# Do you buy into the gifted label?



## southernmama (May 1, 2004)

Nephew was recently tested in his school as "gifted"- My MIL made a big deal out of this in front of DD who is the same age but attends a MOntessori school that has no "gifted" distinction. She asked me to explain what gifted was and I told her its something that he is doing at his school deal and left it at that. I struggled with my answer because I did not want her to think that she is not "gifted" when gifted seems to be such a big deal( to MIL)

My dn was tested at school- not an Iq test, but a teacher evaluation. Both dn and dd read at a second or third grade level, can add and subtract (dd very large numbers with montessori manipulatives) and are generally smart kids, but gifted???? Of course, there are gifted 5 year olds, but the type of profound giftedness that I think of as "gifted" just isn't here. The trend in our community is to test lots of kids into the gifted program- which is great but the fact that the kids are smart and maybe performing above grade level is not the same as a profound gift. For example, I was a good lawyer with a good record of court wins and appeals- does this make me a "gifted" lawyer, or simply slightly better at my job (or a harder worker) than other lawyers in my area? kwim?

My husband is a bona fide genius (no kidding)- he read at three, skipped one grade and was asked to skip a second in high school, graduated from UVA with honors in engineering and from UC Boulder with a masters in environmental engineering. He can build and fix almost anything. He by every definition was termed "gifted" in school, however, he still struggles with his writing and while he loves music, has been unable to catch on the the piano or guitar despite lessons. I graduated near the top of my class in law school, but cannot balance my checkbook or perform simple division to save my life. Not everyone is gifted in the same way kwim???

I HATE the term gifted for the reason that when kids are tested and labeled as gifted, it places a lot of value on ONE type of giftedness, while ignoring other kinds. Sure, some of us may be good at academics and have gifts in math or writing, but others, like my brother were not in the "gifted" class and he really felt not as smart or successful- and it took him a long time to uncover his very wonderful gift for music.

So, how can I reconcile my distain for the label and my ILs value of it? How can I make sure that dd knows that she is every bit as smart as dn, although they may have been given different gifts??


----------



## Tigerchild (Dec 2, 2001)

I would step back and not get competative about this.

For one thing, you *don't* know if your daughter is "every bit as smart" as her cousin. She might be more, might be less. Unless you're privvy to all the test results, you don't know. And assuring your daughter this is pretty much "buying into" competition.

I would just tell MIL that you'd prefer there not to be competition between the cousins, so to please not denigrate your DD's school or accomplishments. And by the same token, you shouldn't denigrate DN's lable either.

Gifted parents do not guarantee gifted or "genius" children, nor do non-gifted parents rule out gifted kids.

I would nip this competativeness you seem to be feeling in the bud.

Instead of building up or individually appreciating your daughter and her cousin as their own people, you're doing something very similar to what you're saying MIL is doing--except for you're being dismissive of the *other* child. Please don't do that.

If you are concerned that your DD isn't getting the services she needs, then by all means, have her tested too. There's really no need to break down the how/whys of how your DN was tested.

Either that, or if you don't believe that being labeled gifted makes a difference, then don't denigrate people with that label. It shouldn't matter to you either way.


----------



## southernmama (May 1, 2004)

I think you misread my post. Both kids are smart and I am sure "gifted" in their own way. I am very happy with the education that my kid is gettting and I assume that dns mom is too. The post isn't about whether or not dn is gifted or not, but the label gifted being given to kids- how it tends to ignore kids with gifts that may not fit into the academic box to their detriment.

I just finished the book Guerilla Learning and it talks about making sure kids know that grades, test results and yes, "gifted" labels are just one point of view, one opinion of one very specific snapshot in time. They have no bearing in reality. A child who values learning for its own sake will have a more fufilling and self directed life of learning and define for themselves what their gifts may be.


----------



## chaoticzenmom (May 21, 2005)

I have to agree that you do seem a little upset about his being labeled as "gifted." Could it be that you don't feel that your daughter is getting the credit that she would get if she were in a mainstream school? Sometimes kids get labeled as gifted and put into more challenging classes because that's what will keep them motivated and not bored in normal classes. It's not about them being generally better at everything than other kids.

You're raising your daughter and she's obviously bright and challenged appropriately. Just feel secure in that and not threatened by your MIL's bragging about her other granchild. I completely understand how that can happen. Sometimes, when my Mom or MIL talk about thier other grandchildren, I get a little jealous. It's not that I would want to do anything different than what I'm doing, but I want to feel that my Mom, MIL also think that my kids are awesome and that I'm doing a great job.

Lisa


----------



## teachma (Dec 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *southernmama* 
The post isn't about whether or not dn is gifted or not, but the label gifted being given to kids- how it tends to ignore kids with gifts that may not fit into the academic box to their detriment.

So are you against this label because of the way it may make other children, who are not given this label, feel badly? What about using the phrase "varsity athlete" to describe the school's most competent sports players? Should this phrase be abandoned because it would make my unathletic child feel inferior and may not acknowlege his other gifts? In the realm of education,"gifted" refers specifically to a special intellectual/academic ability. If your child has other "gifts," he or she should be acknowledged for those with whatever language is relevant to those special talents.


----------



## Boot (Jan 22, 2008)

I started a discussion along similar lines that went on for a long time. This is a very hot topic believe it or not. For what it's worth, I tend to agree with your line of thinking. Could you say to your DD something like 'Grandma is excited because DN gets to join a class called G&T (or whatever) and they do cool things in that class. Your school doesn't have that kind of class but you get to do other really cool stuff at school like xyz. Grandma would love to hear about that'. And to Grandma 'It's great that DN tested as gifted. Cup of tea?'.

I don't know how to post a link to an old discussion but I will try.

http://www.mothering.com/discussions...american+trend


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

I can see why you would have some baggage with the term. But I find with myself whenever I am reacting strongly to how _someone else_ is labelling themselves or others, it's a sign that I myself have something unresolved going on.

All of which is to say that your niece is not your husband or your child. Maybe it's a great label for her. It does NOT relate to the value or "appreciatedness" of other people. Labelling one child gifted doesn't mean the rest are stupid or unskilled.


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

Do I buy into the label for whom and under what circumstances? For your nephew? I've never met him. Generally? Within schools? You've posted something very personal, and it sounds more like you are asking about managing your appearance of disdain more than others' opinions about the label.


----------



## thebarkingbird (Dec 2, 2005)

nm


----------



## Tigerchild (Dec 2, 2001)

The gifted label doesn't mean that the kids get better or more appropriate education, actually. The onus for that is on the parents. From what I have seen, parents of "gifted" kids often have to keep on fighting to get their kids the education they need, rather than just extra busywork.

So I'm not sure what it is that you're so upset about, on the behalf of all kids. Getting the label isn't the end of the story. It's just the beginning. Same thing with special ed kids, or any other child that has special needs.

As for how you deal with your disdain, well...I think you just be mature and composed about it. Don't argue about it, don't make snotty comments, don't get competative, don't look down on your DN's parents. It seems to me, again, just from your presentation, that perhaps you already have a tense relationship with MIL and this is yet another way she's annoying you. Fair enough. How do you normally handle her when she's being obnoxious? This isn't any different from any other silly thing she might say.

Is there some other dynamic at work here?

Because honestly, in most school districts, gifted kids do NOT get all the focus. Giftedness is often as individual as other special needs, but most of the time the "gifted kids" are all lumped together, there's no individual plan. I have to disagree that somehow in general gifted kids get better or more appropriate education than anyone else in the public schools. They don't. Your DN is not taking away education from someone else, any more than you putting your child in a Montessori program is your attempt to hothouse flower her (because there are plenty of rich people who latch on to Montessori as a way to grow geniuses too, as misguided as that is. Anything can be abused).

Do you feel that MIL already favors your nephew? If so, surely this isn't the first time that it's come up. How do you normally handle it, aside from the gifted thing?

Because really, this doesn't appear to be about gifted at all. It's you worrying about the difference in treatment and what your MIL said, which is a very valid concern. Most of the time people don't start behaving like that out of the blue. So has something like this happened before?


----------



## southernmama (May 1, 2004)

I really don;t think that MIL meant to be inappropriate- in fact, I am sure that she had not idea that having that discussion in front of dd could make her feel inferior. you are right, she does bug me and maybe that is why this bugged me so much. She is always saying things that make me cringe because she doesn't thin kof how it may make someone else feel. If SIL had said it, i mam sure she would not have said it in that way in front of dd.

I did not mean to imply that schools steal education from regular kids for the gifted kids- I honestly have no idea how the gifted program works and I am sure it works well for many people. I had no idea that this was such a hot issue with such heated responses.

Again, I recommend Guerilla Learning- its a great resource to use even if your kid is not gifted and you want to avoid busywork in school.


----------



## Kessed (Nov 28, 2007)

OP.

I totally agree with you.

I think that the term gifted should be reserved for the truely highly gifted students - like IQs of 150 or higher. I think that the 'gifted' label is WAY too widely used.

To the poster who compared it to 'varsity athlete' - it's not like that. It's like giving EVERYONE who does any kind of physical activity at school an "athlete" label - regardless of their competence. And then treating them differently from the kids who choose to spend their recess reading a book or chatting with their friends.


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kessed* 
I think that the term gifted should be reserved for the truely highly gifted students - like IQs of 150 or higher. I think that the 'gifted' label is WAY too widely used.

FYI, the IQ scales on the latest generation of tests have shifted such that 140 now represents the 1/1000 kids (i.e. 99.9th percentile).


----------



## Kessed (Nov 28, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NoHiddenFees* 
FYI, the IQ scales on the latest generation of tests have shifted such that 140 now represents the 1/1000 kids (i.e. 99.9th percentile).

Are you serious? I remember when 160 was the 'magic' number...

Well then - over 140...

Below that I think that it's silly.

Then again - the city I live in used to 'stream' kids very aggressively stream students based on their performance and IQ (in my parent's time) and the new liberal application of the gifted label seems to be a move back towards that.


----------



## Pancakes (Jan 22, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kessed* 
Are you serious? I remember when 160 was the 'magic' number...

Well then - over 140...

Below that I think that it's silly.

Then again - the city I live in used to 'stream' kids very aggressively stream students based on their performance and IQ (in my parent's time) and the new liberal application of the gifted label seems to be a move back towards that.


I think it's a shift in how the tests are scored and not that they are lowering the bar. You know, sort of like 140 is the new 160. LOL

I don't have issue with kids being labeled gifted, I have two of them. What I have issue with is how the schools go about 'helping' these gifted kids. I'm sure some schools can challenge each child where they need it, but most I've seen just dole out more busy work.

OP, if I were in your situation I'd just explain to my child that her school didn't have separate classes for gifted kids, because all kids are gifted in one way or another and that each school handles this type of situation differently.


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kessed* 
Are you serious? I remember when 160 was the 'magic' number...









You can see the comparisons of the old and new tests here. There are also all sorts of issues in measuring IQ at the extreme upper end. The real story, however, is usually in the subtests, as one way to define giftedness is as asynchronous development. So you could have a child whose overall test score wouldn't qualify him for the gifted program, but whose mathematical ability is on the higher end of the scale. Here's Hoagie's testing page.


----------



## VisionaryMom (Feb 20, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Tigerchild* 
The gifted label doesn't mean that the kids get better or more appropriate education, actually. The onus for that is on the parents. From what I have seen, parents of "gifted" kids often have to keep on fighting to get their kids the education they need, rather than just extra busywork.

I have lots of thoughts, but it's late. This statement, though, bears repeating. Gifted children - which does not include all high-IQ kids - do not get significant services in most school districts.


----------



## VisionaryMom (Feb 20, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kessed* 
I think that the term gifted should be reserved for the truely highly gifted students - like IQs of 150 or higher. I think that the 'gifted' label is WAY too widely used.

You're talking about genius, and most schools don't define gifted in that way. Very few schools use real IQ tests. An IQ of 145 is 3 standard deviations above normal, and it fits about .2-.5% of the population.


----------



## Treasuremapper (Jul 4, 2004)

I think the underlying issue here has nothing to do with the term gifted. I would be very ticked off by the interaction you described, and I am fine with the term gifted.

It sounds like the issue is that grandma is competitive and implying that your nephew is somehow superior because he is gifted.

That would be highly annoying, especially if this is not the first time.

You didn't mention your kids' ages, or maybe I missed it. How old are they?


----------



## sharr610 (May 14, 2008)

May be slightly off tangent here, but I've always had some issues with the term gifted. My reasons are that I was labeled gifted in school and we got to do really cool stuff like huge independent projects on things that interested us and tons of creative based learning. Overall, I've always felt it was a curriculum that ALL kids would have benefitted from(granted I have no educational background, so perhaps there is something I'm missing) and thought it was really silly it was being saved for certain kids who scored well on some tests.


----------



## sharr610 (May 14, 2008)

Oh! And also, all the kids in the gifted program were from the wealthiest families in the area. I think there was one kid from a lower income family...it just smacked of something wrong. Perhaps this has changed...


----------



## lovbeingamommy (Jun 17, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sharr610* 
May be slightly off tangent here, but I've always had some issues with the term gifted. My reasons are that I was labeled gifted in school and we got to do really cool stuff like huge independent projects on things that interested us and tons of creative based learning. Overall, I've always felt it was a curriculum that ALL kids would have benefitted from(granted I have no educational background, so perhaps there is something I'm missing) and thought it was really silly it was being saved for certain kids who scored well on some tests.









: I been watching this thread all day as the posts continue to quickly increase. WOW, this does seem to be a hot topic!! However, this post convinced me I need to throw my







: out there and get some feedback.

sharr610 you are absolutely RIGHT. ALL students should be offered the benefit of independent study based on their interests and abilities. This shouldn't be reserved for just the gifted. The strategies and thinking skills that gifted students are exposed to through indep. study are good for ALL students. As an administrator, this is one area that I am very passionate about.


----------



## Needle in the Hay (Sep 16, 2006)

I think it's a public school (or similar type school) thing, for the most part. Your DN is probably bright and ahead of most in his class. Put him in the G&T program and it keeps his parents happy, hopefully his needs are better met and maybe the school benefits by keeping a few kids who would have been otherwise sent to private school or homeschooled.

It doesn't mean _anything_ as far as your DD is concerned as she is not in that same environment. You are right when you say it's something your DN is doing at his school. Let yourself be genuinely happy for him (as it sounds like you want to be you are just worried about your DD) and you can let your DD know that it's a good thing for DN so he's not bored at school and that her school doesn't do that because...(here you can say a few great things about her Montessori school).

ETA: I don't mean to say that your DN isn't gifted (how would I know?), or that giftedness doesn't exist.


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lovbeingamommy* 
ALL students should be offered the benefit of independent study based on their interests and abilities. This shouldn't be reserved for just the gifted. The strategies and thinking skills that gifted students are exposed to through indep. study are good for ALL students. As an administrator, this is one area that I am very passionate about.

Absolutely, but conversely too often pullout programs with "cool" projects masquerade as a meaningful gifted program or acceleration policy. It's heartbreaking hearing about kids who are reading, say, _The Chronicles of Narnia_ at home, but who are forced to do phonics worksheets and "learn to read" along with their classmates. We homeschool and don't have to fight this battle, but my oldest would have been bored silly in a regular classroom, even with TAG pullouts. There is a highly gifted magnet school in our district, but it has a waiting list and doesn't take kids before 1st grade (and it doesn't have much in the way of P.E. or arts).


----------



## VisionaryMom (Feb 20, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NoHiddenFees* 
Absolutely, but conversely too often pullout programs with "cool" projects masquerade as a meaningful gifted program or acceleration policy.

Yes, this. We woefully underserve the brightest minds in this country. It sickens me to know how little we provide for really smart kids - mostly under the guide that other children will feel badly or that other children deserve the same things. Parents of gifted children have to fight for quality services for their children, and it's often a losing battle. We as a nation spend 10 times more money on services with special needs than on gifted children.

When we looked at places to move, we specifically sought out a place with an excellent acceleration program for gifted children. Just to know that there's a clear policy for grade-skipping made me happy because it indicates a district where administrators understand the issues related to the education of gifted children.


----------



## Kessed (Nov 28, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NoHiddenFees* 
Absolutely, but conversely too often pullout programs with "cool" projects masquerade as a meaningful gifted program or acceleration policy. *It's heartbreaking hearing about kids who are reading, say, The Chronicles of Narnia at home, but who are forced to do phonics worksheets and "learn to read" along with their classmates.* We homeschool and don't have to fight this battle, but my oldest would have been bored silly in a regular classroom, even with TAG pullouts. There is a highly gifted magnet school in our district, but it has a waiting list and doesn't take kids before 1st grade (and it doesn't have much in the way of P.E. or arts).

I think that there is NOTHING wrong with this at all...

Maybe I'm coming at this from a different angle. The school I went to had being able to read as a requirement for entry into grade 1. They didn't have an IQ requirement. But you had to read to the principal as part of the 'interview'.

Then - we spent the first half of grade 1 really 'learning' phonics. Going into FAR more depth than any other phonics program I have ever seen. And at the same time - reading books and memorizing poems. (they did 1 poem each week that we recited on Fridays... This started on the second week of school).

As an adult I am constantly required to do 'learn' things that I already know how to do. I have gone to 3 training courses this year alone where I read the 'manual' before I got there - and was bored silly by the actual course. But the coping skills that I developed over my course of school are REALLY useful. Because I've learned that there is nothing wrong with 'practicing' skills I already have. There is also always something 'knew' to learn.

I just don't understand what's 'wrong' with a kid practicing their phonics skills even when they can read. Isn't that the point of school - to practice these things? You do repetitive math problems until it's second nature to add, subtract, differentiate....


----------



## Scribe (Feb 12, 2007)

As someone who had (has?) this label, no, I absolutely don't buy it.


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kessed* 
I think that there is NOTHING wrong with this at all...

I've heard rumours that you go to school to learn. You think it's OK for a child to go to school for a year and learn nothing? It happens, and there are plenty of school districts with a no acceleration policy.

Quote:

I just don't understand what's 'wrong' with a kid practicing their phonics skills even when they can read. Isn't that the point of school - to practice these things? You do repetitive math problems until it's second nature to add, subtract, differentiate....
Because we're not talking about a little "practice," we're talking about day after day of phonics and reading drills and it's a waste of their time. Phonics to learn spelling, great. Phonics to read the goat book in unison with their class? No. And that was just one example. What about math? My DD would have started school being able to do multiple digit addition and subtraction in her head. I hope you're not suggesting that it would have been good use of her time to do worksheet after worksheet of single digit problems to hone her skills?


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kessed* 
I think that there is NOTHING wrong with this at all...

Maybe I'm coming at this from a different angle. The school I went to had being able to read as a requirement for entry into grade 1. They didn't have an IQ requirement. But you had to read to the principal as part of the 'interview'.

Then - we spent the first half of grade 1 really 'learning' phonics. Going into FAR more depth than any other phonics program I have ever seen. And at the same time - reading books and memorizing poems. (they did 1 poem each week that we recited on Fridays... This started on the second week of school).

As an adult I am constantly required to do 'learn' things that I already know how to do. I have gone to 3 training courses this year alone where I read the 'manual' before I got there - and was bored silly by the actual course. But the coping skills that I developed over my course of school are REALLY useful. Because I've learned that there is nothing wrong with 'practicing' skills I already have. There is also always something 'knew' to learn.

I just don't understand what's 'wrong' with a kid practicing their phonics skills even when they can read. Isn't that the point of school - to practice these things? You do repetitive math problems until it's second nature to add, subtract, differentiate....

Um, yeah, because kids respond to being bored by learning that it's good for them and just complying...

... or, out here in the real world, they become disruptive, discouraged, and turn off school for life.


----------



## Kessed (Nov 28, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NoHiddenFees* 
I've heard rumours that you go to school to learn. You think it's OK for a child to go to school for a year and learn nothing? It happens, and there are plenty of school districts with a no acceleration policy.

I learned 'nothing' my first year at university because the school I went to covered a bunch of university material in grade 12.

I think that there's SO MUCH MORE for a child to learn in grade 1 beyond simple academics.... If I just wanted my child to learn to read and do math - I would homeschool. I want my child to get the 'other' benefits. I want her to learn how to sit still, how to do what her 'boss' says even though she thinks it's dumb. I want her to learn skills she won't learn at home.

Quote:

Because we're not talking about a little "practice," we're talking about day after day of phonics and reading drills and it's a waste of their time. Phonics to learn spelling, great. Phonics to read the goat book in unison with their class? No. And that was just one example. What about math? My DD would have started school being able to do multiple digit addition and subtraction. I hope you're not suggesting that it would have been good use of her time to do worksheet after worksheet of single digit problems to hone her skills?
I do think that's useful. The school I went to was a private school with a very long waiting list. And has historically ended up in the top 5 rankings for grade 6 and 9 in my province....

And having been through a system where repetitive practice for gifted (by grade 4 or 5 everyone was 'gifted) was what happened - I think it's incredibly useful. I saw how I did in university VS how my classmates (just as smart) who went through the public system did. In my 1st year linear algebra class the prof had to devote a lecture to teaching how to do algebraic long division?????? Seriously. Even though my classmates had "learned" to do it - they'd forgotten. Examples like that were all over the place.

To use your example of doing single digit addition. Of course there's something to it.

But here's my question for you - what's the harm? What's the worst that happens? The kid already know the answers by sight - and quickly writes them down and moves onto something else? That doesn't sound to bad.

I know how to wash dishes.... But I still have to do it everyday. I know how to write my timesheet for work - but I still have to do it at the end of the month if I want to get paid. I see incredible value for students, ESPECIALLY 'gifted' ones, to learn how to do things they find boring or that they already know how to do.


----------



## Kessed (Nov 28, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GuildJenn* 
Um, yeah, because kids respond to being bored by learning that it's good for them and just complying...

... or, out here in the real world, they become disruptive, discouraged, and turn off school for life.

I'm thinking about 1 guy I knew who was in a public school 'gifted' program (really cool and elite program) with who really was gifted (notice no quotes this time). He was really really smart. But he didn't learn that valuable lesson.

He did great in university and found an awesome job. But then the computer game company he was working for got bought. He was unable to adapt to the new rules because he thought they were 'dumb' - and I'd agree that they were. Well - he lost his job a couple months ago. And now he and his wife and their new baby are screwed. She can't work - health issues. They need a nanny or similar to help with their baby. His mother is really sick and he's the only family so he doesn't want to move away to work in another city. They own a house that he needs a real job to pay the mortgage.

So - what would be more valuable. That he learned 'more' in school and got to learn at his own pace and wasn't constricted by having to fit into a standard classroom.... Or that he learned how to 'play the game' and still had his awesome job doing something he really loved to do?

I know what I think is more valuable.


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kessed* 
I think that there's SO MUCH MORE for a child to learn in grade 1 beyond simple academics.... If I just wanted my child to learn to read and do math - I would homeschool. I want my child to get the 'other' benefits. I want her to learn how to sit still, how to do what her 'boss' says even though she thinks it's dumb. I want her to learn skills she won't learn at home.

Your "interesting" conception of homeschooling aside (though I suggest you go over to the homeschooling board and ask about this), do you think that a child need go to school for 12 years in lock step with age mates to know how to sit still? And I guess we have different goals for our children. FWIW, the last thing I want is to bring up a child who will _mindlessly_ follow directions.

Quote:

In my 1st year linear algebra class the prof had to devote a lecture to teaching how to do algebraic long division?????? Seriously. Even though my classmates had "learned" to do it - they'd forgotten. Examples like that were all over the place.
I'm not quite following your logic here. I'm not seeing how this means children with advanced skills should be made to "relearn" lower level skills.

Quote:

To use your example of doing single digit addition. Of course there's something to it.
I fail to see what.

Quote:

But here's my question for you - what's the harm? What's the worst that happens? The kid already know the answers by sight - and quickly writes them down and moves onto something else? That doesn't sound to bad.
The harm? For the kids who are bored stiff and start to act out in class? Who are labeled troublemakers? Who learn that school is a place not to learn? Who have their intense desire to learn ground out of them? There couldn't possible be any harm...


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kessed* 
He was unable to adapt to the new rules because he thought they were 'dumb' - and I'd agree that they were.

This is not uncommon with highly gifted individuals.

Quote:

So - what would be more valuable. That he learned 'more' in school and got to learn at his own pace and wasn't constricted by having to fit into a standard classroom.... Or that he learned how to 'play the game' and still had his awesome job doing something he really loved to do?
Ummm, both? Are learning how to work with others and self paced education mutually exclusive?


----------



## Kessed (Nov 28, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NoHiddenFees* 
Ummm, both? Are learning how to work with others and self paced education mutually exclusive?

Because it feels that many people pursue the gifted label for their child to avoid having their child learn how to fit into the classroom.

Little Jonny is bored in grade 1 - well - get him tested so that he doesn't have to do the work he finds boring...


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kessed* 
Because it feels that many people pursue the gifted label for their child to avoid having their child learn how to fit into the classroom.

Little Jonny is bored in grade 1 - well - get him tested so that he doesn't have to do the work he finds boring...

I'd prefer to give Johnny a challenge that will make him work, think, and stretch his capabilities. I'd prefer Johnny experience occasional failure and learn to learn from it and learn techniques to deal with frustration. I'd prefer Johnny not be blindsided as a young adult by the realization that some things do require work, that not everything happens by osmosis. I'd prefer Johnny not be set up to fail or give up.


----------



## YesandNo (Mar 16, 2008)

I don't know how it's done now, but when I was in elementary school (late 80s), I was tested for the gifted program. And was told I "just barely" didn't make it. I remember the test, it was: "If an apple is a fruit, then a carrot is _____", stuff like that.

I don't know if the "just barely" was true or just to spare my feelings, but it hurt:

ONE test determined whether I was gifted or not, no fair, it was orally given by a creepy guy who I didn't like.
To learn you aren't smart enough to hang with the 'gifted' set was a bit crushing for a 10 year old.
My brother was in the gifted program!!!!
So I'm not a fan of segregating kids, especially based on a single test. Maybe they don't do it that way anymore.


----------



## Flor (Nov 19, 2003)

I do think the the term 'gifted' is used differently in different districts. Our district uses an IQ test, test scores in the 98% percentile or above OR teacher evalution, which means that a kid who has a pushy parent can still get into the gifted program without the test scores. For some reason, most of the teachers I know have kids who are "gifted." Some schools have an "honors" program separate from gifted for kids who don't test gifted but are strong students.


----------



## katheek77 (Mar 13, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kessed* 
Because it feels that many people pursue the gifted label for their child to avoid having their child learn how to fit into the classroom.

Little Jonny is bored in grade 1 - well - get him tested so that he doesn't have to do the work he finds boring...

This is just mindblowing to me. I can't imagine the outrage if I said this about any other exceptional child.

"It feels that many people pursue the (autistic/ED (emotionally disturbed)/dyslexic/ADHD(sub your choice of labels here)) label for their child to avoid having their child learn how to fit into the classroom."

Do you see how absolutely insulting that would be?

And, yes, gifted IS exceptional. The gifted brain works in ways that are much different from the "norm".

BTW, I am gifted, and never had any social problems in school, but, I found some grades particularly boring because of the teachers/curriculum...like, mind-numbingly boring. What do you do with a kid like me who will literally finish the 15 minute - worksheet in one and a half minutes? Give me more worksheets - because that's fair...you're "smart", so, do 8 times the work? I've already shown that 1) I know how to complete the task and 2) I can sit there and do the "boring" work, and do it well. Now what? Perhaps - just perhaps - a different curriculum should be available to me.

I also taught gifted kids - a couple were very gifted. The most profoundly gifted child (I mean, off the charts...the most gifted the GT coordinator had seen in the district in her 20 years) that I taught was absolutely well-behaved (military family), thoughtful, kind, athletic, and very popular with his peers. I had a couple more students who WERE disruptive if they weren't being stimulated, and another who was "difficult" (not my label - the one that had followed him into my fourth grade class) because he was always figuring out new ways to solve math problems, got antsy in class, and was easily frustrated (and, yes, I recommended him for gifted testing early in the year, assuming he'd test as gifted for math, but was actually a little surprised when he tested gifted for BOTH math and language arts - his lang. arts grades were not all that great, and he struggled a bit with reading, but, obviously, there is great potential there - but you couldn't have gone just on grades alone). So, he was well on his well to getting a label and medication, anyway. (ADHD) I saw that he was at least gifted in math, and gave him differentiated instruction. ie...the basics of what the class was being taught, and, once he showed he had mastered that (in no time, usually), more challenging, more abstract concepts, etc.) after the first quarter. Once he was receiving differentiated instruction his behavior DRAMATICALLY improved, so, the gifted label (or, at least, the recognition of his behavior as being an indicator if giftedness) was a Godsend to him, his family, myself (I will admit I was going crazy the first quarter trying to figure out what this kid's "problem" was), and probably his future teachers who will have an idea of what they're going to need to do for him.

Our district did not do solely IQ tests (they did, but there were other routes to AIG)...they went on teacher recommendations, then a couple tests (I do not recall the exact tests, but I'll try to find out), and then AGAIN, teacher recs for those kids who tested above the baseline...(ie...is this child truly gifted, or just "smart", and what did we have to back that up?) - the recs were a checklist that indicated a CLEAR basis for the need for differentiation. You could test into the program based solely on IQ test, but had to be at the 98th percentile or above I've rambled, and DD is attempting to break things...


----------



## veryerin (Jul 29, 2007)

I do "buy" the gifted label, but feel is it widely misused.

I tested into the gifted program (IQ tests) in elementary school. Where I lived the program was one of those where you basically just got to do cool projects and field trips and skip out on some of the boring class stuff. Entirely NOT what a gifted program should be.

This was fine for me, however, because despite testing highly on IQ tests I really fell more into the "high acheiving" category. I had a great time in school







and really enjoyed myself. I didn't need special education classes or programs as truly gifted children often do.


----------



## gabysmom617 (Nov 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Treasuremapper* 
I think the underlying issue here has nothing to do with the term gifted. I would be very ticked off by the interaction you described, and I am fine with the term gifted.

It sounds like the issue is that grandma is competitive and implying that your nephew is somehow superior because he is gifted.

That would be highly annoying, especially if this is not the first time.

You didn't mention your kids' ages, or maybe I missed it. How old are they?

^^^ I was going to post this very thing. I think the whole thing people are discussing about giftedness is totally beside the point as to why this interaction rubbed you the wrong way, OP.

But for what it's worth, my views on TAG are somewhat different and more simplistic based on my own experiences.

I live in a very small closed minded town. I was in TAG up until middle school (unresolved AD/Hd issues took over then...)

Anyhow, I was in every TAG, I was in language arts TAG, reading TAG and math TAG.

In 5th on up, all the kids that were in "every" TAG, went once a week to "All day TAG".

I noticed in my class room that just about nearly every white student got to got to All Day Tag, and A handful of black students got to go. Every. single. black student who got to go to all day tag I noticed had parents who were teachers or otherwise in the school system.

My parents were not in the school system. My best friend (a black boy), his parents were not in the school system either. We were the only two children who were in "every" TAG but did not get to go All Day Tag with the rest of the students who had been in "every" TAG like us.

There were a few other students who got to go to TAG classes, but none of them were in every single TAG class like me and my friend were. We were absolutely the only two students who had been in "every single" TAG but did not go to All Day Tag...and we also the only two black students left in "every" TAG that didn't have parents in the school system.

Teachers kept asking us over and over again "Arent you in Language Arts, Reading, and Math? Aren't the two of you supposed to be in All Day Tag then?" Certain teachers were scratching their heads, totally baffled by the two of us not being in.

We didn't get it back then. Looking back on it, the reason is obvious.

Since then, I've had a bad taste in my mouth regarding TAG.

(Let's not even talk about how the teachers were trying to help the other white students who had AD/HD problems get them treated when times start getting tough in about 8th grade on up; but black TAG students with every obvious AD/HD problems like myself just slipped through the cracks and eventually slipped out of TAG altogether by high school...)

But these small experiences that I witnessed are but a small hint of the larger issue going on in my school; just a tip of the iceberg I'm willing to bet. I wonder how many other black students who could have very well been gifted (met many of them as I got older that were EXTREMELY intelligent and could have easily survived in the TAG and college prep classes...)

but I know this is probably not the case in all areas. But anyhow, for what it's worth this has somewhat tainted my vision of how the schools treat giftedness, and I'm more or less uninterested; Actually, I plan to homeschool, so it won't be too much of an issue for us.


----------



## Pancakes (Jan 22, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NoHiddenFees* 
Your "interesting" conception of homeschooling aside (though I suggest you go over to the homeschooling board and ask about this), do you think that a child need go to school for 12 years in lock step with age mates to know how to sit still? And I guess we have different goals for our children. FWIW, the last thing I want is to bring up a child who will _mindlessly_ follow directions.

I'm not quite following your logic here. I'm not seeing how this means children with advanced skills should be made to "relearn" lower level skills.

I fail to see what.

The harm? For the kids who are bored stiff and start to act out in class? Who are labeled troublemakers? Who learn that school is a place not to learn? Who have their intense desire to learn ground out of them? There couldn't possible be any harm...









:


----------



## Flor (Nov 19, 2003)

When I was student teaching I was completely shocked. The "regular" classes were all latino and white resource students. The "honors" classes where all the white kids and a couple of third/fourth generation latinos (I had two white girls who were clearly not cutting it in honors. I asked the master teacher about it and she said their mothers had them moved out of "regular" classes because they were "culturally uncomfortable" in the regular classes.) The gifted classes were 100% white. At a school that was 75% latino. No one wanted to talk about it.


----------



## Kessed (Nov 28, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NoHiddenFees* 
Your "interesting" conception of homeschooling aside (though I suggest you go over to the homeschooling board and ask about this), do you think that a child need go to school for 12 years in lock step with age mates to know how to sit still? And I guess we have different goals for our children. FWIW, the last thing I want is to bring up a child who will *mindlessly* follow directions.
.

I never said that.

What I said is that I think that children need to learn *how* to follow directions when it's important.

And I think that's a valuable skill that kids can and should learn at school.


----------



## LilyGrace (Jun 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kessed* 
I never said that.

What I said is that I think that children need to learn *how* to follow directions when it's important.

And I think that's a valuable skill that kids can and should learn at school.

Guess what? They learn these skills in the gifted class, too.


----------



## gabysmom617 (Nov 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Flor* 
When I was student teaching I was completely shocked. The "regular" classes were all latino and white resource students. The "honors" classes where all the white kids and a couple of third/fourth generation latinos (I had two white girls who were clearly not cutting it in honors. I asked the master teacher about it and she said their mothers had them moved out of "regular" classes because they were "culturally uncomfortable" in the regular classes.) The gifted classes were 100% white. At a school that was 75% latino. No one wanted to talk about it.


I hate to say I'm not shocked.







I wish I was, but I'm not.

I sat here and pondered to my husband as to why my friend and I got into "every" TAG in the first place, being that neither of our parents were in the school system. Why had we not just been left out of TAG altogether like so many of the other black students who didn't have parents in the school system either and who clearly were talented, at least in some categories.

I hate to toot my horn and think of myself and as extremely smart. I hate that, and I don't think I am...some people tell me I am, but I hate to think about it.

But, during the first time that they started pulling us out for TAG, I had a black teacher. That was first grade.

I don't remember, but my mom said in first grade, the whole year, I never made a *B* on a paper. I had A's all down my report cards from the first 6 weeks of school down to the last 6 weeks before summer break.

I think it would have been blatantly obvious to my first grade teacher, who was black, if I hadn't got considered for TAG with the rest of the students who had been considered. I think that she probably herself would have kicked up a stink if I had not been considered for TAG; The reasoning would have been brazenly obvious and difficult to disprove, had I been left out.

No doubt, my friend (who was also extremely intelligent) was in a same situation; where it would have totally uncovered the whole "agenda" had he been left out of TAG as brilliant as he is.

They had to cover their tracks and put on a "politically correct" appearance, and leaving us out may have crushed that and exposed them.

At least that's my theory looking back.


----------



## Kessed (Nov 28, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LilyGrace* 
Guess what? They learn these skills in the gifted class, too.

Maybe that's your experience.

Mine is that the low level gifted labels are used as an excused to not require kids to do their homework or participate in class.

And the special gifted programs (my nephew was in one) are done is such a way where they are more like individual tutoring than 'classes'.


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kessed* 
Mine is that the low level gifted labels are used as an excused to not require kids to do their homework or participate in class.

Discussions on giftedness often end up with people conflating giftedness as a concept with the implementation of gifted programs. Highly gifted children exist, no matter the state of gifted programs in your district or state (or province, etc.). You wouldn't say you don't believe in cavities just because you live in an area with poor dentists would you? You won't get much argument that many gifted programs are poorly designed or cater to an affluent demographic rather than solely serving the children who need it. Or that identification within this or that school district is a joke. That doesn't change the fact that highly gifted children have educational needs that differ from other children. If you truly think that highly gifted children should be kept lock step with age mates and not receive any academic accommodations, all I can say is I am happy you're not in charge of my children's education.


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kessed* 
I never said that.

What I said is that I think that children need to learn *how* to follow directions when it's important.

On whose authority is it important? Directions are usually important to the person giving them.







There's a larger dynamic at work than just following the orders of a superior, especially in team situations.

Quote:

And I think that's a valuable skill that kids can and should learn at school.
Why? Why at school?

FTR this is what you said, though you may have meant something different.

Quote:

I want her to learn how to sit still, how to do what her 'boss' says even though she thinks it's dumb.


----------



## VisionaryMom (Feb 20, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kessed* 
What I said is that I think that children need to learn *how* to follow directions when it's important.

Without knowing anything about the posters other than their pattern of comments, I'll share something I read before I had children. Working-class families tend to focus obedience and teach their children to listen to superiors while white-collar parents teach innovation/creativity over obedience. I think that's some of the debate here. As someone with a genius IQ who's married to someone with an IQ pretty near genius, I can tell you without question that we value innovation over obedience. I'm not interested in sending my children to school for decades to learn obedience. I'm sending them to learn academics.


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BrandiRhoades* 
Without knowing anything about the posters other than their pattern of comments, I'll share something I read before I had children. Working-class families tend to focus obedience and teach their children to listen to superiors while white-collar parents teach innovation/creativity over obedience. I think that's some of the debate here. As someone with a genius IQ who's married to someone with an IQ pretty near genius, I can tell you without question that we value innovation over obedience. I'm not interested in sending my children to school for decades to learn obedience. I'm sending them to learn academics.

Thank you for saying this so eloquently.


----------



## Kessed (Nov 28, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NoHiddenFees* 
Discussions on giftedness often end up with people conflating giftedness as a concept with the implementation of gifted programs. Highly gifted children exist, no matter the state of gifted programs in your district or state (or province, etc.). You wouldn't say you don't believe in cavities just because you live in an area with poor dentists would you? You won't get much argument that many gifted programs are poorly designed or cater to an affluent demographic rather than solely serving the children who need it. Or that identification within this or that school district is a joke. That doesn't change the fact that highly gifted children have educational needs that differ from other children. If you truly think that highly gifted children should be kept lock step with age mates and not receive any academic accommodations, all I can say is I am happy you're not in charge of my children's education.

I have never said that "gifted" doesn't exist. I do believe that it does. And highly gifted students do need special services. That I will never argue against.

I do believe that the "gifted" label is highly overused. I don't think that it should be used as often as it is.

In our school district they are pushing for inclusion. So the try as often to include special needs kids in the mainstream program as much as possible. And I think that's beneficial to our society.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BrandiRhoades* 
Without knowing anything about the posters other than their pattern of comments, I'll share something I read before I had children. Working-class families tend to focus obedience and teach their children to listen to superiors while white-collar parents teach innovation/creativity over obedience. I think that's some of the debate here. As someone with a genius IQ who's married to someone with an IQ pretty near genius, I can tell you without question that we value innovation over obedience. I'm not interested in sending my children to school for decades to learn obedience. I'm sending them to learn academics.

Whatever.

I never said I wanted my child (or any child) to blindly obey people. I think that's crazy.

I want my child to know *how* to obey when it's neccessary. And that doesn't matter on IQ. You can have someone with a very high IQ who will fail at life if they aren't able to conform when it's important. The last time I checked cars didn't ask for a kid's IQ before deciding whether to brake in time.

But in reality - I am all for creative solutions to problems. I value that highly. I was brought up where that was valued. However - I also value obedience when it's important.

But this is off the original topic. I do not agree with the liberal application of the 'gifted' label. I think that most kids should be included in the mainstream program.


----------



## Cate (Oct 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BrandiRhoades* 
Without knowing anything about the posters other than their pattern of comments, I'll share something I read before I had children. Working-class families tend to focus obedience and teach their children to listen to superiors while white-collar parents teach innovation/creativity over obedience. I think that's some of the debate here. As someone with a genius IQ who's married to someone with an IQ pretty near genius, I can tell you without question that we value innovation over obedience. I'm not interested in sending my children to school for decades to learn obedience. I'm sending them to learn academics.

Exactly! I'm not interested in teaching my children blind obedience. Far too many of the world's atrocities were committed by people claiming 'I was just doing what I was told'. I would much rather my children learn to think for themselves.
I can't count the number of times when in the work place that I've had to stand up to a superior and say "Are you sure that's what you want me to do? Wouldn't it be better if I did this instead?", and been commended for it. I'm not interested in raising little automatons, I want my children to be able to stand up and say no when it matters. I want them to think outside the box, not be forced to fit into it.


----------



## Tigerchild (Dec 2, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kessed* 
I want my child to know *how* to obey when it's neccessary.

With respect, a child doesn't already know how to do this, no amount of busywork completion given by a teacher is going to help.


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kessed* 
I have never said that "gifted" doesn't exist. I do believe that it does. And highly gifted students do need special services. That I will never argue against.

I do believe that the "gifted" label is highly overused. I don't think that it should be used as often as it is.

But I've been very specific about accommodations being needed for _highly_ gifted kids. You've been very specific about children needing to sit through classes "teaching" kids things they already know without making any qualification as to degree of giftedness and tried to speak to the academic value of boredom.

Yes or no, should highly gifted children ever receive any academic accommodation?


----------



## Kessed (Nov 28, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NoHiddenFees* 
But I've been very specific about accommodations being needed for _highly_ gifted kids. You've been very specific about children needing to sit through classes "teaching" kids things they already know without making any qualification as to degree of giftedness and tried to speak to the academic value of boredom.

Yes or no, should highly gifted children ever receive any academic accommodation?

I made qualifications near the beginning of this thread.

I would say that if you need the school to test your kid to find out that he's gifted - then he's not highly gifted...

And I think that the majority of kids should be kept in the mainstream program with normal expectations.


----------



## velochic (May 13, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *southernmama* 
So, how can I reconcile my distain for the label and my ILs value of it? How can I make sure that dd knows that she is every bit as smart as dn, although they may have been given different gifts??

With your now, 3rd thread about this I think it boils down to this. You have a nephew that has the label. Your posts suggest that you are jealous because your dd, who you think is gifted, hasn't gotten the label yet. She may not be gifted. She probably ISN'T gifted (statistically). I think you need to let it go because you've let yourself become mad because your dd might not be as smart as your nephew. There are going to be a lot of smarter people in her life. Her cousin probably *IS* smarter than her and she needs to learn (and so do you) that she will likely *never* be the smartest person in the room. To convince her otherwise is a very non-AP injustice. Just let it go.

ETA: Yes, perhaps this was harsh, but I've read everything from all 3 threads. It seems that you are seeking the answer you want and starting similar threads here and there to see if you can get the affirmation you seek.


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kessed* 
I made qualifications near the beginning of this thread.

I would say that if you need the school to test your kid to find out that he's gifted - then he's not highly gifted...

And I think that the majority of kids should be kept in the mainstream program with normal expectations.

I didn't ask you if my children were highly gifted. I asked you if you thought that highly gifted children should ever receive any academic accommodation? Some examples would be differentiated curricula or classrooms, accelerations, or magnet schools.

It's a yes or no question.









BTW, we homeschool, so I won't be having "the school" test my child anytime soon.


----------



## Boot (Jan 22, 2008)

To the OP, I just wanted to give you some support. I think people are being harsh. I don't think you are jealous. If you were jealous you would get her tested too just to prove that she was also gifted but that's not your philosophy.

Apparently I qualified to go to the local gifted school when we were in the States. My mum got me tested because she thought it might be better for me than the public school I was at. I only learned this a couple of months ago. As it was, we moved so she never had to make a decision on that. Anyway, my point is, I am not, in any way, gifted in the way that people here describe. In a regular, mixed class I was never the brightest. I consider myself average. So yes, I think the label is given to many children who are bright but not all that different from other kids. The children who are exceptional and who really learn differently do exist too of course. Many of their parents are on this thread. I believe these children exist but I personally don't like the term 'gifted'. So my answer is that I partially buy into the gifted label.


----------



## Pancakes (Jan 22, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kessed* 

In our school district they are pushing for inclusion. So the try as often to include special needs kids in the mainstream program as much as possible. And I think that's beneficial to our society.

I think that most kids should be included in the mainstream program.


Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kessed* 

And I think that the majority of kids should be kept in the mainstream program with normal expectations.

I think you'd feel very differently if your child required the services needed for highly gifted children. All is fine and well to a certain point, and for us it's been third grade. At that point it becomes incredibly evident that 'mainstreaming' isn't going to work. I do not feel it is beneficial to my child to stare out a window for thirty minutes each day while she waits for the rest of the class to catch on. I also do not feel that it is beneficial to my child to do 10 times the amount of busywork on the same concept just to shut her up long enough to learn how to sit and be quiet. It may be very beneficial to the actual 'mainstream' kids, but it does a great dis-service to those that require more.


----------



## Kessed (Nov 28, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Pancakes* 
I think you'd feel very differently if your child required the services needed for highly gifted children. All is fine and well to a certain point, and for us it's been third grade. At that point it becomes incredibly evident that 'mainstreaming' isn't going to work. I do not feel it is beneficial to my child to stare out a window for thirty minutes each day while she waits for the rest of the class to catch on. I also do not feel that it is beneficial to my child to do 10 times the amount of busywork on the same concept just to shut her up long enough to learn how to sit and be quiet. It may be very beneficial to the actual 'mainstream' kids, but it does a great dis-service to those that require more.

I agree with you to a point.

But I don't think the solution is to slap a label on.

I think that the solution is much more complex.

The OP's question was whether or not we 'buy' the gifted label.

I have met too many kids who have this label who are not different from other kids that it doesn't have any meaning anymore. It's become a way to insist that a kid gets special treatment as a way to combat the over burdened education system.


----------



## katheek77 (Mar 13, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kessed* 
In our school district they are pushing for inclusion. So the try as often to include special needs kids in the mainstream program as much as possible. And I think that's beneficial to our society.

(From another post by same poster)

the majority of kids should be kept in the mainstream program with normal expectations

Of course. Inclusion, in most cases, is going to be the most appropriate setting (as required by IDEA's "least restrictive environment"). However, that still means that exceptional students need _their specific needs met._ Even in a full inclusion classroom, that is going to mean possible push-ins and modification of curriculum/delivery. You will have a "mainstream program", but, it is going to be highly differentiated if you have a moderately gifted child, a profoundly gifted child, a mildly autistic child, and a student with a visual processing disorder. The idea that every child should get the same program is insane. Even for kids who DON'T have any sort of label, there are still going to be "normal" kids (for lack of a better term) who perform at a higher or lower level in this area or that area, or who already DID that section of math in their out of state school, or didn't learn X last year for the same reason, and you need to adjust the program for that...

Mainstreaming and inclusion is great (when done appropriately), but, one of the things you need in order to do it well is a knowledge of the students you are working with, and what their strengths and weaknesses are, and what modifications will need to be made. Keeping "the majority of kids...in the mainstream program with normal expectations" is going to be a tremendous disservice to pretty much ALL of the kids in the classroom. While it sounds egalitarian, it's about as far away from that as you can get.


----------



## alexsam (May 10, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kessed* 

I would say that if you need the school to test your kid to find out that he's gifted - then he's not highly gifted...
.

This is not necessarily true. Parents are not experts on "how gifted". Even highly, exceptionally, and profoundly gifted kids act like kids most of the time. Most parents can tell "normal" from "not normal", but can't really put it on a scale like that. You can start to see differences, but your average parent can usually say "I think she's gifted..." not HOW gifted... and the testing helps. As a first time mom, I knew he was doing things other kids weren't but I had no way of knowing if it was advanced or how far advanced. If you are not well versed in what is developmentally target for each age or don't have many other kids to "compare" yours too, if your child is gifted in some areas and not others, if your child tends to display more of the "difficulties" of being gifted vs the "talents" because of their environment or their interests, the school being the first to raise the subject may be what happens. It doesn't mean the child is not gifted. It means the parents may not be savvy to it.

Also, I want to address this idea that gifted somehow means "better". That it means "life is handed on a platter, you will always be happy, always successful". Absolutely not. Honestly, it can be very, very hard with expectations, social difficulties, emotional sensitivies, etc. And kids who are not gifted have every chance as well to be happy and succesful and smart. At the very bottom of it, it is a way of learning and does not have any more emotional aspects than what people assign to it. Not better, not worse. Just different. Honestly- being gifted has a lot of challenges to the child and the family.

I totally agree that many of the programs are slanted toward priveledge and that many students can be "mainstreamed". But I also think that gifted students are unfairly punished when their mere existance is questioned. Just as you would recognize learning disabilites and special education needs of other students, gifted students have the right to learn in environments that are appropriate for them. And in all actually, the "more gifted" you are, the harder it becomes to find those services. The gifted classes may be cushy classes, but once you pass out of the first range of gifted, it becomes practically impossible to find a place in most school districts. What do you do with a 3 year old with a photographic memory who is starting to read and who is doing addition and subtraction and asks about how energy turns the earth and is already moving beyond kindergarten but is still working on the potty and naps and loves Winne the Pooh and carries a teddybear everywhere? "Gifted" is the label that helps accomdate ALL of these needs and emotional and social aspects as well as "academic". Without the support of others who can understand and appreciate children like this- the WHOLE child- kids like this would be totally lost. The label is a way to quickly assess a whole range of needs and common traits.

To the OP, I think if you stick to the bottom line of what is happening- the child is being put in a class that will hopefully give him the best opportunity to learn the way he needs- you will see that it is not better or worse, that there is no need to assign (of feelt hat others are assigning) shame or that other ways of learning are "less than". I would explain giftedness to a child like any other difference- we are all different. We all have different talents, ways of being ourselves, and learning and I would encourage my child yo be happy that their cousin is in a class that will hoepfully provide him with the opportunity for success as well as stress that you are proud of her for finding happiness and success and fulfillment in her school classroom.


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kessed* 
I'm thinking about 1 guy I knew who was in a public school 'gifted' program (really cool and elite program) with who really was gifted (notice no quotes this time). He was really really smart. But he didn't learn that valuable lesson.

He did great in university and found an awesome job. But then the computer game company he was working for got bought. He was unable to adapt to the new rules because he thought they were 'dumb' - and I'd agree that they were. Well - he lost his job a couple months ago. And now he and his wife and their new baby are screwed. She can't work - health issues. They need a nanny or similar to help with their baby. His mother is really sick and he's the only family so he doesn't want to move away to work in another city. They own a house that he needs a real job to pay the mortgage.

So - what would be more valuable. That he learned 'more' in school and got to learn at his own pace and wasn't constricted by having to fit into a standard classroom.... Or that he learned how to 'play the game' and still had his awesome job doing something he really loved to do?

I know what I think is more valuable.

Well guess what?

I was labelled gifted in school. In elementary school there weren't really gifted programmes and although I was generally an obdient child, I got into a lot of trouble out of boredom. This did nothing for my self-esteem nor did it help me learn how to "be bored." It merely taught me how to fake sick to get out of school, wander off, and hide in the bathroom.

Then I went to a high school that was a true gifted program and that's where I learned to work my butt off... because the material was CHALLENGING and interesting, and it required buckling down to do it. I think I missed two days for illness the whole time, because I didn't want to miss out on anything.

By your logic, kids that have to work hard to learn material are not "learning how to cope with boredom." I just don't see it. Learning hard material involves a certain amount of work.

In NONE of these places did I learn how to navigate the workplace, in any case... I did that in my first job. If a grown adult, who has all the incentives of salary, health insurance, and new baby -- as well as choice -- cannot adjust to follow the rules, that's the grown adult's problem regardless of where s/he went to school.


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NoHiddenFees* 
I didn't ask you if my children were highly gifted. I asked you if you thought that highly gifted children should ever receive any academic accommodation? Some examples would be differentiated curricula or classrooms, accelerations, or magnet schools.

It's a yes or no question.











Quoting myself because I'm still waiting for Kessed's answer.

:yawning:


----------



## Kessed (Nov 28, 2007)

Quote:



Quote:

Originally Posted by NoHiddenFees View Post
I didn't ask you if my children were highly gifted. I asked you if you thought that highly gifted children should ever receive any academic accommodation? Some examples would be differentiated curricula or classrooms, accelerations, or magnet schools.

It's a yes or no question.
Quoting myself because I'm still waiting for Kessed's answer.
I already answered that. I think that extremely gifted children should be given special programing. They should have access to special classes and curriculum.

That isn't what I'm questioning.

What I question is the push to identify children who are marginally gifted by testing them over and over and pestering their teachers until they are recommended for the gifted program. One mom we met at the playground last weekend was happy that after 3 years of having her child tested - he finally qualified as gifted and it would mean that his teacher had to spend more time with him.


----------



## alexsam (May 10, 2005)

As for "obedience" vs "independent thought", this is not a gifted issue. You do not have to be gifted to be an independent thinker or to make choices on how you live your live. Gifted people can follow directions too (if they want to, just like anyone else).

ALL people are capable of both choosing to follow directions or to go their own way.

The story above (of the gifted computer guy who didn't like to follow directions), more than anything it tells of our expectations for gifted people- that theY ALWAYS end up successful, at the top of their game, impervious to difficulty and that they are above "human situations". He may be gifted, but he's a person. He can succeed or fail like the rest of us. He can follow or lead, like the rest of us... Gifted is not a free ride through life. It is merely a different way of being.


----------



## LynnS6 (Mar 30, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kessed* 
What I question is the push to identify children who are marginally gifted by testing them over and over and pestering their teachers until they are recommended for the gifted program. One mom we met at the playground last weekend was happy that after 3 years of having her child tested - he finally qualified as gifted *and it would mean that his teacher had to spend more time with him*.

Maybe, just maybe, if our country invested sufficient resources in education, then a child could get enough individualized attention that this mom wouldn't have do to that! But I will make darned sure that my kids' needs are met.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kessed* 
But here's my question for you - what's the harm? What's the worst that happens? The kid already know the answers by sight - and quickly writes them down and moves onto something else? That doesn't sound to bad.

The harm is that my kid learns that if you're 'smart' you don't have to work very hard because it's already easy. Thus, if you hit something that's hard, it must mean that you're not smart. They don't learn to put in the effort to learn because they're marking time with the thing they already have learned!

Also, what if there isn't anything else for them to move on to? Again, this is a resource issue. But it's what happened to our son in math this year. When he finished his math packet, he got a new one. He was ready for multidigit addition and subtraction, could already do some basic multiplication in his head. Instead, he spent the whole year doing single digit addition and working with concepts up to 100. Umm.... he had that down at 3.

OK, so he won the "Outstanding Math Award" for the year. He didn't actually LEARN any new math! But he was the only 1st grader who was ready for more advanced stuff. Does he have a genius IQ? I seriously doubt it. He was ready for multidigit addition, not advanced math in 1st grade. But with your argument, he's just going to have to sit there and learn at the pace everyone else learns because he's not gifted enough. He has the potential to achieve a lot in math, not just because he's quick with his math facts but because he has a quirky, out of the box kind of thinking.

I don't want him segregated, necessarily, but I DO want him educated at the level that HE needs to be at. I'd be thrilled if he could get the kind of math instruction that he needs.

Luckily, my guy is a compliant, don't-rock-the-boat kid of kid. He doesn't act out when he's bored, he spaces out. But I want him to be a learner, not just someone who's good at worksheets.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Tigerchild* 
The gifted label doesn't mean that the kids get better or more appropriate education, actually. The onus for that is on the parents. From what I have seen, parents of "gifted" kids often have to keep on fighting to get their kids the education they need, rather than just extra busywork.









:

So, for the OP. Yes, I believe in the 'gifted' label. I know for a fact that some of my most successful university students in terms of grades/completing courses aren't necessarily the truly 'gifted' ones, they're the ones who learned to work their tails off when the going got tough. But I also know that there IS a difference among students.

Do I think that the 'gifted' label is over used? Yes. Do I know that that the label tends to be linked to socio-economic status and education level of the parent? Oh yes. But that doesn't mean that there aren't gifted kids. It just means that pushy parents get their kids more resources. Since when is that news?

I don't think by pretending that all people are the same, we solve the problem. It's like the arguments for diversity. Pretending people are all the same doesn't help diversity a bit.


----------



## joensally (Jun 19, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kessed* 
I already answered that. I think that extremely gifted children should be given special programing. They should have access to special classes and curriculum.

That isn't what I'm questioning.

What I question is the push to identify children who are marginally gifted by testing them over and over and pestering their teachers until they are recommended for the gifted program. One mom we met at the playground last weekend was happy that after 3 years of having her child tested - he finally qualified as gifted and it would mean that his teacher had to spend more time with him.

This is an indictment of the local school system - that parents feel that desperate to get their kid a reasonable education. OR - that parent is a bit too invested in her child, and if it wasn't the gifted program, it would be sports or something else.


----------



## joensally (Jun 19, 2006)

Big dittos to NoHiddenFees, Tigerchild and BrandiRhoades.

I hate these threads. They always go from talking about a principle - egalitarian education that provides each child with what they need (as opposed to the same for all) - to a litany of biases and one-off stories of personal experience as though that changes the principle.

I also hate them because they feel discriminatory. My son is twice-exceptional (gifted via testing and special needs), and the "deficit" aspects of his "differences" are generally met with understanding, rather than rejection or eye-rolling.

Some parents are @sses, whether it's about a gifted label or something else. That doesn't make intellectual giftedness unreal. As the parent of two statistical outliers, I too hate the term gifted because it brings out all this prejudice and misunderstanding.

I also think that parents have responsibility for teaching kids how and when to obey, how to deal with the boredom that is part of everyday life, and how to get on with life positively. I'm not going to leave the acquisition of those skills to years of torture in class.


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kessed* 
I already answered that. I think that extremely gifted children should be given special programing. They should have access to special classes and curriculum.

My apologies if I missed this. I recall your saying that kids under a certain IQ shouldn't be called gifted, but I can't find your thoughts on programming with respect to highly gifted kids prior to this post.

Thanks for answering in any case.


----------



## joensally (Jun 19, 2006)

There's another variable at play that explains why the catchment for "gifted" can be larger than the top 2% on IQ tests (or whatever identification methodology that's employed) - gathering enough kids to make a program feasible. My DD's school has 60 children per grade - it's more palatable and justifiable to plan and differentiate for a few of them than for just one. My DS's school has just 20 per grade - there is nothing for him there (thus, we're homeschooling next year).


----------



## Kessed (Nov 28, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *joensally* 
This is an indictment of the local school system - that parents feel that desperate to get their kid a reasonable education. OR - that parent is a bit too invested in her child, and if it wasn't the gifted program, it would be sports or something else.

And I agree with you on that.

I think that there needs to be changes made to our school system (and probably yours).

I don't think that calling a bunch of smart kids gifted and making special programs for them is the answer. It feels like the current climate is to try and get your kid classes as special needs (more resources) or gifted (more resources) hanging the 'normal' kids out to dry.

Smaller class sizes and more teacher/curriculum flexibility would be a better start to a solution.


----------



## Cutie Patootie (Feb 29, 2004)

All other conversations aside, I don't like the term "gifted". I think it is a term that makes students who are not "gifted" feel less, and those that are termed "gifted" are set aside as higher. Perhaps "accelerated" is a better term. Everyone is born with different traits, some learn faster, some know more right off, but "gifted" implies that everyone else is lacking, and I just don't think that is true or healthy for either side.


----------



## joensally (Jun 19, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kessed* 
And I agree with you on that.

I think that there needs to be changes made to our school system (and probably yours).

I don't think that calling a bunch of smart kids gifted and making special programs for them is the answer. It feels like the current climate is to try and get your kid classes as special needs (more resources) or gifted (more resources) hanging the 'normal' kids out to dry.

*Smaller class sizes and more teacher/curriculum flexibility would be a better start to a solution.*

Absolutely! I regularly confuse administration because in a single conversation I can be advocating for special needs kids, typical kids who are struggling with curricula that seems to have turned a blind eye to developmental norms, AND gifted kids. I think that we could be doing so much better by ALL children than we are.

I think that this whole gifted thing is because individual parents only have the energy to advocate for their kid. If a label gets your kid what they need, of course parents pursue it. We need to look at this as a societal priority - what kind of adults, and workers, do we want to produce? Where do we want to sit in the global economy?

The other thing about the label - the school system requires it to get services. My DS is totally out there and they've been looking to label him in order to get the resources that may come with the right label. My son is a problem in the classroom, and so he was never going to be off their radar. IMO, for my son, the gifted label was much better than the ADHD or asperger's label they wanted to explore (in terms of applying the correct intervention).


----------



## joensally (Jun 19, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Cutie Patootie* 
All other conversations aside, I don't like the term "gifted". I think it is a term that makes students who are not "gifted" feel less, and those that are termed "gifted" are set aside as higher. Perhaps "accelerated" is a better term. Everyone is born with different traits, some learn faster, some know more right off, but "gifted" implies that everyone else is lacking, and I just don't think that is true or healthy for either side.









Yep, hate the term gifted. In fact, I even think "g" in my head as it's just less loaded. If I ever have to refer to it (usually while advocating), I tend to use "high ability."


----------



## Kessed (Nov 28, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *joensally* 
The other thing about the label - the school system requires it to get services. My DS is totally out there and they've been looking to label him in order to get the resources that may come with the right label. My son is a problem in the classroom, and so he was never going to be off their radar. IMO, for my son, the gifted label was much better than the ADHD or asperger's label they wanted to explore (in terms of applying the correct intervention).

And I understand that reasoning.

I think that it's sad that parents have to go that route rather than the schools realizing that each student has different needs.


----------



## Pancakes (Jan 22, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kessed* 
And I agree with you on that.

I think that there needs to be changes made to our school system (and probably yours).

I don't think that calling a bunch of smart kids gifted and making special programs for them is the answer. It feels like the current climate is to try and get your kid classes as special needs (more resources) or gifted (more resources) hanging the 'normal' kids out to dry.

Smaller class sizes and more teacher/curriculum flexibility would be a better start to a solution.

I think this is the true frustration right here. It's not really about handing the gifted label out like candy, it's that the public school model doesn't work for the majority. There just aren't enough resources or flexibility in the school systems to give each child what they need. There never will be with the current model. Gifted labels and special needs classifications exists because this school model is trying to adapt to each child as best as it can with the restraints placed upon it. I believe strongly that this is why there are so many homeschooling families. I don't think these efforts are at the expense of the 'normal' kids, I feel ALL kids pay the price of standard education. Standard is ideal for very few, the rest get hung out to dry or just cope with what they've been given.

By saying that you believe there need to be changes to yours and other school systems is, I'm sure, a gross understatement. But I'm currently homeschooling, so I do have bias.


----------



## LauraLoo (Oct 9, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *joensally* 
I also think that parents have responsibility for teaching kids how and when to obey, *how to deal with the boredom that is part of everyday life*, and how to get on with life positively. I'm not going to leave the acquisition of those skills to years of torture in class.

Bolding is mine. My ds, who just turned 7, has a very low tolerance for boredom. Apparently this year, when he was bored with the curriculum he requested to speak with the principal. After conversations with her, the teachers adjusted his curriculum levels. I had no idea this was happening. He goes to a school that doesn't label but differentiates the curriculum for all students. Even so, it's obvious that he still felt it necessary to take things into his own hands. I can't imagine what it would be like for him in a school that didn't provide accelerated curriculum options, or that his requests would have fallen on deaf ears.


----------



## Flor (Nov 19, 2003)

I do agree that there are gifted children out there and their needs should be met. I do question the defention of "gifted" when it seems that every child I meet these days is gifted and they can get that label from a "teacher evaluation." I'm a teacher, and I'm not qualified to do this. So, to the OP, yes I do "buy" the gifted label, but I think that it is too widely applied especially in some districts.


----------



## thebarkingbird (Dec 2, 2005)

some people are smarter than others. true story.

i find it truly appalling that we have a school system that does not accommodate students of all levels. honestly though, i don't think the real problem is building more gifted programs. obviously many of those bright but not brilliant students are in gifted classes because they're bored in the regular ones and many of them make good grades working on advanced "for their age" material. i think what we need is more classes for students who are either not smart enough or who do not care to peruse academics beyond high school. our current strategy is to break students into three groups and then teach to the middle of each group. why aren't there classes for students who cannot or will not handle basic levels of college prep material? why can't we train people in a trade they may enjoy and give them the basic math and language skills they'll need to run or help manage the business. that would leave basic level academic classes open for students who are either comfortable or willing to work their asses off to read to kill a mocking bird in the 10th grade and allow gifted students (of which there would be very few) to have access to what they need without eating up all the resources.

i do tend to have a rather politically incorrect opinion on the education of gifted students. i think if we were less ashamed of the fact that some people are just plain smarter than most of us we might feel comfortable investing resources in their educations. perhaps if the brightest of the bright from whatever ethnic or economic background they happened to be were offered truly excellent educations though our school system we'd all have those flying cars my mother was promised in 1958. sure i've met a few ex pats in my day but most of the real live geniuses i've known still live right here in the US. investing in them IS investing in ourselves.

a more appropriate education system that allowed everyone to be challenged would, in my opinion, put an end to the epidemic of gifted infants. it's a sad day in america when a good student has to masquerade as a genius just to get a little schoolwork that doesn't put her to sleep in her books. i can hardly blame parents for begging for entry into these programs. they've been told what the standards are and MANY children easily exceed the expectations of our public education system what would any parent do when they found their child could easily be doing more than is asked of them educationally?


----------



## seawind (Sep 28, 2007)

A general response to the thread question- Insofar as the classification helps to address the needs of such children, yes, I "buy" into the term 'gifted'. However, the implication/assumption that being gifted is somehow better/superior is a bit daft. What could be special about having been lucky enough to hit the genetic jackpot in terms of beauty/intelligence? The ability (besides other characteristics such as kindness, integrity and the like) to shine and achieve , despite odds , is what is truly admirable. JMO!


----------



## tuansprincess (Oct 25, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kessed* 
Even though my classmates had "learned" to do it - they'd forgotten. Examples like that were all over the place.

See, I'm not going to agree w/ much of what you say because my "schooling" philosophy is that of unschooling/child-led learning.

Your classmates had learned it? They were taught it but if they didn't want to learn it yet, of course they aren't going to remember it. You can't force someone to learn.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *YesandNo* 
I don't know how it's done now, but when I was in elementary school (late 80s), I was tested for the gifted program. And was told I "just barely" didn't make it. I remember the test, it was: "If an apple is a fruit, then a carrot is _____", stuff like that.

I don't know if the "just barely" was true or just to spare my feelings, but it hurt:

ONE test determined whether I was gifted or not, no fair, it was orally given by a creepy guy who I didn't like.
To learn you aren't smart enough to hang with the 'gifted' set was a bit crushing for a 10 year old.
My brother was in the gifted program!!!!
So I'm not a fan of segregating kids, especially based on a single test. Maybe they don't do it that way anymore.









: x 100!!! Several of my sibs tested G&T but I didn't. I have always felt dumber because I didn't get that distinction. Yes I realize this is my thing and I'm not blaming my sibs. And it did take several years to realize that I am extremely talented in music. That's my nitch.


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

I've only gotten to pg 2 of this thread, so I hope that I am not repeating things that have already been said. I'll try to be brief







!

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kessed* 
(by grade 4 or 5 everyone was 'gifted)

I understand the sentiment here b/c our neighborhood school does much the same thing. Way, way too many kids have a gifted label and it does no good for anyone except to allow the kids in the GT program to feel superior and put down the other kids and to serve as a status symbol for the parents. However, everyone doesn't actually become gifted by grade 4 or 5 anymore than everyone becomes naturally blond when they dye their hair.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kesses*
But here's my question for you - what's the harm? What's the worst that happens? The kid already know the answers by sight - and quickly writes them down and moves onto something else? That doesn't sound to bad.

I wouldn't have realized the issue with this until we ran into it with dd and it made me realize that there really is harm. I learned to play the game, do the routine work and get by and I paid for it in college when I had no study skills b/c I had never had to put in any effort. In my older dd I started seeing the harm in 1st grade. Yes, she does need to learn to do things that bore her and deal with it. However, at age 6, she was too young to spend 7 hrs a day being bored out of her mind with a teacher who punished her for responding in her 6 y/o way -- working very, very slowly. Dd developed severe emotional problems to the point that I was very concerned b/c she was telling me she wanted to be dead. For this kiddo of mine, spending the majority of her day doing rote drills results in very slow work and extreme depression.

And, yes, I do buy into the label gifted b/c I have seen how it has affected me and my children even though no one told me what it was that was affecting me when I was younger. Having kids has been a tremendous growth opportunity to realize a lot of things about myself and I am grateful to my children for that. I don't go around touting the term gifted to their cousins, though, b/c it isn't necessary and wouldn't benefit anyone.


----------



## gabysmom617 (Nov 26, 2005)

I'm kinda starting to look back and see the effects of what breezing through elementary school did to my middle and high school years.

I never learned to study and to learn what was taught in class. I'd sit there drawing and spacing out because I picked it up so fast, and didn't need all the extra examples, extra practice and so forth and on that the rest of the class needed in elementary school. By the time I got to middle school, I had totally not learned the study skills and learning skills I needed to get by at all. By then, the work got harder, and I needed to actually put my mind down to it to get it, and I never learned to do that...I think I still suffer from the effects of not being able to apply my brain cells to something that I need to learn that I'm not that interested in.


----------



## 1xmom (Dec 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ChristaN*
And, yes, I do buy into the label gifted b/c I have seen how it has affected me and my children even though no one told me what it was that was affecting me when I was younger. Having kids has been a tremendous growth opportunity to realize a lot of things about myself and I am grateful to my children for that. I don't go around touting the term gifted to their cousins, though, b/c it isn't necessary and wouldn't benefit anyone.

ITA. I see just life in general through different eyes now that I have a child vs/ when I didn't. I am so much more appreciative of just the simple things and that is what being a mother has brought me.


----------



## bug-house (Jul 10, 2006)

Yes, there are people who have a (genetic origin) set of traits that classify them as gifted.


----------



## dentmom3 (Aug 10, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GuildJenn* 
I find with myself whenever I am reacting strongly to how _someone else_ is labelling themselves or others, it's a sign that I myself have something unresolved going on.

WOW. I don't have time to read this whole thread, although I will come back to it when I am not at work....

I just had to stop and say that your statement above really resonated with me. You have given me so much to reflect on this afternoon! Thank you, I think I am going to print out what I quoted from you, amazing how parenting can bring so much of our own childhood up to the surface for us, isn't it?


----------



## stayinghome (Jul 4, 2002)

When my 14 yo dd was going to school in VA, they tested her and said she was gifted. And put into the gifted program, which if i remember right was a once a week separate class. Then we moved to PA, i told them she was in gifted, they said they had to re-test her for PA standards, and afterwards i got a letter saying that she wasn't gifted and "unremarkable."







: That kind of turned me off to the whole thing. And i didn't really see this amazing stuff happening in the gifted class anyway.


----------



## MizLiz (Jan 23, 2005)

I haven't read most of this post, but to reply to the OP, I don't buy into the 'gifted' label.

I think that it is a label used by schools as an excuse to not meet the needs of bored kids (and there are other, less flattering labels that are used in the same way for kids who are are having difficulty with materials).

I also think that 'gifted' is a term used by parents who want to live out their own sense of self-genius vicariously through their kids.

All kids have different abilities; labels are unhelpful.


----------



## VisionaryMom (Feb 20, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MizLiz* 
I also think that 'gifted' is a term used by parents who want to live out their own sense of self-genius vicariously through their kids.

And for those of us parents who *are* geniuses?









I've heard this sentiment my entire life, and to me it reads as jealousy and nothing more.

For some reason, if my child were an amazing athlete or a brilliant musician, that would be wonderful - celebrated even. If he's a math genius, though, we're somehow supposed to make him just stick it out with kids who are doing work well below his level so that it doesn't make anyone feel badly.

I think what a lot of people are reacting to is the way gifted programs play out in schools, which is an entirely different issue from intellectual distinctions. Many schools also use "gifted" as synonymous for "ambitious" or other terms rather than pure IQ. Many of the test examples people have given aren't IQ tests at all. It really helps to have this discussion with everyone on the same page in terms of what's being discussed.


----------



## MizLiz (Jan 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BrandiRhoades* 

For some reason, if my child were an amazing athlete or a brilliant musician, that would be wonderful - celebrated even. If he's a math genius, though, we're somehow supposed to make him just stick it out with kids who are doing work well below his level so that it doesn't make anyone feel badly.


Yes, but is it appropriate to _label_ an amazing athlete as "wonderful"? Doesn't this type of labeling put all the other less athletic kids in the "not-wonderful" category? Most skills and talents' level of significance are quite subjective. Just because someone can read at a very young age this makes them gifted? Perhaps they walked very late... would this also make a very early walker "gifted"? Many skills are subjective in terms of their importance... categorizing kids for their accomplishments is useless.

I totally agree that some kids naturally pick up on math, reading, etc., faster than others, and I think it is wrong to not acknowledge this and make sure that they are challenged appropriately in school, at home, etc. But the same goes for kids on the flip side who end up feeling 'stupid' because they, perhaps, don't pick up on a math concept, reading, etc., as easily as some other kids.

All kids have different abilities and need to be worked with as individuals. AGain, I don't think that labels are helpful.


----------



## thebarkingbird (Dec 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MizLiz* 
Yes, but is it appropriate to _label_ an amazing athlete as "wonderful"? Doesn't this type of labeling put all the other less athletic kids in the "not-wonderful" category?


yes, it makes all the other kids not wonderful *ATHLETES*. calling a genius a wonderful intellect is both an appropriate judgement and a statement that implies the other kids do not have wonderful intellects. i fail to see the problem unless one holds the disturbing opinion that one quality determines the worth of an entire person. most of us here at MDC are blessed to live in times and places where there is not the temptation to break with the incredibly important moral principle of refusing to judge people based on cold economic principles (do i let this guy starve because he can't do anything special for ME in favor of feeding the village doctor?). it's never ok to do that but some situations really tempt us (ok, i'm a lost addict).

what is it we're afraid to say here? that being smart is better than not being smart? have we fallen so far from logic and good sense? being strong and fit is better than having low muscle tone. being smart is better than struggling to learn. being fit and smart provide more options than their opposites and unless you're freakishly smart, both have undeniable, indisputable survival benefits. maybe the problem is not calling things what they are but treating those judgments as if they have an equal truth value and importance as a holistic value judgement of a person. the two are not equal. gifted children are not better people, they are better at learning. they are. no lie.

it makes absolute sense to judge a child's potential in an area of skill based on accomplishments. that's how we know we're not over or under taxing students for one. it makes no sense to like someone better than another or to say they have greater rights because they could walk early.

of course one evaluation or one test has very little to say about a persons functional intelligence. people have bad days. some geniuses are dyslexic or have social anxiety that makes testing hard. but there is nothing wrong in the world with having an "unremarkable" set of analytical skills (the only kind of skill that IQ tests measure semi reliably. forget about other things that are just as important in terms of producing original, interesting work. my most brilliant art proff scored a 12 on the ACT). most people do. that's what the word unremarkable means.

what if judging the value of a person were a moot point? what if, as a matter of course, we assumed that all people had an equal value and an equal right to pursue their dreams and interests? that intelligence was something that helped dictate what those interests might be and the difficulty of perusing them? what if that were it?

i find the idea that being smarter than most people could make anyone "worth more" or "better" truly disgusting and it bothers me when people on either side of the equation do it. buying onto the idea enough to argue on its terms counts as holding the opinion. functionally they're the same. i am smarter than most people. i am not better than most people. so the hell what?


----------



## Kessed (Nov 28, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thebarkingbird* 
yes, it makes all the other kids not wonderful *ATHLETES*. calling a genius a wonderful intellect is both an appropriate judgement and a statement that implies the other kids do not have wonderful intellects. i fail to see the problem unless one holds the disturbing opinion that one quality determines the worth of an entire person. most of us here at MDC are blessed to live in times and places where there is not the temptation to break with the incredibly important moral principle of refusing to judge people based on cold economic principles (do i let this guy starve because he can't do anything special for ME in favor of feeding the village doctor?). it's never ok to do that but some situations really tempt us (ok, i'm a lost addict).

what is it we're afraid to say here? that being smart is better than not being smart? have we fallen so far from logic and good sense? being strong and fit is better than having low muscle tone. being smart is better than struggling to learn. being fit and smart provide more options than their opposites and unless you're freakishly smart, both have undeniable, indisputable survival benefits. maybe the problem is not calling things what they are but treating those judgments as if they have an equal truth value and importance as a holistic value judgement of a person. the two are not equal. gifted children are not better people, they are better at learning. they are. no lie.

The problem with your approach is this...

Kids are required by law to be in some sort of athletic program for 7 hours each day.

They are required to be in some sort of education.

I have no issue with having the 'wonderful' athetes play on special sports teams on their own time and to get to revel in their 'wonderfulness'. Because they don't do it if front of all the other kids. It's not like we make ALL kids go to the soccer fields 3 times a week.

I would also have no problem with gifted kids being in special 'gifted' programs on their own time. Just like the 'wonderful' athletes - they could go to special clubs and meetings and practice their 'special' skills.

The 'wonderful' athletes have to attend the normal physical education programs. Due to new laws here - that's at least 30 minutes EVERY DAY for elementary aged kids.

If they want a 'challenge' there parents are expected to provide it through out of school programs. The government's responsibility is to provide a 'reasonable' standard of physical education to all students. So kids with physical disabilities are helped to try to meet that standard. And the super duper athletes are expected to play along no matter how frustrating it is.

I say this as both a gifted student and a gifted athlete. I learned how to use my skills to help my classmates. In phys ed - I was paired with weaker kids and I learned how to pass a soccer ball really nicely to make it easier for them to trap it. And in math class I was encouraged to help my classmates who were struggling with the concepts.

Sure - the school could have pulled out the couple of really good athletes (there were a couple of us who played on elite sports teams) and let us whip balls at each other to see how hard we could - or make difficult passes or whatever. But, and I agree with them, that would have made the quality level for everyone less. Instead we learned valuable teaching skills. And we got to push out sports skill to the limits on our own time in whatever sport we liked. (I did skiing and soccer - my good friend was a dancer and gymnast).


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kessed* 

I say this as both a gifted student and a gifted athlete. I learned how to use my skills to help my classmates. In phys ed - I was paired with weaker kids and I learned how to pass a soccer ball really nicely to make it easier for them to trap it. And in math class I was encouraged to help my classmates who were struggling with the concepts.

Sure - the school could have pulled out the couple of really good athletes (there were a couple of us who played on elite sports teams) and let us whip balls at each other to see how hard we could - or make difficult passes or whatever. But, and I agree with them, that would have made the quality level for everyone less. Instead we learned valuable teaching skills. And we got to push out sports skill to the limits on our own time in whatever sport we liked. (I did skiing and soccer - my good friend was a dancer and gymnast).

Since we're still in the anecdotal level here.

I was a very asynchronous learner (I prefer that term to gifted). I was reading at age 2, and despite being placed in french immersion to slow me down (which helped), by grade 3 I was finished the elementary and junior high curriculum.

Sometimes people came up with the "brilliant" idea to have me teach the other kids. The impact of this on my social standing in the class was that by grade 5, they had to have a meeting about not bullying me.

The teachers COMPLETELY set me up for this. They alternated between 1. Making me a "junior teacher," 2. Sending me to the library to work on my own, and 3. Putting those freaking charts on the wall with the stars for units completed (mine were done at the end of September). No one really knew what to do with me. In order to simply "occupy" me, because they couldn't - some of them literally could not, did not have the knowledge to - teachers torpedoed my daily school life.

However, when I got into a school that was for gifted kids (grade 7), suddenly I was normal (for the school), and had lots of friends. That school saved my life fairly literally.

I don't think you get how soul-crushing it is to be sent every day to somewhere you are not learning anything for 7 hours a day. I'm not sure you understand asynchronicity to the degree that I experienced it.

I don't understand why you are so quick to dismiss the experience of many formerly gifted children who speak about how school that is not at their level is a detriment to their education.

BTW, I am not a particularly "gifted" adult. I have a creative and fun job, and lots of friends, and I know how to work hard and I have a pretty good life. It was NOT ME that was the problem, it was THE SCHOOL SYSTEM.

And if someone with Down's Syndrome said the same - that they had been made fun of and ignored at the back of the class - I think people would "get it." But because gifted children are *expected to be more flexible than their emotional age in dealing with boredom, social issues, and navigating school bureaucracy*, we put it on them that they were just "not trying" or that their parents were pushing them. I'm sorry but in being a part of the "gifted child" community (especially through my high school), that's just not the case.

My high school took all those kids from across the public and private systems, put them in a school together, and suddenly - we all ended up miles and miles happier, and weren't somehow "ruined for life."


----------



## Kessed (Nov 28, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GuildJenn* 

The teachers COMPLETELY set me up for this. They alternated between 1. Making me a "junior teacher," 2. Sending me to the library to work on my own, and 3. Putting those freaking charts on the wall with the stars for units completed (mine were done at the end of September). No one really knew what to do with me. In order to simply "occupy" me, because they couldn't - some of them literally could not, did not have the knowledge to - teachers torpedoed my daily school life.

However, when I got into a school that was for gifted kids (grade 7), suddenly I was normal (for the school), and had lots of friends. That school saved my life fairly literally.

I don't think you get how soul-crushing it is to be sent every day to somewhere you are not learning anything for 7 hours a day. I'm not sure you understand asynchronicity to the degree that I experienced it.

I don't understand why you are so quick to dismiss the experience of many formerly gifted children who speak about how school that is not at their level is a detriment to their education.


And you seem to keep discounting that I have no issue with kids as gifted as you were having special services. Personally I think that a gifted school is the way to go.

What I have a problem with is the marginally gifted kids. The ones that either have a slightly higher IQ - or kids who don't meet the IQ requirements, but whose parents bug the school to label them gifted, getting a bunch of special attention.

I think that most of the barely 'gifted' kids should be left in the normal classes and if their parents want 'enrichment' - their parent's should provide it.

Using the numbers from my own childhood - in one of my first posts - I drew the line at ~140. I know the numbers are different now.

But I do agree that kids who are so far above average that they cannot function (not that they are a little bit bored) in a normal classroom - should be placed in special classes.

For most of the 'gifted' kids they do pull-out programs once or twice a week. So obviously - those children are able to function in a normal classroom just fine. If they weren't - then the pullout programs wouldn't work.


----------



## nextcommercial (Nov 8, 2005)

I have noticed that MANY MANY parents think their child is "gifted". I taught school, I sent my child through 10 years of school, and only ONCE have a met a kid who was Truly "gifted" to the point of standing out among her peers.

I have a two year old daycare girl who can do back walkovers and cartwheels all over the house. That's pretty gifted.

My own daughter can write amazing stories. They are truly worth reading kind of stories. I think that's a gift. (However, she spells like a third grader)

I have a four year old daycare girl who can arrange names in alphabetical order, no matter how many name tags she has, she will arrange them in alphabetical order, then in order of the age of the kids, then in order of how much she likes the kids. She's gifted.. But, she's also autistic.

I think parents love to say "My child is gifted" Many parent will label their own child as gifted without really knowing. Then, they are disappointed when school starts and they find that their child is doing great.. but, nobody is reccomending them for the gifted program at school.

It's great to have a normal, average well rounded kid. I'd rather have a kid who gets good grades, has lots of friends, has activities that she enjoys and does her best at.

But, I say that because she's 15. She's happy. She's a good kid.

WHen she was little, I wanted her to be the smartest kid in school though!


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

Kessed & nextcommercial,

I don't think that _most_ of us would disagree with what you said in your last posts -- at least I wouldn't. There are too many kids labeled gifted b/c their parents think that it is a status symbol and/or b/c the schools need to reach the critical mass to run the pull-out programs. A school for the gifted would be great for the kids who need it. My girls (one in particular) are at or well above the 99th percentile on most tests (IQ included). I do believe that they think and learn differently and truly need different schooling as a result.

A school for the gifted flat-out doesn't exist where I live. The closest one is 45+ minutes away and private -- out of our budget. It also only runs through elementary school. We've tried everything else we can think of to get dds' needs met -- charter school, two neighborhood elementaries, subject acceleration, and a pull-out program. We are also, of course, doing enrichment things that are available out of school like a marine biology summer camp as a university for one of my girls. At this point, we are resorting to sending a child who is not yet 10 to middle school next year b/c it is all we have left to do other than homeschooling and I work.

I don't disagree with you that the label is abused and misused in some instances. I do believe that it is a valid label that labels valid needs for some children, though. My dd should not spend 7 hrs a day helping to teach other kids and/or getting straight A+s with little to no effort. The great athletes do get stuck with standard PE in school, to use the analogy from above, but PE is not an all day, every day class.


----------



## Mom2Joseph (May 31, 2006)

I've only read a few pages of posts but wanted to say this -

This could be a wonderful opportunity to teach your daughter to be gracious and happy for others. There will always be someone smarter or less intelligent, richer or poorer, more athletic or less....(you get the idea), there will always be someone in a better or lesser position in life to your daughter. This is a great opportunity to help her learn that her worth is not defined or dependent on the labels/abilities/financial status of others and to be content and fulfilled in herself.

And you can't always shield them from every hurt feeling. They *will* get their feelings hurt. The public school system thrives on a competition, as does most companies that people work for. (OT, but is the main reason we will be hs'ing our Aspie, "gifted" son)

Your nephew's abilities or lables have nothing to do with your DD and your DD will take your lead by seeing how you handle the situation.

You can also use this to teach her that while we do use labels in life, they aren't always useful or necessary and that our worth does not depend on them.


----------



## alexsam (May 10, 2005)

MomJoseph, very well said. Exactly.

As for the "how gifted is gifted"... well, that's not so easy. A single numerical IQ defitition is very limiting. There may be things that depress IQ scores (learning disabilities, sometimes a deprived background can make such an impact as to depress them, etc.). A student may be a math whiz but not an overall "gifted" child to whatever standard you've set, preventing teachers from having any flexibility in subject area placement.

And I find parents being soley responsible for "enrichment" activities for mildly and moderately gifted children a sad state of affairs. These children actually may have the most potential. As children "go up" the gifted scale, so do social issues, psychological issues, and other educational issues that bring complexity to their lives. There are some studies out there that actuallly say that the group of mildly to moderately gifted students tend to be the most successful and happy overall (because they are "good at things" but not out of the loop, confident, and well-rounded). What happens to children where teachers may see talent but can't address it? What happens especially if that child's parents are not in a position to give these "extras"? If the goal is truly "each child to the best of her ability and potential" we should support these mildly/moderately gifted students as well instead of penalize them.

Again, like some PP have said, it seems more that the issue is that schools are not meeting the needs of _all_ children. And it seems that people are still equating giftedness with somehow being "better at life". Trust me. It's just not the case.


----------



## loraxc (Aug 14, 2003)

Quote:

Do I think that the 'gifted' label is over used? Yes. Do I know that that the label tends to be linked to socio-economic status and education level of the parent? Oh yes. But that doesn't mean that there aren't gifted kids. It just means that pushy parents get their kids more resources. Since when is that news?

I don't think by pretending that all people are the same, we solve the problem. It's like the arguments for diversity. Pretending people are all the same doesn't help diversity a bit.
Yes to all of this (I always seem to agree with you, LynnS!)

I grew up in a community that was wealthy and very focused on achievement and success. Yes, there were kids in the GT program who were more high achievers than "gifted." Yes, there were a LOT of kids in the GT program, some (not many) because of pushy parents, and the whole system was a bit rotten.

I experienced this personally, but what I don't understand is how the heck this then translates to a belief that gifted kids should not receive accommodation and need to suck it up and sit still and go dead between the ears. Or, for that matter, to the belief that giftedness is the rarest of beasts-- some mythical white tiger we see once in a lifetime, and therefore basically irrelevant. The kids who were sort of iffy for the program at my school represented maybe 20% of the kids at most.







:The other 80% were genuinely really bright kids.

Also, I have to agree yet again that being "gifted" (it IS a crappy term) does not mean you win the Happiness Olympics or the Best Kid Ever prize.


----------



## wannabe (Jul 4, 2005)

Americans have so many hangups about the word "gifted". You see it as so much more than a label for a particular stream in education.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gabysmom617* 
I'm kinda starting to look back and see the effects of what breezing through elementary school did to my middle and high school years.

I never learned to study and to learn what was taught in class. I'd sit there drawing and spacing out because I picked it up so fast, and didn't need all the extra examples, extra practice and so forth and on that the rest of the class needed in elementary school. By the time I got to middle school, I had totally not learned the study skills and learning skills I needed to get by at all. By then, the work got harder, and I needed to actually put my mind down to it to get it, and I never learned to do that...I think I still suffer from the effects of not being able to apply my brain cells to something that I need to learn that I'm not that interested in.

I totally agree, this was what happened to me, too. I have no attention span whatsoever, and the first time I ever did homework was in year 11. By the time I got to a level where there was differentiation (13 years old), it was too late, I wasn't interested.

School doesn't just teach you _things_, it also should teach you valuable skills like how to rise to a challenge.


----------



## Collinsky (Jul 7, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sharr610* 
May be slightly off tangent here, but I've always had some issues with the term gifted. My reasons are that I was labeled gifted in school and we got to do really cool stuff like huge independent projects on things that interested us and tons of creative based learning. Overall, I've always felt it was a curriculum that ALL kids would have benefitted from(granted I have no educational background, so perhaps there is something I'm missing) and thought it was really silly it was being saved for certain kids who scored well on some tests.

I was also labeled "gifted" and I feel similarly. I think that all children are gifted, and all benefit from being challenged and accommodated and intrigued. So I'm an unschooler, and my children can be as gifted as they want. In whatever way they want. I am not planning to have them tested at any point.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *avengingophelia* 
As someone who had (has?) this label, no, I absolutely don't buy it.

Well, I think "giftedness" exists... but I would be much more circumspect than some at tossing it around like it's a scouting badge to earn. (Not anyone here. Other people.)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BrandiRhoades* 
If he's a math genius, though, we're somehow supposed to make him just stick it out with kids who are doing work well below his level so that it doesn't make anyone feel badly.

_Harrison Bergeron_ comes to mind -- strap weights to the strong athletes so that they can't jump higher than the average ones. Or perhaps Ayn Rand.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nextcommercial* 
I have noticed that MANY MANY parents think their child is "gifted". I taught school, I sent my child through 10 years of school, and only ONCE have a met a kid who was Truly "gifted" to the point of standing out among her peers.

I just wanted to quote your entire post!







I loved it. In my gifted class, we all seemed pretty ordinary. Not unbright...but ordinary in our brightness. None of us seemed particularly asynchronous, or to be struggling socially or emotionally because of our abilities. We were just smart kids, smart in the ways that they want kids to be smart.

My brother was truly asynchronous, and truly did struggle, and the schools truly did fail him miserably. He was in both special classes for "learning disability" (another label I could write a novel about) and in the gifted program. His IQ score was ... I believe 140, but the range when you broke it down into segments was from <100 to >180. So I do think that the schools should have some way of dealing with a student with those kinds of special needs. He was neither rebellious, nor stubborn, nor difficult... but he struggled in almost every conceivable way. At the time homeschooling was not as visible an option as it is today, but fortunately my mother happened to come across some information and immediately pulled my brother from school.

Gifted is a useful label in that sense, I think. I think that parents who want it to mean "special" and to imply that their child is a "winner" (again, no one here!) are quite unaware of the vast number of very gifted children who are surprisingly unsuccessful as adults. (Possibly due to the school system's bungling of things...)

The label becomes _much_ less relevant in a homeschooling family, IMO, because the individualized education is built-in.


----------



## loraxc (Aug 14, 2003)

Quote:

So I'm an unschooler, and my children can be as gifted as they want. In whatever way they want.
But many of us are not unschoolers or homeschoolers, and need our kids to be able to navigate the school system. Opting out of the system is great, but it doesn't help those who are in it.

Quote:

In my gifted class, we all seemed pretty ordinary. Not unbright...but ordinary in our brightness. None of us seemed particularly asynchronous, or to be struggling socially or emotionally because of our abilities.
Maybe it seemed ordinary BECAUSE you were in a peer group with children of similar abilities. I was kept with the same group of high-ability peers from 2nd-6th grades; this was done intentionally by the schools. It worked very well. I also had gifted pull-out classes, but they were kind of goofy; what helped was having friends who "got" me. My husband is truly smarter than I am but had no such luck, and school was very different for him. You don't have to be doing calculus at 8 to have trouble making friends and being happy in school. Even "ordinary bright" can present real issues.

My own DD is noticably asynchronous and has already had problems in *preschool* as a result; not just according to me, but according to her teachers. But she is not profoundly gifted.


----------



## Boot (Jan 22, 2008)

Out of interest, what is the IQ definition of gifted? Is it still about 130? It sounds to me like the children given as examples on this thread must be way above that number. I know IQ isn't the whole story but it's probably what is used to define 'giftedness' by many schools.


----------



## milehighmonkeys (Apr 13, 2006)

Read the book Mind Set. We choose not to label DD as gifted. She's been reading independently since 2.5 and been reading chapter books since 3.5. We plan to meet DD's educational needs regardless of giftedness. Also, reading Mind Set really validated our decision to not label her.


----------



## joensally (Jun 19, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *milehighmonkeys* 
Read the book Mind Set. We choose not to label DD as gifted. She's been reading independently since 2.5 and been reading chapter books since 3.5. We plan to meet DD's educational needs regardless of giftedness. Also, reading Mind Set really validated our decision to not label her.

Is your child in outside-of-the-home schooling?

I've read Dweck, and her research certainly informs my approach.

Labelling came about in our case because of the schools' inability to meet my children's needs without a label (and we're still not there, by a long shot). My son in particular required labelling related to both his "special" needs and his intellectual needs.

You know, there's a difference between a mom at the playground going "my Bobby is so-o-o gifted..." (label), and a parent trying to successfully navigate their child through a school system (where label = accomodations).


----------



## joensally (Jun 19, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Collinsky* 
My brother was truly asynchronous, and truly did struggle, and the schools truly did fail him miserably. He was in both special classes for "learning disability" (another label I could write a novel about) and in the gifted program. His IQ score was ... I believe 140, but the range when you broke it down into segments was from <100 to >180. So I do think that the schools should have some way of dealing with a student with those kinds of special needs. He was neither rebellious, nor stubborn, nor difficult... but he struggled in almost every conceivable way. At the time homeschooling was not as visible an option as it is today, but fortunately my mother happened to come across some information and immediately pulled my brother from school.

Gifted is a useful label in that sense, I think. I think that parents who want it to mean "special" and to imply that their child is a "winner" (again, no one here!) are quite unaware of the vast number of very gifted children who are surprisingly unsuccessful as adults. (Possibly due to the school system's bungling of things...)

The label becomes _much_ less relevant in a homeschooling family, IMO, because the individualized education is built-in.

My son sounds like your brother. I am only too acutely aware of the fact that gifted does not equal success. There was a great article in one of the news weeklies a while back about how so many of the most successful individuals in the work world were C+ students.

During pre-uni group schooling, where we expect kids to be grouped based solely on age, labelling can become necessary. Is it potentially damaging to kids - you bet. Is it potentially damaging to leave kids in inappropriate settings - you bet. I think it can be handled a whole lot better than has been described by some here.


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *milehighmonkeys* 
Read the book Mind Set. We choose not to label DD as gifted. She's been reading independently since 2.5 and been reading chapter books since 3.5. We plan to meet DD's educational needs regardless of giftedness. Also, reading Mind Set really validated our decision to not label her.

We're in a similar position, and it's relatively easy to accomplish not having the label in her consciousness (though she's certainly conscious of being different than her peers) because we're homeschooling. I can't imagine being able to avoid the label were DD in a typical schooling situation.


----------



## joensally (Jun 19, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kessed* 
What I have a problem with is the marginally gifted kids. The ones that either have a slightly higher IQ - or kids who don't meet the IQ requirements, but whose parents bug the school to label them gifted, getting a bunch of special attention.

I think that most of the barely 'gifted' kids should be left in the normal classes and if their parents want 'enrichment' - their parent's should provide it.

Using the numbers from my own childhood - in one of my first posts - I drew the line at ~140. I know the numbers are different now.

But I do agree that kids who are so far above average that they cannot function (not that they are a little bit bored) in a normal classroom - should be placed in special classes.

For most of the 'gifted' kids they do pull-out programs once or twice a week. So obviously - those children are able to function in a normal classroom just fine. If they weren't - then the pullout programs wouldn't work.

I'll share my experience within a district of just under 20,000 kids. Once per year, starting in grade 3, there will be an opportunity for 1 child per grade per school to do a pull out. It will be about 5 full days spread over the course of a month.

My DD attended this year. Next year, another child may be chosen, in order to share the opportunity. So she'll get _nothing_.

There is no gifted school or classes. DD attends the closest thing available - fine arts specialty. She wonders why she goes to school as she doesn't believe she's learned anything (which is technically incorrect, but it's her perception).

My son, meantime, will be homeschooled next year as he literally cannot be successful in a typical classroom at this point, and is so asynchronous that a skip at this age is not the right strategy either.

I would love it if the district would lower the standard of gifted intake a little and use the increased numbers to build programming. It wouldn't necessarily be the ideal, but it would be a whole lot better for my DD who spends most of her academic time reading a book or doodling on the back of a worksheet.

I'm with you in feeling nauseated when people go on and on at the playground, or mommies group, or wherever, about how special and gifted their kid is. This attitude actually is destructive to all - to their own kid who's being given all kinds of messages about their worth and expectations; to the other parents and kids there; and to the gifted kids who are now made invisible because of some obnoxious braggart.


----------



## joensally (Jun 19, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kessed* 
I already answered that. I think that extremely gifted children should be given special programing. They should have access to special classes and curriculum.

That isn't what I'm questioning.

What I question is the push to identify children who are marginally gifted by testing them over and over and pestering their teachers until they are recommended for the gifted program. One mom we met at the playground last weekend was happy that after 3 years of having her child tested - he finally qualified as gifted and it would mean that his teacher had to spend more time with him.

So, you're not questioning the label per se. You just have a problem with some parents in your neighbourhood.

May I gently suggest that this might be about the social values in your local community, or might stand as a significant warning sign that your local schools are dramatically underserving its students?

Individual parents typically only have the energy, wherewithall, and/or confidence to advocate for their child, using the means available. Educational reform is far outside of the perceived purview of most parents. It's the lack of overall success in creating an innovative and responsive education system that has lead to this rush to label.


----------



## VisionaryMom (Feb 20, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Boot* 
Out of interest, what is the IQ definition of gifted? Is it still about 130? It sounds to me like the children given as examples on this thread must be way above that number. I know IQ isn't the whole story but it's probably what is used to define 'giftedness' by many schools.

Actually it's not what most schools use. Most schools use some combination of achievement test scores, parental request, and teacher recommendation.


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BrandiRhoades* 
Actually it's not what most schools use. Most schools use some combination of achievement test scores, parental request, and teacher recommendation.

Yes, schools do label kids based upon a lot of things other than IQ scores.

However, in the point of view of a psychologist, or Mensa, etc. 130ish (98th percentile) is generally about the point at which someone is considered gifted. What I found interesting, is that two people with the same full-scale IQ could have varying degrees uneveness and thus one might have a harder time fitting in and appear more gifted. For instance, the Weschler scales calculate a full scale IQ off of four subtests. One person might be at the 99.9th percentile (profoundly gifted) on two of those subtests and 40th percentile on the other two (low average). His full-scale IQ would be about at the 98th percentile (moderately gifted). That person is going to have a much, much harder time appearing normal and fitting it in a standard classroom than the child with all four subtests around the 80th percentile which may also calculate out to an IQ around the 98th.

For that reason, I don't necessarily agree that all moderately gifted kids fit in well in a standard classroom and don't need accommodations and all highly gifted kids do. It really depends on how high the "highs" are within the various subtests.

FWIW, I have one highly gifted kid and one exceptionally gifted kid based off of IQ scores. Neither one of them read until age 4 and the one who had a higher full scale IQ actually fits in better in a standard classroom. (Moderately gifted is usually around the 98th percentile, highly 99th, exceptionally is above the 99th, but below the 99.9th, and profoundly is 99.9th.)


----------



## Collinsky (Jul 7, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loraxc* 
But many of us are not unschoolers or homeschoolers, and need our kids to be able to navigate the school system. Opting out of the system is great, but it doesn't help those who are in it.

I do agree with that. I think that every single child deserves to be able to freely develop their gifts, and that schools should support and nurture them in that.

Quote:

Maybe it seemed ordinary BECAUSE you were in a peer group with children of similar abilities. I was kept with the same group of high-ability peers from 2nd-6th grades; this was done intentionally by the schools. It worked very well. I also had gifted pull-out classes, but they were kind of goofy; what helped was having friends who "got" me. My husband is truly smarter than I am but had no such luck, and school was very different for him. You don't have to be doing calculus at 8 to have trouble making friends and being happy in school. Even "ordinary bright" can present real issues.
I agree. I might have felt like a fish out of water in one of the "lower achieving" classes. It always did bother me, perhaps because I was one of the only "low income" kids in the higher class, and so I saw clearly that it was the "free lunch" children who were in the mid and low tracks. And the kids with name brand clothes and professional parents who were in my track. The lowest track was all but written off. I find that offensive.

I guess I wish that individualized instruction was available for every single child, at every level, in every area. I understand that because I am not involved with public schools in any way, and have not been since the first couple months of ninth grade, that I am speaking more in hypotheticals than others here. Where schools could be more fully integrated WRT age, socio-economic class, and ability. Where each child is as supported and a stimulated as they need.

So, as I said, I think the label is probably relevant in a public school setting.

With the label... I suppose I feel the same way about it that I do about the "dyslexic" label. Yes, it's a valid label. It is often necessary, and conveys a lot of information in one word. I wish that people would see it as a "learning difference" - not euphemistically, but in the sense that the idea of learning styles expands to enthusiastically embrace and accommodate all ways of approaching the world and processing information. Dyslexic and Gifted and Average alike.


----------



## eilonwy (Apr 3, 2003)

This thread is insanely long, so while I could go down the line and respond, I think I'll just leave it at this:

Yes, I "buy into" the gifted label; I think that failing to acknowlege that a child is gifted is just as silly as failing to acknowledge that they have curly hair or extremely pale skin, or that they're very tall or hispanic or... or... or...

It's another characteristic. It's a word that people use which ought to provide a shared understanding on some level. In daily conversation, it probably won't come up too much even if your child is profoundly gifted, but it might and it's just plain disingenuous to pretend otherwise. When people do choose to pretend otherwise (i.e. "Oh, he's not really that smart, he's just a little bright") it has the same effect on a child as does denying any other characteristic (i.e. "She's not really *black* black, she's mixed")-- it leads them to wonder what's wrong with being the way that they are, that adults feel the need to deny and/or qualify their recognition.

The things that are wrong with "the gifted label" have nothing to do with the word "gifted" or it's connotations, and everything to do with the way that schools and some (a remarkably small group, according to the research) parents have responded (or failed to respond) to it. The only people you're harming by refusing to acknowledge giftedness, even moderate giftedness, are the kids who aren't having their educational needs met.

One more thing: I'm absolutely *horrified* by the notion that children ought to sit through mind-numbingly dull school "work" in order to learn to obey and follow directions. That mindset is incredibly disturbing to me, as it's entirely detrimental to children. I mean I find it really scary; If someone told me that I should send my child to a traditional school for that reason (even if he wasn't highly gifted) I'd run screaming in the other direction.


----------



## KBecks (Jan 3, 2007)

I would ask your MIL to treat the grandchildren with equal attention because you don't want your DD to be made to feel she is less special than DN, and you feel that by going on and on about giftedness might make your DD feel bad about herself.

Second, it's not about DD being as smart as DN. I would let her know they are both great kids and everyone has unique things they are good at. I'd also be positive about all the things she can do and proud of her without ever comparing. I would also ask MIL not to make comparisons between the kids because it's unnecessary and potentially hurtful.

Then I wouldn't worry about it.


----------



## Treasuremapper (Jul 4, 2004)

I really cannot understand why this topic is so emotionally loaded. Of course some kids are more intelligent than other kids. Just as some kids are more physically attactive than other kids, some kids are more charming than other kids, some kids are funnier, some kids more affectionate. We're all just people, and our children reflect that. I have an acquaintance with a son with downs, and he is just as valuable as her gifted son. They are both human beings, both loving, both deserving of decent educations that meet their individual needs.

Intelligence is just one thing about our children. We have to be their advocates, so if we have children who may benefit from a label in certain environments, then it may be important to seek that label. Labels are used for giftedness just like labels are used to describe other things with language. It helps to have some sort of shorthand so that we may discuss ideas and make decisions or pursue educational choices.

I hope you find the peace you seek, Southernmama.


----------



## maliceinwonderland (Apr 17, 2005)

Personally, I don't get it either. Pretty much everyone in my family has been given the "gifted" label at one point or another through evaluations at school or elsewhere, but I always considered gifted kids to be the ones writing symphonies at three. My dd is "gifted" but can't open our front door without almost ripping the doorknob off. "Twist, THEN pull!!"


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maliceinwonderland* 
I always considered gifted kids to be the ones writing symphonies at three.

These kids don't actually exist. Even Mozart wasn't composing until age 5, and these were "little pieces," not symphonies. FWIW, few people, even profoundly gifted individuals, make meaningful contributions in a creative sense until after years of work in a field. Giftedness, for lack of a better term, is largely a learning style (that's the current buzz phrase, right?). Gifted brains are wired differently and mature (in a biological sense, not an emotional sense) more slowly than their counterparts.


----------



## Minxie (Apr 15, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NoHiddenFees* 
Giftedness, for lack of a better term, is largely a learning style (that's the current buzz phrase, right?). Gifted brains are wired differently and *mature (in a biological sense, not an emotional sense) more slowly than their counterparts*.


Would you mind elaborating, particularly WRT the bolded piece, or pointing to me some sites or books? TIA.


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

The original article was in the science journal _Nature_. Here's an AP article describing it, and the first few lines:


> Very smart children, despite their reputation for being ahead of their peers mentally, actually lag behind other kids in development of the "thinking" part of the brain, a new study says.
> 
> The brain's outer mantle, or cortex, gets thicker and then thins during childhood and the teen years. The study found that in kids with superior intelligence, the cortex reaches its thickest stage a few years later than in other children.


----------



## Minxie (Apr 15, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NoHiddenFees* 
The original article was in the science journal _Nature_. Here's an AP article describing it, and the first few lines:


> Very smart children, despite their reputation for being ahead of their peers mentally, actually lag behind other kids in development of the "thinking" part of the brain, a new study says.
> 
> The brain's outer mantle, or cortex, gets thicker and then thins during childhood and the teen years. The study found that in kids with superior intelligence, the cortex reaches its thickest stage a few years later than in other children.



Thank you!


----------



## EXOLAX (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Collinsky* 
_Harrison Bergeron_ comes to mind -- strap weights to the strong athletes so that they can't jump higher than the average ones. Or perhaps Ayn Rand.

Wait... did someone really just reference Harrison Bergeron? Do I also sense a nod to collectivism? Anthem was the first work of Ayn Rands' that I ever read.

I feel as if I've outed myself in some strange way.


----------



## Collinsky (Jul 7, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *xaloxe* 
Wait... did someone really just reference Harrison Bergeron? Do I also sense a nod to collectivism? Anthem was the first work of Ayn Rands' that I ever read.

I feel as if I've outed myself in some strange way.









Yes, we did. We can't tell if we're in trouble or not though. Perhaps we had a thought that wasn't agreed on?? We hope we didn't offend.









And NoHiddenFees, just checked out that link - thanks so much! Very interesting.


----------

