Gifted Children

I came across this article yesturday, It basically states that only a tiny fraction of children can be accurately called "gifted" It goes on further to offer advice on how to maximize the potential your child does have. Suprisingly effective preschool education can be done rather cheaply. A lot of the expensive, trendy gimmicks are not effective in the long run, I thought it was very well written.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/famil...ids/index.html

TJ

arent all children gifted?.........a gift from God

If you put it that way I cannot argue with you there.

I agree, all children are gifted in one way or another.

My school district would argue that point. Kids are being tracked as early as 1st-2nd grade in my district, this is totally BS in my opinion. What kind of valid and reliable measures are the schools doing on 6-7 yr old that are good predictors of academic achievement.

I have a feeling my district would maintain that being gifted and being a high academic achiever are two separate things. Lots of kids who are identified as "gifted" are not high achievers. I'm not sure I believe that sequestering all the gifted kids together is the best learning environment. I like having multiple levels in one class--more like the real world.

My youngest son was labeled "gifted" back in the third grade per his high IQ which was above genius level and I personally believe having him take the test required was well worth the label as it enabled him to be placed in class rooms with other gifted children that needed a higher level of education in school as most of these kids were any where from 2-3 grades above their present learning abilities as defined by the school and their age.

My son is now 18 years old - gradated high school with high honors - and attending college with several different Merit Scholarships.

We are very PROUD of HIM.

You raise an excellent point. I can give you a great example of mislabeling. Economist Thomas Sowell as a child was a "late talker" During the 30's when he was a child, he was labeled as slow and borderline autistic. Now days he would have been considered learning disabled. Mr. Sowell managed to graduate from Harvard...

Magna Cum Laude, also he has authored dozens of books on economics, chaired the Hoover Institute at Stanford university, writes a regular syndicated column.

Also an even better known example of late bloomer,

Albert Einstein, who as a child was labeled a dunce.

Congradulations! Your son won the genetic lottery. The real shame is that gifted children are the only ones who get a quality education. Best of luck on his continued endeavers.

You have a good point there and there are a lot of arguments that go both ways. Our education system really needs a complete overhall from the ground up to maximize the potential talents of every child.

Years ago my aunt taught both high iq children ((classes))
Then children with on paper lower iqs.Each concidered gifted....
I think in my eyes ever person is gifted. Everyone is given a talent or iq which ever way you want to put it that makes that person stand out in his or her own way.
Yes I find it sad that some districts only pay attention to the children whos iqs will score them high points. As every school is graded I think by the state on where the kids leval are.Meaning if you are a district with alot of kids who have reading and writting issues your school is at the bottom.
As far as early preschool. My son had tutors from age 3 or 4. # times a week till he started school. My daughter no preschool. She on paper has a higher IQ. But when taking tests regents my son scored higher. he did have a scribe and reader thou.
I guess my point is every child in my eyes should be looked at as gifted. As they all have so much to teach us.
Heres a list of people of course with readiing issues threw history
Famous Adults with Learning Disabilities
16-year-old boy writing
"We set out early with Intent to Run round the sd. Land but being taken in a Rain &it Increasing very fast obliged us to return. It clearning about one o'Clock & our time being too Precious to Loose we a second time ventured out & Worked hard till Night & then returned to pEnningtons we got our Suppoers & was Lighted in to a Room & I not being so good a Woodsman as the rest of my Company striped my slef very orderly & went in to the Bed as they call'd it when to my Surprize I found it to be northing but a Little Straw-matted together without Sheets or any thing else but only on Thread Bear blanket with double its Weight of Vermin such as Lice Feas & c. Had we not have been very Tired, Ia, sure we should not have slep'd much that night. I made a Promise not to Sleep so from that time forward chusing rather to sleep in the open Air before a fire as will Appear hereafter
It is interesting to note that his is an example from the writing of the first president of the United States, George Washington who professionals believe was dyslexic

I hope i did not go off course here Tim , if so i am sorry
something very close to my heart
Muffy

I do agree with that, Tim.

Both my daughters were identified as gifted by the school district but we kept them at their regular school (which was quite good--yes, I know we are very lucky) instead of busing them to the distant school that housed that district program for gifted children. Both of them did fine in the regular program. Teachers were able to keep them fairly challenged, and if they weren't challenged to their maximum in their early years, I don't really think it had an effect on their development or achievement in later grades. My oldest daughter just graduated from high school. She had a 3.9 GPA, took many AP courses, was plenty challenged, got into every college she applied to, and got an academic scholarship to one of them. Her lack of participation in a gifted program in her elementary school years was not harmful in the least. Although we did consider the gifted program for her, I was really put off by it when I attended a meeting of the parents of children in the gifted program. There were so many obnoxious and demanding and prima donna parents there! It was just terrible. I could hardly stand being in the same room with them, lol. (Not all were like that, of course, but enough!)

I work in the education field myself and sometimes get calls from parents looking for enrichment opportunities for their children that are just not age appropriate. High school parents want students to have college level experiences in the summer and seem put out when we cannot offer this. I tell them, your child is going to get into a really good college and can have these opportunities at that time. He/she can do these things freshman or sophmore year and still be way ahead of most college kids. He/she will have plenty of time to try out opportunities to help him choose his career direction and major. And it's not a disaster if they start as one major their freshman year, discover they don't like that field, and then change majors. This is done all the time. I just want to tell them to chill and don't be in such a rush and don't pressure your kid so much. Some of these parents are just too much. There are so many challenging and interesting things their kids can do without "jumping the gun." What's most telling, I believe, is that the high school kids themselves are rarely making the calls to me. It is their parents who are calling, so it makes me think this is all Mom or Dad's idea, and the child has no interest. Perhaps the kid would rather go to rockclimbing camp in the summer or get a summer job driving an ice cream truck. More power to them! If the student himself takes the trouble to seek out opportunities and call me on the phone or email me for advice, I am much more likely to believe this student is truly motivated and I will spend time talking and advising him/her. For example, I am working with a high school student now who is very interested in doing an epidemiological study for her senior project. I am thrilled about this and eager to help. This is all her own idea. I have never heard from Mom or Dad (perhaps because Mom is a teacher, and knows better).

OK, I need to get off my soapbox now. :Clever:

Chaotic - I believe that this is a fund raising tactic on the school's part. When my twins were in Kindergarden they were both placed in the Title 1/Chapter 1 reading and math programs. Schools get more federal dollars based upon special needs children.

I would like to think that by spending this extra time with them one on one gives them an idea of the child's strengths and weaknesses. But I doubt that this is true. My elder twin was forever being punished in his math class for day dreaming. As it turns out, he was doing the math in his head. They both qualified for "high math" in the 7th grade.

The older twin, still does all these complicated math equations in his head.

Hmm - I can't really say that only gifted children get a better quality of education.. as my oldest son who was a "C" student at best in high school is going to college as well, and his funding has mostly been covered with government grants to ensure his continued education and future success.

By 2010 - I will have had both my children graduated from college... and that to me is success in education.

I challenge this statement.

Many would argue that in the US the children currently being left behind are the ones who are simply "average" or just "above average". IMO, US public schools are investing most of their resources into children who are just below "proficient". These are the ones who with some additional tutoring can be quickly converted from "below standard" to "proficient" in order to meet the national guidelines. Resources are further dedicated to target special "sub-categories" in order to meet these criteria when breakout groups are mandated. IMO those children who are somewhere above "proficient" are not being invested in. Those at either extreme (identified as "gifted" or "learning disabled") at least have some protection under the law.

I like most people have two children that fall somewhere in the 2nd and 3 quartiles of the normal (bell shaped) distribution. In other words they have the misfortune of being of average intelligence, white, middle class, public school children.

My youngest struggles with reading but the school refuses to address my concerns because he because doesn't struggling enough. The school offers an early morning enrichment reading program but he is not permitted to participate in it because he doesn't "qualify" for the program. In other words I have to wait until he regresses to a "below standard" level before they will allow him to benefit from a school-based program.

My oldest at one point was just a data point to be manipulated by administrators who are not motivated to providing quality education but instead are interested in make their schools look good on paper and meet state and national regulations. When my son was in 3rd grade he scored in the 90-95% percentile for his grade level on the some standardize reading/comprehension assessments. It turns out his actual scores were 3-4 points below the "gifted" cut-off, so according to the school he was not "gifted". Keep in mind that if he was determined to be gifted the school would then be required to provide him with an IEP. I was OK with this assessment because... honestly he is smart, but not some savant or anything.

He was placed in what the school called a "regular" classroom. When the work started to come home I noticed is was all drill and practice work (low-end of Bloom's taxonomy). So I asked if he was placed in some kind of a remedial class. The official reply from the school was... "Oh no, we do not have remedial classes for this grade level, he is in a normal level class." So I asked to see the actual data for his class (no names just the test data), which they actually gave me. His class data showed that 60% (14 of the 23 students) of the children in his class had tested below a 50% compentency on the end of the year math and reading assessments. My son and 2 other students in the class scored a 100% on these measures. Basically this class met the definition of a normal classroom because the class mean was consistent with the other 4 other sections; however in reality this was a remedial class with 3 high achievers thrown in to make the overall class statistics look comparable on paper.

I know some reading my post will think I am just one of those complaining parents who is always looking for a fight. I don't believe I am. I have looked at the research on both sides of this issue. It is definitely a divisive issue to say the least. Deep down inside I believe that the risk to harm benefits favor heterogeneous classrooms at least at the elementary level. Higher levels I can see where ability grouping becomes more advantagous. Whatever level it is done at... you can be sure that it is not done solely on what is in the best interest of the children involved.

In a perfect world, having diverse heterogeneous classrooms with well trained teachers at the helm (not bean counting administrators, politicians, or loud mouth parents ) who have the flexibility to group, ungroup, and regroup children based on specific skill needs and abilities would be the best learning environment. IMO Unfortunately, reality is less than perfect.

Sorry I tend to get on a soap box with this issue.

Not at all, you augmented my points with great examples, I am glad you are passionate about this, more people need to be! Great Post!

I actually agree with most of what you say, but I think that sometimes the attention given to learning disabled kids amounts to more of quantity (teaching to the test) than quality (teaching them life skills suited to their paticular abilities and talents)

Just remember that our current public education system was originally designed to churn out factory workers, and unfortunately a lot of that model remains. I think parents should consider a lot of options for their children. The standard public school may not work for their kid and they may need to take time to explore other possibilities.

I agree that the public school system cannot be all things to all people. Already it has evolved from simply educating the populous to being a one- stop-shop for all social services (health clinic, dental office, food pantry, counseling center, dietary/fitness center, after school daycare center...... oh yeah and an educational institution).

However as a tax player after paying $5000/per in school taxes for a modest 4 bedroom home, it is difficult to find affordable alternatives for my children.

As another example of the same sort of thing, the gifted program in my kids' district is housed in the lowest performing school of the district. So when the school takes standardized tests, the gifted program kids help raise the average test scores of the school, thus making it appear that the school is doing fine, instead of in real trouble. How is this helpful?

Here is yet another example of creative tactics that have nothing to do with educating our kids. My district just open a new elementary school. They did some very interesting shifting of school populations from the surrounding four elementary schools, divided neighborhoods, and on the surface it seemed like just some real stupidity regarding efficiency in bus routes. So as I sat with my colleagues and discussed these irregularities and entertained the possibility that these might not just be random inefficiencies within a large school district struggling with a rapidly changing population. One interesting observation surfaced...could the school district be attempting to redistribute children among the 5 schools in a way that would keep various sub-groups just below the threshold that would require the district to break out and report the detailed data on these groups. Now this was just a hypothesis so I cannot say if is valid or not. But I can tell you, the general consensus of the group was... money and creative reporting were trumping common sense and efficiency. None of the plausible hypotheses related to quality of education or better services for the surrounding community.