Boston Globe: The Poor Neglected Gifted Child

[HejKatt]

I saw this article in the Boston Globe and thought it might be of interest. 

http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2014/03/15/the-poor-neglected-gifted-child/rJpv8G4oeawWBBvXVtZyFM/story.html

 

I think some (many?) posters here have experienced the system as it described. But on a broader scale, what do you all think of the suggestions raised?

 

Excerpt:

Precocious kids do seem to become high-achieving adults. Why that makes some educators worried about America’s future.

[ebunny]

 

I saw this article in the Boston Globe and thought it might be of interest. 

http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2014/03/15/the-poor-neglected-gifted-child/rJpv8G4oeawWBBvXVtZyFM/story.html

 

I think some (many?) posters here have experienced the system as it described. But on a broader scale, what do you all think of the suggestions raised?

 

Excerpt:

Precocious kids do seem to become high-achieving adults. Why that makes some educators worried about America’s future

..

To people more worried about kids who are falling through the cracks altogether, doing slightly less than we could for the most gifted might not seem like a pressing problem. But if the study is right that exceptional youthful ability really does correlate directly with exceptional adult achievement, then these talented young kids aren’t just a challenge for schools and parents: they’re also demonstrably important to America’s future. And it means that if, in education, we focus on steering all extra money and attention toward kids who are struggling academically, or even just to the average student, we risk shortchanging the country in a different way.

 

 

I read the entire article, but the excerpt quoted disturbed me on many levels.

 

Shortchange the country, how?

How fair is the expectation that each gifted child will contribute significantly towards furthering the political and economic aims of a country as an adult?

What if he/she doesn't want to reach his/her potential?

Does that decrease the 'value' of a gifted person?  Since the article talks about 'extra money and attention' diverted to 'low achievers' ('academic strugglers')... it  brings us to the other question: Who deserves to be educated?

To me, it's sounds like a very slippery slope and going down that path has lead to dangerous ideas in the past (eugenics movement).

 

Frankly, the undertone that any individual, gifted or not, is to be considered as a instrument, rather than an end in himself/herself bothers me immensely.

 

I understand where the authors are coming from, but I wish they wouldn't pit one group ('gifted' children) against the other ('average' children) to make a point.

 

 

ETA: I don't live in the U.S. anymore, so don't have a dog in this fight. My thoughts on the article were more on the ideas suggested.

[Harriet Vane]

I think the article is well written and brings out some good points. Frankly, I don't understand Ebunny's question, "What if he/she doesn't want to reach his/her potential?" All of us--every single human being--enjoys being "good at" something and wants to be able to do things we are good at. Being told that you cannot do what you are good at is tremendously discouraging and wasteful. Holding gifted children back literally hurts them as people.

 

Personally, I think schools should go over to university-model education. Let the subjects be handled as individual subjects through which individuals can progress at whatever pace they demonstrate they can handle, rather than moving an age-cohort through all subjects together.

[ebunny]

I think the article is well written and brings out some good points. Frankly, I don't understand Ebunny's question, "What if he/she doesn't want to reach his/her potential?" All of us--every single human being--enjoys being "good at" something and wants to be able to do things we are good at. Being told that you cannot do what you are good at is tremendously discouraging and wasteful. Holding gifted children back literally hurts them as people.

 

Personally, I think schools should go over to university-model education. Let the subjects be handled as individual subjects through which individuals can progress at whatever pace they demonstrate they can handle, rather than moving an age-cohort through all subjects together.

 

 

 

BTW, I don't dispute the bolded (above) at all!    Where in my post have I implied anything to the contrary? *head scratching smiley*

 

Anyways....I meant to ask whether it is the duty of each and every individual to reach his/her potential. And what implications such a duty entails.

 

To add, If I were a gifted child, and were told that I must develop my talents and 'gifts' to contribute to my country...I would feel like I was under a lot of pressure, kwim?

 

I think you and I are attributing different meanings to the article. 

[SKL]

So because gifted kids are bound to make a difference (and always have, regardless of gifted offerings in schools), the government needs to take over and manage this phenomenon?  Yikes.

[Dmmetler]

I do think there can be the condition of pushing a child out of where they really should be due to potential.

 

In my case, I love kids. I love teaching and working with kids. I love watching them grow. I volunteered in the church nursery practically as soon as I was old enough to not have to go myself, and pretty much all  my community service hours for NHS and the like had to do with kids. I worked in a daycare center for several summers while in high school and college, and got a CDA (AA in child development) before I'd gotten my high school diploma. I'm a talented musician, but honestly, I don't have the personality to be a performer-I was the kid who would be throwing up in the bathroom before even school-level concerts because I was scared I'd mess up, and then throwing up afterwards because I was relieved it was over. I was on 80 MG of inderal for migraines in college and STILL managed to be a half panic-stricken mess before my juries.

 

And I heard, all the way through school, that I was too smart and talented to teach. It almost seemed like a rebellion when I chose to pick up a teaching license while in grad school, because there had been such a stigma against "Settling" for teaching if you were one of the top performers. It was acceptable for me to move to the academic side, because I was SO smart. But the idea that I'd prefer to teach little kids ti-ti and ta and solfege vs publishing papers (and grudgingly teaching college theory) felt like I was betraying all the teachers and professors I'd had for the prior 20 years.

 

The funny thing is that I eventually ended up doing quite a bit research and publication and presentation, and a huge amount of grant writing.

 

 

[SKL]

Scanned the article.  It seems they concluded that really high achievers at age 12 become really high achievers as adults.  (No duh.)  What it doesn't seem to have done is looked at it the other way around - what is the background of all the adult high achievers?  Did they all take the SAT at 12 and blow it out of the water?  I'm guessing not.  I assume it would be harder to do that sort of study, because how are you going to get all the high achievers to hand over their past IQ tests etc., assuming they even have that info or were even tested?  But I think it's important.  I think it's bass-ackwards to ignore all the high achievers who were not SAT acers at age 12, to ignore the fact that lots of other backgrounds may lead to a meaningful adult life.

 

When I was a kid, I was not tested until I was 13 as part of a school-wide test.  I did start school early (something very difficult to do nowadays) and I attended a high-standards school, but there was no gifted program.  What did I do?  I daydreamed a lot.  I played my heart out in the after-school hours.  I didn't have to work on school at home, so I spent the time creating, teaching myself to play instruments, reading, engaging with real life, and getting a healthy amount of sleep.  How terrible.  Are they saying it would have been better if I'd been stuck in side studying calculus and physics (neither of which have ever appealed to me)?

 

I think it would be good if they differentiated instruction in schools, but they also need to take the kids' interests and maturity into account. (Do we trust the government to find that balance?)  Not everyone would enjoy life as a rocket scientist or brain surgeon.  Kids will rebel if we try too hard to put them in boxes.  And some of them will get too stressed out.  We see it happen in other countries where high academic achievement is prioritized above all-around well-being.  No thanks.  Let's give individuals more resources and choices and let them decide what they want to be great at.

[SKL]

I do think there can be the condition of pushing a child out of where they really should be due to potential.

 

In my case, I love kids. I love teaching and working with kids. I love watching them grow. I volunteered in the church nursery practically as soon as I was old enough to not have to go myself, and pretty much all  my community service hours for NHS and the like had to do with kids. I worked in a daycare center for several summers while in high school and college, and got a CDA (AA in child development) before I'd gotten my high school diploma. I'm a talented musician, but honestly, I don't have the personality to be a performer-I was the kid who would be throwing up in the bathroom before even school-level concerts because I was scared I'd mess up, and then throwing up afterwards because I was relieved it was over. I was on 80 MG of inderal for migraines in college and STILL managed to be a half panic-stricken mess before my juries.

 

And I heard, all the way through school, that I was too smart and talented to teach. It almost seemed like a rebellion when I chose to pick up a teaching license while in grad school, because there had been such a stigma against "Settling" for teaching if you were one of the top performers. It was acceptable for me to move to the academic side, because I was SO smart. But the idea that I'd prefer to teach little kids ti-ti and ta and solfege vs publishing papers (and grudgingly teaching college theory) felt like I was betraying all the teachers and professors I'd had for the prior 20 years.

 

The funny thing is that I eventually ended up doing quite a bit research and publication and presentation, and a huge amount of grant writing.

 

This is so much like me.  I was always nuts about kids and really, really wanted to be a teacher.  I too did a great deal of volunteering with kids; my favorite was tutoring the delayed young readers.  Even my teachers tried to talk me out of it.  I "rebelled" and entered college as an education student.  Eventually I changed my major as I realized that teachers didn't have as much freedom to innovate as I had hoped.  But that was my own choice.  You throw yourself into what you choose to do.  Not so much if someone else is telling you to do it.  (I did continue to volunteer with/for kids and now, 30 years later, I'm working with a team that is setting up an international arts school for city kids.  Go figure....)

 

To this day, nothing gets my creative juices flowing like a new idea about education.
 

[shawthorne44]

One thing I don't understand is why gifted education should be more expensive than regular ed. in a public school.  You need teachers anyway.  You need curriculum anyway.  Curriculum gets reused.  I can see how homeschooling a gifted child might get a little more expensive because they go through books and materials at a faster rate.  But, a school reuses all that stuff and has a library.  I think that lack of money for g/t programs it is just an excuse by lazy admins.  

[Dmmetler]

One of my friends is a GT/high performing (her class is identified GT kids first and the rest the highest performing kids on state tests) 5th grade teacher, and that's exactly how she got the program pushed in at her school-they have 10 5th grade classes and there's always going to be a top 10% on state tests, so why not pull those kids out into one room and make it easier on the teachers. According to her, one reason why it went through was when the other teachers realized that while they were losing some of the compliant, high performing kids, they also were losing the smart aleck, creative at causing trouble ones, because often THOSE were the kids who had actually been tested (usually because of behavioral issues) who actually were identified GT.

So far, they only have the separate section for 4th and 5th. Honestly, if I could move to her school zone for next year, DD would be going to her school for 5th grade, because I think having her as a teacher would be wonderful for DD. Too bad she lives in Fort Lauderdale.

[sunnyday]

One thing I don't understand is why gifted education should be more expensive than regular ed. in a public school.  You need teachers anyway.  You need curriculum anyway.  Curriculum gets reused.  I can see how homeschooling a gifted child might get a little more expensive because they go through books and materials at a faster rate.  But, a school reuses all that stuff and has a library.  I think that lack of money for g/t programs it is just an excuse by lazy admins.  

 

Take my son's elementary school. It's the only elementary in the district. It qualifies for Title I funding (a high %age of disadvantaged students living close to the poverty line). They can't afford to offer full-time kindergarten. They can't afford a full-time librarian (they just cut her hours but managed to massage the budget and make room for her as a classroom assistant so she travels from room to room throughout the school). There are two Special Ed teachers and one Title I specialist. We had a low enrollment year around 2010 and the teachers all had to take a pay cut and no benefits. No retirement, no health, no nada for a year or two.

 

Now, assuming that out of 440 students in 5 grades plus kindergarten, 2% of them need gifted services. Those 8-10 kids aged 5-11 need a special ed teacher (because gifted education IS special ed) and a classroom and accelerated materials for around 6 instructional levels. Where's that money coming from? What's being shoved aside? Where are they supposed to go, and when?

 

It's a frustrating dilemma. Fortunately my state just passed a law that says that highly capable education IS basic education, and so extra state funds are being released to help support the creation of highly capable programs in districts that don't have them. My only hope is that we'll get a once or twice weekly pull-out for students grouped within 3-4 years of age. A dedicated classroom is just out of the question.

[SKL]

My kids' school has one teacher who does a pull-out program for all the kids in grades 3 to 8.  I don't know how the group breaks down, but I'm sure it's much more than one grade at a time.  I think the guy is also a regular classroom teacher.  So I don't think they spend a ton of extra money on the gifted program in that school at least.

 

I also think that classroom teachers have the ability to differentiate more than they often do.  For example, I know that my kids' teacher has challenge level math materials that correlate with whatever the class is doing in Singapore math.  She doesn't use them very often, but she has them.  She gives some of the kids harder spelling lists.  She demands more of them in writing.  She asks them deeper questions in science and social studies.  They have a lot of freedom as far as individual reading.  I don't think any of this is that hard or that expensive.  It may not precisely meet all the kids' needs, but it's better than nothing.  I also think they should not be so averse to skipping a grade.  How much does that cost?

[wendyroo]

A pull out program strikes me as a total joke.  It just means more work for the kid.

 

My school had a pull out program - they pulled me out of my classes where I was physically and emotionally tormented by the other kids and let me read in the library.  It was wonderful; the librarian even let me read the biographies which you normally had to be in fifth grade to read, even when I was only in first.

 

Seriously, any pull out program would have been wonderful just to get me out of my normal classroom.  The normal work was SO easy that it rarely took me more than a couple minutes and I would have happily done more work if anyone had been willing to assign it.  As it was, I brought my own workbooks, make intricate dioramas out of scrap paper,  did long division of 20 digit numbers, read several novels each week and spent several hours a day helping shelve books while talking to the very wise librarian about life beyond our small town.

 

Wendy

[Dmmetler]

It depends on where you are. Honestly, in my urban district, I'd think it would cost less to put self-contained classes in, say, one in every 5 elementary schools that serve GT kids. Having a full-time teacher paid to drive between schools (or kids bussed one day a week to a different school) for pull out, with all those kids also having a full-time seat in another classroom would seem less cost effective than to put one class for those kids full-time in one achool. For the most part, school zones aren't big here, and most elementary schools are over 800 students, with many over 1,000. If there is even one kid in every 4th grade class, there would be enough kids for a handful of full time classes through the region.

It probably wouldn't be enough for all GT kids, but it would be better than a few hours of GT pullout and the rest of the time in a regular class. And it's not like GT certified teachers get paid more than a regular 4th grade teacher.

In one-school districts, I can see where it would be problematic. Maybe something like EPGY used instead of grade level curriculum would be a reasonable option for kids who are old enough to be more independent?

[HejKatt]

Here's a description of what's done in Singapore with respect to tracking:

http://www.ncee.org/programs-affiliates/center-on-international-education-benchmarking/top-performing-countries/singapore-overview/4136-2/

 

I grew up with the tracking system (IIRC screening for giftedness was in Grade 3 and 6, streaming to determine which track in Grade 4). It's apparently now changed to a banding system, which is still tracking but students can take subjects outside their track depending on aptitude.

 

I don't personally know anyone under the banding system, but it seems to address students having different abilities in subjects. 

[Harriet Vane]

A pull out program strikes me as a total joke.  It just means more work for the kid.

 

I was in pull-out programs in more than one school district. I loved and adored my time in the program. It was absolutely the highlight of my school experience, especially at one particular school that was a very difficult place for me socially. I loved it because it was interesting and we always did such fascinating things.

[MinivanMom]

One thing I don't understand is why gifted education should be more expensive than regular ed. in a public school.  You need teachers anyway.  You need curriculum anyway.  Curriculum gets reused.  I can see how homeschooling a gifted child might get a little more expensive because they go through books and materials at a faster rate.  But, a school reuses all that stuff and has a library.  I think that lack of money for g/t programs it is just an excuse by lazy admins.  

 

I attended a self-enclosed gifted class for 2nd-8th. They formed a single class of 2nd graders for the school district, then expanded it to be 2 classes of 4th graders, and then expanded it again to be a self-enclosed gifted class at each of the 3 junior highs. The only cost was the IQ testing (in 1st, 3rd, & 5th so there were multiple entry points for late bloomers) and then bussing the elementary kids to the school site. You would have to pay for a teacher for those kids anyway, so that wasn't an added expense. We used curriculum that was ahead of grade level, but that wasn't an added expense since the school district already had the curriculum; we were just using it ahead of schedule.

 

Testing materials, 2-3 short buses, and 2-3 part-time bus drivers (at minimum wage?) . . . that is all it costs. If you aren't willing to spare even that much, then you could just use state standardized testing to identify the bright kids and then group them into a single class within their school. Voila . . . you have a self-enclosed gifted class at each school with no extra cost whatsoever.

 

It's not a money issue. American schools don't serve gifted children, because we don't want to serve gifted children. As Americans we are uncomfortable culturally with the concept of giftedness. We are uncomfortable with the idea of innate intelligence. We are uncomfortable with anything that smacks of privilege. We will allocate millions (or is it billions?) in federal dollars for special education, but we won't do anything for the academically gifted.
 

[jennynd]

DS one day pull out has lego mindstorm, microscope for almost every kid , chemistry kits. Special curriculum designed for the gifted... I assume they ain't cheap...I also didn't get the feeling they reuse a lot of those which I do not understand. But I also do not think they are typical. But I do appreciate the oppurrunity DS gets
I do agree most people do not want to know that there is that 1% kid that are considered smarter than their own kids. But it is perfectly ok for them to brag their mikeal Jordan or Tom Brady... Sorry.. Kinda sarcastic.. But after a day hearing a Mom bragging about her soccer super star.. Just want vent a bit

[ebunny]

It's not a money issue. American schools don't serve gifted children, because we don't want to serve gifted children. As Americans we are uncomfortable culturally with the concept of giftedness. We are uncomfortable with the idea of innate intelligence. We are uncomfortable with anything that smacks of privilege. We will allocate millions (or is it billions?) in federal dollars for special education, but we won't do anything for the academically gifted.

 

 

 

Interesting perspective.

 

Assuming that the government can only spend ___% of dollars annually on education, and there are two choices only-

 

1-- is to spend it on children who need it most to help them function as an adult in society and earn a living 

 

OR

 

2- Spend it on a certain top percent of the population who are cognitively advanced. Being cognitively advanced also gives such children a better chance at making a living in the real world, as compared to the children with 'special needs'. 

 

The problems the government will run into are :

 

a- What is the cut off for being 'gifted'?? I notice some states call 2% as gifted and some call 10% as gifted...

 

b- Would spending on the top 10% help the top 2% or 0.01%? There have been posts on these boards bemoaning the fact that '10% of a school are considered gifted and my child is in the 0.01% and is bored....". 

 

c- This population of top 10% or  2% or 0.01% will need teachers of a certain calibre, if you will. Are there teachers who can serve the needs of the gifted (once gyou decide who the gifted are).

 

d- Defining 'special needs' is relatively easy (neurological, physical basis)...but there is no one common definition of 'gifted'.(High IQ? high creativity? Divergent thinking but not high IQ? very driven but not creative or high IQ?)

 

 

FWIW, I have a DD who has a high IQ ( how high I don't know) and whose needs are not met in a regular school...So i get what you are saying.

 

But, my point is that 'who to spend this fixed amount of dollars allocated for education on' is complex, so attributing lack of gifted services to  'Americans are uncomfortable with innate intelligence or uncomfortable with anything that smacks of privilege' (an opinion which may or may not be true) is, to me, unfair.

[Paige]

Precocious kids certainly often go on to become high achieving adults.

Kids who struggle in school also often go on to become high achieving adults.

Kids who never stand out as academically precocious or struggling also often go on to become high achieving adults.

I believe all kids should be nurtured as if they will be the ones to achieve great things. You never know who will do great things and who will have the big ideas. Many times it is the process of struggle and failure in early years that creates the character that helps a person succeed later. There's so much more to success and achievement than IQ, precociousness, or test scores. I don't think I can adequately express my disgust at the thought of identifying young children with precocious talents as the future leaders, nurturing them, and putting on their shoulders the burden of doing great things for mankind at the expense of other children whether they be average or struggling. I think it would be just as bad for the gifted child to be told he is destined to save our country as it would be for the struggling child to be told that he probably won't achieve anything too special. In a perfect world, every child would reach his or her potential and would receive appropriate support and encouragement. With limited funds, however, and a choice of do we invest in a program to help older kids who are struggling to read or younger kids who are reading well above grade level, I'm fine with spending the money on the kids who can't read.

I'm not against special programs for gifted kids being in school budgets- I have benefited from them. I think some differentiation for gifted children is necessary for their own emotional well being. It's the article's reasoning and justification for the programs that I have a problem with. Gifted children need to be nurtured and supported for who they are as people not for what they can do for us- just like any other kid.

[Incognito]

If the system would change to non-age based education a lot of the issues for both kids who struggle and those who zoom through would disappear.

[Korrale]

A pull out program strikes me as a total joke. It just means more work for the kid.

I did a pull out program when I was in primary school. GATE wasn't something that existed. But I went to another classroom during regular Maths time and we did problem solving math problems. It was so much more challenging and fun. I loved it.

[MinivanMom]

Interesting perspective.

 

Assuming that the government can only spend ___% of dollars annually on education, and there are two choices only-

 

1-- is to spend it on children who need it most to help them function as an adult in society and earn a living 

 

OR

 

2- Spend it on a certain top percent of the population who are cognitively advanced. Being cognitively advanced also gives such children a better chance at making a living in the real world, as compared to the children with 'special needs'. 

 

The problems the government will run into are :

 

a- What is the cut off for being 'gifted'?? I notice some states call 2% as gifted and some call 10% as gifted...

 

b- Would spending on the top 10% help the top 2% or 0.01%? There have been posts on these boards bemoaning the fact that '10% of a school are considered gifted and my child is in the 0.01% and is bored....". 

 

c- This population of top 10% or  2% or 0.01% will need teachers of a certain calibre, if you will. Are there teachers who can serve the needs of the gifted (once gyou decide who the gifted are).

 

d- Defining 'special needs' is relatively easy (neurological, physical basis)...but there is no one common definition of 'gifted'.(High IQ? high creativity? Divergent thinking but not high IQ? very driven but not creative or high IQ?)

 

 

FWIW, I have a DD who has a high IQ ( how high I don't know) and whose needs are not met in a regular school...So i get what you are saying.

 

But, my point is that 'who to spend this fixed amount of dollars allocated for education on' is complex, so attributing lack of gifted services to  'Americans are uncomfortable with innate intelligence or uncomfortable with anything that smacks of privilege' (an opinion which may or may not be true) is, to me, unfair.

 

My point was that there are many ways to meet the academic needs of gifted children without allocating any special funds for gifted education. There is early-kindergarten entry, grade-skipping, single-subject advancement, curriculum compacting, clustering, etc. All of these would help meet the academic needs of advanced kids and cost nothing, yet they are virtually non-existent in American public schools. Yes, something more than money is the issue when public schools aren't willing to make easy, completely no-cost accommodations.

 

The issue of gifted definitions and cut-offs is just a distraction. You could have exactly the same argument about special education. We don't simply stop trying to meet the needs of special ed students just because there are varying opinions about the definition and cut-offs for certain labels. As a society, we have decided that we have a moral obligation to meet the unique educational needs of special ed students rather than simply letting them waste their time sitting in the back of the class. Do we not have a similar moral obligation toward gifted students?

[a27mom]

It is good to hear that people appreciate pull out programs. I had the benefit of being in a self contained gifted class from 4th through 6 th grade, so a pull out doesn't sound like enough. But I can see how if done right it would be better than nothing. That said my nephew was in a gifted pull out and eventually dropped it because it was mostly more work, not so much fun. But my nephew is also socially skilled, so it makes sense that he didn't need the respite. ( I would have needed it )

As far as the article I too am a little uncomfortable with educating gifted kids so they can "contribute to society". I certainly haven't lived up to my potential, according to the article. I have chosen to be a farmwife, mom, homeschooler, and part time Physical Therapist. Yes I could have had a PhD, and might someday. But I might not. I guess my gifted education was wasted.

It is really a tricky topic. My self contained gifted classroom was a such a blessing. Really it was my educational foundation. The best part though was the other highly gifted kids who I became friends with. This was very beneficial for my self image and lifelong social skills. However, it wasn't such a blessing to the other half of my gifted class. Based on numbers I think my class was the top 10%. While it was critical to those of us in 98th% tile and above, some of those in the "lower" percentile's didn't appreciate it as much, and may have been better off being the smartest kid in the regular class.

Also I don't think anyone I knew in school was PG. Those of us who excelled in that class were EG, HG. So targeting the top 0.01% seems impossible. I think you can possibly create programs for the top 2 in 100 kids. But how do you create a program targeted to the top 1 in 10,000? Most districts aren't even that big. Although I imagine a program for the top 2% would be somewhat beneficial for a 0.01% kid...??

About expense. Gifted education (at least for HG EG kids) does not have to be more expensive. Our self contained classroom had a little extra expense for bussing, and initial testing. Otherwise we did not get special equipment or anything. We moved through regular curriculum quickly, had lots of discussion, and had extra time for creative projects (generally low cost, student generated.) Our only extra field trips were walks to the park next door to the school. There also wasn't a lot of competition to get in, since we didn't really have advantages. Of course I also didn't live in a high achievement oriented area.

[Paige]

My point was that there are many ways to meet the academic needs of gifted children without allocating any special funds for gifted education. There is early-kindergarten entry, grade-skipping, single-subject advancement, curriculum compacting, clustering, etc. All of these would help meet the academic needs of advanced kids and cost nothing, yet they are virtually non-existent in American public schools. Yes, something more than money is the issue when public schools aren't willing to make easy, completely no-cost accommodations.

I agree and would go one step further- those changes would benefit all children. I don't think it is because Americans are uncomfortable with gifted kids, however. I think the core beliefs of educational philosophy are the issue. These beliefs are often unstated and unacknowledged, but control the policies we allow. Americans believe strongly in the need for kids to learn in groups of same age peers and value peer socialization over education. We are suspicious of bypassing the traditional schedule of subjects or of moving around in a different order. It's not that we want to deprive gifted kids of good things, but that many people believe it may actually harm them. A principal told me that he understood that my child would learn nothing new in his school but that I should consider the value he would have just by being around kids his age all day. This guy genuinely thought it was in my son's best interests to stay in his grade and be bored. After all, he had plenty of time to learn stuff later. We need to value the socialization that comes from mixed aged groups over that which comes from large groups of same aged peers.

Some kids who are skipped ahead do suffer, so it's not like the fears that administrators have are completely unfounded. I think until all kids are allowed to move at their own pace without stigma, gifted kids who are skipped will continue to have more difficulties than they otherwise would. It would be nice if schools could allow kids to enroll in individual classes and test out of prerequisites like college students do.

[ebunny]

. There is early-kindergarten entry, grade-skipping, single-subject advancement, curriculum compacting, clustering, etc. All of these would help meet the academic needs of advanced kids and cost nothing, yet they are virtually non-existent in American public schools.?

 

I have heard of grade skipping, pull out programs and single subject advancement on this forum and this very thread so when you say these ideas are virtually non existent, I'm slightly puzzled!?
Are the public schools not doing anything for gifted children *at all*? Or are they not doing *enough* for gifted children,as compared to meeting the needs of children with learning/physical issues?
But, that would mean that kids with special needs have all their needs met in or through public schools...is that the case?


 

I agree and would go one step further- those changes would benefit all children. I don't think it is because Americans are uncomfortable with gifted kids, however. I think the core beliefs of educational philosophy are the issue. These beliefs are often unstated and unacknowledged, but control the policies we allow. Americans believe strongly in the need for kids to learn in groups of same age peers and value peer socialization over education. We are suspicious of bypassing the traditional schedule of subjects or of moving around in a different order. It's not that we want to deprive gifted kids of good things, but that many people believe it may actually harm them. A principal told me that he understood that my child would learn nothing new in his school but that I should consider the value he would have just by being around kids his age all day. This guy genuinely thought it was in my son's best interests to stay in his grade and be bored. After all, he had plenty of time to learn stuff later. We need to value the socialization that comes from mixed aged groups over that which comes from large groups of same aged peers.Some kids who are skipped ahead do suffer, so it's not like the fears that administrators have are completely unfounded. I think until all kids are allowed to move at their own pace without stigma, gifted kids who are skipped will continue to have more difficulties than they otherwise would. It would be nice if schools could allow kids to enroll in individual classes and test out of prerequisites like college students do.

I don't think the educational philosophy of keeping children seggregated according to age, is unique to the U.S. Almost all mainstream schools, the world over, are based on that same philosophy.
It is depressing, yes, and i completely agree with you that changes and reforms should be put in place that would benefit *all* children.

[MinivanMom]

I agree and would go one step further- those changes would benefit all children. I don't think it is because Americans are uncomfortable with gifted kids, however. I think the core beliefs of educational philosophy are the issue. These beliefs are often unstated and unacknowledged, but control the policies we allow. Americans believe strongly in the need for kids to learn in groups of same age peers and value peer socialization over education. We are suspicious of bypassing the traditional schedule of subjects or of moving around in a different order. It's not that we want to deprive gifted kids of good things, but that many people believe it may actually harm them. A principal told me that he understood that my child would learn nothing new in his school but that I should consider the value he would have just by being around kids his age all day. This guy genuinely thought it was in my son's best interests to stay in his grade and be bored. After all, he had plenty of time to learn stuff later. We need to value the socialization that comes from mixed aged groups over that which comes from large groups of same aged peers.

Some kids who are skipped ahead do suffer, so it's not like the fears that administrators have are completely unfounded. I think until all kids are allowed to move at their own pace without stigma, gifted kids who are skipped will continue to have more difficulties than they otherwise would. It would be nice if schools could allow kids to enroll in individual classes and test out of prerequisites like college students do.

 

Yes, absolutely. There are many structural changes that could be made to public schools which would benefit all children. And, yes, the educational philosophies held by most educators are definitely a big underlying issue.

 

. . . but . . .

 

as a former public school teacher, I would say that there are many educators who are actually hostile toward gifted children and opposed to any accommodations for them. They aren't opposed because the accommodations cost money or might harm the gifted child socially, but because they don't think bright kids deserve "special treatment". Maybe this is partly a manifestation of their underlying educational philosophy, but I think I knew one too many teachers who simply did not like bright children. There were things teachers & administrators would routinely say about gifted children behind closed doors that I can't imagine ever being said about a special ed child under any circumstances. *Of course, this is all based on my (highly anecdotal) experience teaching in 4 schools in 2 different states (Midwest & deep South).*

 

I see this article as arguing for something . . . anything . . . for our brightest kids. I'm not sure that the author goes about it in the most effective or persuasive way, but I appreciate the sentiment. *Most* future high-achievers were once *bright* kids. Let's do something more for the bright kids. Not because they have to go on to do great things, not because they are the only children who might go on to do great things, not because they have more value to society than other children . . . but because we have a moral obligation to help every child meet his or her full potential.

[MinivanMom]

 

I have heard of grade skipping, pull out programs and single subject advancement on this forum and this very thread so when you say these ideas are virtually non existent, I'm slightly puzzled!?
Are the public schools not doing anything for gifted children *at all*? Or are they not doing *enough* for gifted children,as compared to meeting the needs of children with learning/physical issues?
But, that would mean that kids with special needs have all their needs met in or through public schools...is that the case?

 

This attitude is the reason my children do not attend public school. Enough said.

[Paige]

*Most* future high-achievers were once *bright* kids.

Source? Bright as defined by who? I suspect that "most" high achievers were perfectly average achievers as children because "most" people are perfectly average. That doesn't mean they weren't bright, but being bright and being labeled bright/gifted are two different things. If bright includes those children labeled in school as average or slower learners, then we could agree. There's too few highly gifted children, statistically, for most high achievers to be them. Add in how many gifted children reject a lifestyle that would lead to public acclaim and those that are labeled under achievers, and the numbers in favor of most high achievers not being labeled gifted as children increase.

[shawthorne44]

As an observer, I've noticed one problem with gifted education that really boils down to a bunch of people being whiners.  I've observed the fuss and ruckus raised about some highly competitive Magnet Schools.  The accusation is that the kids in the really great magnet school are doing so great MERELY because they are in the really great school.  Not because they are gifted.  If only the whiners kids were allowed to attend the school, then they could be academic super-stars too.  No one fights to get their normal kids into special ed. classes.  Then you get some nitwit admin who says "Let us give everyone this Magnet education".  Then kids look like they are going to fail, and then it is watered down enough so that normal kids don't fail and smart kids are once again bored.  

 

Even for a school too small for gifted classes, I don't see why all the kids couldn't be told at the beginning of school what will be covered, like in college. Tests could be taken early, but each test could have a no-later than day and the test could be given on that day to everyone who hadn't already taken it.  Smart kids could take the test early, and self-study for the next thing, or the class they weren't so bright in.  I would have spent math class studying Latin.  

 

Which probably explains the teacher's negative attitude toward gifted kids.  Gifted kids can often self-study, with an occasional question.  Even then the question might be over the teacher's head.  

 

Reminds me of 12th grade English class.  There was a true egghead in my class.  He would ask these questions that were incredibly complex and went on and on.  I remember the first time, the teacher's jaw literally dropped open.  I'd been able to follow, so I restated his question.  I made a game of restating in 5 words or less.  The teacher was fairly bright, and a good person.  The egghead was a nice kid who wasn't trying to be complex.  It was just how his mind worked.  Shortly, the teacher looked at me after every question he asked.  I can see how an already irritated teacher would have HATED him.  

 

[ebunny]

This attitude is the reason my children do not attend public school. Enough said.

 

:huh: I have no idea what that statement means.

 

I try and avoid having an internet dialogue with people who are so emotionally invested in their point of view that they do not acknowledge the possibility of any other perspectives or ideas existing...... and I've noticed such a pattern in your responses to me on this thread.

 

So, yes, I think I've said enough too.

[a27mom]

I have been pondering on this and I truly feel that what gifted kids need is not so much "more" but "different".

I will admit that I have a bias, but I see a difference between gifted and high achieving. I think a lot of people either confuse or clump the two together, and I think that affects how people treat gifted education.

Most of my school life I lived in an area that was not culturally "high achieving". There were a lot of intelligent people, but not so many driven people. The driven types tended to move out of our middle class area as they "achieved". I personally feel they offered a very good "gifted" education. This included self contained gifted class for 4th through 6th grade, and then the opportunity to accelerate in math and science, and "A phase" humanities classes which were definitely gifted oriented, not more work, but more interesting discussion, depth, etc... This was great for me, but I had a high achieving friend who struggled. She was also gifted, but probably not highly gifted. But man was she driven and a hard worker. Her goal was to get into Harvard, but she didn't, and her younger siblings went to private school the next year. She may have been able to reach Harvard if she had been in a high achieving school that gave more opportunities to beef up her college ap. (BTW, she is currently a high achieving Dr. doing neuro research so it worked out ok :) )

On the other hand I spent 2 1/2 years living in Silicon Valley. Talk about being surrounded by high achieving types. There the "gifted" classes did have a cut off point for IQ testing. But it was clear that "studying" for the IQ test was common. The classes were set up to reward those who did the most work. There was a lot of content, but because there were a lot of high achieves, who didn't necessarily have the different "gifted" brain wiring, class discussion wasn't quite the same. Also the only way to excel at those classes was to highly achieve. Your grade was based on how much work you did, not on whether you mastered the material. A lot of truly gifted kids became goof offs, got low grades etc...because they didn't see the point of doing the work once you mastered the material, and class time wasn't mentally engaging.

All this to say I don't think there are easy answers from a public policy standpoint. How do you balance the needs of the high achieving verses the gifted? What do you do with those who are both? And since truly most of those kids will have at least a minimal level of life success anyway, how do you balance their needs against the population who are at higher risk for general life failure?

Sometimes I wish we could change how people view intellectual giftedness. It is just a "gift" meaning the individual can't take credit for it, shouldn't be expected to somehow change it, shouldn't be expected to "live up to it" either.

[MEmama]

I have been pondering on this and I truly feel that what gifted kids need is not so much "more" but "different".

I will admit that I have a bias, but I see a difference between gifted and high achieving. I think a lot of people either confuse or clump the two together, and I think that affects how people treat gifted education.

.

This is one of my big frustrations, too. Gifted and high achieving are vastly different, but until that distinction can be made on a ps level, I'm afraid not much will change. I have friends who love to let it "slip out" that their kid is in the G&T program at the elementary school, and it's all I can do to hold my tongue. They have zero concept what a challenge it is to raise a truly gifted kid, how lonely an experience it really can be. I admit that my frustration sometimes morphs into private resentment--your bright, high achiever A student just doesn't function anywhere close to my gifted kid, the one whose brain is on constant overdrive but would probably fail most tests at ps.

Sorry, morning vent.

I don't see it getting better at the ps level, I just don't think there is enough understanding or resources. Every day I am grateful to be able to homeschool. :)

[La Texican]

I want the tv version. I want the Little House on the Prairie one room schoolhouse where students get individual books to study and the teacher works with each kid a little each day. In the show the teacher taught 25 kids in different grades every single day. There's more kids and more teachers now, but it's about the same ratio. It's a ridiculous idea because kids learn from lesson plans instead of leaning by studying books now. It's a ridiculous fantasy.

[MinivanMom]

*snip*
I will admit that I have a bias, but I see a difference between gifted and high achieving. I think a lot of people either confuse or clump the two together, and I think that affects how people treat gifted education.

*snip*

All this to say I don't think there are easy answers from a public policy standpoint. How do you balance the needs of the high achieving verses the gifted? What do you do with those who are both? And since truly most of those kids will have at least a minimal level of life success anyway, how do you balance their needs against the population who are at higher risk for general life failure?

Sometimes I wish we could change how people view intellectual giftedness. It is just a "gift" meaning the individual can't take credit for it, shouldn't be expected to somehow change it, shouldn't be expected to "live up to it" either.

 

This is a huge part of the issue. Until we find a way to accommodate gifted versus high-achieving versus gifted high-achieving and make the effort to differentiate between the types of accommodations necessary for moderately gifted versus highly gifted versus prodigiously gifted, we are going to struggle with meeting the needs of "bright" kids.

 

We need a range of services for the range of abilities displayed by kids, similar to the range of options available for special ed kids. Just as special ed (in their quest for least restrictive environment) offers a range from full inclusion . . . to inclusion with accommodations . . . to inclusion with an aide . . . to resource pull-out . . . to full-time resource, we should ideally be able to offer a similar range to kids at the other end of the curve. I would love to see single-subject acceleration for the "high achievers" who just need to advance in a single area. I would love to see the moderately gifted kids clustered into a single class within their school so their teacher could better meet their needs. I would love to see the highly gifted kids bussed to a single school site for a self-enclosed class that meets their specific needs. It needs to be a range of options instead of a single "gifted" label and a one-size-fits-all solution.

 

None of this needs to cost extra money (except perhaps bussing). It's just a matter of being willing (philosophically) to accept that all children are progressing at unique rates and have unique needs and being willing to restructure in a way that makes that possible. I think a move away from the inflexible idea of all children the same age learning the same thing on the same day (which is how our large, urban school district is run) to greater flexibility is a move that will benefit all children.

[shawthorne44]

My husband is a good example of what I think happens to many neglected gifted kids.  He was completely unchallenged academically until middle of college, and then he hit a brick wall.  He had NO idea how to work to learn, and he floundered.  As a success, he definitely did not reach the potential that was there.  

 

The gifted kids are the ones likeliest to discover the next thing that changes the world for the better.  But, only if their full potential is developed.  Who knows what life would be like today if that had happening for the last 30 years.  We might have cured Cancer, found a cheap, non-dirty source of energy, have those auto-pilot jet-packs we were promised.  

 

One problem with studies is how they define success.  I remember reading one that looked at likelihood of a successful adolescence based on family structure.  Success was defined as graduating high school without being jailed.  

[Erin]

 I would love to see the moderately gifted kids clustered into a single class within their school so their teacher could better meet their needs. I would love to see the highly gifted kids bussed to a single school site for a self-enclosed class that meets their specific needs. It needs to be a range of options instead of a single "gifted" label and a one-size-fits-all solution.

This might work in well-populated areas, but what about those kids who aren't?  

We have 400 kids in our district, K-12.  Our district is about 1300 square miles.  And even at that, we aren't even close to the smallest/most sparsely populated district in our area...  Assuming the generous 10% classification for ALL gifted kids, that's 40 students, K-12.  There's really no way to further subdivide a group that's really not even large enough to sustain as is...

 

 

As far as the article I too am a little uncomfortable with educating gifted kids so they can "contribute to society". I certainly haven't lived up to my potential, according to the article. I have chosen to be a farmwife, mom, homeschooler, and part time Physical Therapist. Yes I could have had a PhD, and might someday. But I might not. I guess my gifted education was wasted.

I've been pondering this one, too.  (Popular discussion topic the last week or two, around the interwebs).  

My brother and I were both labeled at very young ages and sent through our school's TAG program, though neither of us realized what it was until we were considerably older.  He's a lead software engineer for Google.  He made good on his G&T education.  
But I have the same job description you do, though I'm a substitute teacher, rather than part-time PT.  I hesitate to get too shook up about TAG because it seems to be a crap-shoot whether it actually accomplishes as much for ALL gifted kids as it should, or if it's still something completely intrinsic to the individual...
 

[Gratia271]

Regarding educating gifted kids so that they can contribute to society, I (l like some other posters here) have been sharply criticized for choosing to be a homeschool mom.  In point of fact, the difference I can (try to) make in this world is far more likely to be accomplished in educating and raising my children (who would fall between the cracks elsewhere) than being a partner in a law firm.  Contributing to society well balanced, bright children who know themselves and who have a vision for how they can best use their talents to serve others is a great contribution, IMO.... many of us on these boards are endeavoring to do just that.

 

I am awed by the potential children possess, yet adults seem to invest so little in them.  We sell them short and devalue them and their abilities, and not just in the academic arena.  I have a nephew who was born with cancer.  After surviving, his parents were told he would never walk.    He is walking with crutches today at 4 1/2  without feeling in his legs despite the "professionals'" unqualifed statement that it would not happen. 

 

Needless to say, all children possess the ability to make a difference, not just the ones identified by some battery of tests. 

[Erin]

The answer back then was  independent study with a qualified teacher.  A little bit later, it was to use tech, specifically a satellite program to offer the academics that there weren't enough students in a particular bldg to have a class for.  A satellite classroom would link that child with others around the state and the teacher, and they'd move on.  With skype and other online classroom offerings these days, it is even easier, if the rural area has internet.

Precisely.  And these things are for high school...Specifically upper-classmen.  

Independent study with a qualified teacher circles back to the expense issue.  

 

My school system growing up was a similar size, but we were lucky enough to have a state college a mile up the hill from the HS.  Kids went through the gifted system as far as the local district could get them, then up to the college for necessary classes.  But it was more expensive while they were IN the system

[MarkT]

They are vastly uncomfortable with providing appropriate coursework for students that need more than gen ed, even when it's as cheap as clustering like minds together and running an honors course instead of gen ed (in other words, no cost at all), without a gpa boost..

 

 Yes - I think honors classes started earlier such as 6th grade would be very helpful.  The current trend here in AZ is accelerating for math (skipping) but the teachers in middle school, in general have less math knowledge so they end up skipping topics they don't understand well enough to teach. 

 

I would prefer the AoPS approach to have more challenging problems in the subject area (Pre-Algebra, Algebra) for the Honors classes.  Maybe "gifted" parents could volunteer once a month to help with the honors classes for the challenging problems.

 

English could do something similar with book difficulty and essay expectations.

 

I think a lot of current resources (time, money) are spent teaching to the test.
 

[Erin]

Ummm, no. Independent study began in seventh grade (start of jr high back then) for those that were interested.  It's guide on the side,  so it was handled by scheduling a room and a teacher and up to 30 students for a period each day. Think one room school house, with a qualified, intelligent teacher.  Each person did their particular coursework, asking questions as needed. It was quite valuable as the teacher trained the students in asking specific questions of an expert, after doing their research and thinking through possibilities in a logical fashion. Senior NHS students could use the darkroom without an adult in the room with them; the library was open to students that period. In later years, a room was set up with tech equipment for satellite coursework.  That resulted in an additional expense, as an adult was needed to supervise the very small number of students  in each satellite class and a skilled person was needed to maintain the equipment. The eventual answer was to pay the nearest big city district and bus the top students over where they could be in classes with like minds. I personally didn't take that option because of the violence and I didn't want to be in danger in the gen ed classes such as PE.

 

Bussing to a bigger district?  I'm thinking your version of "rural" is quite different from mine. ;) Like I said, our school district is 1300 square miles.  Our nearest "big city" is 70 miles away; a town of 8000.  Though we find a city of 20K at 120 miles...

 

And I had assumed independent started earlier than upper high school.  That's why I said it circled back to the additional cost issue (that needed for a separate, qualified teacher).   But that still does nothing for younger students.  Nor does it address the fact that MANY gifted kids can not handle an independent class.  

 

 

Frankly, what I would like to see is vouchers for parents of gifted kids to homeschool!  Because from what I can tell, that seems to get the best results at a fraction of the cost.   ...As well as my doubts about the actual societal benefit of "gifted education" vs. involved parents.

[Korrale]

Giving my son a 5-6 hour commute to school a day would never be an option.

[regentrude]

I want the tv version. I want the Little House on the Prairie one room schoolhouse where students get individual books to study and the teacher works with each kid a little each day. In the show the teacher taught 25 kids in different grades every single day. There's more kids and more teachers now, but it's about the same ratio. It's a ridiculous idea because kids learn from lesson plans instead of leaning by studying books now. It's a ridiculous fantasy.

 

That would also require a teacher who is equally proficient in all subjects studied by his students. No student will learn a foreign language to fluency without a  teacher who is fluent in the language. And I would prefer a teacher with a mathematics degree to answer my student's questions about trigonometry, not one who majored in English.
This marvellous individual who could teach all subjects at all levels, if she or he exist, would be highly overqualified for a humble teacher position and very sought after in more lucrative employment.

 

A one-room schoolhouse situation might possibly work for elementary age kids, but not for a larger grade spread.

 

[shawthorne44]

I don't think either is true.  

 

The current education model is for the kids to learn from lesson plans.  But, that certainly isn't the only way to learn.  In fact, it is probably the core reason that the gifted kids need to get out of the standard classroom.  So, that they can learn from books at their own pace.  

 

Up to 8th grade is when gifted ed. classes are really needed.  After that, there will hopefully be honors, A.P. and classes not so strictly tied to grade level.   Before high school, the mathematics teacher is more likely to have an education degree than a math degree.  The teachers tell themselves that a good teacher can teach any subject.  

[shawthorne44]

I actually came to this thread because I thought of it last might while watching Bones.  Since Bones is based on a real person, my thought was, "I am glad she wasn't squashed by school."  I don't think that the litmus test should be that every kid that gets gifted classes should go onto to do great things.  But, I think it is important to not squash the kids that would otherwise go onto to do great things.  

[MinivanMom]

That would also require a teacher who is equally proficient in all subjects studied by his students. No student will learn a foreign language to fluency without a  teacher who is fluent in the language. And I would prefer a teacher with a mathematics degree to answer my student's questions about trigonometry, not one who majored in English.
This marvellous individual who could teach all subjects at all levels, she she or he exist, would be highly overqualified for a humble teacher position and very sought after in more lucrative employment.

 

A one-room schoolhouse situation might possibly work for elementary age kids, but not for a larger grade spread.

 

Yes, but theoretically we would only need this wonderfully proficient teacher for the elementary grades.

 

Many states are now developing on-line distance-education programs for rural secondary students. Our state has one to give rural students access to AP classes and other advanced courses with qualified teachers. It's a much better situation for a rural kid to Skype for AP Physics with an intelligent, qualified teacher than to take physics from the school Biology teacher or not have access to the course at all. Our state also has an official state school of math and science. It's a free public boarding school for 11th & 12th graders from across the state. Kids in rural areas supplement their high school's meager offerings with advanced courses through the public online school in 9th & 10th, and then they can apply to attend the boarding school for 11th & 12th. It's not a perfect situation, but it's a good faith effort to meet the needs of gifted secondary students in rural areas.

 

A rural district could designate one passionate, intelligent teacher to teach the K-6 gifted kids in a "one room schoolhouse"-type environment. Then there could be a second teacher who supervises the 7-12 grade gifted kids as they take advanced online classes. A motivated principal could easily devise a way to let gifted students rotate between mainstreamed classes (P.E. & electives) and then time spent in a gifted resource room completing advanced & AP classes through a state online school.

[MinivanMom]

Bussing to a bigger district?  I'm thinking your version of "rural" is quite different from mine. ;) Like I said, our school district is 1300 square miles.  Our nearest "big city" is 70 miles away; a town of 8000.  Though we find a city of 20K at 120 miles...

 

And I had assumed independent started earlier than upper high school.  That's why I said it circled back to the additional cost issue (that needed for a separate, qualified teacher).   But that still does nothing for younger students.  Nor does it address the fact that MANY gifted kids can not handle an independent class.  

 

 

Frankly, what I would like to see is vouchers for parents of gifted kids to homeschool!  Because from what I can tell, that seems to get the best results at a fraction of the cost.   ...As well as my doubts about the actual societal benefit of "gifted education" vs. involved parents.

 

You can certainly argue the value of involved parents over educational programs, but that doesn't do anything for students with uninvolved or uneducated parents. Vouchers for parents of gifted kids to homeschool only work if you assume that all gifted kids come from homes with caring, dedicated parents. That's a pretty big assumption.

 

I came from a home with uninvolved, uneducated parents. I was neglected. At times we were homeless. Yet I became the first generation to attend college (on scholarship). I will be forever grateful for the self-enclosed gifted class I was bussed to from 2nd-8th grade and for my experience attending Johns Hopkins' CTY program.

 

Your children may not need "gifted education", but other children need it desperately. Educated, caring, middle-class parents will fill in the gaps, but gifted children from poor, lower-class, or at-risk homes do not have that safety net. When we fail to provide gifted education, we are failing our neediest children.

[La Texican]

I think the internet classes would suit both the one room schoolhouse model, everybody studying what they personally need to study, and the modern model where students learn from teachers rather than just from a book.