but it seemed at one point there was much more of a division in society as to who would get what education. Then when our goal was to, ostensibly if not actually, offer the same opportunities to every one, it made more sense to identify children as exceptional, or at risk or whatever, and direct things that way from the common base.

My experience with the gifted and talented program at school is that the kids who got better grades were in it, but they didn't seem necessarily unusual. They got similar grades and SATs to mine, we went to the same university. I understand there are truly exceptional children out there who are beyond what we see on a daily basis, but there were none like that at my school. Maybe it was a classification that a lot of parents were invested in, however. The whole intelligence thing as a moral issue, and prizing of a high IQ is absolutely unquestioned here, from what I can see.


----------



## lilyka (Nov 20, 2001)

yes. i think this is a uniquely american obsession.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

The label is not new by any stretch of the imagination.

Perhaps it is more needed in the US due to the ideas on education here.

It is a very needed label for dealing with regular schools (if appropriate, of course).

-Angela


----------



## grumpybear (Oct 5, 2006)

I am not American so I cannot speak for Americans but the book Hothouse Kids delves into this (American obsession with giftedness).
I am Filipino and I can definitely say that Filipinos definitely have this obsession so no, I don't think it is uniquely American.
I don't have a problem with labelling a child as being gifted only IF he/she truly is. I feel that both child and parent will benefit from an understanding of the giftedness.
However, I feel that because of this obsession, some are quick to label a child as gifted even if they are not. I think that this leads to unrealistic expectations and a lot of disappointment.


----------



## crazydiamond (May 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
The label is not new by any stretch of the imagination.

Perhaps it is more needed in the US due to the ideas on education here.

It is a very needed label for dealing with regular schools (if appropriate, of course).

-Angela

Agreed.

The term was around when I was a kid, for sure. In fact, I was tested in kindergarten and put in the program.

I think Angela hit the nail on the head when she speculated why it's more common here. I think the differences between the US educational system and those of other countries could be a big factor in requiring a separate gifted label.


----------



## mamallama (Nov 22, 2001)

I have to agree with Angela.

I suspect the surge in children identified as gifted is related to the current state of American public education.


----------



## Boot (Jan 22, 2008)

Sorry to sound ignorant but what is the current state of American public education?


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

we have a very similar focus on 'giftedness' in canada ime. i think the whole thing is worthy of hearty critique personally, but it's not an american and not canadian thing imo.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Boot* 
Sorry to sound ignorant but what is the current state of American public education?

Focus on standardized tests. Teach to the test. Nothing that's not on the test. No attention to the kids who can already pass the test. etc.

-Angela


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

yeah but that sucks for everyone. how is it good to take an elite portion of students and remove them from that? i can see how it's good for those students, but not for anyone else.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
yeah but that sucks for everyone. how is it good to take an elite portion of students and remove them from that? i can see how it's good for those students, but not for anyone else.

It's not an "elite" group a students. It's a group of students with different learning needs. Just like kids with other special needs- learning disabilities etc.

And what is best for each child is what should be done for that child. Why should their educations be sacrificed for the good of someone else?

-Angela


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Well but standardized tests and the like are not what is best for anyone IMO. The gifted kids get to escape it into a world of more creative, self directed learning. which is great for them, but IMO it would be great for everyone. And truth is kids who test 'gifted' tend to come from more privileged families, so they are 'elite' in terms of being identified as being 'smarter' and many have class privilege as well.

I think the whole thing could use a re-analysis, is all. I mean, if my kid tests gifted I will be thrilled that she has access to superior programs. But i think all the kids should have access to decent education.


----------



## babygrace (Aug 23, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Viola* 
The whole intelligence thing as a moral issue, and prizing of a high IQ is absolutely unquestioned here, from what I can see.

i am puzzled by that aspect, too.


----------



## Redifer (Nov 25, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
It's not an "elite" group a students. It's a group of students with different learning needs. Just like kids with other special needs- learning disabilities etc.

And what is best for each child is what should be done for that child. Why should their educations be sacrificed for the good of someone else?

-Angela

Good point. I was in the TAG program in elementary school; I didn't get good grades, but apparently I scored high-range on the IQ that was mandatory to take.

The difference between my parents' reaction to this and others: My parents didn't tell me I was smarter or better than the other kids, or make me feel like I was in any way more special. They simply explained that it was a class for kids who thought and processed things differently than usual (which was totally me.. I'm an abstract thinker).

I really appreciated those classes, because it was the first time in school I felt "normal" as far as my thoughts and ideas, values and morals, creativity, etc... my talents and skills were completely UNappreciated in the regular classroom setting. Trust me, I cherished that hour every 3 days that I could be myself in and not be chastised for thinking "outside the box".

Do I think there is much-too-much emphasis on giftedness, and the major PUSH I notice every to "make" gifted kids in our country? Absolutely. My daughter (going on 4) has peers who are taking French, ballet, classical instrument lessons, in math tutoring, etc. These kids are 3 and 4 years old. All because their parents want to ensure their kids grow up to be 'gifted'. When really, most of the 'gifted' kids (and their ideas/thought process) aren't all that appreciated in a regular setting.


----------



## eepster (Sep 20, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Well but standardized tests and the like are not what is best for anyone IMO. The gifted kids get to escape it into a world of more creative, self directed learning. which is great for them, but IMO it would be great for everyone. And truth is kids who test 'gifted' tend to come from more privileged families, so they are 'elite' in terms of being identified as being 'smarter' and many have class privilege as well.

I think the whole thing could use a re-analysis, is all. I mean, if my kid tests gifted I will be thrilled that she has access to superior programs. But i think all the kids should have access to decent education.

Gifted programs are not really "superior" to regular class room education as simply different, and more intense. Also, in most places it isn't replacing the regular classroom, but instead is an additional work load on top of the classroom. Gifted students often choose to give up free time during recess, after school, or on weekends to participate in gifted programs. Though sometimes they are fun and exporitory, more often they are just another classroom experience with longer bigger harder text books.

As far as superior and inferior educations are concerned I think what district one lives in has more to do with the quality of ones education than whether one is IDed as gifted or not. A good school system will do well for all the students in it mainsteam, gifted and special needs; a bad school system will fail to let any students live up to there potentials.

There are exceptions like in NYC they have some great gifted and special ed programs, but on a whole do poorly for most of the students. However, in NYC luck has pleanty to do with it too. There are great magnet schools that are open to student of any abilty level where the placements are given out through a lottery. I think b/c these exceptions get so much attention there is a perception that this is the way it is for most gifted students.

Finally I suspect the perception that gifted students come from priviledged families has a lot to do with privledged families having more access to testing, both b/c if they want to they can pay for it privately, but largely b/c they can afford to live in areas with superior school systems that administer the testing much more consistantly. So the real problem isn't that privledged families push there children into gifted programs; The real problem is that poor/under privilaged families are denied access to the gifted programs that their children could qualify for. This also happens with special needs testing and programs.


----------



## Sage_SS (Jun 1, 2007)

Hmm very interesting. I've never even heard of a class for the gifted or talented kids in any of my schools here in BC. There are programs for those kids, they're called Honors Programs, the International Baccalaureate Program, but never a class they'd attend within their regular schedule.

There were classes for kids with behavioural problems, social problems.. etc..
and there were classes for ESL.


----------



## Joyster (Oct 26, 2007)

We had gifted class when I was growing up (I'm in Toronto Canada and going on 30). The teacher determined who was gifted and my teacher told me that I couldn't go into gifted class, because while I was bright enough, I didn't finish enough of my assignments. The gifted classes weren't really challenging to the students who went, it was basically a few extra activities, but nothing earth shattering and most students wanted to drop it after the novelty wore off.

I was chatting with a teacher one time about gifted children and I can't remember word for word what she said, but she was really for destreaming and that while many children are bright, only a few are gifted. Gifted ones being those who are doing work several levels above where they should be, not one or two. It seems to be a bit of an obsession. I know people who are labelling their 6 month olds gifted. I think it's important to keep children positively engaged in their learning and development, but in the end, most of it seems to come out in the wash.


----------



## LeftField (Aug 2, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Joyster* 
but she was really for destreaming and that while many children are bright, only a few are gifted. Gifted ones being those who are doing work several levels above where they should be, not one or two.

In our area, the gifted program includes such a broad range of children, way below the IQ parameters for clinically gifted. So it's essentially a program for high-achieving children (most are privileged), most of whom are not clinically gifted. I had a relative in one of these programs and she was so incredibly miserable there because she was operating many grade levels above and her needs were not being met in the gifted program. When her parents spoke with the gifted coordinator about it, the coordinator said that she was aware the child was very bored there but that she had so many children in the GATE program who couldn't operate on that level that she simply could not meet the child's needs. In that case, what is the point of the GATE program? Rather than providing an essential program for the few who think very differently and who *need* something different, it becomes a status symbol and reward for the parents of high-achieving, normal children. I am against this sort of program but I am in favor of true differentiated education for clinically gifted children.


----------



## the_lissa (Oct 30, 2004)

I'm in Canada. In grade 3, I had several tests, including an iq test. I was labeled as gifted and had enrichment programs.

I'm torn on labels. On one hand, I benefited from gifted enrichment programs. On the other hand, the label was damaging to me.


----------



## LeftField (Aug 2, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *the_lissa* 
I'm in Canada. In grade 3, I had several tests, including an iq test. I was labeled as gifted and had enrichment programs.

I'm torn on labels. On one hand, I benefited from gifted enrichment programs. On the other hand, the label was damaging to me.

It's certainly complicated. I did not attend schools with GATE programming and I had never heard of the word "gifted" until I was an adult. As an adult, I am aware from past tests that I would have been considered "gifted" as a child if I lived somewhere that tracked for that. So, I never had a label and I never had differentiated education but I had another label assigned to me: lazy. I never had to study in school so I didn't and I just daydreamed for the most of the time. I was constantly berated for being "lazy" and for having my "head in the clouds" so I developed poor self-esteem. My notes were a confusing maze of pictures and arrows pointing to scrawled words; they made sense to me but it was considered horribly unorganized and just poor. I never made really high grades because it just didn't seem important to me to apply myself to tasks that were unchallenging. I left school with zero work ethic and I fell flat on my face in university when I actually had to work for the first time in my life.

I have no experience with use of the gifted label and how it might be detrimental. I read what people have to say about that, because I learn from other's experiences. But my own experience is that the lack of the label didn't fix the problem; rather, it created a different problem altogether. I still have to work inside myself to assure myself that I'm not lazy and sloppy. Because I wasn't invested in school work for grades, I also assumed that I wasn't very smart at all (otherwise I'd be a high-achiever, right?) and that had long-lasting effects.

The whole thing is just very complicated.


----------



## raely (Mar 9, 2008)

Despite being labeled as a "gifted" child, I am somewhat baffled by the system as it stands now - for many of the reasons the posters above have listed: identifying children in kindergarten, foreign language tutoring for 3 year olds, parents focusing on this as a goal, instead of adapting to their children's educational needs and learning styles, etc.

I grew up in a very AP home with a very crunchy mom. She certainly wasn't "training" us, simply exposing us to all kinds of experiences and nurturing us. I went to an open elementary school (no tests, no grades, no homework, self-directed work) through 3rd grade which totally fostered a lifetime love of learning. When we moved and I switched to a very conservative school, they were doing work I'd done on my own 2 years prior, immediately IQ tested me and put me in the "gifted" program. For my own benefit, I'm very glad that I was simply pulled out for additional classes, etc instead of encouraging the skipping of a grade or two, since I think this would have been very difficult, being even more different than everyone else.

I did high school (and college and MS) in the South of England, where a totally different type of educational system prevails. Though I was not in gifted classes, I was indeed enrolled in a grammar school. Though completely state funded, children are tested in the last year of primary school. Those who pass go to grammar schools. Those who don't go to comprehensive schools.

I guess I see schools using gifted programs as a way to do some streaming of children in order to provide educational opportunities to fit their needs, much in the same way as if I was learning disabled, while staying within the constraints of a very mixed group of children within a single building.


----------



## Mosaic (Jun 20, 2005)

I was "tracked" in school (the word used more in practice since "gifted" was offensive to some students), and it was absolutely perceived as an "elite" group of students, who got more advanced material, extra field trips, more fun learning opportunities, etc. In truth, we were probably no more than fast learners who do well in a traditional school environment and on standardized tests.

We did appreciate learning more and learning faster, but by the end it created a very unhealthy environment with rampant competition and self-esteem issues and a warped perception of the rest of the academic and social environment.

Unfortunately, as *LeftField* mentioned, the "gifted" programs I see today don't seem very different at all. There's a big difference between "quick learner who's advanced for his age" and truly "gifted"; for the former, "gifted" is a label parents like whereas for the latter, it is an indication that a standard education could be almost detrimental to the child given his unique needs.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Well but standardized tests and the like are not what is best for anyone IMO. The gifted kids get to escape it into a world of more creative, self directed learning. which is great for them, but IMO it would be great for everyone. And truth is kids who test 'gifted' tend to come from more privileged families, so they are 'elite' in terms of being identified as being 'smarter' and many have class privilege as well.

I think the whole thing could use a re-analysis, is all. I mean, if my kid tests gifted I will be thrilled that she has access to superior programs. But i think all the kids should have access to decent education.

Oh, don't get me wrong, personally I think they should throw out the whole system and start over again. BUT as long as they are using the current system then "gifted" children (same as "learning disabled" children) NEED something different to succeed.

Suicide rates among gifted kids are sky high and rising last I saw.









-Angela


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Redifer* 
Do I think there is much-too-much emphasis on giftedness, and the major PUSH I notice every to "make" gifted kids in our country? Absolutely. My daughter (going on 4) has peers who are taking French, ballet, classical instrument lessons, in math tutoring, etc. These kids are 3 and 4 years old. All because their parents want to ensure their kids grow up to be 'gifted'. When really, most of the 'gifted' kids (and their ideas/thought process) aren't all that appreciated in a regular setting.











High achieving and gifted are two VERY different things. Any decent testing program for identifying "giftedness" does quite a bit to account for differences due to social and economic status. Is it still a developing field? (the testing) Absolutely.

For example, the test used in my district is entirely non-verbal to account for a large percentage of non-native-English speakers.

-Angela


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LeftField* 
In our area, the gifted program includes such a broad range of children, way below the IQ parameters for clinically gifted. So it's essentially a program for high-achieving children (most are privileged), most of whom are not clinically gifted. I had a relative in one of these programs and she was so incredibly miserable there because she was operating many grade levels above and her needs were not being met in the gifted program. When her parents spoke with the gifted coordinator about it, the coordinator said that she was aware the child was very bored there but that she had so many children in the GATE program who couldn't operate on that level that she simply could not meet the child's needs. In that case, what is the point of the GATE program? Rather than providing an essential program for the few who think very differently and who *need* something different, it becomes a status symbol and reward for the parents of high-achieving, normal children. I am against this sort of program but I am in favor of true differentiated education for clinically gifted children.











Absolutely. We run into this especially around here in the more suburban districts.

-Angela


----------



## turtlewomyn (Jun 5, 2005)

I was labeled as Gifted and Talented in school, and I am almost 33 years old- it has been around longer than a decade. In kindergarten they started splitting us into math and reading groups. There were three levels (for both, but the one I remember more clearly was the reading). I was in the top level, then there was the middle level for kids reading on grade level, and there was the lowest level for kids who needed help to catch up. I had taught myself to read by the age of 4 and I am sorry but I would have been bored to tears if I had to stay learning at the same level as the kids who didn't know their alphabet yet in kindergarten. I remember that they used the same books, when I was in first grade the middle level was using the book that I used in kindergarten. So, it wasn't that I was getting special perks or "priviledged" (by the way, my family was middle class) they were just teaching kids to their skill level. I was reading adult books by the fourth grade, clearly I needed some sort of enrichment activity.

I did get to participate in some special after school programs. These were Omnibus (a science program), Junior Great Books (reading), and Odessey of the Mind. I think I was chosen for these based on test scores and how I did in school. We also had a Summer Academy for gifted students that I went to a few years. I call it "summer school for nerds." I don't remember what the financial aspect was, or if students with greater need got discounts or scholarships. I do know that my mom (who was a SAHM) volunteered for many of the programs because both my brother and I were in them.

I grew up in Minnesota, and now I am raising my daughter in Florida. I am seriously concerned about the education she will get in the public school system here (current situation is such that I have to work and we can't afford private). Florida is big on teaching to the FCAT and every time I talk to teachers here they are so disgusted by the fact that they cannot really teach.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eepster* 
Gifted programs are not really "superior" to regular class room education as simply different, and more intense. Also, in most places it isn't replacing the regular classroom, but instead is an additional work load on top of the classroom. Gifted students often choose to give up free time during recess, after school, or on weekends to participate in gifted programs. Though sometimes they are fun and exporitory, more often they are just another classroom experience with longer bigger harder text books.

IME 'gifted' programs tend to be actual classes in schools, so kids dont go to 'regular' class but to a special gifted class. Alternatively there are pull out programs but IME the kids who go to these programs are not usually expected to catch up on the regular schoolwork they miss.

And IMO the programs are indeed superior, more creative and interesting, and more self directed. It's nice to say they are 'equal but different' but I don't believe that to be the case.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *the_lissa* 

I'm torn on labels. On one hand, I benefited from gifted enrichment programs. On the other hand, the label was damaging to me.

Same. That's why I think that labelling certain kids and providing enrichment programs only for them is not a great strategy. The kids who are 'gifted' have this label and often their parents' egos and pride to live up to. The kids who are not 'gifted' get to feel inferior. Woohoo.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 

Suicide rates among gifted kids are sky high and rising last I saw.









Seriously? Any studies on why?


----------



## the_lissa (Oct 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
IME 'gifted' programs tend to be actual classes in schools, so kids dont go to 'regular' class but to a special gifted class. Alternatively there are pull out programs but IME the kids who go to these programs are not usually expected to catch up on the regular schoolwork they miss.


That's the opposite of the schools I attended.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *the_lissa* 
That's the opposite of the schools I attended.

Oh really, eh? That's interesting since we live so close! I have less experience with the pull out programs and more with the 'gifted school' concept where it's all one big school of kids with the label, though.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
IME 'gifted' programs tend to be actual classes in schools, so kids dont go to 'regular' class but to a special gifted class. Alternatively there are pull out programs but IME the kids who go to these programs are not usually expected to catch up on the regular schoolwork they miss.

And IMO the programs are indeed superior, more creative and interesting, and more self directed. It's nice to say they are 'equal but different' but I don't believe that to be the case.

And programs for kids with learning disabilities tend to be more focused with a lot more one on one attention. I don't hear anyone saying *that's* not fair.

Really I don't understand the difference. Children labeled "gifted" (again, truly labeled accurately, not high achievers) have DIFFERENT learning needs.

Don't they deserve to have those NEEDS met?

-Angela


----------



## the_lissa (Oct 30, 2004)

Yeah it is all about pulling kids out, which is bad for a lot of reasons too.

I also went to art school one afternoon a week, which was for any kid who showed any artistic interest or talent, but the school got closed down with the arts slashing of the harris years.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
And programs for kids with learning disabilities tend to be more focused with a lot more one on one attention. I don't hear anyone saying *that's* not fair.

Really I don't understand the difference. Children labeled "gifted" (again, truly labeled accurately, not high achievers) have DIFFERENT learning needs.

Don't they deserve to have those NEEDS met?

-Angela


See, I dont really see high scores on an IQ test (the testing method used here) as a good catch all to decide a group of students has different learning needs than other students.

I know nothing about learning disabilities so I cant really make a comparison. But for giftedness it becomes this *thing* that includes all this high status and parents' ego investment and insistence on their child's brilliance and yada yada... you dont see the same thing with learning disabilities.


----------



## the_lissa (Oct 30, 2004)

Quote:

And IMO the programs are indeed superior, more creative and interesting, and more self directed. It's nice to say they are 'equal but different' but I don't believe that to be the case.
I think education at all levels needs to be more creative, interesting, self directed.

My gifted programs were self directed, but they were really crappy. I mean, they were a more appropriate level for me, but freaking crappy- not creative or interesting at all.

Gifted students were determined by a battery of test and wasn't just about high iq in our board, at least when I was a kid. I don't know about now.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Seriously? Any studies on why?

Because they are miserable. "Traditional" education does not serve them. They are berated by teachers for not "working up to their potential" They are ostracized by classmates for being smart or nerdy or throwing the curve.

They learn DIFFERENTLY. Not better. Not always faster. In a different manner. Their brains skip around from one thing to another- often missing gaps in between.

-Angela


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
Because they are miserable. "Traditional" education does not serve them. They are berated by teachers for not "working up to their potential" They are ostracized by classmates for being smart or nerdy or throwing the curve.

is this opinion or fact? because if the suicide rates are higher my theories on why would be different than that.

Quote:

They learn DIFFERENTLY. Not better. Not always faster. In a different manner. Their brains skip around from one thing to another- often missing gaps in between.

-Angela
See, it just doesn't make sense to me that a kid who scores high on an IQ test necessarily learns differently than the kids who don't, and the same as the other kids who score high on an IQ test.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *the_lissa* 
Gifted students were determined by a battery of test and wasn't just about high iq in our board, at least when I was a kid. I don't know about now.

Yeah, we had a crapload of tests. But my remembering is that it was about determining an IQ number... no?


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
See, I dont really see high scores on an IQ test (the testing method used here) as a good catch all to decide a group of students has different learning needs than other students.

I know nothing about learning disabilities so I cant really make a comparison. But for giftedness it becomes this *thing* that includes all this high status and parents' ego investment and insistence on their child's brilliance and yada yada... you dont see the same thing with learning disabilities.

Here a matrix is always used. Never a single test.

But hey, a single test (or actually a combo of two tests) identify learning disabilities. So how is that different?

That's the problem- the parent hype. (and often the parents of high achievers, IME) But truly gifted children have different needs, same as children with learning disabilities. One is just "cool" right now. Not fair to punish the kids for having the "cool" learning difference.

-Angela


----------



## turtlewomyn (Jun 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Same. That's why I think that labelling certain kids and providing enrichment programs only for them is not a great strategy. The kids who are 'gifted' have this label and often their parents' egos and pride to live up to. The kids who are not 'gifted' get to feel inferior. Woohoo.

Seriously? Any studies on why?

It sounds like you are stereotyping gifted kids and their families. Honnestly, what you are describing sounds more like those parents that are pushing their kids to be overacheivers. Like Angela said (I think it was her) that is not the same thing as kids being gifted.
My parents never had any sort of ego or pride about our giftedness. I am certain my mom was gifted herself, but there were not any programs when she was a kid. My aunt who was a teacher actually provided us with this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Gifted-Kids-Su.../dp/1575420031
because of concern about how being gifted would affect us.
I loved the programs where I could be with the other smart kids because there I didn't have to worry about being picked on. The pressure I got was from the kids who were not "gifted" (they were the ones trying to make me feel inferior).


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
That's the problem- the parent hype. (and often the parents of high achievers, IME) But truly gifted children have different needs, same as children with learning disabilities. One is just "cool" right now. Not fair to punish the kids for having the "cool" learning difference.

And herein lies a lot of my discomfort, I think. It's not just 'cool right now,' though, it's not like one day soon giftedness will be out and special needs will be in. There is an inherent value judgment to the label, which coincides with this parental push on children's cognitive development (I've seen it with my DD's peers even pre-walking age), and this seeking out of the label by parents for children because of their own ego needs.

I might see it differently if the label was not value-laden, like some sign of superiority and elite status. Yk?

And if the testing is indeed comprehensive and not just about identifying IQ, which I am not as knowledgeable on as I assumed I was.


----------



## the_lissa (Oct 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Yeah, we had a crapload of tests. But my remembering is that it was about determining an IQ number... no?

Well not here. I have all my testing and psych reports. I seem to think that I had an iq test, but no number was written anywhere on the eval or reports. It was also a very involved process- weeks of mornings of tests.

Something does need to be done. I don't know the answer. Regular school bored the hell out of me because it was below my level usually. The same thing happened with my mother and she stopped going in grade eight because of it. I think that is one of the reason the programs were developed.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
is this opinion or fact? because if the suicide rates are higher my theories on why would be different than that.

A little of both. Mostly a very watered down version of life as a gifted kid









To elaborate a touch- seeing the world differently than other, no one understanding, being told your dumb while being told you're smart but not working, being told you're lazy, being told the way you are isn't good enough, pressure to save the world/change the world, internal pressure to change things, a feeling of impotence because if no one understands you how can you change things.... etc etc....

These kids are miserable in much larger percentages. The suicide rates show that.

Quote:

See, it just doesn't make sense to me that a kid who scores high on an IQ test necessarily learns differently than the kids who don't, and the same as the other kids who score high on an IQ test.
It goes beyond a single test.

-Angela


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Yeah, we had a crapload of tests. But my remembering is that it was about determining an IQ number... no?

It goes beyond a number. And the way to arrive at a number tells you a lot of information along the way.

-Angela


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *the_lissa* 
Well not here. I have all my testing and psych reports. I seem to think that I had an iq test, but no number was written anywhere on the eval or reports. It was also a very involved process- weeks of mornings of tests.

Psych reports! omgz. We had an involved process too, I just assumed it was all to determine IQ. We did get numbers and this was held up as really important.

I guess I maintain that if the value judgment and the value-laden label were removed, I would feel more comfortable with it, because I would see it as more objective and less about seeking a status-laden label.

I also think there can be a lot of pressure on 'gifted' kids *because* of the expectation of high intelligence in every area and resulting expected 'success' in the uncritical way it is framed in this culture, as well as pressure to perform to meet parents' ego needs.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
And herein lies a lot of my discomfort, I think. It's not just 'cool right now,' though, it's not like one day soon giftedness will be out and special needs will be in. There is an inherent value judgment to the label, which coincides with this parental push on children's cognitive development (I've seen it with my DD's peers even pre-walking age), and this seeking out of the label by parents for children because of their own ego needs.

I might see it differently if the label was not value-laden, like some sign of superiority and elite status. Yk?

And if the testing is indeed comprehensive and not just about identifying IQ, which I am not as knowledgeable on as I assumed I was.

Parents and teachers of gifted kids have been around this merry-go-round enough to make them puke







Yes, it sucks that the word used to describe these kids seems to be a status symbol.

The label is picked though. There are movements (and have been movements for years...) to change the label. Hasn't happened yet. Just because you don't like the words though, is no reason to belittle the children and their needs









Any parent who seeks a label for their own ego needs has problems. But please keep that issue separate from meeting the needs of all learners







Like it or not, "gifted" children DO have unique learning needs. Those needs should be met. Even while we spend another 20 years arguing a better name for the issues.

-Angela


----------



## aprons_and_acorns (Sep 28, 2004)

Interesting thread. I'm surprised to hear about other GAT programs being so demanding and fast-paced. I tested into the gifted program in first grade and stayed in it until eighth grade. And I am in *no* way "gifted" and I really don't think any of us were except one girl. It was a half-day a week program which basically served as a respite from the classroom for kids who were quick learners and often bored in school. We had bean bags instead of desks and sat around solving "brain teasers" and goofing off.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

I am not belittling gifted children or their 'needs.' I am thinking critically on the issue. Not the same thing. And IMO in real life the fact that gifted labels are a status symbol and that children IME are made WELL aware of this, cannot and should not be separated out from how the label and the issue are framed.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Psych reports! omgz. We had an involved process too, I just assumed it was all to determine IQ. We did get numbers and this was held up as really important.

I guess I maintain that if the value judgment and the value-laden label were removed, I would feel more comfortable with it, because I would see it as more objective and less about seeking a status-laden label.

I also think there can be a lot of pressure on 'gifted' kids *because* of the expectation of high intelligence in every area and resulting expected 'success' in the uncritical way it is framed in this culture, as well as pressure to perform to meet parents' ego needs.

Actually many of the really miserable gifted kids DON'T have parents with any expectations of them. That can make it worse.

An IQ test generally doesn't take more than half a day. So if it takes longer than that, it's more than just one IQ test (how long it takes depends on age also... takes longer when they're older)

-Angela


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

I don't know if it's an American trend or not. I do think that, for me at least, I look at the gifted label as a diagnostic tool rather than a bragging point. It helps me better understand the frustration, the anxiety, the "acting out" my son does.

When Michael was in school, he was in a pull-out program. From what I could see, it was fairly useless. When I was in elementary school, on the other hand, I was in an excellent gifted program and I have great memories of it.

Now that we're homeschooling, the gifted label doesn't seem to matter so much. He's not bored, because if he knows something we move on. He's also able to follow his own interests much of the time.

Sometimes I feel unique in that I don't necessarily see my son's giftedness as something that makes him better than other kids. I don't even see it as a gift. I hate that word, "gifted". His way of thinking really gets in the way of him enjoying life sometimes. He has an anxiety disorder, he's obsessive, he's angry most of the time at a world that doesn't quite fit into his way of organizing it.

So, I feel sometimes like we're talking about two different things. I don't see it as some sort of super special gift that makes Michael better or even smarter than other kids. I see it more as a way of thinking that makes his life difficult. Granted, it can be pretty amazing at times. I'm constantly bowled over by the way his mind works. But I guess I don't see it as something to be braggy and excited about.

Then again, this could just be my own issue. He's a tough kid, and being his mom is hard a lot of the time.


----------



## Roar (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *raely* 
Despite being labeled as a "gifted" child, I am somewhat baffled by the system as it stands now - for many of the reasons the posters above have listed: identifying children in kindergarten, foreign language tutoring for 3 year olds, parents focusing on this as a goal, instead of adapting to their children's educational needs and learning styles, etc.
.

I'm unclear. What would you advise a parent to do. How should they adapt to their child's educational needs and learning styles and how is this incompatiable with gifted programs.

I'll give you a specific example. We are crunchy AP folks, no TV, no "educational toys", just your standard wood blocks, silks, hanging out in the backyard playing in the sprinkler kind of life. And, one day we realized our three year old could read anything and understand it. Not just memorizing books, not having been tutored to read, but he had full comprehension at a level beyond elementary school level. It isn't a goal we focused on. It isn't something we sought out. It isn't something expected or the result or any obsession. It was a gift that we had to find a way to deal with.

I'd love to hear what posters opposed to gifted education would advise under those circumstances - hitting the kid in the head a few times, feeding them some lead paint chips - anything just to avoid acknowledging what the kid needed so as not to appear like an American obsessed with giftedness?


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
I am not belittling gifted children or their 'needs.' I am thinking critically on the issue. Not the same thing. And IMO in real life the fact that gifted labels are a status symbol and that children IME are made WELL aware of this, cannot and should not be separated out from how the label and the issue are framed.

I realize that you don't *mean* to belittle their needs.







I know you well enough to know that is as unlike you as possible







But realize that that is exactly what you're doing.

Yes, there are parents who are over the top (nothing new about THAT) and yes, there are places that use gifted programs as a dumping ground for high achievers.

BUT, it is a legitimate learning difference. With legitimate needs. And the parents and teachers who work with these kids are fighting an uphill battle. ANY child with learning needs different from the rest is at a disadvantage. It is not the fault of *this* group of children that their needs are "elitist" and non-PC.

-Angela


----------



## Roar (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
I am not belittling gifted children or their 'needs.' I am thinking critically on the issue. Not the same thing. And IMO in real life the fact that gifted labels are a status symbol and that children IME are made WELL aware of this, cannot and should not be separated out from how the label and the issue are framed.

What part of the country do you live in?

I have met maybe one or two parents who are invested in the label, but the vast majority I've met are not. I haven't met any kids who are invested in having the gifted label. Most kids I know who are gifted know they are different and may be aware they are smart, but have it well in perspective. I've met FAR FAR more parents who brag about their kids being on top tier traveling soccer teams. I find it obnoxious but it doesn't make all people who like soccer suspect to me. And, it sure doesn't make me want to take away competitive soccer for kids who need it.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Roar* 
What part of the country do you live in?

She's in Canada... not sure what part.









-Angela


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
I realize that you don't *mean* to belittle their needs.







I know you well enough to know that is as unlike you as possible







But realize that that is exactly what you're doing.

Yes, there are parents who are over the top (nothing new about THAT) and yes, there are places that use gifted programs as a dumping ground for high achievers.

BUT, it is a legitimate learning difference. With legitimate needs. And the parents and teachers who work with these kids are fighting an uphill battle. ANY child with learning needs different from the rest is at a disadvantage. It is not the fault of *this* group of children that their needs are "elitist" and non-PC.

-Angela

No, I'm really not belittling anyone's needs. Perhaps it is a legitimate learning difference, perhaps it is a catch all. I do not know. The label and the status-y nature of it DOES affect 'gifted' children, and also regular children. I would argue that it has many negative effects, and that an approach to labelling that was less value laden would meet the emotional needs of gifted and other children much better than the current framing of the issue.

And once the status element and the 'label chasing' were removed, I think specific needs and issues of this group of children (if indeed they can be grouped as one) might be more clearly observed and better met.


----------



## Keeping up (Apr 7, 2004)

I too am Canadian - and was excluded from the gifted program in high school - no clue why, but perhaps I was doing just fine with the class room structure, even if I was bored and drew horses all day. My friends that were in the gifted program found it amusing - got out of class to do other things, but in the end, I ended up doing more post-high school - bright, gifted, harder worker, more motivated, more conforming - I don't know. (OK, one girl went to Princeton - she blew me out of the water!)

I can only add a few questions to the argument.

Why are the parents in suburbia Boston 'red shirting' their affluent children at alarming rates (i.e. holding them back from kindie for one year). I would assume that many affluent children are from high achieving family (not high achieving families are the only affluent ones - don't want anyone to think I am basing it all on money). (My sister lives in suburbia Boston).

Is gifted in some cases (not all) just the show that we have 'dumbed' down schools (American or Canadian) for the average child, where average is too low? I look at the benchmarks for kindie for my daughter (SK for the Ontario types) - and it is ridiculous - she met those on day 1, easily. I think she is bright, but not gifted. Is it that this relatively affluent child, with post-secondary educated parents just simply better off than the 'average' child - where in the city of Toronto is highly highly multicultural, english as second language, and immigrant? [I actually heard that Toronto is the 2nd most multi-cultural city, behind London England - I knew we were multi-cultural, but didn't realize we were that multi-cultural.] Not at all saying that immigrant children are slow, just have more hurdles to overcome.

OK - I got to go make lunch - might add a bit more later.


----------



## joensally (Jun 19, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie* 
I don't know if it's an American trend or not. I do think that, for me at least, I look at the gifted label as a diagnostic tool rather than a bragging point. It helps me better understand the frustration, the anxiety, the "acting out" my son does.

When Michael was in school, he was in a pull-out program. From what I could see, it was fairly useless. When I was in elementary school, on the other hand, I was in an excellent gifted program and I have great memories of it.

Now that we're homeschooling, the gifted label doesn't seem to matter so much. He's not bored, because if he knows something we move on. He's also able to follow his own interests much of the time.

Sometimes I feel unique in that I don't necessarily see my son's giftedness as something that makes him better than other kids. I don't even see it as a gift. I hate that word, "gifted". His way of thinking really gets in the way of him enjoying life sometimes. He has an anxiety disorder, he's obsessive, he's angry most of the time at a world that doesn't quite fit into his way of organizing it.

So, I feel sometimes like we're talking about two different things. I don't see it as some sort of super special gift that makes Michael better or even smarter than other kids. I see it more as a way of thinking that makes his life difficult. Granted, it can be pretty amazing at times. I'm constantly bowled over by the way his mind works. But I guess I don't see it as something to be braggy and excited about.

Then again, this could just be my own issue. He's a tough kid, and being his mom is hard a lot of the time.

My 5 year old is similar. I think it's tough being him a lot of the time - he's so sensitive, hyper-reactive and just out of sync with the world around him. DD finds the world marginally easier.

Gifted is absolutely diagnostic to us, and is in fact the word I don't want to breathe to other parents as it just feels pretentious and may give others a false impression about our values. A mom I know whose son is extraordinarily gifted resists accessing gifted programs for him because some of the other parents and the values they're teaching their kids (superiority etc). Some parents are preoccupied by realizing themselves via their children - it happens in all quarters.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
No, I'm really not belittling anyone's needs. Perhaps it is a legitimate learning difference, perhaps it is a catch all. I do not know. The label and the status-y nature of it DOES affect 'gifted' children, and also regular children. I would argue that it has many negative effects, and that an approach to labelling that was less value laden would meet the emotional needs of gifted and other children much better than the current framing of the issue.

And once the status element and the 'label chasing' were removed, I think specific needs and issues of this group of children (if indeed they can be grouped as one) might be more clearly observed and better met.

Okay- we all agree (have never heard any real disagreement on the idea...) that "gifted" is not the best word for that label. So what? What on earth does that have to do with providing programs for them?

There are boatloads of research on the needs and issues of this group of children. This is not a new issue. Not a new label. If you would like to do more research, I'm sure Roar has a list a mile long of great places to start









Arguing that we don't like the word used for the label is really pretty silly. And of course has NOTHING to do with providing services for these kids (which is what this thread started out questioning.)

If you would like to get a PhD in gifted ed. and pursue changing the label-







Please, go right ahead







Really. I'll be behind you 100%. But sitting around calling it elitist doesn't change anything.

-Angela


----------



## joensally (Jun 19, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
No, I'm really not belittling anyone's needs. Perhaps it is a legitimate learning difference, perhaps it is a catch all. I do not know. The label and the status-y nature of it DOES affect 'gifted' children, and also regular children. I would argue that it has many negative effects, and that an approach to labelling that was less value laden would meet the emotional needs of gifted and other children much better than the current framing of the issue.

And once the status element and the 'label chasing' were removed, I think specific needs and issues of this group of children (if indeed they can be grouped as one) might be more clearly observed and better met.

I agree with this. I think part of it is that it's hard to carve out resources to create something meaningful for 2% of a school population (further stratified by age/grade level), so by offering it to 5 or 10 % of the school population, you get the funding to achieve critical mass. Now you've created something that 10 out of 100 kids can attend, and many parents are going to be pursuing that, perhaps due to perceived status, or perhaps as an escape from an ineffective typical classroom.

If the gifted label is lauded as though they should have jerseys, then yeah, it's damaging. For some gifted kids, however, having an explanation for the differences they perceive about themselves can be a relief.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AnnD* 
I too am Canadian - and was excluded from the gifted program in high school - no clue why, but perhaps I was doing just fine with the class room structure, even if I was bored and drew horses all day. My friends that were in the gifted program found it amusing - got out of class to do other things, but in the end, I ended up doing more post-high school - bright, gifted, harder worker, more motivated, more conforming - I don't know. (OK, one girl went to Princeton - she blew me out of the water!)

I can only add a few questions to the argument.

Why are the parents in suburbia Boston 'red shirting' their affluent children at alarming rates (i.e. holding them back from kindie for one year). I would assume that many affluent children are from high achieving family (not high achieving families are the only affluent ones - don't want anyone to think I am basing it all on money). (My sister lives in suburbia Boston).

Is gifted in some cases (not all) just the show that we have 'dumbed' down schools (American or Canadian) for the average child, where average is too low? I look at the benchmarks for kindie for my daughter (SK for the Ontario types) - and it is ridiculous - she met those on day 1, easily. I think she is bright, but not gifted. Is it that this relatively affluent child, with post-secondary educated parents just simply better off than the 'average' child - where in the city of Toronto is highly highly multicultural, english as second language, and immigrant? [I actually heard that Toronto is the 2nd most multi-cultural city, behind London England - I knew we were multi-cultural, but didn't realize we were that multi-cultural.] Not at all saying that immigrant children are slow, just have more hurdles to overcome.

OK - I got to go make lunch - might add a bit more later.

You will find most educators who have background in gifted ed to actually be quite supportive of SKIPPING grades. Quite the opposite of "red shirting"









So I say, once more, that *that* has nothing to do with giftedness and everything to do with achievement.

Gifted does NOT = high achieving. In fact, in research that puts gifted kids into different "types" the great majority of gifted kids are NOT high achieving.

They don't make As.

As for the dumbing down- sure, that is an issue for all kids. But gifted still exist by the same criteria and identifying guides that they did before. There IS a line between bright and gifted. (I know, I know, elitist terms, but the ones currently used)

-Angela


----------



## Limabean1975 (Jan 4, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LeftField* 
It's certainly complicated. I did not attend schools with GATE programming and I had never heard of the word "gifted" until I was an adult. As an adult, I am aware from past tests that I would have been considered "gifted" as a child if I lived somewhere that tracked for that. So, I never had a label and I never had differentiated education but I had another label assigned to me: lazy. I never had to study in school so I didn't and I just daydreamed for the most of the time. I was constantly berated for being "lazy" and for having my "head in the clouds" so I developed poor self-esteem. My notes were a confusing maze of pictures and arrows pointing to scrawled words; they made sense to me but it was considered horribly unorganized and just poor. I never made really high grades because it just didn't seem important to me to apply myself to tasks that were unchallenging. I left school with zero work ethic and I fell flat on my face in university when I actually had to work for the first time in my life.

I have no experience with use of the gifted label and how it might be detrimental. I read what people have to say about that, because I learn from other's experiences. But my own experience is that the lack of the label didn't fix the problem; rather, it created a different problem altogether. I still have to work inside myself to assure myself that I'm not lazy and sloppy. Because I wasn't invested in school work for grades, I also assumed that I wasn't very smart at all (otherwise I'd be a high-achiever, right?) and that had long-lasting effects.

The whole thing is just very complicated.

RIGHT there with you. Every word.


----------



## joensally (Jun 19, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 

I guess I maintain that if the value judgment and the value-laden label were removed, I would feel more comfortable with it, because I would see it as more objective and less about seeking a status-laden label.

I also think there can be a lot of pressure on 'gifted' kids *because* of the expectation of high intelligence in every area and resulting expected 'success' in the uncritical way it is framed in this culture, as well as pressure to perform to meet parents' ego needs.

My two children are both labeled gifted, and are both "underachievers." I will likely never see a straight A report card - but if you want to know some fine detail about some arcane topic... Gifted as a diagnostic criteria can really support understanding where a kid is coming from, but certainly doesn't (or shouldn't) define all that they are or will be or should be.

The gifted thing as cultural trend is just another form of the cultural preoccupation with "making more than my father did." An extremely annoying treatise on this topic is the book Hothouse Kids.


----------



## joensally (Jun 19, 2006)

DD is in grade 3 at a magnet school. I recently went through the intake process for DS to attend gr1 there next year. Presumably due to the preoccupation with standardized testing, there has been a dramatic shift to a hyper-emphasis on literacy skills. Having spent a lot of time with DD's class working on literacy skills, I think I have a fair idea of the range of skills 6 year olds have. This new system is disastrous IMO - a whole bunch of kids are just not developmentally ready for what's now being expected, so they're going to get the message that they're not good at school/reading and that school/reading is not fun. For the kids who are reading - just what will they be doing while all that "b-a-t" is going on? Learning that school is unengaging, and not receiving much or any direct instruction that's meaningful to them.

We're 90% sure we're homeschooling.

I think there are a whole lot of reasons why many of today's schools aren't working for a whole lot of kids.


----------



## hippymomma69 (Feb 28, 2007)

I agree with Angela 100%









Just wanted to throw in my thoughts also as a former GAT student....

In the US, we have this weird federally mandated school system that filters how it works through state and local jurisdictions. So the way "gifted" is defined can vary greatly depending on the district. In TN, where I grew up, I remember the year they implemented the GAT program - what a broohaha! LOL

I had to pass the standardized IQ exam. Then I had to pass a psychological assessment before I was put in the program. My mom requested the test. Does that make her pushy. Well yes.

In my GAT program, there was a car theif, several "burners" and the requisite number of goody-goodies (straight A students). And a few middle of the road kids. It had nothing to do with grades but had more to do with "IQ" and the psych assessment.

In my experience, some of the biggest trouble makers in class ended up being in the GAT program...which indicates that their needs were not being met - thus the trouble making. Even as a good student myself, I encountered teachers who were openly hostile to me - I would do the work too fast, I asked for more, I wasn't fitting into their "plan". I also experienced extreme bullying/teasing for being a "teacher's pet" because my 6th grade teacher compared everyone else to me. It was a relief in 7th grade to be have a pull-out class with others "like me" where I could actually begin to make friends.

My needs were NOT being met with regular classes. I'm not sure they were fully met with the newly developed GAT program - but it was helpful to have teachers teaching that class who were also gifted (I remember one teacher saying "my IQ is higher than all of your all's so don't get any ideas....it was really funny) - they could share experience and sympathy - something I didn't get from "regular" teachers. And for the first time I could study ANYTHING I wanted. So I taught myself to program my first ATARI computer







As a girl, I might have been pushed away from that in a regular program. But here we could do whatever we wanted to.

Anyway, I do think there are learning differences with gifted kids. And I think the idea that "they are smart so we don't need to worry about them" was disproved by the number of maladjusted smart kids in my classes....

just a though
peace,
robyn


----------



## crazydiamond (May 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *joensally* 
If the gifted label is lauded as though they should have jerseys, then yeah, it's damaging. For some gifted kids, however, having an explanation for the differences they perceive about themselves can be a relief.

Absolutely.

I was one of those "miserable" gifted kids who always felt out my element in school. My parents had me tested in kindergarten (as a requirement for skipping a grade) and I was put into the gifted program. But nobody told me







So for years, I just knew I was a grade ahead. And then I skipped another grade because I was still bored in class. The "gifted" program at my very tiny school was pretty much non-existent, so I wasn't doing anything different than any other kids. Probably the reason I was skipped so many grades, was because that's the only thing they could offer.

Anyway, I had to retake all the tests in 7th grade for some reason and I re-qualified for the program. This time, I was old enough that my parents told me my IQ score and how I was in the gifted program. It was such a relief, honestly, because it explained a whole lot about myself.

Then I went to high school, where the gifted program was slightly less lame. But make no mistake. . there were no extra field trips, no creative opportunities, etc. Just once a month meetings during lunch period. I totally could have done without.

Because of the lack of opportunities as my schools, my parents did what they could to keep my spirit alive. I was already feeling like a freak, being interested in stuff my friends thought was too geeky or nerdy. I started pretending I was dumb, so I didn't get noticed. I intentionally didn't turn in homework so that I wouldn't be the one with the highest grade. I skipped a lot of class and got involved in drugs and alcohol at a very early age (11). And yup, depression and suicide were a big part of that too.

Thankfully though around that time, though, my parents found extra opportunities for me. For several summers I went to a summer camp for gifted students where I took college-level classes and lived in dorms. They also bought college-level text books to read for fun. I still felt like a freak most of the time, but cherished my time with other gifted kids during the summer months at camp.

And finally, my turning point was college -- a place I could actually meet people at my level (and many levels above!). I could take classes at whatever difficulty I desired. And for the first time in my life, I experienced coursework that was actually challenging! LOL I think growing up without being surrounded by people of similar ability, I developed an arrogance about my intellect. Thankfully college knocked me down a peg or two, which was a very humbling experience. I'm not a genius by far, but I do realize that my public school education was definitely not appropriate for someone with even a mild gifted ability.


----------



## crazydiamond (May 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hippymomma69* 
I agree with Angela 100%









In my experience, some of the biggest trouble makers in class ended up being in the GAT program...which indicates that their needs were not being met - thus the trouble making. Even as a good student myself, I encountered teachers who were openly hostile to me - I would do the work too fast, I asked for more, I wasn't fitting into their "plan". I also experienced extreme bullying/teasing for being a "teacher's pet" because my 6th grade teacher compared everyone else to me.


Oh boy, this summarizes many of my experiences as well. In addition, I had a few teachers give me a lower grade to "teach me a lesson or two". When doing group work, they always stuck me with the underachievers because they though that I, somehow, could motivate them to work. I ended just doing all the work for everybody because I actually cared about my grade. And the teasing. . I hated being the "teachers pet" so much that, as I wrote in my post above, intentionally screwed up so I would no longer be made an example.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

I really dont think the value laden 'gifted' label and the resulting/related label chasing is impossible to change so why talk about it, nor do I think it is an aside to how kids with the label experience themselves and whether their needs are met.

I also really question the idea that the label as a catch all, in its current form, fits. That 'gifted' kids are indeed one monolithic group with a lot in common, and with shared differences from 'regular' kids. This was not my experience in a 'gifted' school. I was so bad at math I was in my own math group in gifted school!







Seriously! And I sucked at science too, and art. But I loved languages, writing/reading, social sciences, and critical thought. Other gifted' kids excelled in exactly the opposite areas, and their brains worked in varied and different ways from my own and from each other. So... where are these huge commonalities? There was a lot of eccentricity, but the degree of even that was pretty diverse among kids with a shared label.

One thing we all had in common was that every one of us knew we were 'super smart,' 'geniuses,' 'smarter than the other kids.' It had a LOT to do with our identities as children, and there was definitely an overemphasis on continually proving that. The value laden element of the gifted label was perpetuated by both parents and teachers IME. I really dont think the effect on 'gifted' children of the status-y nature of the label is merely an aside to the issue, I think it is something that is very integral to how 'giftedness' is framed and I think it requires addressing.

There was a lot of social immaturity too I would say. Other than that I cant think of many real similarities among the group of kids I was with when I was in 'gifted' school.


----------



## crazydiamond (May 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *joensally* 
My two children are both labeled gifted, and are both "underachievers." I will likely never see a straight A report card - but if you want to know some fine detail about some arcane topic... Gifted as a diagnostic criteria can really support understanding where a kid is coming from, but certainly doesn't (or shouldn't) define all that they are or will be or should be.

I hear you on this point, also. I think a lot of it comes down to personality and drive, as well.

It's funny, but my brother and I were both in the gifted program. In fact, we scored _exactly_ the same on IQ and achievement tests (down the the point!). Yet I've always loved learning and am very driven. Him, on the other hand, not so much. We're just night and day, personality-wise.

Success in life has more to do with perseverance and hard work than it does intellect. Intellect can help, but it's not everything. I've mentioned this before, but I'm in the middle of applying to medical school and I know quite a few people who are doctors (many of whom I took undergraduate classes with years ago). I always think of this one particular guy -- very brilliant and an extremely high IQ. Figured he was a shoe-in. . and while he did get accepted, he had a lot of trouble putting in the work med school required. Another girl, friends with this guy, actually, has a very average IQ. Struggled a lot in college, but worked very hard to get good grades. Got accepted to med school also, and actually did better than her friend, because she was willing to put the time and effort into it. I think a lot of people would be surprised to find out that many in our "esteemed" professions are regular, ordinary folk who just had the drive and dedication to make their dreams come true. "Giftedness" is not a requirement in the least.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
I really dont think the value laden 'gifted' label and the resulting/related label chasing is impossible to change so why talk about it, nor do I think it is an aside to how kids with the label experience themselves and whether their needs are met.

Answering in bits as I'm feeling more than a bit attention-challenged today









Okay- I didn't say impossible- but it is VERY difficult. There have been several pushes to change this from within the education community. It hasn't happened. If you're interested in doing the research and working to change it- go right ahead. As I said, I'm 100% supportive. But it's not something I have time to tackle this year









-Angela


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Yeah, I am an 'underachiever.' I also question how we define 'success' so uncritically in this culture... you know, I question it casually as I sit on my sofa.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 

Okay- I didn't say impossible- but it is VERY difficult. There have been several pushes to change this from within the education community. It hasn't happened. If you're interested in doing the research and working to change it- go right ahead. As I said, I'm 100% supportive. But it's not something I have time to tackle this year









xposted, but uh... see my post above about being an underachiever. You wont find me doing any research.

It's kind of a copout to say 'oh go change it, dont sit around and complain about it' though... because this is after all an internet discussion board. We could just say that about any critiques with which we disagree, kwim?


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
I also really question the idea that the label as a catch all, in its current form, fits. That 'gifted' kids are indeed one monolithic group with a lot in common, and with shared differences from 'regular' kids. This was not my experience in a 'gifted' school.

There are differences within any group. If you have a whole group of LD labeled kids you will have kids with dyslexia and dyscalcula and dysgraphia. All very different issues with very different needs.

Gently, I ask that you do a bit of research into gifted children and gifted education before making too many more jumping conclusions. The research is out there and well supported.









-Angela


----------



## theatermom (Jun 5, 2006)

I agree w/Angela 100%.

A great read for a different perspective on giftedness is And Still We Rise: The Trials and Triumphs of Twelve Gifted Inner City High School Students by Miles Corwin. It's a great look at what it means to deal with giftedness when you're not one of the elite, and makes it clear that giftedness as a trait has nothing to do with hothousing.

I would also suggest checking out Hoagie's Gifted Education Page. There are tons of articles there that should help clear up some of the common misconceptions about giftedness.

As has been said before, there is a tremendous difference between high achievement and giftedness. Just because the school systems and certain parents (usually of high achievers) muck up the issue with their own agendas, and just because the identification of gifted students and handling of the problem within the school systems is sucky, that does not deny that there are children who we choose to call "gifted" for lack of a better term who have significantly different needs than the average child.

IME, parents of gifted children *aren't* usually the ones running around screaming "Look at my kid -- he's so brilliant." Usually, they're either too busy trying to meet his/her unique needs and deal with his/her personality quirks or they're "gifted" themselves and don't find what their child is doing to be all that unusual. Society's hype around the label is damaging and hurtful, and makes many parents unwilling to acknowledge that their children have unusual needs.

On top of that, if you haven't experienced the torture of a typical American classroom, with or without a pull out program (which is often more of the same), you can't begin to understand the pain. 12 years is a long time to be bored out of one's mind.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
There was a lot of social immaturity too I would say. Other than that I cant think of many real similarities among the group of kids I was with when I was in 'gifted' school.

Here's a good website to start you off on gifted research:

http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/

-Angela


----------



## joensally (Jun 19, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *crazydiamond* 
I hear you on this point, also. I think a lot of it comes down to personality and drive, as well.

It's funny, but my brother and I were both in the gifted program. In fact, we scored _exactly_ the same on IQ and achievement tests (down the the point!). Yet I've always loved learning and am very driven. Him, on the other hand, not so much. We're just night and day, personality-wise.

Success in life has more to do with perseverance and hard work than it does intellect. Intellect can help, but it's not everything. I've mentioned this before, but I'm in the middle of applying to medical school and I know quite a few people who are doctors (many of whom I took undergraduate classes with years ago). I always think of this one particular guy -- very brilliant and an extremely high IQ. Figured he was a shoe-in. . and while he did get accepted, he had a lot of trouble putting in the work med school required. Another girl, friends with this guy, actually, has a very average IQ. Struggled a lot in college, but worked very hard to get good grades. Got accepted to med school also, and actually did better than her friend, because she was willing to put the time and effort into it. I think a lot of people would be surprised to find out that many in our "esteemed" professions are regular, ordinary folk who just had the drive and dedication to make their dreams come true. "Giftedness" is not a requirement in the least.









THIS is what I try to share with my children. Every individual is a combination of all sorts of things, and that in large part it's our attitudes that make the difference to achieving "success."

My kids are young yet, so we'll see what happens as they get older. A big part of their "under achievement" comes from the fact that they're both very self-directed and divergent thinkers. I embrace this, and try to support them and their schools in seeing that this isn't a defect.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
xposted, but uh... see my post above about being an underachiever. You wont find me doing any research.

It's kind of a copout to say 'oh go change it, dont sit around and complain about it' though... because this is after all an internet discussion board. We could just say that about any critiques with which we disagree, kwim?

What gets me though is that the conversation never starts with- "gosh, I hate that 'gifted' is the label they use, it doesn't accurately describe the learning needs and it makes parents all wacky"

It starts with- "why the heck do the SMART kids need anything extra anyway?"








:

Start a conversation with the first, instead of the second (and preferably leave the second out all together...) and you'll get a much different reception.

-Angela


----------



## theatermom (Jun 5, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
What gets me though is that the conversation never starts with- "gosh, I hate that 'gifted' is the label they use, it doesn't accurately describe the learning needs and it makes parents all wacky"

It starts with- "why the heck do the SMART kids need anything extra anyway?"








:

Start a conversation with the first, instead of the second (and preferably leave the second out all together...) and you'll get a much different reception.

-Angela









:

Meeting the needs of all children begins with understanding that children have different needs. We're really a long, long way from truly understanding this, and the "fairness" aspect really impedes our progress. What's fair is not that everyone get the same, but that each person get what s/he needs to develop fully. Our current system isn't set up to handle that, and the additional programs we set up are really just bandaids.


----------



## psyche (Apr 6, 2005)

I agree with Angela.

A personal anecdote about "gifted" versus "high achieving": I was diagnosed as gifted. Some years I would get all As, some years I would get more Ds and Fs than I care to remember. My counselors loved to blame the latter on me being bored, but I blamed it on the fact that I escaped the boredom by obsessively reading. I spent my high school years in a southern California city with a large East Asian population (Korean and Chinese) which has the reputation of doing Really Well in school. In ninth and tenth grades, the classes were still called GATE classes - students had to test in to take them. Those classes were pretty diverse, ethnicity-wise. In eleventh and twelvth grades, the classes were AP - students could choose to take them. In those two years I was one of the only non-Asian students in the classes. Although they were smart, they were not necessarily gifted (though some were brilliant). Instead, they worked really hard to get stellar GPAs. Many of the non-Asian gifted kids from previous years worked hard at different things (like drugs or taking the GED in order to escape). Luckily for the sake of my children's current existence, I let the GPA peer pressure influence me enough to mostly do my homework(, get into the university of my choice, and meet their smart, high-gpa Asian father). But the difference between smart-and-high-achieving and gifted-and-not-working-so-hard-for-the-grades was enough to leave those in the latter category rather ostracized.

There are real differences in cognitive ability. Maybe the terms are a stumbling block, but they shouldn't be enough to detract from the need for something different. Every student deserves to have his or her needs met. Everyone should have the right to differentiated instruction. Every person is unique. However, social constructs are not infinitely adaptable. Out of necessity, groups will always exist .


----------



## joensally (Jun 19, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
I really dont think the value laden 'gifted' label and the resulting/related label chasing is impossible to change so why talk about it, nor do I think it is an aside to how kids with the label experience themselves and whether their needs are met.

I also really question the idea that the label as a catch all, in its current form, fits. That 'gifted' kids are indeed one monolithic group with a lot in common, and with shared differences from 'regular' kids. This was not my experience in a 'gifted' school. I was so bad at math I was in my own math group in gifted school!







Seriously! And I sucked at science too, and art. But I loved languages, writing/reading, social sciences, and critical thought. Other gifted' kids excelled in exactly the opposite areas, and their brains worked in varied and different ways from my own and from each other. So... where are these huge commonalities? There was a lot of eccentricity, but the degree of even that was pretty diverse among kids with a shared label.

One thing we all had in common was that every one of us knew we were 'super smart,' 'geniuses,' 'smarter than the other kids.' It had a LOT to do with our identities as children, and there was definitely an overemphasis on continually proving that. The value laden element of the gifted label was perpetuated by both parents and teachers IME. I really dont think the effect on 'gifted' children of the status-y nature of the label is merely an aside to the issue, I think it is something that is very integral to how 'giftedness' is framed and I think it requires addressing.

There was a lot of social immaturity too I would say. Other than that I cant think of many real similarities among the group of kids I was with when I was in 'gifted' school.

So, you're extrapolating from your personal experience and drawing conclusions you would assert are generalizable?







.

I think that the experiences of "gifted" kids are widely diverse - both in relation to the context they find themselves in and their individual personalities and needs.

Perhaps the school you attended, along with the parent and teacher culture that went along with it, didn't get it right. Doesn't mean that there isn't a percentage of kids that need/would benefit from qualitatively different educational environments (and I wholeheartedly believe that most schools could be doing a whole lot better by _all_ kids).

IME, some parents are, well...jerks. Pick your poison - their kid is gifted, their kid is a star athlete, their kid is class president. The gifted kid thing stands out because most kids are in school, with some explicit expectations for normal development. It's a prime avenue for "my kid is better than all the rest." All of that does not negate that there is actually a wide variation in the needs of kids.


----------



## joensally (Jun 19, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *theatermom* 







:

Meeting the needs of all children begins with understanding that children have different needs. We're really a long, long way from truly understanding this, and the "fairness" aspect really impedes our progress. What's fair is not that everyone get the same, but that each person get what s/he needs to develop fully. Our current system isn't set up to handle that, and the additional programs we set up are really just bandaids.











My son is way ahead intellectually, quite behind social/emotionally, has sensory issues and is very strong-willed and independently minded(read: "behaviour"). His needs are very diverse, and I spend a lot of time discussing them with the school. It's very difficult for a large system based on a prescribed notion of normal, acceptable etc to meet the varying needs of individual kids.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 

It starts with- "why the heck do the SMART kids need anything extra anyway?"








:

Start a conversation with the first, instead of the second (and preferably leave the second out all together...) and you'll get a much different reception.

Well that's a bit of a misnomer. I question whether the catch all term of gifted is useful to categorize this huge group of people who seem to me to be vastly different. I also think the special education programs implemented for gifted kids should be accessible to the general population... people were mentioning how crappy standardized testing is for 'gifted' kids. I think it's crap for everyone. Let's not remove context here.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *joensally* 
So, you're extrapolating from your personal experience and drawing conclusions you would assert are generalizable?







.

Uh... I mentioned my own personal experience on page 4? I think? Other people have mentioned their personal experiences and have not been challenged b/c they are agreeing with the majority here. It's a bit... inconsistent.

I hardly think it's outrageous to critique this value laden label that gets imposed on children. I think it probably has positive benefits, but it also has negative impacts, and tweaking it and removing the label chasing element would be good for all kids and would clarify the issue. That's really it.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Well that's a bit of a misnomer. I question whether the catch all term of gifted is useful to categorize this huge group of people who seem to me to be vastly different. I also think the special education programs implemented for gifted kids should be accessible to the general population... people were mentioning how crappy standardized testing is for 'gifted' kids. I think it's crap for everyone. Let's not remove context here.

Okay- take a step back for a minute and look at it from the perspective of those of us more educated in the field for a minute. You come in, ASSUMING that you understand how gifted kids are labeled, and ASSUMING that that process is a simple one. You don't even understand the basics of how a "gifted" child is LABELED gifted yet you want to argue about how useful it is to categorize people that way.

Okay- gifted children are identified as NEEDING those programs. Will you argue to open up the opportunities available to special ed. kids to all kids too? I sure would rather my kid be in a class of 5 and allowed to be taught at their own pace







But I don't hear you arguing for that.

Honestly I don't see anyone complaining about how crappy standardized testing is for gifted kids. Usually gifted kids do fine with the testing. What's crappy is limiting their education to passing those tests. Big difference.

-Angela


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Okay that's fine and I acknowledged that I was mistaken about testing... that I assumed it was less complex than it seems it is.

But that doesnt change my commentary about the value laden label and the social context of 'giftedness.' Which is really my interest in this discussion.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
I hardly think it's outrageous to critique this value laden label that gets imposed on children. I think it probably has positive benefits, but it also has negative impacts, and tweaking it and removing the label chasing element would be good for all kids and would clarify the issue. That's really it.

I don't know if it's possible to remove all label chasing







I've seen parents chase LD labels too... say nothing of ADD and ADHD labels. Sure, not to the extent that some parents want a gifted label, but I think that is a completely different issue than serving the needs of the children.

-Angela


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Okay that's fine and I acknowledged that I was mistaken about testing... that I assumed it was less complex than it seems it is.

But that doesnt change my commentary about the value laden label and the social context of 'giftedness.' Which is really my interest in this discussion.

I'm not sure what social context you really mean. I think you have high achieving and parent pushing all mixed up with gifted ed. Impossible to have a conversation on gifted ed with those mixed in. First you have to start from a clear understanding of WHAT is gifted and how to serve them.

-Angela


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
I don't know if it's possible to remove all label chasing







I've seen parents chase LD labels too... say nothing of ADD and ADHD labels. Sure, not to the extent that some parents want a gifted label, but I think that is a completely different issue than serving the needs of the children.

ADHD is another thread... probably a contemptuous one.







I saw a poster once that said "Everyone has ADHD but the computers."

See, I do NOT think the label chasing element is a completely different issue than serving the needs of 'gifted' children. I think the two things are very interrelated.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
I'm not sure what social context you really mean. I think you have high achieving and parent pushing all mixed up with gifted ed.

I think a *lot* of people have these things mixed up. And I think that reality has a lot to do with the title and point of this thread, actually.

Quote:

Impossible to have a conversation on gifted ed with those mixed in.
Which is exactly my point. That the value laden label and the status-y label chasing element that goes along with it has really muddied the issue, and made the whole 'gifted' label a bit laughable. I think the point of the OP, that there does seem to be a trend, is really relevant here.


----------



## Keeping up (Apr 7, 2004)

I have learned something new today (not saying this in a snarky way at all). I had assumed as I read posts that 'gifted' meant the uber-bright, working at several grade levels above their 'age' in several topics (not just math bright, language etc.)

However, as Angela (and some else too) has continuously pointed out - that gifted is a different learning style - perhaps working at several levels ahead, perhaps not, not necessarily an easy learner, perhaps well adjusted to a 'standard' classroom, or perhaps not at all situated to learn in a standard classroom. It is a learning style - and from what I am reading, not at all an easy ride for the parents, trying to help their kiddo.

What is the solution, other than homeschooling the kiddos in particular on the peripheral. I will say that the Cdn system (or at least the Toronto system) is failing the learning disabled - hopefully the proper wording (my only knowledge is from the info from a mom of a child with autism). How will our education systems meet the needs ... especially as the US economy is struggling so much (recession). We have overcrowded classrooms, too few teachers, not enough school space blah blah. What will we do to meet the needs of the kiddos.

OK - off to make cookies - probably should edit this a bit. But honestly - I have learned something.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

To take this in a bit of a different direction: Our current education system (similar to most education systems in use now) is based on the basic idea of putting all kids of an age in a classroom and teaching them the same thing in the same way. Agreed?

As long as this is the basic system, then kids who learn faster or slower or differently than the "average" child of that age are going to need something different.

Ideal, Angela controls the world, education system? Toss the age segregation and whole group learning. What would it take to move the mainstream education system there? Something catastrophic. It's not happening any time soon.

The good thing is that there are more and more options. More special schools. More different programs. More services for kids in the typical programs. Those all help. Those are all NEEDED. But no, they don't solve the basic problem.

Would *I* prefer that the basic problem be solved? Absolutely. Do I have any delusions of it happening any time soon? Heck no.

In the meantime, we have to try to meet the needs of all the kids as best as possible.

-Angela


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
I think a *lot* of people have these things mixed up. And I think that reality has a lot to do with the title and point of this thread, actually.

Which is exactly my point. That the value laden label and the status-y label chasing element that goes along with it has really muddied the issue, and made the whole 'gifted' label a bit laughable. I think the point of the OP, that there does seem to be a trend, is really relevant here.

Okay- then let me say this- those who work in gifted ed, those who (in most cases) do the identifying, those who research and teach in the field, and many of the moms arguing on the pro-gifted-ed side here- are QUITE aware of exactly what is what. We are not mixed up.

And when someone comes in all mixed up, and argues that there should be no gifted ed, without even knowing (or caring to look up







) what gifted is or how it's identified, things get frustrating at least.

Yes, high achieving kids, hot housing parents, etc all are things that people working in gifted ed deal with all the time. We're aware of them. We're aware of the bias of the label.

Please be aware that these kids still are an identifiable group with identifiable learning needs that deserve to be met even if you don't understand them.









that's all.

-Angela


----------



## crazydiamond (May 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AnnD* 

What is the solution, other than homeschooling the kiddos in particular on the peripheral. I will say that the Cdn system (or at least the Toronto system) is failing the learning disabled - hopefully the proper wording (my only knowledge is from the info from a mom of a child with autism). How will our education systems meet the needs ... especially as the US economy is struggling so much (recession). We have overcrowded classrooms, too few teachers, not enough school space blah blah. What will we do to meet the needs of the kiddos.

That is the million dollar question.

In the US (or at least my area), gifted programs are the responsibility of the Special Education department -- the same department responsible for teaching students with learning disabilities. It seems Special Ed has quite the goal -- meet the needs of all children who fall outside "average". Money and staffing is severely limited, as you know, and in my experience, when the budget is cut, it's the gifted program that's the first to go.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *crazydiamond* 
That is the million dollar question.

In the US (or at least my area), gifted programs are the responsibility of the Special Education department -- the same department responsible for teaching students with learning disabilities. It seems Special Ed has quite the goal -- meet the needs of all children who fall outside "average". Money and staffing is severely limited, as you know, and in my experience, when the budget is cut, it's the gifted program that's the first to go.

And I just wish that gifted were a protected group like special ed. I wish they were fully included under the special ed. umbrella. THAT would be a huge step in the right direction IMO.

FWIW, HERE they are not in special ed. at all.







:

-Angela


----------



## theatermom (Jun 5, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *crazydiamond* 
That is the million dollar question.

In the US (or at least my area), gifted programs are the responsibility of the Special Education department -- the same department responsible for teaching students with learning disabilities. It seems Special Ed has quite the goal -- meet the needs of all children who fall outside "average". Money and staffing is severely limited, as you know, and in my experience, when the budget is cut, it's the gifted program that's the first to go.

Exactly. The misconception is that "smart" children can fend for themselves. Left to their own devices, this might be true. Forced to follow someone else's agenda, often not.


----------



## ~Yola (Sep 2, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sage_SS* 
Hmm very interesting. I've never even heard of a class for the gifted or talented kids in any of my schools here in BC. There are programs for those kids, they're called Honors Programs, the International Baccalaureate Program, but never a class they'd attend within their regular schedule.

There were classes for kids with behavioural problems, social problems.. etc..
and there were classes for ESL.

Keep in mind though, in BC (and most of the country) we have many ways of challenging students. Many kids who would be labeled 'gifted' at a young age are placed in French Immersion, and many kids who are in regular classes will take Late Immersion in order to offer more of a challenge when it's found they are too bored with the workload and curriculum of the regular English classroom.

Also, it's my understanding that we have a lot more 'Alternative' schools, which families of kids who think outside the box will gravitate towards. And then there's the fact that we allow cross-boundary transfers to allow children to attend schools that specialize in areas they have an interest in and aptitude for. As far as I know, going to a school outside your catchment area is virtually unheard of in the States.

All of those aspects combined make having specialized programs within each school somewhat redundant (though not entirely, especially in the elementary grades, where the Challenge Program starts, which often leads into the Baccalaureate program)


----------



## Roar (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *crazydiamond* 
Success in life has more to do with perseverance and hard work than it does intellect. Intellect can help, but it's not everything. I've mentioned this before, but I'm in the middle of applying to medical school and I know quite a few people who are doctors (many of whom I took undergraduate classes with years ago). I always think of this one particular guy -- very brilliant and an extremely high IQ. Figured he was a shoe-in. . and while he did get accepted, he had a lot of trouble putting in the work med school required. Another girl, friends with this guy, actually, has a very average IQ. Struggled a lot in college, but worked very hard to get good grades. Got accepted to med school also, and actually did better than her friend, because she was willing to put the time and effort into it. I think a lot of people would be surprised to find out that many in our "esteemed" professions are regular, ordinary folk who just had the drive and dedication to make their dreams come true. "Giftedness" is not a requirement in the least.









Personally I don't think the choice should be smart or hardworking. I'd like my physician to be both. I certainly recognize there are people who make it through medical school who aren't particularly bright, that's nice for them but it isn't what I'm looking for in a doctor. And, that's one reason I support gifted programs. I believe ALL children deserve to learn something new in school every single day. That isn't something kids should lose on because they are smarter. Every kid deserves to be challenged and we need to be prepared to find ways to offer that to learners who aren't in the middle of the pack.


----------



## Quinalla (May 23, 2005)

The gifted or honors programs I was in as a kid were not based on IQ, they were based on kids who could and desired to learn at a quicker pace. Honestly to me it is no different than giving special attention/classes to those who need to learn at a slower pace.

Whether it is mostly an American thing, I don't know, but I do agree the way public schools are set up here it is needed. Otherwise, the class tends to be taught to the middle, with the slower folks falling further and further behind and the faster folks bored to tears and wasting their time. Splitting folks up, everyone still learns the minimum needed for the test or whatever, but you learn at your own pace and you fill the program so everyone is challenged much more fully than if they are all thrown in the same class.

And some people see it as an elite thing, but for me anyway it never was. I just could pick some things up quicker and wanted to be able to learn more, not keep going over and over and over the same things. Some repetition is valuable, but making someone who loves learning hate school is not IMO. And obviously the system doesn't work perfectly, but for me anyway it helped a lot.


----------



## joensally (Jun 19, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Well that's a bit of a misnomer. I question whether the catch all term of gifted is useful to categorize this huge group of people who seem to me to be vastly different. I also think the special education programs implemented for gifted kids should be accessible to the general population... people were mentioning how crappy standardized testing is for 'gifted' kids. I think it's crap for everyone. Let's not remove context here.

Absa-freaking-lutely agree. I actually spend a fair bit of time active at DD's school advocating for shifts in the system to align content and style to kids' real needs and arguing against the BS of standardized testing and the BS interpretations I see educators making.

Uh... I mentioned my own personal experience on page 4? I think? Other people have mentioned their personal experiences and have not been challenged b/c they are agreeing with the majority here. It's a bit... inconsistent.

My winkie smilie wasn't obnoxious - I've been arguing personal as an example, too. Your experience is not representative - few jurisdictions offer gifted magnet. Those that do probably accept a spectrum of kids ranging from high achievement oriented kids with 90 percentile IQ scores to the top 2%. The literature indicates that the needs of these two populations can be significantly different. And of course there's huge variation among people with identical IQ scores.

I hardly think it's outrageous to critique this value laden label that gets imposed on children. I think it probably has positive benefits, but it also has negative impacts, and tweaking it and removing the label chasing element would be good for all kids and would clarify the issue. That's really it.

I was educated in an urban centre, in a very well-to-do neighbourhood, while living in the suburbs. The differences in orientation between parent groups was striking. There was no labeling of gifted in my neighbourhood school, and no services. That would not have been a better setting for me.

I would have pulled my teeth out rather than seek a label for DD for many of the reasons you cite. Without a name (label), you get nothing from the current system IME. Same with my DS - they were chasing ADHD for a couple of months because that would have gotten extra support for him. We got the gifted label, and he's still getting nothing.

I would LOVE to have a shift in the educational system that benefited _all_ children, that they could all feel successful, believe in themselves, and have an opportunity to experience and follow passion. The system I see fails miserably for a whole lot of kids.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Okay that's fine and I acknowledged that I was mistaken about testing... that I assumed it was less complex than it seems it is.

But that doesnt change my commentary about the value laden label and the social context of 'giftedness.' Which is really my interest in this discussion.

DD was recently invited to the one thing the school does for gifted kids - a short-term pull out program, probably once every 2 years







. There was a discussion among some of the parents about hiding where they were going. This is the social context for me of "giftedness." In large part due to the very issues you're describing - the assumptions about what gifted means to some people.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
ADHD is another thread... probably a contemptuous one.







I saw a poster once that said "Everyone has ADHD but the computers."

See, I do NOT think the label chasing element is a completely different issue than serving the needs of 'gifted' children. I think the two things are very interrelated.

I've thought a lot about this, personally and professionally. I can't figure out why there's been this explosion of "special needs" of various forms across the population. Is it our toxic environment and bad diet? Is it the increased speed of our lifestyle, and increased expectations for developing minds to take on increasingly complex concepts and sit longer? Is it a hyper-focus on our children to avoid a scary global context (blah blah blah). Are we narrowing our definition of "normal"? Is a label a social perk for some people? Is any kind of "special" better than "normal" for some? Is it the reality of inclusion?

Are kids actually different today than they were 20 years ago, or are the adults around them preoccupied with defining and labeling? If so, what's in it for them?


----------



## joensally (Jun 19, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
And I just wish that gifted were a protected group like special ed. I wish they were fully included under the special ed. umbrella. THAT would be a huge step in the right direction IMO.

FWIW, HERE they are not in special ed. at all.







:

-Angela

-Angela

Here, gifted is special ed. Interestingly, there are 20% of the total number identified as gifted last year as 5 years prior. Things that make you go hmmmm.


----------



## joensally (Jun 19, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *~Yola* 
Keep in mind though, in BC (and most of the country) we have many ways of challenging students. Many kids who would be labeled 'gifted' at a young age are placed in French Immersion, and many kids who are in regular classes will take Late Immersion in order to offer more of a challenge when it's found they are too bored with the workload and curriculum of the regular English classroom.

Also, it's my understanding that we have a lot more 'Alternative' schools, which families of kids who think outside the box will gravitate towards. And then there's the fact that we allow cross-boundary transfers to allow children to attend schools that specialize in areas they have an interest in and aptitude for. As far as I know, going to a school outside your catchment area is virtually unheard of in the States.

All of those aspects combined make having specialized programs within each school somewhat redundant (though not entirely, especially in the elementary grades, where the Challenge Program starts, which often leads into the Baccalaureate program)

This is the route we've taken, and it is not sufficiently challenging for either child. DD did FI kindergarten, then fine arts school. I am thankful that she's had these opportunities, but they have not been the panacea we had hoped. When you're capable of doing work years ahead of what's being presented, it's great that you spend 30% less time doing the academics, but it doesn't meet your need for engagement. ATM, this seems to be the best available.


----------



## crazydiamond (May 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Roar* 
Personally I don't think the choice should be smart or hardworking. I'd like my physician to be both. I certainly recognize there are people who make it through medical school who aren't particularly bright, that's nice for them but it isn't what I'm looking for in a doctor.

No, I don't think it should be either. . .and I don't think it is. Medical school is designed such that you have to have _some_ intelligence. It's just too fast-paced that a there wouldn't be enough hours in the day to simply "work hard" if you didn't have the capacity to absorb material quickly.
Medical school is just a very challenging place, where everyone is bright. . some just more than others. It's the hard work and dedication that fills in the rest.

The point I was trying to make, however, is that intelligence doesn't guarantee success. The brilliant guy I talked about was book smart, sure, but he certainly wasn't dedicated and he quickly found out that his smarts alone wouldn't get him through school. He's still very arrogant and quick to judge his patients. . whereas the girl, while not as brilliant as the guy, is a better physician because she takes the time to listen to her patients and research anything she's not familiar with.


----------



## Roar (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *crazydiamond* 
No, I don't think it should be either. . .and I don't think it is. Medical school is designed such that you have to have _some_ intelligence. It's just too fast-paced that a there wouldn't be enough hours in the day to simply "work hard" if you didn't have the capacity to absorb material quickly.

I believe you said the person had an average IQ. I want a physician who is more intelligent than average.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *crazydiamond* 
The point I was trying to make, however, is that intelligence doesn't guarantee success.

I'm sure everyone would agree with this statement. I see that as a strong argument for gifted program. Every child deserves to be able to face new obstacles, find they can't do something on the first try, learn how to be persistent, etc. For some kids the only way to make that happen is to offer then something very different from what they could get in the traditional classrooms. I believe we all benefit as a society if every student gets to be challenged - not just the ones in the middle of the class.


----------



## crazydiamond (May 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Roar* 
I believe you said the person had an average IQ. I want a physician who is more intelligent than average.

She does have an average IQ. But I guess for me, I don't think intelligence is everything. I much prefer a physician who can admit when they don't know something and is willing to listen to me and do research instead of being arrogant. But that's just me. There's certainly a wide-range of doctors out there, so thankfully we can all find someone who meets our needs.

Quote:

I'm sure everyone would agree with this statement. I see that as a strong argument for gifted program. Every child deserves to be able to face new obstacles, find they can't do something on the first try, learn how to be persistent, etc. For some kids the only way to make that happen is to offer then something very different from what they could get in the traditional classrooms. I believe we all benefit as a society if every student gets to be challenged - not just the ones in the middle of the class.
I'm in agreement here. I just don't think everyone would agree. There seems to be a lot of confusion over intelligence and achievement. . .that the overachievers are intelligent (and not just a product of their overbearing parents) and that underachievers are unintelligent (and don't deserve to be in a gifted program).


----------



## Boot (Jan 22, 2008)

Wow - didn't realize my original post would spark such debate! It's certainly interesting and I've learned a lot. I think the label 'gifted' was what I didn't understand. I thought it just meant 'very bright', but apparently not. The kids who are academically advanced but may struggle socially, behaviorally or emotionally I am very familiar with. I've never worked in a system that has called these kids 'gifted' or anything else. I, and other teachers, have always just tried to find ways to help each individual child in the way that seems best for them. But I'm not trying to work from within a huge public school system so I suppose I've had that luxury.

On a side note - I was put in the bottom stream of Grade 4 in the States. I'm not 'gifted' but I'm not slow either. It was just that the teachers and testers did not understand that I had come from a completely different educational background. I had never taken a test before, I had been in a school of 60 not 600, etc. C'est la vie.


----------



## ~Yola (Sep 2, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *joensally* 
This is the route we've taken, and it is not sufficiently challenging for either child. DD did FI kindergarten, then fine arts school. I am thankful that she's had these opportunities, but they have not been the panacea we had hoped. When you're capable of doing work years ahead of what's being presented, it's great that you spend 30% less time doing the academics, but it doesn't meet your need for engagement. ATM, this seems to be the best available.









For sure, I wasn't trying to suggest that we have the perfect solution, just pointing out that we seem to have more options to challenge students without resorting to giving them labels to jusify special programs.

I'm a good example of how it sill isn't enough. I started French in preschool, moved to an alternative school in grade 3, re-did grade 6 in order to go back to French for Late Immersion, continued with French into Highschool at a school that aslo offered self-directed studies for my English classes, and I _still_ dropped out in grade 11 because I felt like I was wasting my time









But hey, at least there are options! I'm sure without the challenge of French I 've given up much earlier than I did


----------



## Roar (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *crazydiamond* 
She does have an average IQ. But I guess for me, I don't think intelligence is everything. I much prefer a physician who can admit when they don't know something and is willing to listen to me and do research instead of being arrogant. But that's just me. There's certainly a wide-range of doctors out there, so thankfully we can all find someone who meets our needs.

You are equating highly intelligent with arrogant. Those two things don't have to go together at all. There are arrogant stupid people out there. Given it can be a life or death thing, I'm hoping everyone would get a doctor of above average intelligence.


----------



## crazydiamond (May 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Roar* 
You are equating highly intelligent with arrogant. Those two things don't have to go together at all. There are arrogant stupid people out there. Given it can be a life or death thing, I'm hoping everyone would get a doctor of above average intelligence.

Only equating it in the guy I'm talking about, is all. And that's because he was both.







I'm just making a direct comparison between two people I know, is all.

In general, I honestly don't care if my doctor is of average intelligence. I really don't. That's because medicine is more about training than it is about smarts. I've had doctors who were very kind and brilliant, others who were very kind and less brilliant. Both kinds were good at their jobs. I've also had those who were brilliant and arrogant and those who were I wondered how they got through medical school and arrogant too. Neither kind were good at their jobs.

All I'm saying, is that for me, I'm much more concerned with bedside manner and treatment than I am intelligence.


----------



## eclipse (Mar 13, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Well but standardized tests and the like are not what is best for anyone IMO. The gifted kids get to escape it into a world of more creative, self directed learning. which is great for them, but IMO it would be great for everyone. And truth is kids who test 'gifted' tend to come from more privileged families, so they are 'elite' in terms of being identified as being 'smarter' and many have class privilege as well.

I think the whole thing could use a re-analysis, is all. I mean, if my kid tests gifted I will be thrilled that she has access to superior programs. But i think all the kids should have access to decent education.

The type of gifted education you're talking about is the type I received (although I didn't' come from a "privileged family" by any means - single mom, three kids, two dads, dad in prison, mom with some college education, but no degree and minimum wage job, on and off welfare/food stamps, living in an economically depressed neighborhood, etc - I was the exception to the rule though) and I've always thought that all kids could benefit from it. However, and it's a big however - the school my 1st grader now attends provides that kind of education to all their students. And it's great for the students who would be in an average class in a standard public school and the kids who would be struggling to keep up in a standard school. It's not so great for my son, though. Better than it would be if HE were in a standard classroom, but not as good, I don't think, as it would be for him if he were in a class where other kids were operating at the same speed and level that he is capable of. The biggest reason for this is that he is very self conscious about "standing out." He's also aware that other kids are doing work that is easy for him, and he often chooses to do that instead, because he is concerned about the fairness to him having to do something "harder" than the other kids. And, while his teachers work hard to meet every child where they are, I think there's still a lot of "teaching to the middle," where kids at either end of the spectrum get overlooked.

I do think there's a difference between "bright and motivated to succeed" and "gifted," but I'm not sure where that line can be drawn. I don't know how my son would fair on the gifted tests they give - I suspect that my daughter might come up with higher scores because she's bright and more motivated to please people than my son is. But the truth is, he's brilliant, and that's not "proud mom" talk - it's just the truth. My daughter would probably easily be put into and succeed in a GATE class in a couple of years, whereas my son is the type that would NEED that type of class to stay sane.


----------



## theatermom (Jun 5, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *crazydiamond* 
The point I was trying to make, however, is that intelligence doesn't guarantee success. The brilliant guy I talked about was book smart, sure, but he certainly wasn't dedicated and he quickly found out that his smarts alone wouldn't get him through school. He's still very arrogant and quick to judge his patients. . whereas the girl, while not as brilliant as the guy, is a better physician because she takes the time to listen to her patients and research anything she's not familiar with.

My thought on this is simply that there are different levels of giftedness, if you will. Maybe you've answered this elsewhere and I missed it, but how do you *know* that she's of average intelligence? Her willingness to research anything she's not familiar with is a sign of higher than average intelligence. Giftedness doesn't look one certain way, and giftedness in general has very little to do with book smarts as such.


----------



## crazydiamond (May 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *theatermom* 
My thought on this is simply that there are different levels of giftedness, if you will. Maybe you've answered this elsewhere and I missed it, but how do you *know* that she's of average intelligence? Her willingness to research anything she's not familiar with is a sign of higher than average intelligence. Giftedness doesn't look one certain way, and giftedness in general has very little to do with book smarts as such.

You're right, I don't know. It's just what she told me. All throughout school she had a hard time keeping up, so she was held back quite a bit. They thought she was of below-average intelligence and gave her an IQ test to find out if she qualified for special ed. It was then that it was discovered that her IQ was right at average.

I don't know the details of why she had such a hard time in school (maybe an undiagnosed learning disability?), but I know that she had to work about twice as hard as everyone else to get the same grades. When we got to the upper-division biochemistry classes, where it seems that just about everyone is overachieving, type-A, and gifted, she had a seriously hard time. But she wanted to be a doctor so bad that instead of partying on Friday nights, she stayed in and studied, and it paid off for her.

But personally, I'm not sure that a desire to learn more _is_ necessarily a sign of giftedness. I think there are plenty of people who wouldn't be considered gifted, but still have a personal drive to better themselves.


----------



## Roar (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *crazydiamond* 

All I'm saying, is that for me, I'm much more concerned with bedside manner and treatment than I am intelligence.

Memory, critical thinking, ability to spot patterns - these are all parts of intelligence I want my doctor to have in abundance because they improve her ability to treat me. I don't want an average memory or average critical thinking ability. Maybe my perspective is different because I've dealt with unusual medical problems that were hard to solve, but I'd take a brilliant person who can really figure out what is wrong over anything. If what I want is someone just to be sympathetic I've got friends and pets for that.


----------



## LuxPerpetua (Dec 17, 2003)

Going back to the OP (sorry, I haven't read past page 3 . . .







):

My dh and I are both "gifted" and we attended a magnet school for gifted students. Unfortunately, this "magnet school" was housed within another inner-city school, so there were lots of clashes within the school admin over whether treating the gifted students differently (i.e., having more freedom and responsiblity) than the other students was a good idea, and eventually, the admin decided to take a firm hand and severely limit _all_ students. It's a long story that I don't want to get into, but suffice it to say, it was incredibly frustrating that the school admin could not wrap their heads around the idea that we were different and had different needs. We were a very good group of kids who would have thrived more if we had been recognized as able to handle more responsiblity. As it was, even if we were forced to walk with our teachers to lunch in high school and not talk to each other between classes, etc., it was so nice to "fit in" with others and not be labeled as a bookworm, nerd, geek. We had teachers who respected us and let us learn "outside of the box." It was wonderful.

Now, my dh and I have a 2-year-old dd. For anyone wondering if giftedness can be hothoused or if it is innate, you should come to my house. Ever since birth our daughter has been different. It's just the way she is. At 2 months old, she was trying to walk. She never slept as a newborn and still doesn't. Her mind will not shut off. She spoke her first sentence at 4 months old, and would giggle at our adult jokes. At 3 months old, we discovered that she had a photographic memory. When I would take her to the playground at 6 months old, she didn't want to "play" but rather she was obsessed with the bolts and screws of the equipment and wanted to watch how the swings worked. At age 1, she could read her own name and was having tantrums because she didn't have the coordination to write it herself. She just turned 2, and she does simple addition and subtraction, thinks very abstractly, and is currently learning to read. We did not treat her any differently from birth than any other AP family of "normal" children. Everything she has done has been self-driven. So yes, she learns very differently than other kids her age-level, and this in and of itself is a very "special need." It is incredibly isolating being the parent of a gifted toddler because no one believes the stories you tell about your child, and even if they did believe there is always a judgment attached to it ("Well, you must drill her to learn her letters!," or "Well, book smarts doesn't equate to a happy life!," etc.). Ultimately, my child doesn't fit in with other toddlers, and that's hard for both me and her.

Really, gifted people just process information differently than average, and they are just hard-wired that way. I get so frustrated with people who say, "Well, I don't believe in or support giftedness because all children have gifts." Of course, all children have unique gifts, but understanding giftedness is so much more beyond what these people attribute to it. It is not just about smarts or about being musically/artistically-talented, or being able to work a Rubic's cube, etc. To label a child as "gifted" should not belittle any child who doesn't have this label, but merely should be recognition that the gifted child has different learning needs than average.


----------



## theatermom (Jun 5, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *crazydiamond* 
You're right, I don't know. It's just what she told me. All throughout school she had a hard time keeping up, so she was held back quite a bit. They thought she was of below-average intelligence and gave her an IQ test to find out if she qualified for special ed. It was then that it was discovered that her IQ was right at average.

I don't know the details of why she had such a hard time in school (maybe an undiagnosed learning disability?), but I know that she had to work about twice as hard as everyone else to get the same grades. When we got to the upper-division biochemistry classes, where it seems that just about everyone is overachieving, type-A, and gifted, she had a seriously hard time. But she wanted to be a doctor so bad that instead of partying on Friday nights, she stayed in and studied, and it paid off for her.

But personally, I'm not sure that a desire to learn more _is_ necessarily a sign of giftedness. I think there are plenty of people who wouldn't be considered gifted, but still have a personal drive to better themselves.

It's very, very possible that she is twice exceptional -- that would have depressed her overall IQ score, making it appear to be average. It is a sign of her intelligence that she was able to overcome those obstacles to get to where she is.

At any rate, a desire to learn more is *often* a sign of above average intelligence, and is almost always a gifted trait. I do think, though, that you've hit the nail on the head when you say that there are plenty of people "who wouldn't be *considered* gifted" -- there are many, many problems with the way that we, as a society and as schools, choose to categorize and identify gifted individuals. Many people fall through the cracks because they don't fit the mold that we have in our heads -- there are some great articles on the Hoagie site about this.

And, of course, there are many, many variables that play into a person's success in life. Intelligence is but one factor, and it's sometimes difficult to tease it out from the others.


----------



## Viola (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Boot* 
I think the label 'gifted' was what I didn't understand. I thought it just meant 'very bright', but apparently not.

That was my thought too, based on my own school experiences. I went to school in the 70's and 80's. I had good grades in the 8th grade which did prompt them eventually to test me for giftedness. They decided I wasn't gifted based on that one test, because I was so absolutely bad at math tests, especially with a time restraint. I actually feel that I had a sort of learning disability when it came to math or other certain types of learning, but because I could plod along and do the work in class, my grades were OK. When I was younger and there were various news stories on people who were savants, I joked that I was a savant and my extraordinary ability was to appear mediocre. Years later I realized I probably have some sort of ADD. I think if schools are tailoring things around different abilities of the students, that's a good thing, and maybe that is why parents do push for more various labels, but I have witnessed children really just skating along in school with clear problems and no services, and then they eventually drop out.


----------



## Moonglow Girl (Oct 27, 2007)

To the OP - I think this is reflective of U.S. education requiring labelling.

Having lived and taught in several countries myself, I can attest to the fact that "gifted" children exist in all cultures and socio-economic groups, whether they are labeled as such or not.

"Giftedness" occurs independent of the full time pursuit of enrichment activities or the "luck" of being born into a certain socio-economic class. It is not a U.S. American phenomenon.

ITA with angela and the rest of the crew - different learning styles make for different educational needs.


----------



## eepster (Sep 20, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
I don't know if it's possible to remove all label chasing







I've seen parents chase LD labels too... say nothing of ADD and ADHD labels. Sure, not to the extent that some parents want a gifted label, but I think that is a completely different issue than serving the needs of the children.

-Angela











This has been a peoblem in some of the wealthier suburbs around here. Parents and school adimnistartions push for testers to label many children as LD, so that the child gets accomadations like untimed tests in order to boost scores on important standardized tests. There was a news story a few years back about how in one town something like 20-30%, IIRC, of the students were being given accomodations on tests like the SATs. It was veiwed as an unfair advantage of wealth since most schools can not afford to pay for the extensive testing and phycological assement involved in making a LD diagnosis.


----------



## IdahoMom (Nov 8, 2005)

My kids are just as unique as everyone else's.


----------



## KBecks (Jan 3, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Boot* 
My question is, do you think this is a uniquely American obsession and do you think it is helpful to label a child as 'gifted'?

I've only lived in America so I don't know how unique to America it is. I do think that "gifted" has been emphasized very much among American public school educators and even more so, parents.

I don't care for labeling children, I don't think its useful. That said, I very much believe in giving children customized and flexible educational experiences to, as much as possible, give each student a learning environment that helps them succeed. And, I do think that labels take away from seeing the individual, which I don't like. I don't like the labels and diagnoses for that.

I feel that traditional style education is too one size fits all, and that gifted programs were / are an attempt at changing that, but I think they have not necessarily helped, and they possibly have added elitism to the classroom.

To truly know whether gifted programs work or not, we'd have to look at research.


----------



## KBecks (Jan 3, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Viola* 
I don't know how long the term gifted has been around, but it seemed at one point there was much more of a division in society as to who would get what education.

Gifted and talented programs weren't around in my area (Midwest) when I was in elementary school (late 70's). I think they blossomed and grew in the 80's.


----------



## KBecks (Jan 3, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *turtlewomyn* 
I was labeled as Gifted and Talented in school, and I am almost 33 years old- it has been around longer than a decade. In kindergarten they started splitting us into math and reading groups. There were three levels (for both, but the one I remember more clearly was the reading).

We had reading level groups in elementary school but I never associated this with a Gifted and Talented program because it was focused only to reading and the rest of the time everyone was doing the same things. I didn't hear the term until I was out of elementary school. I thought G&T programs were more comprehensive than just reading or math.


----------



## KBecks (Jan 3, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
I know nothing about learning disabilities so I cant really make a comparison. But for giftedness it becomes this *thing* that includes all this high status and parents' ego investment and insistence on their child's brilliance and yada yada... you dont see the same thing with learning disabilities.


Oh, I think parents of children with learning disabilities are frequently very highly invested in their children's educations and very active in advocating for their needs and their opportunities. I actually see a lot of similarity from that standpoint.


----------



## KBecks (Jan 3, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *IdahoMom* 
My kids are just as unique as everyone else's.









Yes to that. I've seen parents range from very laid back to very involved and in-between. I don't think it's wrong at all if a friend's daughter learned to read early and she's concerned about finding a school envrironment that will nurture that.

I know another parent who may be a little hypochondriac, to be fair, she's invested in medical issues, both hers, and her children's. Her oldest daughter has "panic attacks" but I come from another perspective and frankly "panic attack" is not the kind of language that ever comes to my mind. I might see the same behavior and read it totally differently if it were my child. Her son also has sensory issues, and had some problems adapting to eating. I believe that the behaviors and struggles are there, but I think the way things are perceived and framed can be very different based on the parents' personalities. Even with the same diagnosis, the way a parent responds and reacts and views the child will be individual.

I seem to have lost my point.







Well, of course, all kids are special. But some parents are more invested in specialness than others, and others are more invested in seeing their kids as average.


----------



## chaimom (Aug 22, 2007)

Xxxxxx


----------



## VanessaS (May 22, 2007)

Quote:

And I think people who think I have a problem, or I'm elitist or hot housing or whatever, just don't get it.
Some of us get it.







We're homeschooling, by the way. Speaking of homeschooling, I can imagine that this is going to put even more pressure on schools to provide special services for gifted kids.
I was in TAG as a child (top 2% IQ-test) and it was often the only thing that was getting me out of bed in the morning. School bored me to tears.

And, it's not only an American thing. They do some IQ-testing on children here (in Germany) but the government doesn't really do anything with the information. There's a three-tier school system here (Hauptschule, Realschule, Gymnasium) with Gym being the highest and reserved for kids on the "academic" track. Most gifted kids end up there (although only if they're well-behaved and good students) and it's quite a challenging school, so they don't get terribly bored. However, it's still not enough, so the government is starting to build extra gifted-Gymnasiums and special summer programs.
And I have friends from Britain and India whose children are in similar programs.

The biggest difference, I think, is that the American programs select at the beginning of school, whereas the others wait until the children are older (after elementary, mostly). And that Americans prize unusual children while in most European (and Asian?) countries nobody wants to stand out.


----------



## VanessaS (May 22, 2007)

Quote:

In my GAT program, there was a car theif, several "burners" and the requisite number of goody-goodies (straight A students). And a few middle of the road kids. It had nothing to do with grades but had more to do with "IQ" and the psych assessment.
Same here. Purely IQ and psych assessment. I vividly remember my first day in the high school GT Literature class. I walked in and was shocked by who was sitting there. And they were shocked to see me! Let me see... we were the circa top 2% out of a class of about 600. Let me try to remember the makeup:

* 2 cheerleaders (me and another Marilyn-Manson, Garbage, and Soundgarden fan who ended up becoming my best friend -- the rest of the cheerleaders thought we were WIERD)
* 1 football player (who I'd always thought was as dumb as dog shi* but who turned out to be a freaking genius)
* 1 baseball player (and class clown. Genius and my date for the senior prom.)
* 1 alternative-type and amazing actor/performer
* 1 yearbook editor (and valedectorian)
* 1 goody-two-shoes who sat in the back, barely said a word, but when she did everybody LISTENED
* 1 born-again Christian who could turn every debate into a conversation about Jesus and could write the most romantic poetry and really tear up some Shakespeare
* The ROTC leader (and salutatorian)

It was an AMAZING class and the kids were awesome. It (and my AP Calculus, AP World Geography, and AP History) was what I lived for, KWIM?
Our teachers were great and I sometimes wonder if they weren't gifted, as well. They could definitely keep up with us and we were... difficult.


----------



## LeftField (Aug 2, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *KBecks* 
We had reading level groups in elementary school but I never associated this with a Gifted and Talented program because it was focused only to reading and the rest of the time everyone was doing the same things. I didn't hear the term until I was out of elementary school. I thought G&T programs were more comprehensive than just reading or math.

We had the three reading group levels too. In 2nd grade, the teacher made a separate reading group for me and one other child. When it was disbanded, I always felt like I was being punished for daydreaming too much. I know this particular teacher was constantly telling my parents that I daydreamed for like 80% of class and I felt she disbanded the group b/c of my "laziness".









Then, in 6th grade, some of the kids were pulled from the top reading group to make what was perceived as an elite reading group. I remember we did a project on the stock market and we had to track stocks. It was fun. The group was quickly disbanded, however.

That's my limited exp with tracking b/c our school didn't have GATE (state of Mass, no GATE required).


----------



## freistms (Jul 12, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *VanessaS* 
And that Americans prize unusual children while in most European (and Asian?) countries nobody wants to stand out.


Of the whole seven pages of stuff, this is the thing that really sticks out to me. I understand parents seeking the label for their gifted child who is really struggling in school for one reason or another (there are lots of reasons gifted children don't thrive in mainstream education). But I cannot understand why a parent would want their child who was not gifted to be labeled? For me, labeling was both a blessing and a cruel joke. At least I got to spend one day a week with a group of people who were equally geeky. But boy were we geeky, and putting as all in a room together was social suicide. And we also had to make up the work that we missed during our pull-out program - extra work (and extra headache), not replacement.

But I guess everyone's experience is different. This thread was very enlightening. I really appreciate the opportunity to read the debate. It has offered me food for thought about our own situation and how to deal with the next decade or so, and also some direction on further reading.

Thanks again!


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *freistms* 
But I cannot understand why a parent would want their child who was not gifted to be labeled?

Because it is a positive sounding term; because a lot of parents associate gifted with advanced and advanced with "I am a good parent/I did something right."

Our local schools have tons of kids ided as gifted who, IMO and from a statistical likelihood perspective, are not. Regardless of how well off your neighborhood is, the likelihood that somewhere btwn 10-50% of your students are gifted is very, very slim statistically. Nonetheless, that's the percentage of kids ided as gifted in our local schools. The school with the fewest kids with the GT label runs around 10%. Some schools have deemed all children to be gifted.

The biggest problem with this is that the special programming for these kids is no longer programming for gifted kids. It becomes programming for kids who have pushy parents, or for high achievers in a standard academic setting.

As far as the original question, I haven't lived overseas, so I don't have any first hand experience with that. I do know that Mensa (a high IQ society) has many branches in countries other than the US and was formed in England. They do have an international gifted children's coordinator and about 50,000+ members in countries other than the US. However, they also have about 50,000 US members, so there certainly are more American Mensans than international ones and I truly doubt that is b/c we are brighter here in the US







.


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *joensally* 
I agree with this. I think part of it is that it's hard to carve out resources to create something meaningful for 2% of a school population (further stratified by age/grade level), so by offering it to 5 or 10 % of the school population, you get the funding to achieve critical mass. Now you've created something that 10 out of 100 kids can attend, and many parents are going to be pursuing that, perhaps due to perceived status, or perhaps as an escape from an ineffective typical classroom.

If the gifted label is lauded as though they should have jerseys, then yeah, it's damaging. For some gifted kids, however, having an explanation for the differences they perceive about themselves can be a relief.

I went back and read most of the rest of the thread







and







:.

That is our experience exactly. When we went through the process of getting dd#1 "identified" in 2nd grade it was a relief for her to know that there wasn't something bad about herself. She spent the prior year being yelled at and demeaned by her teacher and had the impression that she was slow and stupid. (She's generally not faster than average, just more abstract and different in some ways.) She also got the "you're lazy" speech at school. The gifted label has been a diagnostic tool that helps her teachers and her relate to her and understand her differences without belittling her.

I also wanted to agree with the mention of reaching "critical mass." We were told the exact same thing when I spoke with the GT coordinator at our neighborhood school to understand why they were doing so little for the kids who had different needs like dd and instead just pulling them out for a few hours a week to do puzzles with a lot of other kids. I questioned her about why the #s were so high when my understanding was that we were looking at around 2%, not 25%. She told me that there would be no program if they were only going to provide it for kids like dd since she had a handful of kids like that in the school, at most, and they weren't all in the same grade.


----------



## GalateaDunkel (Jul 22, 2005)

I was educated almost entirely in separate schools with a hard and fast entrance requirement of the top 2/10s of the top 1 percent of IQs. (Huge urban district where being that selective still left a sizeable group of kids to work with.) I was at the low end of that spectrum on paper, but in real life I was one of the two or three smartest kids in the school. Probably about 70-80 percent of the kids were what I would consider garden-variety high achievers, including kids who had IQs 20+ points or more higher than mine (yes, we knew our stats and discussed them). There are kids who really are very different, special, intellectually advanced to the point of weirdness....I know 'cause I was one of them.....but I don't believe formal testing identifies them. Even 'diagnostic' testing with a real live psychologist. The only way to meet ANY kids' needs is one on one attention focused on the actual kid and not some category or classification. If your kid is smart and you are stuck with public ed, go ahead and use proof of their smartness to work the spoils system. Which is what it is. But the combination of 'but my kid is one of the super special scary smart weird PROFOUNDLY gifted ones, not one of those *sniff* mere good students' with insistence on getting the school system's labels and programs and services - it rings false to me. Because I have known way too many plain vanilla high achievers who happened to test 'profoundly gifted'...and classes, programs, etc do nothing to help the really different ones, such as I was.

Don't even get me started on the socioeconomic aspects. It makes me cry to see the people who are most able to provide enrichment demanding that it be done for them on the public dime. I can take my kid to the museum any time - I would be ashamed to insist that my kid cut to the front of the line for limited public field trip funds, in front of the many children who would otherwise never get the chance.


----------



## Teacher Lady (Mar 3, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Same. That's why I think that labelling certain kids and providing enrichment programs only for them is not a great strategy. The kids who are 'gifted' have this label and often their parents' egos and pride to live up to. The kids who are not 'gifted' get to feel inferior. Woohoo.

Seriously? Any studies on why?

There are studies that show that gifted students never find where they belong within society. Also, many believe that there are huge unrealistic standards that they must meet or they are hit with the imposter syndrome (often girls) where they believe that they will be found out that they really aren't as smart as everyone believes them to be. It's sad, there are a lot of emotional issues that are often connected with gifted learners and few know how to deal with them.

After reading quite a bit of the thread, I think that there is a lot to be learned about gifted ed. Yes, everyone is unique and has something special to share within a classroom, but no...not everyone is gifted. For many gifted was just the nerdlings who did their work and were great students.
To me, there is a whole different set of processing and connectedness to material for gifted students. In middle school, for example, get a bunch of gifted students in and that is a whole lot of WEIRD! *happy dance* If done correctly, the gifted classroom is a place where a student can be themselves and be able to blossom within the learning realm. If the teacher of the gifted kids does their PR correctly, more teachers will see it that way and not as the elitest snobbery as it is often thought. A gifted classroom is NOT filled with all the stereotypical "good" students, they are the students who want to test the boundaries and want to be pushed back to learn something a different way.

*steps off the soap box* Hmm, I think I lost the point somewhere in there.







As I learn more about gifted education, I think I have found my career


----------



## cdlover (Feb 15, 2007)

coming from a family of "gifted" children i have a few points to add:

i know other people have said it but gifted and smart are not the same things. gifted and book-learned are not the same things. gifted and studious are not the same. like others have said gifted is about a style of learning. "gifted" kids oftentimes learn very quickly, so quickly they have trouble processing all they learn. for me, this manifested itself in that in order to grasp a concept all i had to do was look at it or hear it once.

oftentimes gifted kids don't have to study at all to do well in school. that's one way to differentiate between a gifted kid and a hard-worker.

but a true gifted program is about way more than enrichment and just doing neato acticites. i think my pull-out gifted class was really teaching us about processing information. we spent a lot of time honing our logic and analysis skills. we did many logic exercises in many differnt forms, and we were doing pre-algebra and algebra in 4th and 5th grades. in the 80's we were writing computer programs based completely on logic. we read and discussed books years ahead of our regular classmates. could some other students have benefitted from what we did? maybe but probably not. i went to a poor rural school so pushy parents with disposable income and those arguments don't really apply to my situation. we were all lower middle class or flat out poor.

but there is a whole other side to gifted ed. oftentimes gifted kids ALSO have true learning disabilities. dyslexia is extremely common for instance. and many others that i don't know about that make teaching quite challenging.

but i'd like to pose another question: one of the arguments for mainstreaming all students is that those that do well help those that aren't doing well, they in effect teach help teach them. this argument is made time and time again and i've seen it in my home county officially on the books. my mother who is a high school english teacher deals with it daily.

so, do you think it is the responsibility of those that do well, not just "gifted" and i do HATE that label, to sacrifice their own education so that others may benefit? i'm not wording this in a way that's unbiased because i'm scrambling to type it fast before my little ones attack my pc, but i mean it in asn unbiased way. are they sacrificing? if not, when do the ones at the top get to further themselves if always having to use their classroom or teacher time for those that take a little longer to learn? what does everyone in the class get out of mainstreaming? i'm looking for answers as i struggle to think about this.


----------



## Boot (Jan 22, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cdlover* 
but i'd like to pose another question: one of the arguments for mainstreaming all students is that those that do well help those that aren't doing well, they in effect teach help teach them. this argument is made time and time again and i've seen it in my home county officially on the books. my mother who is a high school english teacher deals with it daily.

so, do you think it is the responsibility of those that do well, not just "gifted" and i do HATE that label, to sacrifice their own education so that others may benefit? i'm not wording this in a way that's unbiased because i'm scrambling to type it fast before my little ones attack my pc, but i mean it in asn unbiased way. are they sacrificing? if not, when do the ones at the top get to further themselves if always having to use their classroom or teacher time for those that take a little longer to learn? what does everyone in the class get out of mainstreaming? i'm looking for answers as i struggle to think about this.

OP here again. I don't have the answer but I just wanted to give my humble experience. I feel as if I don't have much right to say anything as I am not 'gifted' so please give me a little leeway.

I am a teacher in a Waldorf School. We don't do streaming. We have small class sizes and a lot of very dedicated staff but not a lot of resources. No classroom assistants and aides are only for children who qualify for a grant or whose parents can pay for it. I have never come across a child who is 'gifted' to the level that some of you describe but in my own classroom I have had a very wide range of abilities. Yes, it is hard not to short change the quicker students when they seem to not need as much time as those who are struggling. My experience has been, however, that the children who are academically advanced often need support in other areas (art, music, social exchange, etc). A child who is particularly gifted in math, for instance, will enjoy helping others and will also want to complete extra challenges that I would set him or her. But in another lesson they will be the ones receiving extra help. I think this is really important as the children come to understand and respect everyone's strengths. A bright child will do well academically in almost any school but they may have other areas of their education neglected in order to 'hothouse' their academic progress. Also, the content of the curriculum should be of interest to all levels. It's meant to address their stage of development, not their ability. I've never know a child 'too bright' for a Waldorf School but, as I said, I haven't met a child whose level of 'giftedness' was as high as some described here. Maybe, for such a child, mainstreaming really isn't the answer. I don't know.


----------



## eclipse (Mar 13, 2003)

I think that most parents with highly gifted kids would tend to stay away from Waldorf. I know I didn't even consider it for ds because (aside from the cost) of their views on literacy - he was reading at 3, and I didn't want to deal with some of the additudes I've come across within the Waldorf community about kids with advanced early literacy skills.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

A program like Waldorf can be better AND worse for gifted children.

How does your school approach children who are ready or already reading at say 4 or 5?

-Angela


----------



## Boot (Jan 22, 2008)

I don't want to get into a 'you should send your gifted child to Waldorf because...' discussion. That wasn't my intention. I was merely giving my experience of how a range of abilities can work together in a classroom setting. I agree that Waldorf is not for all families and not all families are for Waldorf. Most Waldorf schools do not have the resources to meet the needs of children at either extreme of the learning spectrum.

On the reading issue, the Waldorf pov is that although most children are capable of learning to read before 6, their bodily forces are needed elsewhere until the change of teeth. Therefore children are not introduced to letters until grade one. In my experience, an already reading child has been delighted by discovering the letters anew in an imaginative and rich manner.

A lot of children are reading fluently by the end of Grade One, by the way. But if not, that's OK too. It's not about holding them back but about letting them blossom in a natural and developmentally appropriate environment.


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Boot* 
OP here again. I don't have the answer but I just wanted to give my humble experience. I feel as if I don't have much right to say anything as I am not 'gifted' so please give me a little leeway.

I am a teacher in a Waldorf School. We don't do streaming. We have small class sizes and a lot of very dedicated staff but not a lot of resources. No classroom assistants and aides are only for children who qualify for a grant or whose parents can pay for it. I have never come across a child who is 'gifted' to the level that some of you describe but in my own classroom I have had a very wide range of abilities. Yes, it is hard not to short change the quicker students when they seem to not need as much time as those who are struggling. My experience has been, however, that the children who are academically advanced often need support in other areas (art, music, social exchange, etc). A child who is particularly gifted in math, for instance, will enjoy helping others and will also want to complete extra challenges that I would set him or her. But in another lesson they will be the ones receiving extra help. I think this is really important as the children come to understand and respect everyone's strengths. A bright child will do well academically in almost any school but they may have other areas of their education neglected in order to 'hothouse' their academic progress. Also, the content of the curriculum should be of interest to all levels. It's meant to address their stage of development, not their ability. I've never know a child 'too bright' for a Waldorf School but, as I said, I haven't met a child whose level of 'giftedness' was as high as some described here. Maybe, for such a child, mainstreaming really isn't the answer. I don't know.

I wonder a bit how long you have been teaching too, but I do think that parents of gifted kids may self-select out of Waldorf. My husband and I explored it and we decided it was not for our son because of the very rigid views about when children are ready for specific things.

The "hothouse" aspect made me laugh. You can hothouse for a high achiever, at least until they rebel out of the hothouse.

But a gifted child is in my experience really the reverse - you cannot put the breaks on them. You can TRY to teach them other things all you like and you can certainly PRESENT other areas of interest, but if they are obsessed with whatever, they will learn that.

Sure, no one (or very few people) is gifted in all areas at once. But even in the areas I am NOT gifted in, which are many, I learn the way I learn. Any help I get in those areas needs to take that into account. I'm one of those people that gets the 'aha' moment and then works backwards into the details. Even when learning things like drawing in perspective.

Also many gifted kids, like many kids in general, enjoy helping others. But oh my is what you said here: "A child who is particularly gifted in math, for instance, will enjoy helping others" is a HUGE issue for me as a Formery Gifted Child(tm). No, I did not want to help others all the time. The idea that the gifted child should be used as a helper is just - blah.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Boot* 
I don't want to get into a 'you should send your gifted child to Waldorf because...' discussion. That wasn't my intention. I was merely giving my experience of how a range of abilities can work together in a classroom setting. I agree that Waldorf is not for all families and not all families are for Waldorf. Most Waldorf schools do not have the resources to meet the needs of children at either extreme of the learning spectrum.

On the reading issue, the Waldorf pov is that although most children are capable of learning to read before 6, their bodily forces are needed elsewhere until the change of teeth. Therefore children are not introduced to letters until grade one. In my experience, an already reading child has been delighted by discovering the letters anew in an imaginative and rich manner.

A lot of children are reading fluently by the end of Grade One, by the way. But if not, that's OK too. It's not about holding them back but about letting them blossom in a natural and developmentally appropriate environment.

No worries- I know you weren't debating- I was just saying that you're right- in a lot of ways waldorf IS respectful of the gifted child.... however, some waldorf schools are very harsh towards the early reader- something often seen in gifted children.

-Angela


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GuildJenn* 
I wonder a bit how long you have been teaching too, but I do think that parents of gifted kids may self-select out of Waldorf. My husband and I explored it and we decided it was not for our son because of the very rigid views about when children are ready for specific things.

The "hothouse" aspect made me laugh. You can hothouse for a high achiever, at least until they rebel out of the hothouse.

But a gifted child is in my experience really the reverse - you cannot put the breaks on them. You can TRY to teach them other things all you like and you can certainly PRESENT other areas of interest, but if they are obsessed with whatever, they will learn that.

Sure, no one (or very few people) is gifted in all areas at once. But even in the areas I am NOT gifted in, which are many, I learn the way I learn. Any help I get in those areas needs to take that into account. I'm one of those people that gets the 'aha' moment and then works backwards into the details. Even when learning things like drawing in perspective.

Also many gifted kids, like many kids in general, enjoy helping others. But oh my is what you said here: "A child who is particularly gifted in math, for instance, will enjoy helping others" is a HUGE issue for me as a Formery Gifted Child(tm). No, I did not want to help others all the time. The idea that the gifted child should be used as a helper is just - blah.











-Angela


----------



## Boot (Jan 22, 2008)

To GuildJenn - You sound a little offended. Please don't be. I was only speaking to my own experience of a non streamed class. As I said, I don't have any experience with children who are 'highly gifted' or whatever we call it. I think we all know by now which kids they are. Since you ask, I have been teaching for about 4 years so I am still relatively inexperienced. And I agree, a child shouldn't be used as a teachers assistant. I only meant that many children are eager to help and actually ask whether they can and I see benefits in allowing them to. This seems to be getting a little off topic so I'll stop here. Very interesting discussion. I've learned loads.


----------



## hippymomma69 (Feb 28, 2007)

Okay not gonna touch the Waldorf thing except to say I agree that probably highly gifted children self-select out of it....'nuff said.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cdlover* 

so, do you think it is the responsibility of those that do well, not just "gifted" and i do HATE that label, to sacrifice their own education so that others may benefit? i'm not wording this in a way that's unbiased because i'm scrambling to type it fast before my little ones attack my pc, but i mean it in asn unbiased way. are they sacrificing? if not, when do the ones at the top get to further themselves if always having to use their classroom or teacher time for those that take a little longer to learn? what does everyone in the class get out of mainstreaming? i'm looking for answers as i struggle to think about this.

I just think they whole idea that "gifted" children enjoy helping others in a classroom and have some responsibility to do so is....questionable. Like I mentioned in my other posts, those who were defined as gifted in my school included many maladjusted types - probably because they were gifted! They were usually cutting up in the back or bored and therefor finding ways to make trouble. And for me personally, it backfired when my teacher tried to encourage me to help others. I got a rap as a "teacher's pet" and I was basically bullied for my entire 6th grade year. I think the idea of student mentorship is nice and all - but that assumes that kids have stronger and weaker areas...what do you do with a kid who is at the top in EVERYTHING (classroom-wise I mean)? Where do they get the experience of being "mentored" by others?

That said, I do think it is helpful to instill in gifted children an idea that they should use their gifts for the greater good - it will help give them some purpose and maybe help channel all that energy. I think someone else mentioned that many gifted individuals never find their "place" in life, and I totally agree with this - as one of the lost myself. I think if I'd had someone helping me to channel my gifts, rather than just asking me to perform like a pet pony and be "teacher's helper" - and if I'd been asked what *I* wanted to use my talents for - I might be better off today. Instead I have to ask those questions as an adult! Many gifted people find themselves betwixt and between because they look at things so differently than others do or because their interests are so wide ranging (they often make connections between vastly different subject areas).

Anyway, don't know if that's helpful or not....but all of this is very complicated I think and not something that is easy to solve in one BB posting LOL
peace,
robyn


----------



## lasciate (May 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GuildJenn* 
Also many gifted kids, like many kids in general, enjoy helping others. But oh my is what you said here: "A child who is particularly gifted in math, for instance, will enjoy helping others" is a HUGE issue for me as a Formery Gifted Child(tm). No, I did not want to help others all the time. The idea that the gifted child should be used as a helper is just - blah.

I despised this way of thinking. I hated helping others because I didn't understand how they learned and when they didn't pick up on things the same way I did (I can look at the question and automatically know the answer is 32 - why can't they?) I would get frustrated and we'd both end up upset. I hate teaching others because of the bad experiences I had as a kid.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lasciate* 
I despised this way of thinking. I hated helping others because I didn't understand how they learned and when they didn't pick up on things the same way I did (I can look at the question and automatically know the answer is 32 - why can't they?) I would get frustrated and we'd both end up upset. I hate teaching others because of the bad experiences I had as a kid.

This is a good point. And can be a HUGE issue. Remember- gifted children often learn DIFFERENTLY than others. Their brains make jumps that most brains don't make. Connections are obvious to them that others won't make for years to come.

Because of this, gifted children can be dreadful teachers









-Angela


----------



## Boot (Jan 22, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
This is a good point. And can be a HUGE issue. Remember- gifted children often learn DIFFERENTLY than others. Their brains make jumps that most brains don't make. Connections are obvious to them that others won't make for years to come.

Because of this, gifted children can be dreadful teachers









-Angela









: I remember being told during teacher training that it's the subjects that I struggled the most with that I would be best at teaching. If you have to painstakingly go over each step for yourself it's easier to show others. Also, you can empathise with others who may be struggling. Must mean I'm a great math teacher


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Boot* 
To GuildJenn - You sound a little offended. Please don't be. I was only speaking to my own experience of a non streamed class. As I said, I don't have any experience with children who are 'highly gifted' or whatever we call it. I think we all know by now which kids they are. Since you ask, I have been teaching for about 4 years so I am still relatively inexperienced. And I agree, a child shouldn't be used as a teachers assistant. I only meant that many children are eager to help and actually ask whether they can and I see benefits in allowing them to. This seems to be getting a little off topic so I'll stop here. Very interesting discussion. I've learned loads.

No, I wasn't offended, just frustrated in retrospect - I still have a lot of baggage left from my pre-high-school experience at school, and as my son is learning asynchronously it feels very fresh right now. I personally was very socially damaged by being used to teach the other kids in particular so that's a hot spot for me. So was being pushed to be equal in every subject. There was a decision that I couldn't continue in reading, language and music until I had demonstrated mastery of science (I love that, 'cause it was that general) at the same level - grade 9 was the threshhold at which they would release me. In grade 5. So I did, so I could get to the library to study what really interested me, and it did not serve me well at all because I just ended up seeing chemistry and biology and physics as the "price of admission" to the stuff I wanted to learn at the time.

Teacher need to think about the messages they give to students when they try to "shore them up" if they are already at or above grade level any way. That it is not okay to learn asynchronously is really the base message there, that you are not "really smart" if you are at grade level in say, social studies, while being ahead in math. It's all very messed up.

The only school experience I really enjoyed was at a high school for gifted kids (1% of entrants) with educators who specialized in gifted education. There was a real respect for kids' obsessions.


----------



## Teacher Lady (Mar 3, 2007)

Thank you cdlover!


----------



## Teacher Lady (Mar 3, 2007)

Thank you cdlover! I agree!


----------



## eepster (Sep 20, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
This is a good point. And can be a HUGE issue. Remember- gifted children often learn DIFFERENTLY than others. Their brains make jumps that most brains don't make. Connections are obvious to them that others won't make for years to come.

Because of this, gifted children can be dreadful teachers









-Angela

This reminds me of something that happened back when I was a univeristy TA. The subject I worked in was handmade paper. We had been working with making books by folding the paper (knid of like origami.) One particular some what complex book that had little pockets on each page could be made in several sizes and shapes as well as any number of pages. One of the things I did for the professor was write and illustrate many of our instructional handouts.

For this particular handout I included an algebra formula, so that if one input the number of pages and the finished dimensions one wanted it would give you the size of the sheet of paper you should start with. When I attempted to explain it to the proffesor and students they just kept staring at me like I had 3 heads.

Then sometimes the teachers might not be terribly happy with the results of students helping each other out. In junior high I was in a study skills class for dyslexics, one of the other students was reading Animal Farm. I brought up that with her that the book is really about the Russian Revolution, and communisum (I'm old enough that we are talking coldwar era, so any mention of Marx was somewhat contraversial.) The special ed teachers were not pleased, that I had brought thinking about complex things into what they veiwed as a cute book about animals. They decided that I did not need their services anymore after that (ok it wasn't the first thing that made them want to get rid of me, but it was the deciding moment.)


----------



## MilkTrance (Jul 21, 2007)

I was in "gifted" classes in school, and I am Canadian. The classes were not called "gifted", though. I think the terms were more like "advanced," "honours," etc.

I _hate_ the term "gifted" used this way -- being Christian, I recognize that we are ALL given "gifts". Some people are "gifted" academically. I hope that the label does not hurt non-"gifted" (ugh) children's feelings.

Quote:

I do think it is helpful to instill in gifted children an idea that they should use their gifts for the greater good - it will help give them some purpose and maybe help channel all that energy
I totally agree. I feel that teaching a child what is RIGHT is more important than catering to their individual needs. Not exclusively, but yes, more important.


----------



## lasciate (May 4, 2005)

By the way, the special school program I attended was and still is called AcTal, which is short for 'academically talented'. It starts in grade 5 (testing for it is done starting in grade 2 and 3) and can continue all the way through high school if you so choose, but only one elementary school and one high school on each side of the city offer it. I had to take city buses 45 minutes each way because of where I lived in relation to the school that the program was at. They put you in a whole separate class with other kids also deemed academically talented. I never thought it was any great shakes, but it's worlds better than the stuff the rest of you are describing.

And the word gifted is never used, not even once.


----------



## OhDang (Jan 30, 2008)

That is so funny that someone brought this up! I have never heard of a gifted child much except for once on TV and these message boards. I have always wanted to say something but am too scared of all the drama, which obviously this brings. I think there are such things as gifted children, but it seems like on here, everyone thinks their child is 'gifted'. It is really quite aggrivating. Of course everyone is going to think their own children are amazing, the smartest around, but c'mon. How can so many of us have gifted children?


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *OhDang* 
That I think there are such things as gifted children, but it seems like on here, everyone thinks their child is 'gifted'. It is really quite aggrivating. Of course everyone is going to think their own children are amazing, the smartest around, but c'mon. How can so many of us have gifted children?

I don't know about here -- MDC, I'm assuming you mean -- but I have seen in our local schools that gifted is a label that carries prestige or some positive reflection on the child and/or the parents, so it can be applied to children for whom it does not truly apply. I do believe that this is b/c the requirements for such a label are not very stringent and do not follow standard psychological guidelines.

In a strict psychological sense, gifted is the 98th percentile and up on an IQ test. There certainly is controversy around this and there are experts in the psychological field (such as Howard Garnder) who define gifted much differently and encompassing things such as emotional intelligence, creativity, etc.

As far as internet communities are concerned, I try to grant people to benefit of the doubt. If they tell me their children are gifted, I'll assume that they are not braggarts, that the children are actually gifted and that the parent is truly seeing something in his/her child that requires different parenting/schooling/whatever it may be and trying to meet that need. Whatever other special need a parent posts about, I afford the same courtesy and don't assume it is a fabrication on the part of the parent.

I, personally, visit the gifted forum here b/c my older dd does fall into the traditional standard "98th percentile and up on an IQ test" category (she was tested due to learning differences) and we have run into difficulties in school and parenting that are significant enough to require some consideration on my behalf as to what we need to do for her.


----------



## joensally (Jun 19, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *OhDang* 
That is so funny that someone brought this up! I have never heard of a gifted child much except for once on TV and these message boards. I have always wanted to say something but am too scared of all the drama, which obviously this brings. I think there are such things as gifted children, but it seems like on here, everyone thinks their child is 'gifted'. It is really quite aggrivating. Of course everyone is going to think their own children are amazing, the smartest around, but c'mon. How can so many of us have gifted children?

Well, there's something over 24,000 members of mothering.com. Assuming 1 child per member average, x 2% (so 98th percentile) - that's 480 kids who might be intellectually gifted. Even if 20 people responded to this thread saying that their kid is gifted, that's a small portion of the total likely number.

Also, people who relate positively to the term "gifted" will tend to respond to these threads, so it gives the impression that "everyone thinks their kid is gifted." That said, yeah, there does seem to be some cache for some people in the term. For others it's a simple diagnostic criteria which helps explain their kid and their kid's needs.


----------



## joensally (Jun 19, 2006)

RE: children helping other children with content. I think this is an extension of the notion that kids learn by teaching. Absolutely true when they've achieved near mastery or basic mastery, and teaching/helping another student reinforces the lesson for them. This can benefit both students.

Using children who are well advanced as unpaid labour is another matter entirely, and has a variety of negative implications as other posters have described. Gifted children do not have a _greater_ debt of service than any other child.


----------



## Aubergine68 (Jan 25, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MilkTrance* 
I was in "gifted" classes in school, and I am Canadian. The classes were not called "gifted", though. I think the terms were more like "advanced," "honours," etc.

I _hate_ the term "gifted" used this way -- being Christian, I recognize that we are ALL given "gifts". Some people are "gifted" academically. I hope that the label does not hurt non-"gifted" (ugh) children's feelings.

.


Me too. We are Canadian, grew up in Alberta, and my sister and I were both in "Challenge" classes 2 mornings a week for children who scored high on a round of IQ tests.

I remember that of my two best friends, one passed the tests and enrolled in the Challenge program with me, one didn't make it. That pretty much ended our friendship, not sure exactly why, but I've always regretted it. (We were 8-9 when we were tested.)

The classes were valuable, but I remember my parents not wanting to be part of the community of parents of children in these classes. My dad told me once that he felt they only saw their own children's needs and not the needs of others in the school. He had a strong opposition to what he saw as elitism.

I have friends now who have children in a charter school for gifted children, and they are not like that, I have to say.

My daughter is very bright, though I have never been interested in exploring whether she fits a "gifted" label. She is involved in programs where she tutors younger kids. She loves it. She'd skip her regular classes in a heartbeat and just help and teach others all day if she had that option. Her only wish is that they'd let her teach children who really needed her help more...


----------



## Azuralea (Jan 29, 2007)

I was one of those 98% and above kids, labeled "Gifted," working several grades above level, etc. As an adult I wish I hadn't been labeled. The gifted program hurt me a lot more than it helped me overall and as an adult I had to unlearn the lessons I'd absorbed. DS's teacher has been pushing to have his IQ tested. We won't permit it.


----------



## psyche (Apr 6, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *joensally* 
Well, there's something over 24,000 members of mothering.com. Assuming 1 child per member average, x 2% (so 98th percentile) - that's 480 kids who might be intellectually gifted. Even if 20 people responded to this thread saying that their kid is gifted, that's a small portion of the total likely number.

And that's just the pure numbers without considering some sociological factors that might come into play.

For example, a child's IQ correlates strongly with his/her parents' IQs (and even his/her grandparents' IQs). Some AP parenting practices are correlated with higher educational levels. ...yadda yadda yadda... Is Mothering's audience already skewing towards the right-hand side of the bell curve?

Plus, who is more likely have the luxury of computers, internet access, time, and the desire to read and write online? Again, I'd theorize that it's already skewed "above average" because you're probably more likely to find people with IQs of 125 here than people with IQs of 75.


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Azuralea* 
I was one of those 98% and above kids, labeled "Gifted," working several grades above level, etc. As an adult I wish I hadn't been labeled. The gifted program hurt me a lot more than it helped me overall and as an adult I had to unlearn the lessons I'd absorbed. DS's teacher has been pushing to have his IQ tested. We won't permit it.

May I ask what about the programming was detremental to you? It is always hard to know the outcomes of our actions until much later, but thus far I think that the label and programming has been beneficial for my dd in terms of her self-image and enjoyment of learning.

Prior to testing, she was labeled lazy and slow, which she internalized and felt that she was stupid. With a gifted label, those same characteristics (depth rather than speed, for instance) are given positive terms. Not that this is right or she should need a gifted label to be positively viewed by her school, but it has been the case none the less. In terms of TAG programming, it is more geared toward critical thinking and, while not perfect by any means, has kept dd a bit more interested in learning than when she was stuck doing endless flashcards, for example, b/c that's what the classroom teacher thought all kids needed to learn.


----------



## hippymomma69 (Feb 28, 2007)

Just wanted to put in that I responded to this thread because *I* was labelled gifted in grade school - not because my children are. They are too young to know for certain and while they may turn out to be, I try not to focus on it or even really look for it (unlike my mom - grrr). My H likes to spout on about "regression to the mean" meaning that even 2 gifted parents may not necessarily have a gifted child. It's a genetic cr*pshoot so why worry about it?

For me, being gifted does not ensure my child's happiness or success in life. And it can come with some big challenges....so I'm not so focused on whether or not they are. But they aren't school age yet. So we'll see then.

hth
peace,
robyn


----------



## eepster (Sep 20, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *OhDang* 
That is so funny that someone brought this up! I have never heard of a gifted child much except for once on TV and these message boards. I have always wanted to say something but am too scared of all the drama, which obviously this brings. I think there are such things as gifted children, but it seems like on here, everyone thinks their child is 'gifted'. It is really quite aggrivating. Of course everyone is going to think their own children are amazing, the smartest around, but c'mon. How can so many of us have gifted children?

I wanted to address this and found that Psyche had already said most of what I planned to.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *psyche* 
And that's just the pure numbers without considering some sociological factors that might come into play.

For example, a child's IQ correlates strongly with his/her parents' IQs (and even his/her grandparents' IQs). Some AP parenting practices are correlated with higher educational levels. ...yadda yadda yadda... Is Mothering's audience already skewing towards the right-hand side of the bell curve?

Plus, who is more likely have the luxury of computers, internet access, time, and the desire to read and write online? Again, I'd theorize that it's already skewed "above average" because you're probably more likely to find people with IQs of 125 here than people with IQs of 75.

I did want to add that simply from observation MDC kiddos seem to be somewhat skewed upwards. There was recently a thread over in toddler asking when children "normally" knew there colors. The average amongst MDC kiddos was much earlier than what I've seen elsewhere.


----------



## Azuralea (Jan 29, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ChristaN* 
May I ask what about the programming was detremental to you? It is always hard to know the outcomes of our actions until much later, but thus far I think that the label and programming has been beneficial for my dd in terms of her self-image and enjoyment of learning.

There is an essay out there by a famous writer, I can't remember who, but his phrase stuck with me: "A gifted child is a gifted _learner_. A gifted adult is a gifted _doer_." My experience with gifted programs is that they focus primarily on learning or the acquisition of knowledge at the expense of teaching other extremely useful life skills, like persistence, or determination, or even basic study skills. The emphasis is on how far a kid can work ahead, how good their test scores are (e.g., IQ), how much better they score on this and that. They're also extremely competitive, with very little emphasis on teaching teamwork or cooperation. The programs I was in didn't teach how to work through challenges or how to push past your intellectual comfort zones. Nor did they encourage teamwork, charity, or other really useful life skills. I mean, they claimed they did, but they didn't. It was all about the working ahead and, yes, who had the highest IQ. Everybody knew who tested the highest, which I think as an adult is really pretty awful.







:

If a kid is a gifted athlete, they're usually described as "a gifted athlete." Not just plain "gifted." It's a big difference. I think one of the major problems of the label as it's currently used is that kids are given the label as if it applies across the board. But it is almost impossible to find children who universally gifted across the board. Everybody has strengths and weaknesses. But if you're "gifted," why would you have weaknesses?

As I got into high school and college, and the differences between me and my supposedly non-gifted classmates narrowed, I suddenly had to really work hard. I was at a huge disadvantage when I started some very difficult science courses and essentially flunked out, because by the time I figured out how to study and work through adversity, it was too late. I remember feeling so humiliated when I was talking with a bright girl from my high school (NOT in the gifted program) who said (about organic chemistry), "_You_ shouldn't find it hard. It doesn't take a genius -- you're way smart enough for this." She was actually trying to be nice, but I realized she was right: organic chemistry _doesn't_ take a genius. All it requires is discipline and hard work, skills that I had never developed despite being in gifted programs since early childhood. At that point, it was too late to catch up. I had to drop out of my science classes, something I still regret.









Anyhow, we're not going to get my DS's IQ tested at this point. We're supplementing extensively at home right now and it is working so far. Maybe we'll change our minds later, but given my experience I'm very, very wary.


----------



## eepster (Sep 20, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Azuralea* 
My experience with gifted programs is that they focus primarily on learning or the acquisition of knowledge at the expense of teaching other extremely useful life skills, like persistence, or determination, or even basic study skills.

Do you think you would have learned these skills in a mainstream setting?

I remember being told multiple times in my mainstream classes that "the purpose of homework was to help you learn." Since, I had figured out the material with little or no effort already I learned that I didn't need to work. I certainly never learned persistence, determination, and basic study skills.

I'll admit I didn't learn much of those things in the gifted enrichment programs I attended either, but at least I did learn a bit about thinking. Since the various gifted programs I attended were always extra on top of regular mainstream class work, they rarely required homework or studying.

It sounds like the program you attended was just poorly designed or simply not advanced or challenging enough for you.


----------



## 1xmom (Dec 30, 2003)

Although I am late in the game here, just wanted to share:
My dd's school is one of the first "magnet" school in our county. Parents can apply to have their children tested into the magnet program at 2nd grade. My dd's 1st grade teacher recommended that I look into it for my dd, b/c she was bored, did extra things, etc. She is now in the magnet program and she LOVES it. One of the things her teacher said at the beginning of the year was that the thinks it is unfair to give kids who are gifted more work to do. She believes kids don't need more work and shouldn't have to give up being a kid just b/c they may be a little more advanced than another kid. Needless to say, she does not give a lot of homework. (As a matter of fact, one of my dd's friends that is not in her class gets more homework than she does.) My dd's teacher teaches them to not just think, but to think outside the box. It's nothing for her to take the kids out to the courtyard or on the playground to study the trees, weather, plants, whatever.


----------



## cdlover (Feb 15, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Azuralea* 
They're also extremely competitive, with very little emphasis on teaching teamwork or cooperation. The programs I was in didn't teach how to work through challenges or how to push past your intellectual comfort zones. Nor did they encourage teamwork, charity, or other really useful life skills. I mean, they claimed they did, but they didn't. It was all about the working ahead and, yes, who had the highest IQ. Everybody knew who tested the highest, which I think as an adult is really pretty awful.







:

Anyhow, we're not going to get my DS's IQ tested at this point. We're supplementing extensively at home right now and it is working so far. Maybe we'll change our minds later, but given my experience I'm very, very wary.

that's too bad. my gifted program spent a lot of time working in teams and was completely ungraded until jr. high school. a matter of fact, when i read your list of what wasn't in the gifted program you attended, i see exactly WHAT was in mine.

with that in mind, i'd encourage you to look at the gifted programs available for your child before having them tested or not. if it's just aqbout pushing more work, then why bother? if it's about teaching critical thinking and analytical skills, as well as all the other things you mentioned above, go for it.


----------



## monkaha (Jan 22, 2004)

:


----------



## Kristine233 (Jul 15, 2003)

I find the whole "gifted" thing amusing.

I was put into "gifted" programs in school. Straight As and I don't recall ever opening a textbook. ( I just graduated form College and got straight As and I KNOW I never opened a text book, lmao) I'm your typical encyclopedia of useless information. Later in life we find out I'd be labeled as Autistic (and the mom of an Autistic child). Yet "gifted" parents usually get offended if you mention Autism.

But Gifted is sought after and Autism is feared. Strange concept IMO. lol


----------



## Azuralea (Jan 29, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eepster* 
Do you think you would have learned these skills in a mainstream setting?

I remember being told multiple times in my mainstream classes that "the purpose of homework was to help you learn." Since, I had figured out the material with little or no effort already I learned that I didn't need to work. I certainly never learned persistence, determination, and basic study skills.

I'll admit I didn't learn much of those things in the gifted enrichment programs I attended either, but at least I did learn a bit about thinking. Since the various gifted programs I attended were always extra on top of regular mainstream class work, they rarely required homework or studying.

It sounds like the program you attended was just poorly designed or simply not advanced or challenging enough for you.

I think it was poorly designed, for sure, but I did go to this gifted summer school program for several summers with kids from other programs, and I didn't see much improvement in their programs either.

I think I would have learned persistence more in the mainstream classroom. I'm not a fan of useless homework, but at the same time, a lot of really interesting and powerful adult passions and careers do involve a lot of boring tedious work at times. You know that saying, genius is 99% perspiration and 1% inspiration? I felt like the gifted programs that I had experience with focused on that 1% inspiration to the exclusion of the 99% perspiration. Not good.


----------



## Azuralea (Jan 29, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cdlover* 
that's too bad. my gifted program spent a lot of time working in teams and was completely ungraded until jr. high school. a matter of fact, when i read your list of what wasn't in the gifted program you attended, i see exactly WHAT was in mine.

with that in mind, i'd encourage you to look at the gifted programs available for your child before having them tested or not. if it's just aqbout pushing more work, then why bother? if it's about teaching critical thinking and analytical skills, as well as all the other things you mentioned above, go for it.

That's good to hear that there are good programs out there. I don't think we're going to automatically shut down all possible programs for DS. It's just that I'm going into it extremely skeptical, and I will not permit IQ testing until he is old enough to understand that he is a lot more than a number.


----------



## eclipse (Mar 13, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kristine233* 
But Gifted is sought after and Autism is feared. Strange concept IMO. lol

I would say that a good portion of the kids that were in the gifted program I attended would qualify for a dx of something on the spectrum by today's standards- Asperger's, maybe. I don't know if they actually were autistic, but I think they could have "tested" that way.


----------



## jamsmama (Jul 16, 2005)

I find all of the labeling just.....well.......sad. I was a "gifted" child according to the "testing" in the schools. I always felt excluded from the other kids, like I was weird or something. Shouldn't it have had the opposite effect? This is what labeling of all kinds does to us as humans.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jamsmama* 
I find all of the labeling just.....well.......sad. I was a "gifted" child according to the "testing" in the schools. I always felt excluded from the other kids, like I was weird or something. Shouldn't it have had the opposite effect? This is what labeling of all kinds does to us as humans.









I understand the downsides of labeling, really I do.

How do you suggest children with different needs have those needs met in the current system?

-Angela


----------



## littlemomma (Aug 7, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Azuralea* 
There is an essay out there by a famous writer, I can't remember who, but his phrase stuck with me: "A gifted child is a gifted _learner_. A gifted adult is a gifted _doer_." My experience with gifted programs is that they focus primarily on learning or the acquisition of knowledge at the expense of teaching other extremely useful life skills, like persistence, or determination, or even basic study skills. The emphasis is on how far a kid can work ahead, how good their test scores are (e.g., IQ), how much better they score on this and that. They're also extremely competitive, with very little emphasis on teaching teamwork or cooperation. The programs I was in didn't teach how to work through challenges or how to push past your intellectual comfort zones. Nor did they encourage teamwork, charity, or other really useful life skills. I mean, they claimed they did, but they didn't. It was all about the working ahead and, yes, who had the highest IQ. Everybody knew who tested the highest, which I think as an adult is really pretty awful.







:

If a kid is a gifted athlete, they're usually described as "a gifted athlete." Not just plain "gifted." It's a big difference. I think one of the major problems of the label as it's currently used is that kids are given the label as if it applies across the board. But it is almost impossible to find children who universally gifted across the board. Everybody has strengths and weaknesses. But if you're "gifted," why would you have weaknesses?

As I got into high school and college, and the differences between me and my supposedly non-gifted classmates narrowed, I suddenly had to really work hard. I was at a huge disadvantage when I started some very difficult science courses and essentially flunked out, because by the time I figured out how to study and work through adversity, it was too late. I remember feeling so humiliated when I was talking with a bright girl from my high school (NOT in the gifted program) who said (about organic chemistry), "_You_ shouldn't find it hard. It doesn't take a genius -- you're way smart enough for this." She was actually trying to be nice, but I realized she was right: organic chemistry _doesn't_ take a genius. All it requires is discipline and hard work, skills that I had never developed despite being in gifted programs since early childhood. At that point, it was too late to catch up. I had to drop out of my science classes, something I still regret.









Anyhow, we're not going to get my DS's IQ tested at this point. We're supplementing extensively at home right now and it is working so far. Maybe we'll change our minds later, but given my experience I'm very, very wary.

You made some really, really great points!!! I am just now "seeing the light" on how important it is to teach my DS *how* to learn, or as you said, push past his intellectual comfort zones. Things have always been so easy for him, and he has always been one of the "smartest" among his peers. I have JUST noticed that he isn't able to go out of his comfort zone at this point. When something is really challenging (like a math word problem that is even hard for me), he won't try, but rather say it is too hard and he can't do it. We are working on this. Do you have any advice? How do you, or other parents here, plan on getting their "gifted" children to accept challenges that don't make them feel so "gifted?"


----------



## joensally (Jun 19, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kristine233* 
I find the whole "gifted" thing amusing.

I was put into "gifted" programs in school. Straight As and I don't recall ever opening a textbook. ( I just graduated form College and got straight As and I KNOW I never opened a text book, lmao) I'm your typical encyclopedia of useless information. Later in life we find out I'd be labeled as Autistic (and the mom of an Autistic child). Yet "gifted" parents usually get offended if you mention Autism.

But Gifted is sought after and Autism is feared. Strange concept IMO. lol

I think giftedness is neurodivergence of some kind, and I think my son is a hair's breadth away from being diagnostically "on the spectrum." As though there's some sort of line - this side you're in, this side you're out. Two peds have said he's not, and such a label would have meant additional resourcing. What I've learned in my local district is that without a label a child with different needs gets nothing.

As you say in your siggie: Meeting a child's needs is never wrong. I want my kids to have to open a text book in order to keep up with the material.


----------



## Daffodil (Aug 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Azuralea* 
It's just that I'm going into it extremely skeptical, and I will not permit IQ testing until he is old enough to understand that he is a lot more than a number.

Letting him have an IQ test doesn't have to mean telling him what the test is for, or what the number is. I didn't find out until I was in high school that when I went to the office back in 3rd grade and that guy asked me a bunch of questions, that was an IQ test. I was in a gifted class for 4th - 6th grade, but my parents and the teachers were really low-key about it, and I never felt like it meant I was super special or anything. I was also really unpopular and other kids (in the gifted class) were mean to me. So much for the idea that being with other gifted kids cuts down on the teasing.


----------



## joensally (Jun 19, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jamsmama* 
I find all of the labeling just.....well.......sad. I was a "gifted" child according to the "testing" in the schools. I always felt excluded from the other kids, like I was weird or something. Shouldn't it have had the opposite effect? This is what labeling of all kinds does to us as humans.









What threads like this always demonstrate to me is that every school and every jurisdiction does it differently, and often don't seem to get it right. I had a good experience; many here did not.

I don't understand why you think the label should have had the opposite effect?

I will say that while we've pursued labelling, simply as a means to access service/differentiation, we don't discuss it among other parents and try to find accomodations within the classroom that don't make our kids stick out. BUT - our kids know they're different, their peers know they're different, and our kids know that they have the support of their parents. We haven't told them "you're gifted" (insert vomit smilie here), but we sure spend a lot of time talking about every individual having their own distinct preferences, needs, abilities and ways of being in the world.


----------



## monkaha (Jan 22, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jamsmama* 
I find all of the labeling just.....well.......sad. I was a "gifted" child according to the "testing" in the schools. I always felt excluded from the other kids, like I was weird or something. Shouldn't it have had the opposite effect? This is what labeling of all kinds does to us as humans.









Did the label change the way your brain works? A differently wired brain is differently wired, no matter what you call it. It's likely you would have felt excluded even without the label.


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *littlemomma* 
You made some really, really great points!!! I am just now "seeing the light" on how important it is to teach my DS *how* to learn, or as you said, push past his intellectual comfort zones. Things have always been so easy for him, and he has always been one of the "smartest" among his peers. I have JUST noticed that he isn't able to go out of his comfort zone at this point. When something is really challenging (like a math word problem that is even hard for me), he won't try, but rather say it is too hard and he can't do it. We are working on this. Do you have any advice? How do you, or other parents here, plan on getting their "gifted" children to accept challenges that don't make them feel so "gifted?"

Jumping in - for me actually it was getting into a "real" gifted school that helped. The gifted LABEL was (mostly) dumped at that point in many ways. I mean there was some stuff around 'leaders of the future' and all that that was nauseating, outside of the classroom.

But inside the classroom it was just learning, fast and furious, and that was the best part. At that school it was the norm to learn in different ways and that was really the main thing - there was _room_ to learn in different ways, ways that suited academically gifted students. Some examples include:

Every year there was an independent study component. These were carefully mentored to push people out of their comfort zones - but entirely privately.

One year I went on an Arthurian kick, and my English teacher suggested that I do a fairly extensive comp lit project on that rather than one based on the works read in class. That kind of "seize the interest" thinking permeated most of the classrooms so that although one had to master the presented curriculum, the class did not END at what was on the syllabus.

When a group of students became interested in/brought to the school an understanding of the history of China, the school brought in a university prof to do a semester on East Asian Studies. The school did that a lot, making connections with subject matter experts.

When teachers made mistakes the accepted practice was that students pointed them out and the teacher merely handed the chalk over and let those students both correct the mistakes and explain them without getting all upset about "discipline." Talk about modelling!

And perhaps most importantly, generally speaking things were not learned by rote or by breaking them down UNTIL students needed that. Instead whole modes of thought were presented - learning from the big picture in, so to speak. Grade 11 intro philosophy was a great example - one semester on philosophy from the early Greeks to I think around Locke; one semester on symbolic logic.


----------



## Roar (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Azuralea* 
There is an essay out there by a famous writer, I can't remember who, but his phrase stuck with me: "A gifted child is a gifted _learner_. A gifted adult is a gifted _doer_." My experience with gifted programs is that they focus primarily on learning or the acquisition of knowledge at the expense of teaching other extremely useful life skills, like persistence, or determination, or even basic study skills.

Kids learn life skills, persistence, determination, study skills, by being exposed to work they don't already know how to do. If the gifted student in the regular classroom already knows how to do 99% of what is being offered they just don't have the opportunity to learn the rest. It is impossible to learn hard work or comfort with trying something difficult for you in the abstract. You actually need to be exposed to something hard to develop those skills. For some kids that is only going to come about through a gifted program, grade skipping, acceleration, etc.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Azuralea* 
It was all about the working ahead and, yes, who had the highest IQ. Everybody knew who tested the highest, which I think as an adult is really pretty awful.







:

Obviously that sounds like a terrible program. I wouldn't generalize from this experience to deny all gifted kids access to educational opportunities they need.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Azuralea* 
If a kid is a gifted athlete, they're usually described as "a gifted athlete." Not just plain "gifted." It's a big difference. I think one of the major problems of the label as it's currently used is that kids are given the label as if it applies across the board. But it is almost impossible to find children who universally gifted across the board. Everybody has strengths and weaknesses. But if you're "gifted," why would you have weaknesses?

I think that is just semantics. Intellectually gifted is cumbersome to say. I'm sure pretty much everyone would agree we aren't thrilled with the word "gifted" and if we got a do over we'd call it something else. But, it is the generally accepted term now. When we say someone is a gifted athlete we don't mean they are good at every sport from archery to shot put. The expression "gifted athlete" is regularly used to refer to someone who is only good at basketball or football.


----------



## witch's mom (Dec 8, 2003)

I am not gifted. Neither is DH.
Our daughters are not gifted.
I don't believe we even KNOW any gifted children (by Angela's definition, which I trust is accurate), although three-quarters of my daughters' friends are in our district's gifted program.
We know a couple of high achievers. Two, to be exact. Their parents believe they are gifted, and they are in our district's gifted program.
My daughters are not high achievers, either.
Nor are they learning challenged.
They are students who gets A's and B-plusses, whose test scores are in the 80th to 90th percentile, do their homework, who are kind to their classmates and polite to their teachers and organized about their schoolwork. They don't need help. They don't act up. They don't shine above and beyond everybody else. They just go to school and do their work, they don't make a fuss, we as parents don't make a fuss. We volunteer in the classroom a few hours a week, our girls are well-liked by their teachers and their classmates, and every couple of days, some reference is made to the gifted program with an implication that our daughters are in it and that if they're not, we need to be pushing for them to be.
Why? Is it so bad to be what they are? My girls aren't always happy at school, or challenged, nor are they always bored and underchallenged. Some days they work really hard; some days they slack off. They have good days and bad days. But they can cope. They're well-adjusted. They're not a drag on anybody else's time or resources. That, from what I see in the classroom when I volunteer, is a gift in itself!

Some might wonder what compells me to reply to this thread if I don't believe I'm gifted/high achiever or that my children are. I'm motivated because I hear the terms every. single. day. in my community and they leave me astonished that there seems to be so little value placed on being whatever it is we are. Normal. Average. Invisible.

To the OP, yes, it is an American trend. I don't know about anywhere else, but it's the gifted movement is definitely alive in America!


----------



## Azuralea (Jan 29, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Roar* 
Obviously that sounds like a terrible program. I wouldn't generalize from this experience to deny all gifted kids access to educational opportunities they need.

I'm not sure where you get a plan to deny all gifted kids access to educational opportunities they need out of what I wrote. I don't really care what other people do with their kids.

All I'm saying is that based on my personal experiences with a variety of gifted programs (totally independent summer programs and my school's programs), I am going to be very, very cautious when it comes to letting my DS anywhere near them. So far we are doing fine with considerate teachers and supplementation at home. Maybe later that will change and I'll tiptoe cautiously towards the gifted programs or homeschool. For now, I prefer to stay far away.


----------



## Azuralea (Jan 29, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Daffodil* 
Letting him have an IQ test doesn't have to mean telling him what the test is for, or what the number is. I didn't find out until I was in high school that when I went to the office back in 3rd grade and that guy asked me a bunch of questions, that was an IQ test. I was in a gifted class for 4th - 6th grade, but my parents and the teachers were really low-key about it, and I never felt like it meant I was super special or anything. I was also really unpopular and other kids (in the gifted class) were mean to me. So much for the idea that being with other gifted kids cuts down on the teasing.

Yes, it's true I could have him tested and he wouldn't know he was being tested (though I don't know -- I saw through one of those when I was a kid, but I was older than my DS is now).

But I don't see the value. What will knowing his score on a test that to my mind is fairly arbitrary give me that I don't already know? It doesn't seem like it would do any good and the potential for harm (IMO) is there.


----------



## Azuralea (Jan 29, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *littlemomma* 
You made some really, really great points!!! I am just now "seeing the light" on how important it is to teach my DS *how* to learn, or as you said, push past his intellectual comfort zones. Things have always been so easy for him, and he has always been one of the "smartest" among his peers. I have JUST noticed that he isn't able to go out of his comfort zone at this point. When something is really challenging (like a math word problem that is even hard for me), he won't try, but rather say it is too hard and he can't do it. We are working on this. Do you have any advice? How do you, or other parents here, plan on getting their "gifted" children to accept challenges that don't make them feel so "gifted?"

Thank you! I appreciate this.

I don't really have much in the way of sage advice here because I am trying to figure this out myself too.









But I have noticed that if we provide an example of working through something that isn't easy, my DS is a lot more likely to stick through something as well. So we try to make sure we push out of our comfort zones too. It can be anything, like exercise -- "Oh I am finding it really hard to exercise today but I'm going to push through because I know I feel so much better afterwards" -- or a particularly frustrating Sudoku -- "This puzzle is frustrating me so much, but I don't want to give up." We also talk about difficult but enjoyable problems we solved at work.

I don't really know if that will work, but heck, it's good for ME.


----------



## Roar (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Azuralea* 
Yes, it's true I could have him tested and he wouldn't know he was being tested (though I don't know -- I saw through one of those when I was a kid, but I was older than my DS is now).

But I don't see the value. What will knowing his score on a test that to my mind is fairly arbitrary give me that I don't already know? It doesn't seem like it would do any good and the potential for harm (IMO) is there.

I agree if you perceive the purpose of testing to be to get a number and you plan to lie to your child about the process, then yes, it would be inappropriate.

If your purpose is to find out more about how the child learns and get ideas that may help with their educational planning, that is something that can honestly be communicated to a child and may be helpful.


----------



## Boot (Jan 22, 2008)

OP again. What an epic! I went back and re-read my original question and thought about what I've learned. This is what I think I know now. Tell me if you agree.

* The label 'gifted' is largely American but other countries have their own labels and ways of dealing with these children.
* The label itself is helpful to some, but not all.
* The gifted programs vary widely and some are better than others.
* Gifted people are about 2% of the population.
* Gifted people are not simply 'bright', 'high achievers' or those with good grades. They actually learn differently.
* This difference needs to be addressed in their education whether through special programs or as part of the mainstream class.

.... and my own personal conclusion is that I am SOOOO not gifted







but I think my DH may have been given that label if he's been in the American system. He was a drop out, 'waster', menial job kind of guy until he was 26 when he decided to do something with his life and he talked his way onto a B.Sc. degree course with no qualifications, got almost straight As (having failed everything at high school), went on to do his Masters and now has a really good job and high salary. Oh, and his brother and father are very, very intelligent and both show signs of being somewhere on the Aspergers Spectrum (DH doesn't). He still thinks he's stupid. That's a 'label' I'm not sure he'll ever get over.


----------



## jamsmama (Jul 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Boot* 
OP again. What an epic! I went back and re-read my original question and thought about what I've learned. This is what I think I know now. Tell me if you agree.

* The label 'gifted' is largely American but other countries have their own labels and ways of dealing with these children.
* The label itself is helpful to some, but not all.
* The gifted programs vary widely and some are better than others.
* Gifted people are about 2% of the population.
* Gifted people are not simply 'bright', 'high achievers' or those with good grades. They actually learn differently.
* This difference needs to be addressed in their education whether through special programs or as part of the mainstream class.

.... and my own personal conclusion is that I am SOOOO not gifted








but I think my DH may have been given that label if he's been in the American system. He was a drop out, 'waster', menial job kind of guy until he was 26 when he decided to do something with his life and he talked his way onto a B.Sc. degree course with no qualifications, got almost straight As (having failed everything at high school), went on to do his Masters and now has a really good job and high salary. Oh, and his brother and father are very, very intelligent and both show signs of being somewhere on the Aspergers Spectrum (DH doesn't). He still thinks he's *stupid*. That's a 'label' I'm not sure he'll ever get over.

Precisely what I was trying to say in my earlier post about labels. They never go away....they stick with you for life. Why even label a child "gifted?" Because it seems like the more positive side of labeling? It sure wasn't for me, and no I don't think I would have felt excluded even without the label.

Also someone asked the question of how their needs would get met in the public schools without these labels? IMO, these needs should be met at home and not in the hands of someone else. Not trying to ruffle any feathers, I just think that these children were given to US to care for, nurture, guide, etc.. and I think we owe it to them to let them be who they are without labels, and if they aren't getting all they need in the system, then by all means, provide an environment at home where those needs can me met. Does the school system have some secret curriculum they are giving these kids that isn't available to you as well?


----------



## LeftField (Aug 2, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jamsmama* 

Also someone asked the question of how their needs would get met in the public schools without these labels? IMO, these needs should be met at home and not in the hands of someone else.

Then, what would be the point of going to school for 7 hours a day, 5 days a week? If your needs will only be met at home, then isn't the 35 hours a week at school just a waste of time?


----------



## jamsmama (Jul 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LeftField* 
Then, what would be the point of going to school for 7 hours a day, 5 days a week? If your needs will only be met at home, then isn't the 35 hours a week at school just a waste of time?

Well, it looks like you are a homeschooler, so I think that might answer your own question.


----------



## LeftField (Aug 2, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jamsmama* 
Well, it looks like you are a homeschooler, so I think that might answer your own question.









Oh yeah, homeschooling works for us.







But I'm just wishing there was a school system that met the needs of all kids, since homeschooling is not possible or enjoyable for everyone.


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jamsmama* 
IMO, these needs should be met at home and not in the hands of someone else. Not trying to ruffle any feathers, I just think that these children were given to US to care for, nurture, guide, etc.. and I think we owe it to them to let them be who they are without labels, and if they aren't getting all they need in the system, then by all means, provide an environment at home where those needs can me met. Does the school system have some secret curriculum they are giving these kids that isn't available to you as well?

That's all very well and good for those who have the time, resources, and inclination. I support choice and homeschooling. But a public education is also a basic right for children whose parents don't have those things... even those with "labels."


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jamsmama* 
Precisely what I was trying to say in my earlier post about labels. They never go away....they stick with you for life. Why even label a child "gifted?" Because it seems like the more positive side of labeling? It sure wasn't for me, and no I don't think I would have felt excluded even without the label.

Also someone asked the question of how their needs would get met in the public schools without these labels? IMO, these needs should be met at home and not in the hands of someone else. Not trying to ruffle any feathers, I just think that these children were given to US to care for, nurture, guide, etc.. and I think we owe it to them to let them be who they are without labels, and if they aren't getting all they need in the system, then by all means, provide an environment at home where those needs can me met. Does the school system have some secret curriculum they are giving these kids that isn't available to you as well?

Okay- IMO in many cases even the perfect environment at home can't overcome the torture that a regular classroom is for a gifted child.

Would homeschooling be better? For many (not all) yes. But homeschooling is a luxury. It's not available to a great majority of families. And no way the best parenting in the world can overcome 8 hours a day of torture.

I don't hear anyone saying, don't label kids with learning disabilities- just help them more at home. That would be TERRIBLE.

Same thing.

-Angela


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GuildJenn* 
That's all very well and good for those who have the time, resources, and inclination. I support choice and homeschooling. But a public education is also a basic right for children whose parents don't have those things... even those with "labels."









:

As I mentioned earlier, the whole school system needs to be revamped. And that's not happening any time soon.

BUT it will happen eons before every family can homeschool.

It is not a realistic answer to simply say all children with different needs should be homeschooled.

-Angela


----------



## LauraLoo (Oct 9, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LeftField* 
Oh yeah, homeschooling works for us.







But I'm just wishing there was a school system that met the needs of all kids, since homeschooling is not possible or enjoyable for everyone.

Late to post - but have read the entire thread.

Due to the horrible experience that ds had last year, we were forced to find an alternative school for ds. Luckily, we found a very good program that works very, very well for ds. He may not be globally gifted (gifted in all subjects) but he has some extreme strengths in the mathematical, visual spatial areas. He is also a child that will probably never test well - so wouldn't qualify for GT programs that only test for entrance. However, he is currently working above grade level in a program that is self-directed, teacher led. His school does not label, because they don't need to since they work at each child's individual level. There should be more schools like this - but it is tremendously time intensive for the teachers and not practical in most school settings. Obviously, homeschooling is centered on the individual needs of the child.

DS finds it excrutiating to repeat material that he has already mastered. Most traditional classrooms require a lot of repetition for learning - ds doesn't need this. I can only liken it to a law that require adults to take a drivers liscense exam every year - one that requires you to get behind the wheel and then take a written exam to prove that you know how to drive every.single.year. It's a waste of time. And that's how he feels about repeating worksheets. I watched him have a nervous breakdown last year when he realized that in K he was going to have to learn the alphabet AGAIN - something that he had mastered at the age of 2. He was beyond bored - he was tortured. In his mind, he was reading and spelling before he went into K - why should he have to write the letter A ten times and talk about words that begin with A? Then the behavioral issues started - and I spent most of the year combatting this with the school. They wanted to label him with autism - and he wasn't on the spectrum (we were forced to have him evaluated.) They agreed that he was working above grade level and when he was interested, the work he did was "amazing." But, ya know, he has these meltdowns due to frustration so we're concerned about that....is what the school said. Miraculously, these issues have diminished in his new school where he is appropriately challenged and the teachers celebrate his learning differences/style and work with it, not against it.

For many parents who have a gifted child, it is this type of scenario that drives them to "label" and request testing for GT programs. It is not for pride, it is for sanity.


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LauraLoo* 
I watched him have a nervous breakdown last year when he realized that in K he was going to have to learn the alphabet AGAIN - something that he had mastered at the age of 2. He was beyond bored - he was tortured. In his mind, he was reading and spelling before he went into K - why should he have to write the letter A ten times and talk about words that begin with A?

Yes that was me. I was a fluent reader before I was 3, and I vividly remember how it wasn't just that I was "bored" - it was that it felt like a personal assault to have to go over and over and over the letters in junior kindergarten, doing books' worth of addition problems when I was working on long division, etc. People say it's training for the world of work but I have worked several jobs that were boring and they were still nothing like that.

BTW I was not hothoused - no one ever understood how I learned to read and no one really taught me, unless it was Sesame Street.







That was one of my really asynchronous leaps - I just happened to learn to read more or less in a parallel process to learning to talk, as I talked late.

I switched to French Immersion for senior kindergarten and that helped a little, although not socially.

I didn't go back to find the quote but I came back to this thread also to mention that someone said they'd never met a gifted child. Well, that's sort of like saying you haven't met someone who's gay. A certain percentage of population simply is, whether you've met them or not... and you probably have. When I was younger, I came across as quote-unquote gifted learner (I prefer the term asynchronous; I think that's much truer) - it's hard to ignore the 4 year old reading Nancy Drew in the corner. But as I hit the school system first I became more of a "frustrated, angry, miserable" child and then eventually I learned to camoflage my way of learning and lie about where I went to school, or at least be vague.

One of the best expressions of all that difference is, I think, in _A Wrinkle in Time_ - I remember it being such a relief to read about the Murrays and how the narrator (Meg) expressed how she learned differently, how people thought her brother was retarded, etc. It's a great little book for anyone wondering about what it's like on the inside, and (the first few chapters) how schools totally miss it, or used to. I think that's why I keep coming back to this thread - all the skepticism about whether it's an American thing (I am Canadian) or pushy parents - well sure, people can get that way. But it doesn't negate the true phenomenon.


----------



## jamsmama (Jul 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 







:

As I mentioned earlier, the whole school system needs to be revamped. And that's not happening any time soon.

BUT it will happen eons before every family can homeschool.

It is not a realistic answer to simply say all children with different needs should be homeschooled.

-Angela

I agree totally, but I don't think the system will ever be fixed as long as politics and money are involved. What exactly do you think the standardized testing is all about? The more high scores, the more money given to the school. Teachers can't really give everything they want to their classrooms when they have to worry about "getting the scores." If you have ever sat in on a school board meeting you would know that the system will never be what you the parent wants it to be. It's much more complex than I have time to go into, but in the meantime, if you are looking for a school that is going to meet the needs of EVERY child, then you are looking for a utopia.

Sure, I wish it existed for every child, please don't get me wrong. I wasn't saying in my statement that EVERY child should be homeschooled. Why can't their needs be met at home when they are in the public school? Is this not possible?? Am I missing something?


----------



## monkaha (Jan 22, 2004)

Quote:

Sure, I wish it existed for every child, please don't get me wrong. I wasn't saying in my statement that EVERY child should be homeschooled. Why can't their needs be met at home when they are in the public school? Is this not possible?? Am I missing something?
Because after spending 8-ish hours in school, the kids have what, 5 hours, tops, before going to bed in which to overcome what they have done (or not done) at school. The kids, gifted or not, need time to run around and be kids. To force them to do extra enrichment stuff after a day of mind-numbing school is extra torture. Plus you have to fit dinner and showers and stuff into that time.

And that's just a practical standpoint. If you are stuck in a room where you are feeling irritated, bored, crazy, stupid, left out, whathaveyou for 8 hours five days a week, that's a lot of feelings to overcome in the time that you aren't there. No matter how wonderful your family is.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jamsmama* 

Sure, I wish it existed for every child, please don't get me wrong. I wasn't saying in my statement that EVERY child should be homeschooled. Why can't their needs be met at home when they are in the public school? Is this not possible?? Am I missing something?

Yes. You're missing something. You're missing the fact that 7-8 hours a day in school is literally TORTURE for some of these kids. It is not acceptable to ignore their needs.

Is it okay for children with learning disabilities to learn nothing all day at school and fail and then play catch-up at home?

No. Of course not.

It's the same thing for gifted children.

-Angela


----------



## jamsmama (Jul 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
Yes. You're missing something. You're missing the fact that 7-8 hours a day in school is literally TORTURE for some of these kids. It is not acceptable to ignore their needs.

Is it okay for children with learning disabilities to learn nothing all day at school and fail and then play catch-up at home?

-Angela

Actually, I'm not missing anything at all. I "get it." Can you change the system? If you can, then make it happen so that these kids don't have to be tortured for 7-8 hours a day. And yes, OF COURSE it's not acceptable to ignore their needs. Do you have a solution??


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jamsmama* 
Actually, I'm not missing anything at all. I "get it." Can you change the system? If you can, then make it happen so that these kids don't have to be tortured for 7-8 hours a day. And yes, OF COURSE it's not acceptable to ignore their needs. Do you have a solution??

Yep. I have a solution. *LABEL* children with different learning needs and create and support programs to provide for those needs









Not perfect. But workable for now.

-Angela


----------



## monkaha (Jan 22, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
Yep. I have a solution. *LABEL* children with different learning needs and create and support programs to provide for those needs









Not perfect. But workable for now.

-Angela









:


----------



## jamsmama (Jul 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
Yep. I have a solution. *LABEL* children with different learning needs and create and support programs to provide for those needs









Not perfect. But workable for now.

-Angela


Is it working for your child?


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jamsmama* 
Is it working for your child?

My child isn't 4 yet... and I am fortunate enough to be in a situation where I will be able to homeschool.

But yes, I have taught a number of gifted children for whom the label GREATLY improved their day to day quality of life. I have taught several for whom I would honestly fear for where they would end up if they were not identified and were not receiving appropriate services.

I know one who was just labeled this month for whom the label and the information that goes along with it opens doors and helps guide his parents to find appropriate programs for him.

FWIW I also know numerous children with other labels that allow them to receive the services THEY need to be successful as well. Children with assorted learning differences that could never "succeed" in an average classroom.

For all of these kids labels can be lifesavers.

-Angela


----------



## joensally (Jun 19, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jamsmama* 
Is it working for your child?

Not Alegna, but I'll answer. I think Laura Loo gave a good characterization of what is likely a common experience, particularly for active boys who go to the beat of their own drum (divergent thinkers).

DS has "behaviour issues" and SPD. He was identified formally as gifted by January of kindie - the label means he's not a "bad kid," or a kid who just needs to have more time outs, or a kid who's badly parented. Now, they have an explanation for his behaviour, and as a result try to find strategies that meet his actual needs. Hoorah for the label!

What drives me crazy is that I see all of these other boys who may or may not be intellectually gifted, but are bright and active and passionate and creative and busy. They all have a 'label'/moniker - and it ain't near as 'positive' as gifted. I think the school system is doing a disservice to many of the kids, and the gifted kids have the same disadvantages along with being asked to attend to curriculum that absolutely does not fit. The label helps, but it sure doesn't solve anything.

That's not good enough for us, so we're likely HSing next year (or two), with the plan to slide him back into public school with a possible skip. We're hoping that he'll have settled a bit by then developmentally and it will be a more positive place for him. This is a very hard choice as it will involve significant sacrifice to HS him.

I'm currently reading The Call to Brilliance - highly critical of the school system, and speaks to the way kids lose their freedom of self-definition and take on the language, labels and descriptors they hear about themselves. There is no quick fix to the widespread problems in the education system, but not identifying gifted kids and providing differentiated resources for them sure isn't going to help the vast majority of gifted kids in schools.


----------



## eepster (Sep 20, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
Okay- IMO in many cases even the perfect environment at home can't overcome the torture that a regular classroom is for a gifted child.

Would homeschooling be better? For many (not all) yes. But homeschooling is a luxury. It's not available to a great majority of families. And no way the best parenting in the world can overcome 8 hours a day of torture.

I don't hear anyone saying, don't label kids with learning disabilities- just help them more at home. That would be TERRIBLE.

Same thing.

-Angela

ITA with Angela here, but she left out that many gifted and/or LD students go home to dysfunctional, abusive, neglectful, or simply over burdened homes. Many parents just lack either the time, motivation, or ability to meet needs that they thought were being meet by the school.


----------



## Teacher Lady (Mar 3, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
Yep. I have a solution. *LABEL* children with different learning needs and create and support programs to provide for those needs









Not perfect. But workable for now.

-Angela









: I would love it if all of my students had the home connection that is necessary and what another person suggestion, but alas, that is not the case. I would love to change the system, it's on my list of things to do. I'll do what I can.


----------

