Great Article: Envy and Giftedness

[Dmmetler]

Tutoring others isn't always a win-win. It can work when the relationship can be two-way (for example, my DD was paired in lab science with an older girl who has some learning challenges-the older student had the fine motor skills to set up the experiments, which DD struggled with (mostly due to being 6-7 at the time in a class with mostly 4th-5th graders), and DD did all the recording and calculations. The two complemented each other well. But if DD had been assigned to help the older girl with writing when there wasn't something DD needed help with, it would have been embarrassing for the older child, and made DD into an authority instead of a peer. That's really not a healthy relationship for classmates to have.

 

As far as differentiated versions of the same book, that works only when the entire class is within the range of the low-middle-high books. Kids outside the scope of the grade level, in either direction, usually really need a different type of instruction altogether. Even with a teacher willing to try, it's hard-and it leads to situations like my DD doing three grade levels of math independently in K, declaring that she HATED math, and taking two years to really get her math mojo back once she came home.

 

Obviously, it's not an option for all areas, but in mine, there are over 100,000 kids in the public school system. My gut feeling is that there are enough "far enough above level that differentiation is no longer really a good fit" kids in a given age group to make having a classroom for just those kids at some school viable (and that parents wold be willing to find a way to make transportation work, even if it was across town) with a normal class size and the same basic expenses as any other class. Similarly, I feel the same should be an option for kids with learning disabilities, who can easily manage the typical classroom level of content (often at the enriched level) but not presented in the same way, and for whom the regular classroom with differentiation simply isn't working well. Almost all of the families in my homeschool group have at least one child who fits one of those two categories-and it's WHY most of us homeschool, because the local school district absolutely refuses to consider any option other than differentiation in the neighborhood school for any child who is over about an IQ of 60, unless they have very, very severe other issues.

 

It says something that TWO different gifted advocacy programs, both out of state, have now told me that, based on the school district I'm in, homeschooling is going to be the best option for my child. My gut feeling is that a similar program for students with LD, high-functioning ASD, or high functioning developmental delays would say the same-that, basically, the local schools believe in sink or swim, and if your child can't swim with the school at the same pace, they're sunk,

[SKL]

I am sure there are exceptions at each end of the spectrum, but not enough to justify the abandonment of differentiation in the classroom. For those who can learn in a typical classroom setting, why take them away from their typical peers? And let's not abandon the kids who are up to an academic challenge even if they don't meet some arbitrary gifted threshold. ... I think one thing to keep in mind is that the public school isn't really there to make everything academically perfect for every child. That would be impossible. Society does not depend on a brilliant 6-year-old doing 5th grade science experiments. If the district is rich enough for that, great, but most are not. And if the child can't sit in a regular classroom because of 2e issues, then that is more of a remedial issue than a gifted issue IMO.

[SKL]

FTR, in no school attended by me or my close relatives has there been math differentiation within a classroom. One nephew was sent to a higher grade for math, but that's it. It sounds like a nice idea, but I don't know how widespread it is/was. I'm used to the idea of reading groups, but some schools don't even do that, at least in 1st grade.

[SKL]

It matters to the starfish.

 

Do you think the gifted child who isn't receiving instruction at his level feels included in the classroom? Every one I have met feels pushed to the side, ignored, and frustrated when he is with a teacher that refuses to differentiate. That's why they go to private school or homeschool. I don't see them coming back to the community that decided that every child except them can learn new material at school

I think that kids expect what their experience teaches them to expect. I never expected my teacher to spend one-on-one time with me, except in the extremely rare case that I truly could not understand something on my own and I took the initiative to go ask a question. I thought it was normal that kids who do not struggle do not get one-on-one. Why would they expect one-on-one in a room full of 30 kids? That is a new one on me. And no, I would not have wanted it, preferring to be left alone to do my own thing to having a teacher in my face. I've never heard of a child coming home and complaining that the teacher didn't spend time with her today. And like I said, I know a lot of gifted adults and kids. I mean, yeah, there is frustration when you're having to sit through another review of what you knew years ago. But you get used to that, understanding that there are people who unfortunately need the review. It certainly isn't something to take personally or get emotional about. One still makes friends among the kids in the class regardless of whether one is challenged in math.

[regentrude]

I think that kids expect what their experience teaches them to expect. I never expected my teacher to spend one-on-one time with me, except in the extremely rare case that I truly could not understand something on my own and I took the initiative to go ask a question. I thought it was normal that kids who do not struggle do not get one-on-one. Why would they expect one-on-one in a room full of 30 kids? That is a new one on me. And no, I would not have wanted it, preferring to be left alone to do my own thing to having a teacher in my face. I've never heard of a child coming home and complaining that the teacher didn't spend time with her today. And like I said, I know a lot of gifted adults and kids. I mean, yeah, there is frustration when you're having to sit through another review of what you knew years ago. But you get used to that, understanding that there are people who unfortunately need the review. It certainly isn't something to take personally or get emotional about.

 

 

The child may not be expecting one-on-one time with the teacher, but she may be expecting to receive some kind of instruction in occasionally new-to-her material. I consider this a reasonable expectation - after all, the other kids DO get to learn something at school.

You know what the first words were DD said when I brought her home from ps? "I am glad I don't have to go to school anymore; I can finally learn something."

That after spending five years reading fiction in class with teachers' permission because there was nothing there for her to learn. It is not an occasional review; it is months of review without a morsel of new concept. And I do not consider it desirable to get used to wasting your time and enduring unbelievable boredom because schools can not be bothered to differentiate. I never wanted to homeschool, but at some point, enough was enough.

 

One still makes friends among the kids in the class regardless of whether one is challenged in math.

 

If your experience was that you did make friends despite being profoundly gifted: good for you.

DD's experience was relentless bullying and never making a single friend during her years in ps. Because being smart is not considered cool in a culture that caters to the mediocre.

[regentrude]

Society does not depend on a brilliant 6-year-old doing 5th grade science experiments.

 

Ouch. You are starting on a very slippery slope with this statement. The argument can very easily be turned around to justify not to spend that much money on special education at the very lowest end of the spectrum because society does not depend on this either. (And especially when one compares the amounts of money that go into special ed versus gifted ed...)

I am sure you do NOT want to go there.

[regentrude]

I dunno, it just seems wrong to say "I don't want a bunch of 'common' children in my kids' class/program, because that reduces the amount of quality time my special snowflake gets." (And it might even pollute us!) As has been said, ideally all kids are met where they are (not just the top 1%), but given that's not going to ever happen, a little give and take is appropriate. I'm not sure where people got the idea that being born smart entitles kids to more than everyone else. Most gifted kids who are not 2E can keep themselves intellectually busy without any special help - the way we all used to in my generation. Which brings up another question - what if your kid is 2E - should he be excluded from the gifted class on the basis that he might disrupt the perfect ones?

 

I want exactly the same thing for my children as for all kids: to learn new things and to be given an appropriate challenge so they can develop study skills and work ethic which are necessary to succeed in life. I see plenty of very smart college students who have been robbed of this opportunity because they did not receive schooling on an appropriate level. They have been shortchanged and not given an opportunity that is given to the average student.

 

As for keeping intellectually busy: a child who is forced to spend seven hours at school twiddling her thumbs has limited energy and time to "keep herself intellectually busy" if the school setting does not allow that to happen during the school day. It is expecting the same for this child when I expect her to be able to have a free afternoon in which to pursue extracurricular interests, music, sport, and free time, and to do her academic learning during school hours.

[regentrude]

If you're gifted AND have no specific learning issues such as APD, then you don't have to be "highly motivated and academically driven" (compared to peers) to work in a harder workbook. You just have to be willing/able to write answers in a book, same as most everyone else. The point is that it is possible to challenge a higher-IQ kid in the same room as average kids, other things remaining roughly equal.

 

 

But somebody has to make the effort to select materials that provide the appropriate challenge. Teachers do not have the time. My DD's teachers have recognized that she needs more, but they have frankly admitted that they have their hands full with students who need remediation and have no time and energy to spare. They were cooperative and tried, but they could not follow through with it. I do not blame the teachers. I blame a system that groups children by age instead of by ability.

Even with the limited resources, it would not cost the school a penny more to differentiate: our middle school has 16 5th grade classes; they could easily group them into four different levels of, say, math instruction, without needing more rooms or more teachers.

[AndyJoy]

My responses in red.

 

I'm not saying it's easy nor a perfect solution, but there are materials and strategies that can be used. For example, at least some textbook companies publish workbooks at different ability levels. My kids' LA and math curricula have above / challenge level workbooks available that are designed to be used instead of what the average kids are working on (and there are parallel materials for slower kids, too). So for example, chapter X has the same theme and general concepts in all three workbooks, but the challenge level workbook involves more complex reading and reasoning harder spelling words, etc. However, my kids' school / teacher nevertheless had every student in the 1st grade use the same books and move at the same pace all year long.

 

This assumes that the curriculum that the school district has chosen has this option. The teacher has no control over this. Do you know that your child's 1st grade teacher had access to such materials? Otherwise she/he has to create materials from scratch or spend his/her own money, neither of which is a workable solution. Plus, I'm skeptical of the likelihood that these materials will actually be challenging enough for the gifted kids. Are they more than one grade level ahead? Because the kind of gifted kids I'm talking about are the ones that are reading at a post-HS level or doing Algebra at 9. A 5th grade level worksheet isn't going to cut it for challenge. Plus, I personally would argue that worksheets are the worst way to reinforce material for a gifted kid. You can find out quickly if they've absorbed the material by talking to them--they don't need to regurgitate on a worksheet. They need to do something MORE with the content if it's something worth delving into--a discussion, a project, a deeper investigation--otherwise they should just move on to the next thing. The worksheet is the bane of many gifted kids!

 

As far as class discussion etc., there's no good reason for teachers to discourage higher-level interaction in the appropriate time and place, while limiting it during lecture / silent reading time. Children could be asked to write down their questions to be asked at the end of an interval, instead of blurting them out all day long.

 

When is this appropriate time and place? Of course teachers should limit questions during the lecture/silent reading time. I'm not talking about a kid inappropriately interrupting or "blurting" questions out. (Wow, that sentence alone pours salt on elementary school wounds inflicted by teachers who don't get gifted kids!) I'm talking about that fact that questions get really limited during class discussion time! In a typical history period when I was in 6th grade, the teacher would lecture and have the class read aloud from the text for for 20-25 minutes or so, probably asking questions along the way to keep kids engaged. Then, there would be time for questions/discussion--about 10-15 minutes. During this time, the teacher is trying to gauge her students' understanding and retention of the new material that was just taught. Herein lies the problem. The gifted kid hasn't learned anything new yet. He/she may have already read extensively on this topic (or just read the text already) and thus has more background content than the average student. So he/she asks a related question that is deeper or broader than what is covered by the text or what the teacher's test will cover. This question is so simple that it can be answered in one sentence or can be looked up immediately in an encyclopedia. The teacher still has to make sure that 27 other kids learned what she intended. So she has to move on from the gifted kid pretty quickly to accomplish this. She might even be thinking she's helping by not boring his/her classmates by talking about a topic that is not covered by the text. She knows some of them are likely to ask, "Do we have to know this for the test" and will even mock the gifted kid for being passionate about something "unimportant." Or, she herself doesn't know much more than is in the text and can't answer the question. Sure, the gifted kid can/should look it up later if he/she is really interested, but can you imagine how draining it is to sit in class day after day, learning nothing, and then be told to do all your actual learning on top of that, in addition to the useless homework over content you've already mastered?

 

I spent 2 hours at the library every day after school in 6th grade teaching myself things I wish I could have learned in class. I kept a notebook of questions to explore. Then I checked out books and delved deeper into these topics. Thus, I acquired more background knowledge, creating a greater void between me and my classmates that made it even less likely that the teacher would be able to address my questions in class.

 

Writing assignments etc. are self-differentiating if the teacher bothers to consider what each child's capability is.

 

Yes, writing assignments are self-differentiating by their nature (assuming the topic is deep or broad enough) However, I had way too many teachers who were so blown away by my writing ability that they gave me the obviously deserved A (plus extra credit, sometimes) without giving me any useful criticism/feedback. I wrote my first 8-paragraph report in 3^rd grade. It ended up being passed around by the 7^th/8^th grade English teachers as an example of really good work for their students’ level! Do you think my 3^rd grade teacher, who was used to 3^rd grade work, gave me any tips for improvement? No way! I had already far exceeded the requirements for my grade, so why would she? It was out of her scope of expertise. Had I been taught by someone who knew how to reach me at my level, I would have learned so much more than just to be proud of my ability or to hide my grades from jealous classmates. Being constantly praised for doing higher-level work can be just as bad as being ignored sometimes. It’s hard not to get puffed up or be labeled the dreaded teacher’s pet when your teacher is constantly wowed by your work. Plus, the perfectionism and self-doubt many gifted kids face makes this praise seem hollow and false after a while. They know there is better work out there. They know there is room for improvement in their work. Their teachers, however, are setting them up as objects of admiration (and thus peer derision).

 

Another win-win is to have the high scorers / quick finishers teach / tutor others or make up their own real-life examples of the concept being studied. Having to explain concepts to another person is a much higher-level task than just completing one's work on paper.

 

AAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH! Win-win? NOT! This concept sounds nice on the surface, but it is way more complicated than that. For a while it was fun to teach my classmates in K-1. Then the problems started. You know, it turns other kids resent being taught by the “teacher’s pet†rather than the teacher. Who is this kid who thinks he/she is smarter than me? Why is he/she so special? Bring on the playground bullying. What about the gifted kid who doesn’t have the right personality to teacher or tutor others? Not every random adult makes a good teacher—why would every random gifted kid? Once again, the gifted kid is not learning anything new. He/she may be working on higher-order thinking skills, but he/she is still regurgitating the same basic content. If teachers are trained professionals, how does it make sense to let a random 10-year-old do his/her job? Plus, how is a gifted 6-year-old with the maturity of a 6-year-old (or even 12-year-old) supposed to know how to teach beyond telling the other kid the answers and making sure he gets everything right? Is he supposed to just know, without any training, how to ask good questions to gauge understanding, how to engage the student’s interest, what to do if his classmate is indifferent or hostile (other than telling the teacher, which leads to more problems, of course.) I actually WANTED to be a teacher when I was a kid, but this technique was way overused. Sometimes I wanted to scream, “When is it my chance to be the student and not the teacher or just a lump in the room?" I've chatted with others gifted kids who had these same problems.

 

... Most teachers who like their jobs are excited to work with kids who can do more than the standard stuff. If there is a whole school that discourages gifted kids from participation in class, then the teachers need training and supervision re a goal to differentiate effectively within the classroom. They need to be incentivized to develop and share best practices with win-win outcomes. Maybe they need to free up some time by delegating other work. ... If more attention were directed at differentiation within the classroom, then there would be no need for most of the smart kids to be segregated for a significant part of the school day.

 

I don’t know that I can agree with the use of the word most. Plus, there are plenty of teachers across the country who don’t like their jobs, and I don’t see this changing anytime soon. I had some teachers who were sweet, wonderful people who theoretically were excited to work with me, but the everyday logistics of the classroom ended up putting a damper on their enthusiasm. Gifted kids are exhausting, even if you think you like them. I was a “teacher’s dream†kind of kid because I had strict parents, a strong self-motivated work-ethic, and was a rule-follower. This still didn’t allow my excited, passionate teachers to meet my needs. I saw the damage done to the boys who were less like me in personality (like my DH) and thus never on the teacher’s good side. An even nice, passionate teachers can be jealous. I've seen it.

 

I don’t think there was ever any kind of whole-school conspiracy to thwart the learning of gifted kids. I had teachers who were much better at addressing my needs than others. The majority of my teachers (both good and bad with gifted kids), were very nice people who loved teaching. I attended 5 different public and private schools in K-12 (with a 2-school overlap during HS) I think it’s just the nature of the institutional beast. There are too many elements to it. It’s not just the teachers—it’s underlying attitudes of the administrators, students, and community at large toward giftedness.

I would like to know what teachers can delegate, how they can find more time to differentiate. There are lots of training opportunities out there that energize teachers temporarily (I attended a teacher’s conference myself when I was teaching), but finding the time to actually implement lasting changes is difficult. Some of it boils down to pragmatism. Teachers may not admit it, but I suspect many think to themselves, “Why should I put so much time/effort/energy into these 1-3 kids? They are smart—they’ll be fine if I just carry on as usual!†Unless someone is actively advocating for their needs, this is often the outcome.

 

[JumpyTheFrog]

Our society accepts having different level sports teams, dance, cheerleading, and music as "just common sense." In some areas the spending on the top football team might be out of control, but people don't shout that the very idea of having some students in JV and and in Varsity is unfair. But as soon as we start talking about tracking for academics, we hear cries of "Elitist!"

[Embassy]

If you're gifted AND have no specific learning issues such as APD, then you don't have to be "highly motivated and academically driven" (compared to peers) to work in a harder workbook. You just have to be willing/able to write answers in a book, same as most everyone else. The point is that it is possible to challenge a higher-IQ kid in the same room as average kids, other things remaining roughly equal. I do not accept that a large % of gifted kids are incapable of learning in / tolerating a regular classroom. I know too many gifted people/kids and that just isn't the case. Even if they do have different learning styles, by the age of 6-ish, they have the ability to put in the effort to figure things out without special instruction - unless they have disabilities, which most gifted kids do not.

 

You do make it sound quite simple :) Yes, you do need to be highly motivated and academically driven to work in a harder workbook independently. That is what you are suggestioning, right? Or are you suggesting that the teacher instruct the harder workbook group before they begin working? How much differentiation is in actual instruction time and how much is independently working?

[songsparrow]

I blame a system that groups children by age instead of by ability.

 

Even with the limited resources, it would not cost the school a penny more to differentiate: our middle school has 16 5th grade classes; they could easily group them into four different levels of, say, math instruction, without needing more rooms or more teachers.

 

I can't like this enough!

[Luckymama]

Our society accepts having different level sports teams, dance, cheerleading, and music as "just common sense." In some areas the spending on the top football team might be out of control, but people don't shout that the very idea of having some students in JV and and in Varsity is unfair. But as soon as we start talking about tracking for academics, we hear cries of "Elitist!"

 

Oh yeah.

 

 

[AndyJoy]

As I stated above, what was done back in the Jurassic was small group instruction within the elementary classroom. We weren't called robins, bluebirds or whatever you hear in the articles that state this is tracking. We had colors for the group names most years, and each group was about 6 months apart in the basal or in the math texts. No one went out for a session with the math specialist or the reading specialist...every group had small group instruction daily. While one group was with the teacher, the others had seatwork. Each day in the space of 2 minutes, we would 'get into groups' and that meant getting up and moving your desk and chair into the designated position. The teacher would come to each group in turn. It's called flexible acheivement grouping and it requires that the class composition is not selected randomly, with 30 groups of one. Unlike tracking, where huge chunks of the curriculum objectives are cut out, each group does the complete curriculum for the material they are working on. They move up when they have mastered the objectives. I had this in 3 different school systems..no child felt 'bad' about being in the 'low' group or the 'high' group...everyone was expected to be learning and was placed instructionally so that they had the opportunity to do so. The smart-as-a-whip kids with the questions were not pests back then because library research skills were taught in elementary and they knew how to read and find out much quicker than by interrupting their teachers, if and only if they had spare time after they completed their seatwork. There was no whole class instruction in math or LA...too widespread a range, too difficult. Some of the schools in the D.C. area have gone back to this idea and it is working for their highly diverse classrooms.

 

This is what my school had for K-1 in L.A. I believe my the K groups were Tigers, Lions, and Panthers or something like that, but every kid knew which groups were which and there was already mean talk about it in 1st grade. This worked ok at that point. The kids who were already reading got to actually read. But if we're only talking about a 12-month spread in higher grades, that's not going to meet the needs of the highly gifted kids. My husband was the youngest kid in his class (he missed the K cutoff by one day, but his parents lobbied to get him in). By age 9, he was ready for Algebra. No differentiated classroom group could handle that need. Fortunately they did something, which was get him a computer program, but it would have been better for him to have actual teacher instruction. Plus, he didn't get credit for completing anything more than 4th grade math, so while he continued learning at his own pace for 4th-6th, guess what class he was supposed to be dumped into in 7th? Algebra I. Through fighting with the school, he was able to take a summer course in Algebra between 6th and 7th and started 7th in Geometry (which he had to walk to the HS to take).

[a27mom]

Oh my so much to think about.

 

First whoever comment on the need for advanced PE. I think this is a legitimate issue. But I come from the perspective of needing remedial PE. I hated most athletic activities until I was 36 because I was forced to the point of pain and humiliation to try to keep up w/ advanced athletes in PE class. Differentiated PE would be a great idea.

 

Second the idea of tutoring peers as way to challenge or occupy advanced children. BAD BAD BAD! This is when life started to get bad for me in elementary school. Much of the playground bullying was related to situations where I was told to "help" other students. Some of those relationships were still strained in high school. And yes part of it was my style of "tutoring". But goodness I was 7, this was the worst thing for me socially that ever happened. By third grade school was becoming a nightmare, mostly due to my being required to help others, and my curiosity and joy in learning that was annoying to other kids. That was 1st through 3rd grade.

 

Which brings me to my 3rd point. I will forever be grateful for the self contained gifted classroom I was placed in for 4th through 5th grade. Finally I was with other kids like me. Even so there were only a few of us in the high HG/EG level. ( I don't think that we had any PG kids ). But even the "slowest" kid in the class moved at a tolerable enough pace for us to learn something most days. Our teachers were experienced in working with gifted kids as well. Because we moved through the required curriculum quickly, there was plenty of time for differentiated and self-directed (but supported) learning. This class drew from 3 different elementary schools. Now nothing is perfect. I still occasionally got bored in class. The kids at the lower end, who were still very bright might not have felt as "smart". Some kids who were more socially adept sort of missed out on some social standing in the greater population, but that seemed to resolve itself by high school. But it was a life saver for me. Truly my best memories from school were 4th and 5th grade. I finally had peers, and I was finally learning something. I also finally experienced a positive social peer group for the first time in my life.

 

Sadly, this is not an option for my kids. No such classes exist here. (I believed they have been eliminated in my old school too). So I will fight to homeschool.

[musicianmom]

Here's another problem with not challenging gifted children. The child develops a very warped view of what learning actually is, and never learns how to learn! I equated learning with getting straight As. That's all I cared about. My father could see the problem. He knew I was not being challenged at school and tried to encourage me to go beyond what was required so that I would actually learn something. Well, I didn't want to. I had already spent all day in school! Plus I was feeling social pressure to be more like other kids. And, I was making straight As, why couldn't he be happy with that?

 

There's also a real danger of 2e children going undiagnosed if they aren't faced with academic challenges. My IQ was high enough to mask my ADHD. I never suspected I had a problem until college, and then I couldn't really believe it, because after all, I still was making nearly all As. Graduate school was a spectacular failure, due to attention problems and maturity issues.

 

Tutoring peers was a disaster. They didn't want help, they wanted the answers, and despised me for not telling them. I actually was good at tutoring, and made a good income my senior year tutoring younger students (usually boys from 8th-10th grade).

[SKL]

OK everyone, I never said it is OK to not differentiate. I said that is what they SHOULD do, but they should primarily do it at the classroom level (like they usually did throughout history), with occasional exceptions for extreme outliers. I agree that schools don't do this enough, but I do not agree that they can't. ... I think a lot of parents of gifted kids (and gifted adults) are conflating giftedness with major social / emotional challenges. Sometimes they go together, but usually they do not. Many if not most gifted kids are simply excellent at reading, understanding, and remembering stuff presented in the usual way. A separate gifted program that expects all the kids to be quirky is not appropriate for most gifted kids. If anything, that's going to fuel the attitude that gifted kids are weird, aloof, and elitist. ... I happen to be a gifted person who is an extreme introvert. I never liked school because I don't like socializing, being told what to do, or being treated like a child/zoo animal/criminal. Nothing to do with giftedness. These would all be true if my IQ was average. There are not that many kids of any IQ level who love school. And I guarantee that if someone were in my face trying to make me care about rocket science or computer game programing every day, I would have hated school a lot worse. Beware of the gifted stereotyping that goes on right here on this board.

[regentrude]

I think a lot of parents of gifted kids (and gifted adults) are conflating giftedness with major social / emotional challenges.

 

What do you mean by "quirky"?

I happen to have gifted children with no social or emotional challenges. All I want for them is a higher academic challenge.

 

Many if not most gifted kids are simply excellent at reading, understanding, and remembering stuff presented in the usual way.

 

 

This is not true. Gifted kids often do think differently. Nothing to do with "quirky", just different processing of information in the brain. I am not up to date on the newest research, but this much I know.

As a starting point:

 

http://www.hoagiesgi...in_research.htm

 

A separate gifted program that expects all the kids to be quirky is not appropriate for most gifted kids.

 

??? Nobody is talking about a program that is geared towards "quirky".

[AndyJoy]

OK everyone, I never said it is OK to not differentiate. I said that is what they SHOULD do, but they should primarily do it at the classroom level (like they usually did throughout history), with occasional exceptions for extreme outliers. I agree that schools don't do this enough, but I do not agree that they can't. ... I think a lot of parents of gifted kids (and gifted adults) are conflating giftedness with major social / emotional challenges. Sometimes they go together, but usually they do not. Many if not most gifted kids are simply excellent at reading, understanding, and remembering stuff presented in the usual way. A separate gifted program that expects all the kids to be quirky is not appropriate for most gifted kids. If anything, that's going to fuel the attitude that gifted kids are weird, aloof, and elitist. ... I happen to be a gifted person who is an extreme introvert. I never liked school because I don't like socializing, being told what to do, or being treated like a child/zoo animal/criminal. Nothing to do with giftedness. These would all be true if my IQ was average. There are not that many kids of any IQ level who love school. And I guarantee that if someone were in my face trying to make me care about rocket science or computer game programing every day, I would have hated school a lot worse. Beware of the gifted stereotyping that goes on right here on this board.

 

 

Most of us are talking specifically about ourselves, our kids, our spouses, and others we know well. I think we have a pretty good sense of what did and didn't work for us in a traditional classroom setting--including attempts at differentiation. Neither my husband nor I fit the description of "quirky" (and yes, I do know gifted and non-gifted people who do.) Having the ability to appear "normal" and not stand out in a social setting didn't protect us from mockery and bullying. The mere fact that we absorbed information quickly, loved to learn, read and computed years ahead, etc. was enough to set us apart in the minds of our peers. Being non-quirky didn't make the typical classroom content any more applicable to us. I wonder if you are defining gifted differently than others in this thread. You seem to be equating bright with gifted. A bright kid who learns quickly would likely do well in a typical classroom with some differentiated challenge here and there. This would satisfy them. This was my best friend in 5th/6th grade. I had never heard the word gifted until 5th grade, but I knew something was different between us, and I felt isolated because what satisfied her (also an A student) left me disappointed and yearning for more. I would argue that one possible sign of a truly gifted kid is that the traditional classroom (even with some differentiation) can't be enough for them.

 

This page on gifted development has some excellent insights!

 

Who says a separate gifted program would be designed with quirkiness or specific topics like rocket science or computer game programming in mind? I think you are stereotyping what a gifted program would look like! I was never in a self-contained gifted classroom--just a one-day-a-week enrichment pullout program. We did unit studies with lots of personal choices for projects/activities/study, tinkered with various hands-on items, had access to challenging games and science materials, worked on independent study presentations for the end of the year open house, etc. We were given lots of freedom to structure our own time, and I never did a bit of rocketry or computer science. It was one day a week that I could be myself without fearing reprisals from classmates or disapproval or exasperation from teachers. My gifted teacher was gifted herself and the parent of a gifted son. She was a valuable mentor who understood how to relate to us.

[SKL]

 

Most of us are talking specifically about ourselves, our kids, our spouses, and others we know well. I think we have a pretty good sense of what did and didn't work for us in a traditional classroom setting--including attempts at differentiation. Neither my husband nor I fit the description of "quirky" (and yes, I do know gifted and non-gifted people who do.) Having the ability to appear "normal" and not stand out in a social setting didn't protect us from mockery and bullying. The mere fact that we absorbed information quickly, loved to learn, read and computed years ahead, etc. was enough to set us apart in the minds of our peers.

The fact that some people in the community are mean to gifted people is a completely separate issue from how best to educate gifted kids.

[Dana]

It sounds to me like SKL is talking more about bright kids rather than gifted kids (at least according to typical definitions...see hoagies at regentrude's link).

 

I agree that bright kids can probably do okay in a traditional classroom but I strongly strongly disagree that it's a good fit for most gifted kids.

 

When my son started school, I'd have said he was bright.

As he's grown, I'm seeing the giftedness more. The test score verifying it have helped me change how I teach him some and I think I'm meeting his needs better. I also think that he would likely have withered in school.

 

I think REAL differentiation is needed for kids. It honestly cannot be done in a mainstream classroom.

 

I think as your girls get older, you may see that, SKL.

It wouldn't have been that clear with my son in first grade.

[AndyJoy]

The fact that some people in the community are mean to gifted people is a completely separate issue from how best to educate gifted kids.

 

You're right, it should be a separate issue, but it's part of the whole package when considering whether a regular classroom is meeting a gifted kid's educational needs.

 

I never argued that bullying is the reason gifted kids should have separate classes, though. See the part about needing, craving, yearning for more. See the parts about sitting in a classroom for hours each day and learning literally nothing, then being expected to be mature-beyond-their-years in coping with boredom and then turn around and teach others. Gifted kids shouldn't have to go to school to be teachers or passive observers instead of learners.

[SKL]

I wonder if you are defining gifted differently than others in this thread. You seem to be equating bright with gifted. A bright kid who learns quickly would likely do well in a typical classroom with some differentiated challenge here and there. This would satisfy them. This was my best friend in 5th/6th grade. I had never heard the word gifted until 5th grade, but I knew something was different between us, and I felt isolated because what satisfied her (also an A student) left me disappointed and yearning for more. I would argue that one possible sign of a truly gifted kid is that the traditional classroom (even with some differentiation) can't be enough for them.

 

I knew someone was going to say this. We're going to have to agree to disagree on this. You know lots of gifted people, and I know lots of gifted people. Personally I think the difference between our positions is in what we believe is reasonable to expect from most public school districts in our country. It is my understanding and belief that public schools do not need to provide the *ideal* education for each individual child, or even each category of child. The public school institution has too many constraints, not the least of which being that it's run by governments. The purpose of public school is not to stimulate every child, but to develop a population with the necessary skills to keep the economy running. Everything else is gravy. In a private school, parents may hope for more, but without the critical mass to make it cost-effective, it's going to be limited too. Unless you're going to start your own school (or homeschool), things just aren't going to be optimal for the kids you're concerned about - or for any other kids, either. Kids who need more stimulation are going to have to figure out how to get it - just like they always have. Of course if your district has the money and creative leadership, then more power to you, but I don't think that's widespread or that it's ever going to be.

[Incognito]

However you want to think about what public schools should or should not provide, the fact that people treat others differently based on intelligence (and social class and income etc. etc.) is there. I think the article is only really discussing one aspect of the issue, but it does so in a straightforward way that I appreciate.

 

As far as the discussion on gifted kids should be able to assimilate - for me the issue is the amount of time children spend in school. Yes, kids should be able to toe the line. 7 hours a day, 5 days a week is a bit much in my book.

 

I know that I learned how to blend in and how to underachieve by Jr. High. Thankfully I ended up in a different learning environment for high school that challenged kids at all levels and had a culture of kids wanting to do well and learn.

 

There is so much in this article and discussion that touches on issues I had as a child and I see as potential obstacles for my kids, but I get too passionate when considering these things and I sound like I need a chill pill. :) So I will abstain from tirades. :)

[MinivanMom]

I attended a self-contained gifted classroom from 2nd to 8th grade. It was a model gifted program, and I will always be grateful for that experience. We studied (what I now know to be) Asian-style math. It wasn’t completely individualized, but that was the goal using flexible groupings. We were some of the first classrooms to implement Reading Workshop and Writing Workshop when it was first being developed at Fresno State (we were the guinea pigs). That meant all of our reading, writing, and language arts were (relatively) independent and individualized. Our classrooms were project-based and had a strong emphasis on the arts. We had no homework, and my fondest school memories are of coming in from our (hour long) lunch recess to listen to our teachers read aloud to us for a solid half hour each afternoon. We were required to take our CAT tests at a grade level higher, but we never did any test prep. This was all happening in a medium-sized California town back in the 80’s. Our town had 1 high school (w/an enrollment of 4200+), 3 junior high schools, and a dozen elementary schools. The program worked like this:

 

In 1st grade classroom teachers recommended children they thought might qualify for GATE. All the children recommended took group tests (I believe we took a group IQ test). The top 30-ish scorers qualified to enter the GATE program. That meant 30 children out of 1200+ children enrolled in 1st grade in our town (or about the top 3%). They formed a single self-contained gifted class.

 

In 3rd grade, regular classroom teachers were again asked to recommend children for GATE testing. The top 30-ish scorers then joined us in GATE at the 4th grade level. We then formed 2 self-contained gifted classrooms. We were divided based on geography, so that each class was composed of half the children who had qualified in 1st grade and half the children who had qualified in 3rd grade.

 

In 5th grade, this process was repeated so that there were now 3 self-contained gifted classes (one at each junior high). In 6th grade we were completely self-contained (unlike the regular students who switched classes). In 7th and 8th grade we were self-contained only for English and Social Studies. Non-GATE students were allowed to test into Pre-Algebra in 7th grade and a few GATE students (who were not as strong in math) did not go into Pre-Algebra.

 

At the end of 8th grade the program ended. GATE students did not automatically go into Honors at the high school level. All students had to sit exams in order to be admitted to high school Honors classes. Former GATE students made up the majority of the classes, but many other students tested into Honors (and some GATE students tested out or opted out).

 

The pros of our program:

-It focused on helping those with the highest needs.

-There were multiple points of entry, so that late-bloomers could still test in later.

-We were self-contained which allowed the teacher to better meet our needs.

-A strong effort was made to individualize instruction further within the GATE classroom.

-Our GATE teacher was our classroom teacher so no extra funding was needed to run the program or hire extra teachers (there was a small amount needed to pay for the actual testing and to fund transportation to the school site).

-We stayed together from 2^nd-8^th (with additions in 4^th and 6^th), so we formed a tight-knit, supportive group for one another.

 

The cons of our program:

-It provided great services for the 3%, but left the other 97% in the regular classroom with no accommodations.

-Admission was based on tests given to students who were recommended by the classroom teacher; students who were twice-exceptional (or simply not recommended by their teacher) may have been shut out.

-The elementary GATE classes were housed at 3 different school sites which meant that those of us who entered at 2^nd grade had to change schools multiple times (I attended 3 different elementary schools without moving).

-There were still artificial limits on how much we could accelerate (for example, no one was permitted to take Pre-Algebra until 7^th grade).

 

I can’t imagine a program like this getting off the ground in today’s political climate, but it is no different than a school running (and funding) a dance team that is by audition only. It should be possible. The one improvement I would want to make is to add in some sort of pull-out or enrichment within the regular classroom for non-GATE students who are high achievers. I would also want more individualized instruction and flexible groupings for all students in all classrooms, not just for GATE students. I think it is possible to do better for gifted students within the public school system, but I can't imagine taking on the fight myself. It's so much easier to homeschool.

[a27mom]

I think a lot of the concerns in the article relate to the idea that parents of gifted kidscan't discuss the challenges that gifted kids face, without being accused of bragging. These challenges are often because schools are unable, especially in the current educational climate, to accommodate the needs of gifted kids. The fact that it is impractical for the educational system to provide an ideal education for outlier kids only supports the idea tha parents of gifted kids often aren't just bragging.

 

I can't think of a time I heard someone brag inappropriately about their gifted child. But I read the blog post the article references. The woman who hates hearing about giftedness, states that she dreamed of her child being a genius someday prior to discovering her dd was intellectually average. One of the comments was also quite interesting, the commenter stated how she did all the right things DHA, developmental toys etc... And was disappointed that her child didn't end up a genius, so she doesn't want to hear people brag. This struck me. I never even considered whether my children would be intellectually gifted untill it dawned on me as I started kindergarten with my oldest and found that she was way ahead. (Lol I am one of those vague/oblivious gifted types). I certainly didn't want my kids to struggle with school, but I never tried to make them "gifted".

 

I guess my thought is that maybe gifted parents who have gifted kids, get the idea that being gifted isn't a status symbol. The blogger stated that she wanted to brag about how nice her daughter was. She provided several examples of innate empathy she observed. While I think it is pretty sad that she moves in circles where intellectual ability is valued over empathy, I don't see how bragging about innate empathy is somehow more appropriate than bragging about intellectual ability. I have had to work very hard learn empathy, very hard. It is not an innate skill for me, like language and higher reasoning are.

 

I guess my point in this ramble is that I do think envy is an issue. In environments where parenting magazine articles say you can make your kids smart with the proper foods and activities. Parents who make big sacrifices to make smart kids can be disappointed when they turn out to just be average or a little above. Some how this other person with the gifted kid got lucky or found the right secret combination. So yeah I imagine hearing about someone's issues with a gifted child can be annoying. But envy is about the issues of the person who is envious. Sadly in our society that has such a skewed view of self esteem it is the targets of the envy, in our experience giftedness, that are expected to accommodate.

 

And no it is not an experience solely in the gifted community. People with anything society prizes are envy targets. For example people with great natural beauty often deal with similar types of issues. But that doesn't mean that people should have to suck it up and just live with it because they are in an envied group.

[nitascool]

I knew someone was going to say this. We're going to have to agree to disagree on this. You know lots of gifted people, and I know lots of gifted people. Personally I think the difference between our positions is in what we believe is reasonable to expect from most public school districts in our country. It is my understanding and belief that public schools do not need to provide the *ideal* education for each individual child, or even each category of child. The public school institution has too many constraints, not the least of which being that it's run by governments. The purpose of public school is not to stimulate every child, but to develop a population with the necessary skills to keep the economy running. Everything else is gravy. In a private school, parents may hope for more, but without the critical mass to make it cost-effective, it's going to be limited too. Unless you're going to start your own school (or homeschool), things just aren't going to be optimal for the kids you're concerned about - or for any other kids, either. Kids who need more stimulation are going to have to figure out how to get it - just like they always have. Of course if your district has the money and creative leadership, then more power to you, but I don't think that's widespread or that it's ever going to be.

 

For the first blue statement...I think the fact that the majority of the people posting on this thread and this forum in general are either homeschooling or afterschooling proves that they don't "expect" much from the school system they are slated for. I don't send my kids to the local ps for many reasons. One of those reasons is that I know, for a fact, that they would not meet my children's needs. We would be homeschooling even if they were willing to try, but that's another story.

 

If school districts are not required to be certain to meet all the needs of their constituency then why do they require my children as homeschoolers to meet their state standards? As one of the children who fell through the cracks (and never met any state standard but still graduated in the middle of my class) I resent that I had to spend 13 years in a system that could care less if I learned anything. As a 2E before there was 2E I know what it feels like to both be the one "holding up" the class and the one sitting "twiddling her thumbs". If public schools were at least honest with parents of gt and sn kids by simply telling them in the beginning that they could not meet the needs of their child I might be able to agree with you, but they don't. Instead they force these kids to go year after torturous year of excruciating doldrums and then (if it weren't so very tragic it would be laughable) call this an education.

 

I refuse to force my children to waist 11,700 hours of their lives just because someone thinks they are inconvienantly outside the norm. I will not force my children to have a second rate education just because it doesn't fit within the needs of the many. The public school system in our community can't meet my children's academic needs, their social needs, or any other procieved need that schools are suposed to be meeting. So yeah, I don't expect much from them, other then leaving my family the h. alone. But if I ever had to place my children into one of those public school classrooms I am quite sure I would be up in thier teachers face every week making sure my child got the propper education he/she needs. The city school my children are slated for has a national ranking of 27% (Very Poor). If they can't even educate the average child I doubt they could educate my HG, my 2E or my 2 subject accelerated children. I gave up on the PS meeting any of my children's needs a long time ago.

 

As to the second blue statement. If the adults in my community are a reflection of this "population with necessary skills" then our school system has not just fallen short on meeting the needs of the top 1% but also that of the lower 99% as our community is currently in the lowest economic class in my state with 12.10% of our population below the poverty line and our median income being $35,607. In my community we aren't getting the basics, and you can just forget any gravy.

[SKL]

 

For the first blue statement...I think the fact that the majority of the people posting on this thread and this forum in general are either homeschooling or afterschooling proves that they don't "expect" much from the school system they are slated for. I don't send my kids to the local ps for many reasons. One of those reasons is that I know, for a fact, that they would not meet my children's needs. We would be homeschooling even if they were willing to try, but that's another story.

 

If school districts are not required to be certain to meet all the needs of their constituency then why do they require my children as homeschoolers to meet their state standards? As one of the children who fell through the cracks (and never met any state standard but still graduated in the middle of my class) I resent that I had to spend 13 years in a system that could care less if I learned anything. As a 2E before there was 2E I know what it feels like to both be the one "holding up" the class and the one sitting "twiddling her thumbs". If public schools were at least honest with parents of gt and sn kids by simply telling them in the beginning that they could not meet the needs of their child I might be able to agree with you, but they don't. Instead they force these kids to go year after torturous year of excruciating doldrums and then (if it weren't so very tragic it would be laughable) call this an education.

 

I refuse to force my children to waist 11,700 hours of their lives just because someone thinks they are inconvienantly outside the norm. I will not force my children to have a second rate education just because it doesn't fit within the needs of the many. The public school system in our community can't meet my children's academic needs, their social needs, or any other procieved need that schools are suposed to be meeting. So yeah, I don't expect much from them, other then leaving my family the h. alone. But if I ever had to place my children into one of those public school classrooms I am quite sure I would be up in thier teachers face every week making sure my child got the propper education he/she needs. The city school my children are slated for has a national ranking of 27% (Very Poor). If they can't even educate the average child I doubt they could educate my HG, my 2E or my 2 subject accelerated children. I gave up on the PS meeting any of my children's needs a long time ago.

 

As to the second blue statement. If the adults in my community are a reflection of this "population with necessary skills" then our school system has not just fallen short on meeting the needs of the top 1% but also that of the lower 99% as our community is currently in the lowest economic class in my state with 12.10% of our population below the poverty line and our median income being $35,607. In my community we aren't getting the basics, and you can just forget any gravy.

Well, I agree with pretty much everything you said here. I mentioned earlier that it may be worth discussing whether "school" attendance should be mandatory at all, considering how many hours kids spend there, often with pathetic outcomes. Though this does vary by district. Can you imagine if the poor districts shut the schools and distributed the budget money to the parents, how much better some kids would do? (But of course you'd have other kids getting neglected and malnourished as they've lost their free lunch and their parents have spent the school money on drugs . . . which seems the only honest argument for public school in such districts.) I mean, honestly, in an average to poor district, the primary focus needs to be on getting the general public to some level of competence. From their perspective, if a child can read and write pretty well, yippee, their job is done. Unfortunately lots of working parents have to deal with this despite having kids who entered kindergarten knowing more than many kids twice their age. It sucks, but in most districts, demanding budget allocation for more gifted education is going to be a waste of breath. Maybe when China takes us over, there will be a shake-up in our education system. :/