Compassion and Understanding for ALL types of minds

[Dmmetler]

Ai, ai, ai. I have so many thoughts going through my head right now that it's hard to pick one.

 

I don't think the general public is particularly well educated about learning disabilities, or Aspergers, or Autism, etc., but they are considerably more educated on those things than they are about giftedness, being twice exceptional, Over-excitabilities, etc. Wouldn't it be wonderful if they were at least that knowledgeable about the latter?

 

There is a boy who attends church with us who is a couple of years older than my son. This boy has Aspergers. He gets away with all kinds of stuff, including bullying, because he has Aspergers. My son leaves class with his hands over his ears because the noise level got too high, and he "has a behavior problem." We have a similar situation at co-op.

 

I don't have a need to say, "I'm sorry. The noise hurts his ears because he's gifted," but I would like to be able to say, "I'm sorry. The noise hurts his ears because he has a sensory over-excitibility," and have it generate the same sympathy and semi-understanding the other boy's mother gets when she says, "He doesn't know his boundaries. He has Aspergers."

 

Or to have his teachers say, "Let's watch the noise level," to the class instead of, "If your son can't behave, you'll have to remove him from this class," to me, which happened at co-op.

 

I really don't care if anyone besides me knows if he's smart or not. I just want to be able to name what's happening, and have that be an acceptable reason to work with him, accommodate him, help him.

 

 

You might want to try "he's hypersensory" or "He has some sensory issues". You may get people who assume that he's really ASD and you're trying to avoid the term (I KNOW there are a couple of people at church who think that I'm in serious denial)-but my using such terms gets my DD what she needs while avoiding having to use the word "Gifted" and give a whole lecture that "gifted" does not mean "good at school" when what I really want is them to understand that, for DD, too much noise or too much physical contact is literally painful, and when she starts covering her ears, curling into a ball, and turning away from the group, she's NOT being rude, she's trying to minimize pain.

[Soror]

nm irrelevant personal details

Edited February 17, 2012 by soror

[gardenmom5]

Giftedness may or may not pave the way to an easily successful adulthood.

 

My brother has always been a spacey professor type and had loads of trouble throughout school and in his professional life. His second grade teacher threatened to fail him for not doing his homework, which he found painfully juvenile. He learned to keep his thoughts to himself, but would occasionally explode with anger which nobody understood. His grades were borderline, except for subjects he really liked. As a college student he attracted the weirdest friends on the planet and was shunned by "normal people." In the military he began drinking socially and was eventually labeled an alcoholic. He was fired from his first post-military job for just not getting it. He had a rough time in the next job as well. He is a top expert in his field, but knowing the techinical part of it better than everyone is not enough.

 

He now has his own business and a few loyal and understanding (but demanding) clients. His 16yo kid is even smarter than he is, and can barely speak a full sentence (without having read it in an encyclopedia first). He's in danger of getting kicked out of his gifted high school for the same reason my brother almost failed 2nd grade. Easy? No, not always.

 

 

people forget - or don't know - Bill Gates had "handlers" to interface with "the masses" for him. (and has been doing it so long he's learned some things from them.) I recall watching an interview with a mathematician. The guy was so excited by his subject, and obviously exceeding brilliant. He couldn't communicate with the person doing the interview.

Edited February 17, 2012 by gardenmom5

[gardenmom5]

Originally Posted by gardenmom5

I read an edition of Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game that had author's notes in the back that had some very unique insights. For those unfamiliar - the book is about some extremely gifted children.

 

in the author's notes, he received many snarky and denigrating comments from teachers of "gifted" children about how little he understood these children. He ALSO included some notes from gifted teens thanking him for "getting" them when no one else did.

I was thinking about this today too! I read that book years and years ago, and it was always one of my favorites. I recently bought a newer edition for my daughter, and found the author's notes really fascinating.

.

He turned it into a quadrilogy (or a franchise . . .) #2 is Speaker for the Dead. anyway, My favorite may be #3 Xenocide. (and my absolute favorite character is Jane ;)). Then again, there's some pretty profound stuff in #4 Children of the Mind too. Actually, there's some profound stuff in the whole series. I love the four - 1ds adores the shadow books. I read the first one - didn't do much for me.

 

they're making a movie of it due out next year. Harrison Ford is slated to be Graff.

[Greta]

He turned it into a quadrilogy (or a franchise . . .) #2 is Speaker for the Dead. anyway, My favorite may be #3 Xenocide. (and my absolute favorite character is Jane ;)). Then again, there's some pretty profound stuff in #4 Children of the Mind too. Actually, there's some profound stuff in the whole series. I love the four - 1ds adores the shadow books. I read the first one - didn't do much for me.

 

they're making a movie of it due out next year. Harrison Ford is slated to be Graff.

 

Editing because I misunderstood at first. I haven't read any of the shadow series. I've read the first three in the original series, and I liked the first the best.

 

I didn't know about the movie. I hope they do a good job with it!

Edited February 17, 2012 by GretaLynne

[psychmom]

I originally posted the link on the Accelerated Learner blog, and I just want to say thanks to everyone who has posted here! I'm glad people are thinking about these issues (not just giftedness, but parenting, bragging, etc.) and I think a forum like this can help open minds and keep us all thinking and learning. :001_smile:

[catz]

To add to the confusion, different I.Q. tests give you different scores. See the chart here at Hoagies.

 

The following is probably how most would define it, as it matches up pretty well with the old Stanford-Binet they've used to test I.Q. for decades:

 

Mildly Gifted -- 115 to 129

Moderately Gifted -- 130 to 144

Highly Gifted -- 145 to 159

Exceptionally Gifted -- 160 to 179

Profoundly Gifted -- 180

 

(The article where I found that chart is at: http://giftedkids.about.com/od/gifted101/qt/IQ_scores.htm )

 

The so-called gifted programs in public schools tend to best accommodate those whose I.Q.s fall between 115-140, which is about the same range that most of the highly-publicized successful "genius" entrepreneurs tend to fall into. It's also about the range defined as "socially optimal intelligence." (That range is 125-150.)

 

This scale relates to an old test that is not widely used any more. I don't think that scale works with the latest tests that are the now favs of gifted testers. I do think the Hoagie's chart is more relevant. http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/highly_profoundly.htm

Our local GT testers (including Dr. Ruf) would not use the old SB.

 

I don't have a need to say, "I'm sorry. The noise hurts his ears because he's gifted," but I would like to be able to say, "I'm sorry. The noise hurts his ears because he has a sensory over-excitibility," and have it generate the same sympathy and semi-understanding the other boy's mother gets when she says, "He doesn't know his boundaries. He has Aspergers."

 

I like the sensory or some other terminology. I do think the term "gifted" insinuates superiority and is a loaded term to many parents. Honestly before I knew my oldest was out there on the gifted scale my first thoughts about the word "gifted" weren't good. At the time, I had this really intense toddler who chatted ALL day long, wouldn't nap, and couldn't be given enough info about anything. Now I "get" it. Ultimately, I doubt there are many parents of truly gifted kids that run around bragging. The parent who had the "gifted" kids that annoyed me when my oldest was a toddler really has happily bright children. If you're bragging, you're probably a parent of a bright child that is easy to educate.

 

SKL - I think your anecdotes are really relevant. I personally had a horrible elementary experience due to trying to keep my GTness underground. I was probably clinically depressed K-8th grade.

[Cassy]

:iagree: I've found it all very enlightening, thank you.

 

Best wishes

 

Cassy

 

ETA Whoops! I meant to quote Psychmom's last post.

[Maus]

To add to the confusion, different I.Q. tests give you different scores. See the chart here at Hoagies.

 

The following is probably how most would define it, as it matches up pretty well with the old Stanford-Binet they've used to test I.Q. for decades:

 

Mildly Gifted -- 115 to 129

Moderately Gifted -- 130 to 144

Highly Gifted -- 145 to 159

Exceptionally Gifted -- 160 to 179

Profoundly Gifted -- 180

 

(The article where I found that chart is at: http://giftedkids.about.com/od/gifted101/qt/IQ_scores.htm )

 

The so-called gifted programs in public schools tend to best accommodate those whose I.Q.s fall between 115-140, which is about the same range that most of the highly-publicized successful "genius" entrepreneurs tend to fall into. It's also about the range defined as "socially optimal intelligence." (That range is 125-150.)

 

This scale relates to an old test that is not widely used any more. I don't think that scale works with the latest tests that are the now favs of gifted testers. I do think the Hoagie's chart is more relevant. http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/highly_profoundly.htm

Our local GT testers (including Dr. Ruf) would not use the old SB.

It matches the the "old" tests in the fourth column of the Hoagie's chart. It also matches the new Extended Norms on the WISC-IV: second column on the Hoagie's chart. The previous WISC had a ceiling and didn't differentiate well for I.Q.'s over 145.

 

It also matches how I.Q. is used by the general public/media, as in this article: http://psychology.about.com/od/psychologicaltesting/f/genius-iq-score.htm

[LisaKinVA]

:grouphug: I'm sorry my post hurt you.

 

Yes, there are objective standards by which we define academic giftedness. I'm not disputing that at all. It's just that whether your child is gifted or not has become fodder for the Mommy Wars and it seems like far more children are being labeled by the parents (not necc. on this forum!!) as gifted than is statistically possible. That's why I feel cynical about this issue.

 

I do know first hand how frustrating and difficult it can be to be academically gifted, as do my husband and younger DD. My older DD has the unique (and IMO worse) struggle of dealing with younger sister passing her up academically. I think on the Suck-Scale, that would suck worse.

 

Having said all that, I'm sorry your kids are struggling :(

 

Thank you for your note. I just get kind of sensitive about this sometimes. It's not something we talk about... probably due to my need to attempt to avoid "Mommy Wars." ;), and possibly because so few people would actually BELIEVE me if we talked about what the kids were doing. And, when I hear about what kids further up the scale are doing, mine seem so much more "normal." LOL

 

My children, although their IQs are probably all clustered around the same area (at least the oldest three, we've only tested the oldest one, though), all "present" differently. Personalities, interests, drive, all color how GT "looks." Same is true for my younger brothers and myself -- and my dh and myself.

 

But, I do hear what you're saying. I read the comments all over my FB page, while I feel the need to heavily edit what I say about my children. I have a long, long list of things I would *never* put out there... either no one would believe me, they'd think I was bragging, or whatever. So... we just do our thing, and I keep my comments to safe, compartmentalized things...swimming, cooking, general school comments (math vs. type of math...reading vs. what he's reading...that kind of stuff). Of course, all bets are off when they visit.

[tex-mex]

Ultimately, I doubt there are many parents of truly gifted kids that run around bragging. The parent who had the "gifted" kids that annoyed me when my oldest was a toddler really has happily bright children. If you're bragging, you're probably a parent of a bright child that is easy to educate.

 

 

:iagree:

 

However, the reality of this fact would offend the parent who is the braggart. I mean, how dare we assume her child is not in the top % -- let's face it, hon -- you have a delightful, bright, and easy child to home educate. But let's not think they are exceptional. That is the crux of the issue?

[-M-]

The May 1960 edition of Horizon: A Magazine of the Arts featured an article by Harold G. McCurdy, author of The Personality of Shakespeare: A Venture in Psychological Method (1953) and then professor of psychology at the University of North Carolina. "The Childhood Pattern of Genius," based on a (presumably longer and more scholarly) paper first published in the Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society and later in a report of the Smithsonian Institution, is enjoying a bit of fame five decades after its publication because its concluding paragraph serves as a sort of "So there!" response to queries -- both implied and expressed -- about homeschoolers' methods and motives.

 

Not content to discuss a potentially truncated and/or inaccurate transcript of the quote, I tracked down a copy of the magazine, a hard-bound gem of a publication. McCurdy writes:

 

In summary, the present survey of biographical information on a sample of twenty men of genius suggests that the typical developmental pattern includes as important aspects: (1) a high degree of attention focused upon the child by parents and other adults, expressed in intensive educational measures and, usually, abundant love; (2) isolation from other children, especially outside the family; and (3) a rich efflorescence of fantasy as a reaction to the preceding conditions. It might be remarked that the mass education of our public school system is, in its way, a vast experiment on the effect of reducing all three factors to a minimum; accordingly, it should tend to suppress the occurrence of genius.

I know, right? You can see how homeschooling parents would gobble this morsel UP! McCurdy's "twenty men of genius" included such notables as John Stuart Mill, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Blaise Pascal, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Voltaire, John Quincy Adams, and William Pit, and the writer maintains that his "brief sketches" of their lives

 

confirm the rule that children of genius are exposed to significantly great amounts of intellectual stimulation by adults and experience very restricted contacts with other children of their own age. Nor should we overlook the fact that books themselves, to which these children were so much attached, are representatives of the adult world. [...] Books extend the boundaries of the adult empire.

By golly, this is the sort of stuff earnest homeschoolers adore, isn't it? But my first thought after reading the article was, Were there no women of genius? And my second? What a dubious business this is, appropriating a fifty-year-old study about genius as a validation of homeschooling. Sure, McCurdy notes that mass education "is, in its way, a vast experiment on the effect of reducing" the important aspects of the childhood pattern of genius, but he also contends that "Genius by any definition is rare."

 

Indeed, it is.

 

Of course, my misgivings may just the coughing and harrumphing of my inner curmudgeon as she makes her way to a dusty soapbox. After all, I've been at this gig for a long time: The urge to offer a quote or a truism or sound-byte to justify how we educate children has long passed. Besides, we're not developing geniuses here.

 

We're simply teaching and parenting our children.

Edited February 17, 2012 by Mental multivitamin
Clarity

[mom2scouts]

Sorry, but this type of mis-information about gifted children makes me grit my teeth. When I got my MS Ed., I found out that gifted children drop out of school with nearly the same frequency as inner-city children. Many of them spend decades of their lives bored out of their minds, wasting time, underfulfilled, underchallenged, and entirely punished and beat down any time that they seek out more stimulation. After years of having their NEEDS denied, they drop out, no longer seeing the point of participating in a system that wastes their time and produces nothing of value for them.

 

Their NEEDS are not met. Why is this no big deal, just because they are gifted?

 

And where are your sources for stating that "they tend to make more money and are more successful?"

 

There is a world of difference between children who are bright - whose needs can be met in a normal classroom and who often go on to live successful lives - and children who are 'outliers', typically considered to be the top 2% (or higher) in both IQ and academic achievement. They have the same struggle to find a life that works as does any other child who fits into the extremes of other bell curves. And the assumption that they are "just fine because they're already so smart" only hurts them.

 

Depression, acts of self-destruction, and maladaption plague many truly gifted children. You could ask me how I know, but then I might be accused of bragging.

 

This is exactly why groups like SENG were started to support the emotional needs of gifted children. Underachievement is extremely common in very gifted children. At 16, my son had graduated from high school with an honors diploma despite horrible grades and he had tested out of his freshman year of college (CLEP). He flunked out of college because he didn't understand why the professors expected him to attend class when he could just show up and get A's on the exams.:001_huh:I remember when he was in high school and we sent him to the Summer Institute for the Gifted. He came home and cried because, for the first time in his life, he felt that he had met students and adults who understood and appreciated him. He's still friends with some of the kids he met there.

[zaichiki]

I think if you leave a conversation and your worried about offending someone it is likely you haven't. I think those that are offensive are the ones that when they leave a conversation are wondering if they impressed someone with their awesomeness. If that isn't your attitude then I wouldn't worry.

 

I wish that was the way it worked.

 

Unfortunately it doesn't always work that way.

 

We've had a number of experiences... let's just say I have offended and upset plenty of people without realizing it. I didn't even catch that there was something in our exchange that would be worthy of a reaction of *any* type.

 

Sometimes I am ultra-careful to *hide* things my kids do and say. I have found myself making up excuses or trying "look there's a squirrel!" techniques. I do less of this as I have more children (who have varying degrees of ability and inability depending on the subject/topic/skill).

 

Lately though, if someone is offended by something one of my kids have done/said, I am extremely tempted to tell them to just. get. over. themselves. Life is not a competition. You don't HAVE to keep up with the Joneses. And just b/c little Suzie over there can do something your little one cannot, it DOESN'T mean you can't be impressed and appreciate it for goodness sakes! What's wrong with "little Suzie is so cool!?" Can you not appreciate children who are not your own?! I'm sure little Suzie is not the best at *EVERY*thing. Just live and let live.

[zaichiki]

And the assumption that they are "just fine because they're already so smart" only hurts them.

:iagree:

And I'd add that assumptions like this lead to adults in positions of power (often it is teachers) thinking that they need to even up the playing field a bit. My kids have been teased and belittled by teachers. How do you think that affects them? I bet it doesn't line them up to inherit the world as their oyster.

 

Here's only one example --

Teacher asked ds a question.

Ds took a few seconds... thinking about the answer.

Teacher repeated question and gave him two choices for answers.

Ds: "The latter."

Teacher: "Ooooh. We're using BIG words now, are we?"

Ds was 8. And no, he wasn't showing off or being cheeky. That was really the way he spoke at 8.

I happened to observe this little exchange. Yes, the teacher reacted to my child like that *in front of me.* Maybe she forgot I was in the room? That was his last class with her. I never brought him back.

 

My kids have had other experiences like this... with adults. And kids.

To the pp who said something about the world being their oyster -- if a child is repeatedly treated this way by others, it humiliates them. They think something is wrong with them. It *doesn't* motivate them or give them opportunities.

[gardenmom5]

:iagree:

And I'd add that assumptions like this lead to adults in positions of power (often it is teachers) thinking that they need to even up the playing field a bit. My kids have been teased and belittled by teachers. How do you think that affects them? .

 

My son was accused of plagerism by a teacher in high school. why? because he used an advanced vocabulary on a paper. After talking to the teacher, I understood why she would think a teenager couldn't use that level of vocab. her's was deficient (hello? she's supposed to be a college GRADUATE???? qualified to teach high school english????), and some words that I consider basic she used incorrectly. She did eventually back off when she realized he used that same vocab in speaking.

 

:iagree:teachers have alot of power, and some do abuse it.

[amy g.]

I was a public school teacher before I had my oldest. In the summer, I would give teacher training on giftedness.

 

You would not believe how little they understood about giftedness, and how little they WANTED to understand.

 

Most teachers think academically able means gifted. They will argue that a child CAN'T be gifted, no matter what his testing shows, because he loses assignments, or couldn't care less about grades.

 

I would draw a bell shaped curve, and writle LD kids on one side, and gifted on the other, and academically able in the center. Then I would cut it out, and tape the two ends together to form a ring, telling them to look how close LD and gifted are. look how far they are from the majority. this is why they need separate programs as badly as special Ed kids need a resource room.

 

It was a losing battle.

 

I could tell you stories of teachers bullying gifted students as young as 5 years old that would make your hair curl.

 

Before I retired, I did get permission from my principal to hand pick the next years teacher for all of my students. I tried to give each teacher the kind of kid they enjoyed, because I could not stand to see another case of a teacher making it her personal mission to take a kid down a notch or two. And why? Oh, just because s/he was "too smart".

[Ester Maria]

He flunked out of college because he didn't understand why the professors expected him to attend class when he could just show up and get A's on the exams.:001_huh:

I would have flunked American colleges too, LOL.

 

Thankfully, I grew up in a different academic tradition which until fairly recently actually emphasized knowledge, concrete knowledge, and not attendance / participation / homework points and other, in my mind, "kindergarten stuff".

 

ETA: On a second thought, I am actually not sure, though, whether I would have flunked them. I had the ability to estimate what is in my interest and to satisfy some petty and silly requirements if they were in my interest as a student - and I actively teach my children the same, *not* allowing them any excuse for not satisfying the formal requirements. Because such is the world, and I find it a much more reasonable attitude to turn the system into your favor ("If you cannot fight them, join them." - or at least be okay with them by doing what you are required) than taking on the victimhood of "poor me, this is so stupid, why are they making me do that" (some smart kids I know have such attitudes and unfortunately, I do not see them very successful if they cannot satisfy the formal requirements too).

Edited February 18, 2012 by Ester Maria

[MistyMountain]

I apologize for how I worded my post. I was more talking about potential not that all gifted kids will be successful. Income is correlated with IQ score and certain higher level careers you need to be at least moderately gifted to do. To get a college degree or even a grad degree you need a certain IQ level. To get a PHD you need to be gifted. Obviously there are exceptions to that and it varies by field. I guess that bottoms out when you are talking about the higher ranges.

 

In the area I grew up it is not common to have gifted kids treated like how people here describe. I doubt they were really challenged but they were allowed to take classes ahead of other kids and people looked up to them for that not put them down or told them to not answer questions. In my area now there is a school for kids who are gifted and to get in you just have to prove that. There is a charter that starts the gifted program in kindergarten and allows kids to take the level of subject they are in. With homeschooling you can do that too but obviously there are issues that come up too. I do know about being 2E but I wasn't thinking about that and the issues that come with that.

 

I am a little skeptical of the statistics they are quoting on drop outs but they do drop out more than I thought which is a huge issue that needs to be addressed.

 

I am just shy of being gifted or on the low ranges depending on the chart and I had difficulty making friends but it wasn't because of that it was because I am shy and awkward. None of my teachers even noticed because I was so shy and lazy about doing work since I didn't see the point. Kids did seem immature to me and I had a hard time knowing what to talk about but the kids who were really gifted had friends. That just anecdote of course. I don't doubt many kids have difficulty making friends or they get treated wrong but it isn't inevitable in moderate ranges.

 

My kids are still young but I have met a lot of moms bragging about how ahead there kids are and constantly talking about how ahead and advanced they are even when it is irrelevant. Every topic starts well she having a hard time with some normal issue that comes up with kids but she was ahead in every other area and she started talking in sentences before 1. Most parents are probably not like that and it probably much worse before kids get school age. I don't see it happening as much now that my oldest is getting school age. I actually was surprised that a mom I used to go to a play group with had a son that was profoundly gifted because she didn't bring it all the time. She was just talking about him getting into a school.

 

A lot of what is being talked about here doesn't have to be related to intelligence. Being sensitive to noise is a sensory issue. You don't have to mention intelligence to explain that a kid is really sensitive to noise stimulus.

 

I am sorry for the way I worded my post. I don't doubt accelerated kids have issues and get missed by schools. Being gifted is a gift and they do have a lot of potential. It is sad that many get missed, they are not challenged in school or they have a hard time making friends. I don't think any one should have to hide that but I also think that as other described that you need to know your audience and when to share.

 

The mommy wars and the bragging does go on with regard to intelligence. I notice on a lot of boards that when a mom is worried about her kid that a lot of people with accelerated kids chime in on what their children's milestones were if it is a general question. Even on here I feel that more kids are accelerated than in the general population and it skews things a little when talking about curriculum. There are many places where being average isn't seen as a good thing and everyone wants a child that is gifted or accelerated but I don't doubt that there are issues and isolation too and kids falling through the cracks or bullied because of their intelligence or that you can't even share little tidbits or the hardships associated with it sometimes because of other reactions.

 

Hopefully I didn't step on more toes with this. I apologize for my other post.

Edited February 18, 2012 by MistyMountain

[angela in ohio]

I apologize for how I worded my post. I was more talking about potential not that all gifted kids will be successful. Income is correlated with IQ score and certain higher level careers you need to be at least moderately gifted to do. To get a college degree or even a grad degree you need a certain IQ level. To get a PHD you need to be gifted. Obviously there are exceptions to that and it varies by field. I guess that bottoms out when you are talking about the higher ranges.

 

That's not the way it works though. Just because you need to be gifted to get a certain degree or a Ph.D., that doesn't mean that all gifted people get advanced degrees or Ph.D.'s. :confused: You usually need to be tall to play basketball, but not all tall people play basketball (another pet peeve of mine, being very tall and unathletic. :D) That's not a logical conclusion.

 

I also think the "mother of a gifted child who hides it so well I didn't even know" is akin to the model minority stereotype. It's that idea that if you hide who you are well enough, and act like the majority well enough, you can fit in. I know mothers of children with special needs who feel the same way. That's the real Mommy Wars, imho; that we can't just be nice and supportive to other women. Life is hard enough on moms without tearing each other down.

 

And honestly, the odds are great that the statistics are more accurate than your anecdotal knowledge of one community. And you don't know if they were put down in person. I doubt people I grew up with knew that I - and a handful of other students - suffered in school. That's just not on your radar as a child. We had a gifted pull-out program; I'm sure it looked like we were being taken care of, but it amounted to an hour a week of extra work at the same level. One year a teacher let us do independent study and work through two year's worth of our reading program, and the next year the next level teacher freaked out and made us do the exact same book over for the whole year, and to punish us for already knowing the material she made us write out each definition for the terms in the book ten times in class. That's just one example. No one knew that except those of us in the advanced class.

[Caroline]

Angela, you said his very well. Thank you!

 

That's not the way it works though. Just because you need to be gifted to get a certain degree or a Ph.D., that doesn't mean that all gifted people get advanced degrees or Ph.D.'s. :confused: You usually need to be tall to play basketball, but not all tall people play basketball (another pet peeve of mine, being very tall and unathletic. :D) That's not a logical conclusion.

 

I also think the "mother of a gifted child who hides it so well I didn't even know" is akin to the model minority stereotype. It's that idea that if you hide who you are well enough, and act like the majority well enough, you can fit in. I know mothers of children with special needs who feel the same way. That's the real Mommy Wars, imho; that we can't just be nice and supportive to other women. Life is hard enough on moms without tearing each other down.

 

And honestly, the odds are great that the statistics are more accurate than your anecdotal knowledge of one community. And you don't know if they were put down in person. I doubt people I grew up with knew that I - and a handful of other students - suffered in school. That's just not on your radar as a child. We had a gifted pull-out program; I'm sure it looked like we were being taken care of, but it amounted to an hour a week of extra work at the same level. One year a teacher let us do independent study and work through two year's worth of our reading program, and the next year the next level teacher freaked out and made us do the exact same book over for the whole year, and to punish us for already knowing the material she made us write out each definition for the terms in the book ten times in class. That's just one example. No one knew that except those of us in the advanced class.

[LisaKinVA]

One year a teacher let us do independent study and work through two year's worth of our reading program, and the next year the next level teacher freaked out and made us do the exact same book over for the whole year, and to punish us for already knowing the material she made us write out each definition for the terms in the book ten times in class. That's just one example. No one knew that except those of us in the advanced class.

 

:grouphug: That happened to me, too... the teacher explained it to my parents this way, "A year of review will be good for her." It was the absolute low point of my education... and that year followed a year so horrible (teacher, horrible, horrible, mean, spiteful creature) that I didn't think could get worse.

[zaichiki]

Income is correlated with IQ score and certain higher level careers you need to be at least moderately gifted to do. To get a college degree or even a grad degree you need a certain IQ level. To get a PHD you need to be gifted. Obviously there are exceptions to that and it varies by field.

 

I have never heard of this in my life.

It was always my understanding that anyone who worked hard and had at least a normal IQ would be able to get a degree, even a Ph.D..

 

Does anyone have any links for me? Can you point me in the direction of studies or somesuch?

 

Thanks.

[zaichiki]

Even on here I feel that more kids are accelerated than in the general population and it skews things a little when talking about curriculum.

 

I truly believe, from my associations with other homeschoolers in the suburbs of three large American cities, that many gifted/high IQ kids are not getting their needs met in schools. And their parents are pulling them to homeschool in droves. I believe there is probably a larger percentage of gifted kids in the homeschool communities (at least in those areas) than in the public schools. I wouldn't be surprised if there is also a large percentage of gifted homeschoolers who choose to educate their kids classically, with a mind to high academic expectations. Anyone who has read the beginning of Jessie Wise and Susan Wise Bauer's book will recognize young gifted children who were homeschooled for academic challenge that wasn't offered in the schools. It makes sense to me that many parents of gifted kids will feel comfortable with the WTM book and the approach to homeschooling that it supports. Voila: a larger than expected percentage of gifted homeschoolers using WTM forums. :001_smile:

 

Keep in mind that many families with gifted kids never get an IQ score: there is no "proof" of giftedness. Some parents will even deny it with vigor. But if it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck...

[SKL]

:grouphug: That happened to me, too... the teacher explained it to my parents this way, "A year of review will be good for her." It was the absolute low point of my education... and that year followed a year so horrible (teacher, horrible, horrible, mean, spiteful creature) that I didn't think could get worse.

 

This is how my kids' teacher argues that early KG entrants should repeat KG, regardless of where they are academically. "It will be good for her because the second year, she'll feel so proud that she already knows everything." :confused:

[MistyMountain]

Does anyone have any links for me? Can you point me in the direction of studies or somesuch?

 

http://www.paulcooijmans.com/intelligence/iq_ranges.html

 

http://www.highiqpro.com/recent-iq-research/academic-achievement-income-iq

 

I just found some quick links. I research topics and statistics on topics a lot and I have read studies on the topic but that is what I found real quick. I know they are not the best sites on the topic.

Edited February 18, 2012 by MistyMountain

[MistyMountain]

I truly believe, from my associations with other homeschoolers in the suburbs of three large American cities, that many gifted/high IQ kids are not getting their needs met in schools. And their parents are pulling them to homeschool in droves. I believe there is probably a larger percentage of gifted kids in the homeschool communities (at least in those areas) than in the public schools. I wouldn't be surprised if there is also a large percentage of gifted homeschoolers who choose to educate their kids classically, with a mind to high academic expectations. Anyone who has read the beginning of Jessie Wise and Susan Wise Bauer's book will recognize young gifted children who were homeschooled for academic challenge that wasn't offered in the schools. It makes sense to me that many parents of gifted kids will feel comfortable with the WTM book and the approach to homeschooling that it supports. Voila: a larger than expected percentage of gifted homeschoolers using WTM forums.

 

Keep in mind that many families with gifted kids never get an IQ score: there is no "proof" of giftedness. Some parents will even deny it with vigor. But if it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck...

 

 

I definitely agree with this but sometimes it skews things a little when a child is not an accelerated learner and it seems like the norm is to be an accelerated learner. You start to worry even if nothing is wrong especially when so many do have accelerated learners but don't think of them as such because they themselves are. Does that make sense?

[Laura Corin]

This is how my kids' teacher argues that early KG entrants should repeat KG, regardless of where they are academically. "It will be good for her because the second year, she'll feel so proud that she already knows everything." :confused:

 

When Calvin was five, there had been a substitute teacher while the normal teacher was on maternity leave who had borrowed appropriate-level reading material for Calvin. I didn't expect the school to fulfill all his needs; I understood that they had a lot of children and he was just one in the class. He had to read every night, however, and I didn't think it was appropriate to be reading 'Jane has a ball,' when he was inhaling Harry Potter for fun.

 

Anyway, the substitute had been borrowing books for him. When I asked the regular teacher if that could continue, she gave me the evil eye, and said, "You expect me to go to another classroom to get him books?" Trying to salvage the situation, I suggested that he read books from home instead. She said that this was not possible, and his homework had to be reading from the 'top group' reader, 'Jane has a ball.'

 

Yes, it only took a few minutes every evening, but on top of all the hours spent staring out the window during the day, it was transforming a sweet-tempered child into an angry little boy.

 

Laura