Aubrey - LOF/MCT and Classical Education

[Aubrey]

Aubrey, I appreciate your thoughts, but don't think you get where I'm coming from. I wasn't ever embarrassed that things came easily to me, and I understood that those who chided me for it wanted that ability themselves. I was quite proud of and happy with the situation. :)

 

Now that I am an adult I realize that I never received any training in disciplines as a child. Because school was easy, I rarely studied. When I did study I could memorize the material quickly enough with minimal effort. I didn't do any sports. I had a mom who preferred to clean up the house for us rather than have to train us to do things or have things done in a less perfect way than she wanted. I was in band for a minimal amount of time, and I never practiced. Now that things are hard, that there are things that I want to do but don't want to do, I just wish I had more training in those formative years. Of course, this is a character issue, not a educational philosophy issue. I however am trying to set up a path for my daughter that helps her to actually have the tools she needs for future use.

 

She is a bright child and things come easily. As is characteristic of GT children she is sensitive and does think more deeply on topics. Her questions are so multi-layered and deep...and I happily follow the rabbit trails they take us on. I do want to inspire her with materials like MCT, LoF, logic puzzles, problem solving, etc. that will tap into that giftedness side. I want to get those synapses firing and have her feel that great and deep love for digging deep into the intelligence she's been blessed with. But, my journey--and, like you Aubrey, I am just beginning this journey and trying to find my footing--is to find a way to inspire her greatly while fighting against the notion that anything that requires work and commitment (and that may not be fun and inspiring and stimulating on the surface) isn't worth working at and committing to. I don't know how to do this, but my fear with going in a direction that avoids any of those things is to deny her that vital learning. Of course, I could be very wrong in this fear. I'm simply verbalizing my inner journey as we all are.

 

I never said anything about avoiding things that are difficult or that seem monotonous. I never said it should all be fun & games. I said that to people who don't understand it, it could *appear* that way. I don't feel compelled to do things in a monotonous way, even if that has been the tradition (eg, grammar).

 

When I chose MCT, I was trying to decide between that & PR. Both seemed good in different ways. MCT seemed like *me,* but PR seemed like what I *ought* to be. I guarantee you I am a disciplined person, but it looks *very* different on me. Part of what I have begun to realize is that I don't need to feel guilty or "less than" for not being the AP person, for not working *in the way that they do.*

 

So, I wasn't trying to articulate the AP kids' view of the GT...I'm simply stating a fact from my own experience as a GT student.

 

Ah, but you *did* articulate the AP kids' pov. As an AP student in a school that did offer a very good GT program, I got to see the difference more up-close than people usually do, I think. Dh, like you, was in a school that did not offer a separate program. He had the very conversations w/ people that you have just described.

 

I wish that it were not a competition between hard work & a "label." AP students often (wrongly) think that GT kids think they're better, smarter, etc. They're just *different.*

 

A GT ed for an AP kid would be like randomly deciding to teach history to an English-speaking student in Portuguese. Or Braille. Neither Portuguese nor Braille is better than English, unless you happen to *speak* Portuguese or be blind. It's just different.

 

That difference, though, for a GT kid can make the difference for the whole direction of his life. If only offered honors classes, AP classes, etc, he will typically go through life SO frustrated that he can't operate like the AP kids that he struggles to find any success at all. They sometimes hide this frustration w/ sarcasm, but don't doubt that it's there. Suicide rates among GT kids are much, much higher than with other groups.

 

It's not slacking, it's not making life "fun" when it's not: it's translating the auditory world into visual or the speaking world into Braille, & in so doing, teaching these kids the necessary life skills to do their own translating in the future. Personally, I think that GT has MUCH more in common w/ autism than w/ AP.

[Dawn E]

I never said anything about avoiding things that are difficult or that seem monotonous. I never said it should all be fun & games. I said that to people who don't understand it, it could *appear* that way. I don't feel compelled to do things in a monotonous way, even if that has been the tradition (eg, grammar).

 

When I chose MCT, I was trying to decide between that & PR. Both seemed good in different ways. MCT seemed like *me,* but PR seemed like what I *ought* to be. I guarantee you I am a disciplined person, but it looks *very* different on me. Part of what I have begun to realize is that I don't need to feel guilty or "less than" for not being the AP person, for not working *in the way that they do.*

 

 

I apologize for making you think I directed that section you made bold to you. I'm in no way implying that...just expressing my fears. I was just thinking out loud...not putting on boxing gloves.

 

Re: the AP version...perhaps my personal opinion as a GT student does echo the AP kids views. I personally know I didn't apply myself as much as I could/should have. I do have guilt over that, but it doesn't come from the outside.

[8filltheheart]

Personally, I think that GT has MUCH more in common w/ autism than w/ AP.

 

I really think that is personal POV that is going to be very dependent on the individuals involved b/c I can ABSOLUTELY assure you that it does NOT have to be the case.

 

Living under the same roof with both extremes......there is no comparison and that is definitely not a sentence I would utter in an effort to make a connection. (of course, our experience with Aspergers has been horribly traumatic; not all Aspies behave like our ds just as I assume not all gifted children are happy thriving kids like our other ds.) However, I do not accept that giftedness ever needs to disable a child the way autism spectrum disorders do.

 

I have a lot of thoughts on this, but right now they are pretty much like freight trains off the rails, so I need to collect my thoughts.

[Aludlam]

Aubrey, I appreciate your thoughts, but don't think you get where I'm coming from. I wasn't ever embarrassed that things came easily to me, and I understood that those who chided me for it wanted that ability themselves. I was quite proud of and happy with the situation. :)

 

Now that I am an adult I realize that I never received any training in disciplines as a child. Because school was easy, I rarely studied. When I did study I could memorize the material quickly enough with minimal effort. I didn't do any sports. I had a mom who preferred to clean up the house for us rather than have to train us to do things or have things done in a less perfect way than she wanted. I was in band for a minimal amount of time, and I never practiced. Now that things are hard, that there are things that I want to do but don't want to do, I just wish I had more training in those formative years. Of course, this is a character issue, not a educational philosophy issue. I however am trying to set up a path for my daughter that helps her to actually have the tools she needs for future use.

 

She is a bright child and things come easily. As is characteristic of GT children she is sensitive and does think more deeply on topics. Her questions are so multi-layered and deep...and I happily follow the rabbit trails they take us on. I do want to inspire her with materials like MCT, LoF, logic puzzles, problem solving, etc. that will tap into that giftedness side. I want to get those synapses firing and have her feel that great and deep love for digging deep into the intelligence she's been blessed with. But, my journey--and, like you Aubrey, I am just beginning this journey and trying to find my footing--is to find a way to inspire her greatly while fighting against the notion that anything that requires work and commitment (and that may not be fun and inspiring and stimulating on the surface) isn't worth working at and committing to. I don't know how to do this, but my fear with going in a direction that avoids any of those things is to deny her that vital learning. Of course, I could be very wrong in this fear. I'm simply verbalizing my inner journey as we all are.

 

So, I wasn't trying to articulate the AP kids' view of the GT...I'm simply stating a fact from my own experience as a GT student.

 

Wow, I don't even remember writing this! Wait a minute that's not my name at the top of the post .... ;) (Sounds exactly like my upbringing :001_smile:)

[Aubrey]

I really think that is personal POV that is going to be very dependent on the individuals involved b/c I can ABSOLUTELY assure you that it does NOT have to be the case.

 

Living under the same roof with both extremes......there is no comparison and that is definitely not a sentence I would utter in an effort to make a connection. (of course, our experience with Aspergers has been horribly traumatic; not all Aspies behave like our ds just as I assume not all gifted children are happy thriving kids like our other ds.) However, I do not accept that giftedness ever needs to disable a child the way autism spectrum disorders do.

 

I have a lot of thoughts on this, but right now they are pretty much like freight trains off the rails, so I need to collect my thoughts.

 

No, I definitely don't think it *has* to be the case, & I realize that there's a spectrum w/in giftedness as there is w/ anything.

 

I do, though, think that GT kids need to be taught life skills in a way that echoes what Aspergers kids might experience. While both AP & GT kids are clearly intelligent, one group has the skills to use that intelligence to succeed in life. The other will ultimately be handicapped by their intelligence unless taught how to...live w/ it, for lack of a better phrase.

 

This obviously isn't true w/ every GT kid, just as nothing is ever true of *everybody.* Broadly speaking, though, I can only think of one GT person I've met of whom this description does not apply, & honestly...she could have been put into the wrong group.

 

My point is *only* that I don't think there should be the kind of competition between AP & GT that there is. I think that competition comes primarily from a misunderstanding of ea other.

[angela in ohio]

I'm going to jump in prior to the AP/GT conversation...

 

I still think what is being described is a lifestyle or personality difference. For example, my parents raised me, public schooled my whole life, just like some of the descriptions of "interest led" or "unschooly" learning that I see on this and other homeschool boards. I really, really think it has little to do with the choice of educational model and more to do with the family's (okay, mostly mom's) personality.

 

I think that what is being described in many cases is less about homeschooling style and more determined by whether a family turns off the TV most of the time, whether the parents value and model a value of books, and whether the family spends enough quality time together (at home, even) to build a culture of education with their dc. Obviously, I know it's not that simple, and there are exceptions, but as I look at all the homeschoolers I know IRL, from unschoolers to Abeka-only to (very, very few) classical, I don't see that the things being described in this thread are about style at all, as they cross method lines.

 

I would hate for anyone to think they have to dump classical education in order to have dc who hunger for learning, because it's not the case. :001_smile:

[angela in ohio]

One thing they had in common was their approach to education--the creativity (but not just for its own sake), problem-based learning, a synthesis of auditory, visual, & kinesthetic approaches to things, an almost religious approach to Bloom's taxonomy.

 

This is classical education to me, at least as far as the concepts of grammar, logic, and rhetoric go. :001_smile:

 

I use Bloom's taxonomy to plan much of our work, precisely because I feel that it is exactly in line with classical education. The brain works the way the brain works, and no matter what someone chooses to call the processes of learning, they are the same. Bloom's matches up perfectly with grammar, logic, and rhetoric, imho. Using materials designed to help teachers utililze Bloom's has helped me to make sure I progress through the levels of learning (grammar to logic to rhetoric) in each area without frustration on the one hand or lack of challenge on the other.

 

The ultimate goal of classical education is true creativity (rhetoric.) By mastering material and making it your own, you are truly free to be creative.

 

Problem-based learning is just a combination of logic and rhetoric.

[Dawn E]

I would hate for anyone to think they have to dump classical education in order to have dc who hunger for learning, because it's not the case. :001_smile:

 

I've always been rather eclectic in my formation of classical...adding in a bit of CM here, some Montessori here...but all in all I am committed to classical leading the way. The thing Aubrey's initial post spoke to that I've come to realize through using MCT is that my particular teaching style needs to grow and stretch to wrap this new facet up in the whole. I have learned so much here from you who have been at this for longer, and I love to hear you talk about how you teach. I want to learn to breathe the excitement that MCT brings so effortlessly over all of our work. However, there will be some things--Latin and Greek--that will be difficult at times and will just require committing to. To me, these languages are fascinating puzzles in themselves. Thankfully, dd agrees, for now. :) But, I guess my point is, I definitely don't think I have to dump classical to have dc who hunger for learning. However, MCT has made me aware that I need to grow in my own personal teaching and presentation of materials in general.

[8filltheheart]

No, I definitely don't think it *has* to be the case, & I realize that there's a spectrum w/in giftedness as there is w/ anything.

 

I do, though, think that GT kids need to be taught life skills in a way that echoes what Aspergers kids might experience. While both AP & GT kids are clearly intelligent, one group has the skills to use that intelligence to succeed in life. The other will ultimately be handicapped by their intelligence unless taught how to...live w/ it, for lack of a better phrase.

 

This obviously isn't true w/ every GT kid, just as nothing is ever true of *everybody.* Broadly speaking, though, I can only think of one GT person I've met of whom this description does not apply, & honestly...she could have been put into the wrong group.

 

My point is *only* that I don't think there should be the kind of competition between AP & GT that there is. I think that competition comes primarily from a misunderstanding of ea other.

 

Aubrey,

 

I have been contemplating how to respond to this most of the afternoon. It even prompted me to respond to a mother on the special needs board that had asked a question about anger management for disabled kids a couple of days ago that I hesitated responding to b/c my answer was not an easy one to share.

 

Honestly, my thoughts have been not been overly pleasant but I have concluded that I think it is b/c you have an incredibly fairytale/utopian view of what struggles kids with autism actually suffer. Anyone who actually lives with autism would never draw the conclusions that this post demonstrates.

 

Gifted kids might need some queuing in on finer aspects of interaction, but their ability to "know" it is not impaired in such a way that they can't learn it. They might end up flunking out of life b/c they are bored or so used to everything being easy that they don't know how or won't work hard to overcome obstacles that aren't so easy for them. Fine. But.....those are not disabilities. Those are personal issues.

 

That is a far cry from an adult that is completely unaware that they are pulling up their shirt and picking at a scab on their belly while in the middle of a conversation b/c they are clueless that they are even doing it. Or the real inability to EVER learn how to perceive the normal relationship of expected connections. For example, our Aspie is very intelligent, but he is like a real life Amelia Bedelia except it isn't funny. How does an adult maintain a career when he can't understand that x and y also mean z when z wasn't clearly stated. For example, if you ask our ds to mow the lawn and move a pile of sticks in that order, that is exactly what he will do and in that order. If the grass needs to be mowed where the sticks were lying, it won't get mowed b/c he won't see that he should have mowed there as well. It wasn't specified. This same kid can make the highest grade in his class on a pre-cal exam.

 

Guess what.....the absent-minded professor might be absent-minded, but he CAN learn the difference. If he chooses not to, that is a personal choice and a character flaw. To the contrary, no matter what we would wish for our ds, he will never be able to learn how to perceive what is normal.

 

As far as the AP and GT conversation, I won't even touch that one b/c I think it is a straw man discussion in regards to how to deal with education in the homeschooling environment.

 

Everyone please ignore this derailment of the original discussion. :)

[Corraleno]

This is classical education to me, at least as far as the concepts of grammar, logic, and rhetoric go. :001_smile:

 

I use Bloom's taxonomy to plan much of our work, precisely because I feel that it is exactly in line with classical education. The brain works the way the brain works, and no matter what someone chooses to call the processes of learning, they are the same. Bloom's matches up perfectly with grammar, logic, and rhetoric, imho. Using materials designed to help teachers utililze Bloom's has helped me to make sure I progress through the levels of learning (grammar to logic to rhetoric) in each area without frustration on the one hand or lack of challenge on the other.

 

The ultimate goal of classical education is true creativity (rhetoric.) By mastering material and making it your own, you are truly free to be creative.

 

Problem-based learning is just a combination of logic and rhetoric.

I strongly disagree with the statement that "the brain works the way the brain works." There is a very wide spectrum in terms of "the way brains work," and I can assure that my gifted-linear/logical brain does not work in the same way as my profoundly-gifted-aspie DH's brain, or my gifted-visual/spatial-but-not-aspie DS's brain or my very literal, practical, bright-but-not-gifted DD's brain. The idea that grammar/logic/rhetoric (or memorization/analysis/synthesis) are inherent human developmental stages, and that "no matter what someone chooses to call the processes of learning, they are the same" is simply not true. It's not a matter of semantics, it's a matter of very real neurological differences.

 

Jackie

[patchfire]

I took AP English my sr yr. I LOVED that class. But there was a different personality among the students there & the students in GT. It's that personality difference I'm talking about. Both groups are intelligent, both groups work hard (in their own way), but ime, the 2 groups do not get along all that well.

 

Okay, I keep reading along, but I still don't understand.

 

My experience throughout school was that the "GT" kids were the kids in AP classes. I also don't understand this:

 

They can't help turning a history assignment into an art project or a game.

 

TBH, I only can think of one person in my life that fell in that direction, and I've known a lot of GT people.

 

I'm struggling to put this into the right words... I think you've drawn a false dichotomy here. Or perhaps a narrow definition of GT? I'm not sure. Maybe it is a matter of semantics.

 

 

All that said, I've found myself dissatisfied with our current approach to history, and I think in large part that is because of our experience with MCT & LoF. It's a feeling of "There has to be a better way!" to learn the material & the skills. I'm still feeling my way through that, though I have been blogging about going more a 'social sciences' route to history, at least for awhile next year & the year after.

[angela in ohio]

I strongly disagree with the statement that "the brain works the way the brain works." There is a very wide spectrum in terms of "the way brains work," and I can assure that my gifted-linear/logical brain does not work in the same way as my profoundly-gifted-aspie DH's brain, or my gifted-visual/spatial-but-not-aspie DS's brain or my very literal, practical, bright-but-not-gifted DD's brain. The idea that grammar/logic/rhetoric (or memorization/analysis/synthesis) are inherent human developmental stages, and that "no matter what someone chooses to call the processes of learning, they are the same" is simply not true. It's not a matter of semantics, it's a matter of very real neurological differences.

 

Jackie

 

I was discussing the supposed difference between Bloom's taxonomy and classical education. The progression that Bloom is describing is, to me, the same process described by classical education's grammar, logic, rhetoric. Of course, there are differences among individuals.

 

I'm really in this conversation for the discussion of inspiring learning, though, and I don't want to go down the GT/AP or any other side route, so I will bow out at that. :001_smile:

Edited November 16, 2010 by angela in ohio

[Capt_Uhura]

I think the result is that GT people feel that they have to either a) defend their differences to the AP crowd or b) adopt some form of sarcasm or dry humor. It is the latter that often makes them appear to not take things seriously, I think.

 

GT people can't help questioning the most obvious things. They can't help reinventing the wheel. They can't help turning a history assignment into an art project or a game. *Some* of that reinforces ideas for anyone, but it can seem "projecty" & less important to others. Or, people who misunderstand can think that simply adding projects or extra reading will satisfy a GT student. (Not an adv student; the difference is not the level of intelligence but the *shape* of the peg!)

 

I'd say that the difference is the need to solve problems themselves. An AP student wants to know what the essential ideas are, wants to understand, for ex, why the Egyptian culture was important to the ancient world. I'd compare this to an outline, whether or not the student *enjoys* outlining, they'd see the importance of the structure.

 

GT students, by contrast, would want to create their own culture, try to solve the problems presented by the level of development known to that culture & by *participating* in an ancient culture, come to an understanding of their relationship to & importance in the ancient world.

 

Maybe they're just two different ways up the same mountain. Unfortunately, since both groups are bright & motivated in their own ways, they often end up in competition to prove which one is smarter, & that's how they end up not getting along. One group equates their version of hard work w/ intelligence because it results in a certain kind of success. The other group equates their version of creativity w/ intelligence because they're working from an entirely different schema from the rest of the world, for better or worse. It's like comparing apples to oranges.

 

 

I think I see where you're going with this. I agree w/ your last paragraph partially. I read a book, I forget the title which made a lot of sense to me. It is written by one of the lead researchers in the GT field. In this book, she describes several different subsets of giftedness. My son fits perfectly into one subset while my friend's DD fits perfectly into another. I think her DD fits into the kind of giftedness you are referring. It is also what I've always thought of as giftedness. People like myself and my son who love learning, devour information, make connections far beyond his years, I always thought of as just smart. When I got his test results back, I thought "really? Really? He's that intelligent? I just don't see it." He's not that quirky, stereotypical gifted kid whose highly creative and no on gets. He's the kid you can sit and watch an adult show on RNA splicing and he totally gets it. He has not trouble reading situations or people. In this book, she discusses how these very different subsets of gifted kids require very different gifted programs. It's why you might send your kid to a school for HG+ kids and they still not fit in - it's not their subset of giftedness which is being addressed at that school.

 

So if you have that type of gifted kid, you could still be classical but you teach to her strength. The road you take might look different from another classical HSer but the end result would be the same.

[Aubrey]

As far as the AP and GT conversation, I won't even touch that one b/c I think it is a straw man discussion in regards to how to deal with education in the homeschooling environment.

 

Everyone please ignore this derailment of the original discussion. :)

 

Karen,

 

I was afraid by your earlier post that I had hurt you, & I see now that I have. I am very, very sorry for that.

 

You know how it hurts, though, when someone suggest that a child on the spectrum is simply not disciplined enough? Your comments about gifted people having character issues hits me in a similar way. I don't think you understand, but I know you feel the same way about me right now.

 

I'm very sorry to have made such a disturbing comment to you. I hope you can look past it, because I dearly value your friendship.

[Aubrey]

Okay, I keep reading along, but I still don't understand.

 

My experience throughout school was that the "GT" kids were the kids in AP classes.

 

Nope. I mean, a GT kid could choose to take an AP class, but AP is the result of honors. GT is just GT, although some schools have come to the conclusion that AP should be what GT kids are aiming for & have therefore dropped their GT programs for highschool.

 

TBH, I only can think of one person in my life that fell in that direction, and I've known a lot of GT people.

 

I'm struggling to put this into the right words... I think you've drawn a false dichotomy here. Or perhaps a narrow definition of GT? I'm not sure. Maybe it is a matter of semantics.

 

I'm sorry I brought this up at this point. Almost all the GT people I've known have fallen into this description. Some of them are loud about it. Others are very quiet, because they've learned that they have to hide. Some of the kids sleeping at the back of the classroom are doing exactly this.

[Aubrey]

I was discussing the supposed difference between Bloom's taxonomy and classical education. The progression that Bloom is describing is, to me, the same process described by classical education's grammar, logic, rhetoric. Of course, there are differences among individuals.

 

I'm really in this conversation for the discussion of inspiring learning, though, and I don't want to go down the GT/AP or any other side route, so I will bow out at that. :001_smile:

 

Ok, I didn't mean that there's a huge difference between Bloom's taxonomy & classical ed. I see that they do many of the same things, but the people who generally talk about using Bloom's taxonomy use it in a different way than classical ed people would. Their similarities, imo, are an afterthought that is only really visible when one looks at the core of ea thing.

 

For ex, in a GT class, kids might be given a nursery rhyme to work w/, beginning at the lowest level of the taxonomy, & working up. One of the higher levels of the pyramid might involve a kid describing an invention via which Little Boy Blue could keep the sheep out of the hay & the cows out of the corn.

 

Classical ed, when using an approach similar to Bloom's, will do so in an utterly different way. Kids might build a Roman road in a casserole dish.

 

I'm NOT saying one is better than another, simply that they're different approaches & different kids need different educational languages. However--this can be as much about a teacher's needs, imo, as it is about the student.

[Aubrey]

I think I see where you're going with this. I agree w/ your last paragraph partially. I read a book, I forget the title which made a lot of sense to me. It is written by one of the lead researchers in the GT field. In this book, she describes several different subsets of giftedness. My son fits perfectly into one subset while my friend's DD fits perfectly into another. I think her DD fits into the kind of giftedness you are referring. It is also what I've always thought of as giftedness.

 

People like myself and my son who love learning, devour information, make connections far beyond his years, I always thought of as just smart. When I got his test results back, I thought "really? Really? He's that intelligent? I just don't see it." He's not that quirky, stereotypical gifted kid whose highly creative and no on gets. He's the kid you can sit and watch an adult show on RNA splicing and he totally gets it. He has not trouble reading situations or people. In this book, she discusses how these very different subsets of gifted kids require very different gifted programs. It's why you might send your kid to a school for HG+ kids and they still not fit in - it's not their subset of giftedness which is being addressed at that school.

 

So if you have that type of gifted kid, you could still be classical but you teach to her strength. The road you take might look different from another classical HSer but the end result would be the same.

 

Not to be nit-picky, but when a person uses the phrase "just smart" w/ regard to a group of people, it serves to support the idea that GT kids are smarter than others. I don't think that's a good stereotype to reinforce, as it leads to misunderstanding & division.

 

I know what you mean about the "quirky stereotypical gifted kid that no one gets." But I'm not talking about stereotypes; I'm talking about people I know. Again, I'm afraid this underscores people's perception that some kids "pretend" to be weird because it looks "genius" somehow. Maybe there are people who do that, I don't know. I'm not talking about them, though.

[Penelope]

I'm going to jump in prior to the AP/GT conversation...

 

I still think what is being described is a lifestyle or personality difference. For example, my parents raised me, public schooled my whole life, just like some of the descriptions of "interest led" or "unschooly" learning that I see on this and other homeschool boards. I really, really think it has little to do with the choice of educational model and more to do with the family's (okay, mostly mom's) personality.

 

I think that what is being described in many cases is less about homeschooling style and more determined by whether a family turns off the TV most of the time, whether the parents value and model a value of books, and whether the family spends enough quality time together (at home, even) to build a culture of education with their dc. Obviously, I know it's not that simple, and there are exceptions, but as I look at all the homeschoolers I know IRL, from unschoolers to Abeka-only to (very, very few) classical, I don't see that the things being described in this thread are about style at all, as they cross method lines.

 

I would hate for anyone to think they have to dump classical education in order to have dc who hunger for learning, because it's not the case. :001_smile:

 

:iagree:

[8filltheheart]

Not to be nit-picky, but when a person uses the phrase "just smart" w/ regard to a group of people, it serves to support the idea that GT kids are smarter than others. I don't think that's a good stereotype to reinforce, as it leads to misunderstanding & division.

 

I know what you mean about the "quirky stereotypical gifted kid that no one gets." But I'm not talking about stereotypes; I'm talking about people I know. Again, I'm afraid this underscores people's perception that some kids "pretend" to be weird because it looks "genius" somehow. Maybe there are people who do that, I don't know. I'm not talking about them, though.

 

Aubrey,

 

You have completely lost me in this thread. And I do mean completely. :confused:

 

I know quite a few gifted children, and a couple of them are PG. I don't think they have any of the issues you have described in this thread. For the most part, they seem like every other kid I know......unique in who they are, special interests, etc, but not kids that you see as having issues that stand out or even being different.

 

One young lady is a literal genius. She is a delightful young lady that I admire greatly. She does have her quirks in that sometimes she doesn't realize that the rest of us aren't as smart as she is. :lol: I was admiring a painting she did one time and I asked her about it. She told me that she had been inspired by a quote from the Aeneid. She asked me if I would like to read the quote and she flipped through some papers, read one, and handed it to me. I read it and smiled and told her that it would really help if it were in English b/c she had handed me the quote in Latin and had read it before handing to me and didn't pick up on the fact that it was in Latin. ;)

 

She and her incredibly gifted mother have been nothing but a blessing in our lives b/c they talk the language of my ds which is in some completely other realm than the world I live in.

 

Yet.....nothing you have written about in this thread resonates with me. Even the PG 8 yo I had over to play this week exhibits none of what you are describing. She actually had more fun playing with my 5 yo and another 8 yo than the older kids that were here.

 

You know how it hurts, though, when someone suggest that a child on the spectrum is simply not disciplined enough? Your comments about gifted people having character issues hits me in a similar way,

 

This quote is another I just don't get. Aspie kids behave the way they do b/c they cannot control the behaviors. It does not matter what the environment is that they are raised in or how they are educated. They might be able to suppress some of them some of the time, but it isn't a discipline issue.

 

My comment about gifted kids is that they are capable of learning and making connections. I do NOT believe that gifted kids have character issues in general. I think that homeschooled gifted kids don't have many of the obstacles of boredom or frustration that their ps peers do. I think that changes the discussion even more. The major theme I am getting from your posts is that somehow they do.

 

I think I need to just back out of this thread b/c it is counter-productive.

Edited November 16, 2010 by 8FillTheHeart

[Capt_Uhura]

Not to be nit-picky, but when a person uses the phrase "just smart" w/ regard to a group of people, it serves to support the idea that GT kids are smarter than others. I don't think that's a good stereotype to reinforce, as it leads to misunderstanding & division.

 

I know what you mean about the "quirky stereotypical gifted kid that no one gets." But I'm not talking about stereotypes; I'm talking about people I know. Again, I'm afraid this underscores people's perception that some kids "pretend" to be weird because it looks "genius" somehow. Maybe there are people who do that, I don't know. I'm not talking about them, though.

 

That was my point. When I was young and when my DS was young, I thought of "just smart." I didn't equate his thinking differently as "gifted," b/c most have the stereotype in their head. I had a very narrow view of what giftedness is. Friends told me that he was different, that he was gifted and I didn't believe it. I felt that you also had a narrow view of giftedness. The book, which I guess shall rename nameless b/c I can't remember the name, really opened my eyes to the subtypes. If your point is that some gifted kids think differently from AP/Honors kids, I would agree. And I agree that others have the opposite stereotype.....they see the studious, diligent, performing kid as gifted but the creative, out of the box thinker as not. They both can be gifted or they may not depending on how you define it - cutoff on an IQ test or some other measure. I constantly think of my friend's DD. She constantly amazes me how she got from A to B ... often I don't even understand it! I always think "now that's a truly gifted person." THen I have to remind myself not be so narrow minded in this arena.

 

The district where I live ... they ONLY support those creative, out the box thinkers. They help them to design, create, write patents. There is no support for those kids who hit logic stage in elementary, who like to read advanced material, discuss it, make connections, design experiments to test hypotheses ... those kids should just sit and wait and do grade level material. By the time these kids hit high school and possibility of AP classes, they are ready for college-level classes. So if your point is that gifted kids need something different than AP classes, I would agree. Gifted kids are on a huge spectrum .... kids at the very top have VERY, VERY different needs. I know an 11yr old boy who is going to online high school. You talk to this kid and you are absolutely floored by the way his mind think. You think you're talking to a college student when analyzing literature and forget he's a 11yr old boy. I know many gifted kids and they are all quite different and all along the spectrum of giftedness.

 

How did we go from classical education to giftedness? :lol:

[justamouse]

I don't think it's just *what* you read, but how you read it, too. We staged paper-wad fights between the Montagues & the Capulets in the highschool English class I taught, w/ the two names "tagged" on the walls behind.

 

We "fought" the Balkan wars on the sofa w/ stuffed animals & the ottoman (hehehe) turned to be a peninsula. I *know* classical moms do this. It's (often) the same plate as the other Thanksgiving meal, just for different reasons.

 

I took AP English my sr yr. I LOVED that class. But there was a different personality among the students there & the students in GT. It's that personality difference I'm talking about. Both groups are intelligent, both groups work hard (in their own way), but ime, the 2 groups do not get along all that well.

 

Are you talking about the people who storm the mountain and the people who zig zag up?

 

Honestly, I think it all has more to do with the teacher, not the curric.

 

Did you all read the newsweek article on Creativity someone posted last week?

 

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/10/the-creativity-crisis.html it lead to a great discuss. Did any of you hit the link for the test? http://www.newsweek.com/photo/2010/07/10/creativity-test.html

 

Is that what you are trying to say, Aubrey?

Edited November 16, 2010 by justamouse

[lovinmomma]

Are you talking about the people who storm the mountain and the people who zig zag up?

 

Honestly, I think it all has more to do with the teacher, not the curric.

 

Did you all read the newsweek article on Creativity someone posted last week?

 

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/10/the-creativity-crisis.html it lead to a great discuss. Did any of you hit the link for the test? http://www.newsweek.com/photo/2010/07/10/creativity-test.html

 

Is that what you are trying to say, Aubrey?

 

Do you remember the title of the thread? I'd like to read it.

[melissel]

Do you remember the title of the thread? I'd like to read it.

 

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=222380

[lovinmomma]

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=222380

Thank you ma'am!

[melissel]

Thank you ma'am!

 

Surely! :D

[Storm Bay]

 

 

This is the only movie I've ever seen TWICE *at the theater.* It's that good. You should make it a TOP priority. :D

 

 

 

I don't think it's just *what* you read, but how you read it, too. We staged paper-wad fights between the Montagues & the Capulets in the highschool English class I taught, w/ the two names "tagged" on the walls behind.

 

We "fought" the Balkan wars on the sofa w/ stuffed animals & the ottoman (hehehe) turned to be a peninsula. I *know* classical moms do this. It's (often) the same plate as the other Thanksgiving meal, just for different reasons.

 

I took AP English my sr yr. I LOVED that class. But there was a different personality among the students there & the students in GT. It's that personality difference I'm talking about. Both groups are intelligent, both groups work hard (in their own way), but ime, the 2 groups do not get along all that well.

 

I agree--how you read it is far more important.

 

Okay, I've put a hold on Ever After:). You know, my dd used to play history. I still remember the day she showed me how she dressed up as a union soldier, using red socks for suspenders, stuffing a hat & tying it on with other socks, etc. It wasn't a game unless she figured out props and/or a costume. Ds still has dents in his wall from her bows and arrows (made from plastic coat hangers & hair elastics with pencils for arrows.

 

I need to put more fun back into school somehow and yet still keep my dc from going crazy with it all. They're also rebelling from R&S English, which my eldest did until the end of the gr 8 one; it's too olds school & ds doesn't get the same benefits from diagramming sentences that my dds did. I'm going to have to bite the bullet & get the MCT next year. I need to get myself into high gear again. :auto:

[ElizabethB]

Interesting thread!

 

I do have to agree that MCT and LoF have made me more excited about teaching and learning. I love teaching either of these, where I dread doing others (spelling, anyone?).

 

Spelling can be fun! I have even had inner-city children who were in my phonics class against their will who eventually learned to enjoy spelling!!

 

M.K. Henry's Words has some great exercises that can make it fun, my students love building their own Greek and Latin words.

 

Also, you can teach in a fun way from the Spell It lists. Make sure to include some leading questions...for example, on the Japanese list, ask the student to figure out what are common endings for the Japanese words. A younger student might need a further leading question like "Do you see any consonants ending these words? What consonant or consonants?" (Click on a language and then click on print to get a page with words and rules.)

 

You can make spelling fun, yet rigorous, along the lines of MCT--fun, but challenging.

 

Mindless spelling rules, I incorporate into handwriting practice. (For example, ai within a word, ay at the end; oi within word, oy at end, practice a few words of each type while working on forming nice a's and o's.)

 

My students also get to write messy, loopy cursive with the words spelled luve, cume, nune, sume, etc. Then, I explain this fact from my sight word page and they turn their u's into o's.

 

Hanna, Paul R, Richard E. Hodges, and Jean S. Hanna, "Spelling: Structure and Strategies," 1971. p.44: " During the Middle English period, a certain type of angular writing was in vogue which resulted in some ambiguity for the reader when u was followed by an m, n, or u (sometimes written v or w.) Consequently, scribes replaced the u with o, and that spelling is retained in some words used today, e.g. come, monk, love, tongue, some, honey, son.

 

Whenever they forget a word with this problem, I remind them of messy cursive and they smile and occasionally demonstrate.

[FO4UR]

 

You can make spelling fun, yet rigorous, along the lines of MCT--fun, but challenging.

 

 

 

Yes, but you know spelling backwards and forwards. I don't think the typical HS mom has studied how and why we have so many interesting words in our language, and so the fun lesson with sloppy cursive can't take place b/c it would never cross our minds. (I'm stealing the lesson idea for my dc btw.:001_smile:)

 

I'm coming to the conclusion that the appeal of MCT/LOF is that the teacher's (author) personality shines through the lessons which are written directly to the student (correct me if I'm wrong). *I* can take anything and teach it through my personality (in all it's glory LOL:tongue_smilie:). We all have areas of expertise that cause our eyes to shine and *that* makes learning the subject contagious and fun. The problem comes when *I* don't know a subject well enough to be confident in making the lesson mine. When I have to say, "I don't know why. Just memorize it." I've lost my student. When I know something well enough to delve in deeply and extend the lesson throughout daily chatter (thinking of Aubrey's dc's subject/predicate game) then HSing just doesn't get any better.

 

I've had similar thoughts about music ed, even before I had babies of my own to educate. We should actually teach *music* in music lessons AND have a fun time doing it. Many people think it's an either/or situation b/c they don't understand music well enough to make the subject their own...

 

Self-education for the sake of our children...or delightful books written by knowledgeable and creative authors that educate mom along with the kids.