How can posters ask questions about their academically advanced kids without being criticized?

[Anonymous]

Sigh. I have been irritated by folks who ask these questions in open houses because it is often appears that they open the test scores, see the marks, and draw incorrect assumptions - "my child is brilliant" - based on the results without trying to put the scores into a context. Can the kid really be that brilliant if the parents haven't even tried to figure out what the scores mean? When we got first DC's WPPSI results, I was initially impressed, then, after some reading, realized it was not unusual for DC to get such test scores, that many of DC's peers in this metro area probably had similar/same scores, and that they were no guarantee to entry to a top independent, etc. I had done something similar when DC started reading at an early age. I learned, after some research, that early reading was determinative of...nothing. I also discovered that there are so many components comprising reading that what may appear as repetition to a novice parent really are necessary fundamentals for mastery for an early reader.

Like any type of intellectual inquiry, what one learns can be framed by the questions being posed. So if a parent opens a WPPSI eval, deduces that DC is brilliant, and asks "where can my brilliant child go to school in order not to be bored," then parent has shaped the arc of the answers. If parent, however, opens eval, sees scores, and wonders "what does this mean vis-a-vis DC's peers," then they may find different responses.

The thread hasn't necessarily changed my mind. I am intrigued by the comment that boredom is not necessarily an attribute of giftedness. My HS BF was *brilliant* but his parents believed that development of his social/emotional capital was as critical as that of his intelligence. Am curious what posters think about that.

[Anonymous]

I agree pp. I run a human capital firm. We look for candidates with both EQ + IQ. One won't do w/o the other.

[Anonymous]

My HS BF was *brilliant* but his parents believed that development of his social/emotional capital was as critical as that of his intelligence.

I don't understand your point? Of course it's important. What I find frustrating is people who can't seem to get that providing an appropriate academic environment can be an important element to children finding social and emotional success.

As adults, when we are in a group that does not challenge us intellectually or need to do tasks we find boring, we are able to compensate. We can leave, take breaks, change the topic, multi-task, etc. We have choices. Children in school often do not have these chocies/resources available to them. If your school allows children these resources, then they are accommodating them. But some schools do not. Many posters seem to think there are a plethora of school out there where gifted/academically advanced children will find engaging teachers and schools who challenge them while also nurturing their emotional and social growth. And even if there are a plethora, how do I find out what they are without ASKING the question?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is a link to a website debunking that poem as an internet scam:

http://www.qis.net/~jschmitz/afu/yellow.htm

Interestingly, the Hoagies website (and couldn't the highly gifted design a better website) admits at the bottom that the origin of the poem is in doubt, however they find it telling in some way. Its a bad poem, and a fraud.

Well, aren't you just happily smug with your findings. What did you accomplish here? To further reject and to continue the hostility against the "gifted" parents who are trying to connect with other parents.

And why feel the need to "slam" the hoagies site. It's a site designed to help children.

[Anonymous]

I think EQ is especially important for high IQ kids -- not because they are naturally socially inept but because the world is often going to seem really irrational to them and how you respond to that insight really shapes what you do with your life and how happy will be.

Social capital has bad connotations to me, but I suspect it doesn't have the same associations for 12:47. And maybe I think that part of EQ is knowing when/why you should pay attention to (which) other peoples' opinions/perceptions of you and knowing when not to give a damn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

My HS BF was *brilliant* but his parents believed that development of his social/emotional capital was as critical as that of his intelligence.

I don't understand your point? Of course it's important. What I find frustrating is people who can't seem to get that providing an appropriate academic environment can be an important element to children finding social and emotional success.

As adults, when we are in a group that does not challenge us intellectually or need to do tasks we find boring, we are able to compensate. We can leave, take breaks, change the topic, multi-task, etc. We have choices. Children in school often do not have these chocies/resources available to them. If your school allows children these resources, then they are accommodating them. But some schools do not. Many posters seem to think there are a plethora of school out there where gifted/academically advanced children will find engaging teachers and schools who challenge them while also nurturing their emotional and social growth. And even if there are a plethora, how do I find out what they are without ASKING the question?

His parents believed he needed to remain in school with his age peers. In the early years they supplemented his work. When he was finally able to drive he took maths and science classes at the local university and took literature and humanities classes at our high school. While he had little interest in phys ed, he took tennis lessons and even played on the tennis team. They never tolerated him speaking poorly of kids who were not as bright as him or accepted him saying that he was bored. FWIW, he had a full-ride to MIT then on to med school and distinguished dual career as doctor and writer.

Bottom line, they did not want to focus on his intellect at the expense of his social development. They did not want him starting college at 16, yet not having a true friend in the world. And he learned all this as a child. If he finished an assignment early, he worked on math problems or mulled over whatever else was of interest to him. Yes, some of his teachers were better about this than others. But that is life. Not every school year is going to be great. And I think that is good. Life can throw some real curve balls and the sooner children learn to field them, then the better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think EQ is especially important for high IQ kids -- not because they are naturally socially inept but because the world is often going to seem really irrational to them and how you respond to that insight really shapes what you do with your life and how happy will be.

Social capital has bad connotations to me, but I suspect it doesn't have the same associations for 12:47. And maybe I think that part of EQ is knowing when/why you should pay attention to (which) other peoples' opinions/perceptions of you and knowing when not to give a damn.

Say more about why social capital has bad connotations for you. When I think of social capital, I think in the vein of "Bowling Alone" and how strong social ties can be integral to a happy, healthy life.

When I think of EQ, I also think of it in the sense of having the capacity to understand and empathize with others.

[Anonymous]

Several points on this thread seem to add up to the idea that EQ and IQ are different and should be treated as separate issues.

Simply throwing more money at gifted children, which seems to be the argument from some here, won't necessarily solve the problem if it's related to EQ and emotions. When a poster writes that her kid is near-suicidal, that speaks to me of emotional problems that aren't being addressed, maybe because of the IQ, but nonetheless these are emotional problems. When classmates and teachers complain that a gifted kid disrespects them (see themorechild.com), that too is an EQ problem and the kid needs to be taught to respect differences in others' intellectual capabilities (which may be difficult when your mom is blogging about how brilliant you are and everybody else is just "jealous," but whatever). Both types of kids need some sort of therapy, and to learn coping mechanisms, in order to become productive and happy adults.

And frankly, I don't buy the argument that *only* adults are able to compensate when they are insufficiently challenged. My highly gifted kids are great at entertaining themselves, and at doing little extra projects in class with or without accommodation from the teacher. Maybe is teachable, and could be part of addressing the kids' emotional needs?

So throwing more money at the problem, by telling gifted children they are brilliant and parking them in magnets or CTY (as it happens, my kids do both) may help in the short-term by putting them with peers. But it may even delay the development of EQ and social skills they will need to make it in the world as productive adults.

(And before I get flamed for arguing that smart kids should "play dumb," that's not my point at all, go back and read it. Also I don't want to feed into the defensive and extreme position taken by some posters here, that some people want to cut all gifted/magnet programs, which I don't think anybody has actually said. My point is that throwing money at more gifted programs may be aiming it in the wrong direction.)

[Anonymous]

My highly gifted kids are great at entertaining themselves, and at doing little extra projects in class with or without accommodation from the teacher.

I think it's great that your kids are able to do that in the classroom. But not all schools/teachers allow or encourage this. Some teachers literally do make the kids sit and work on what all the other kids are doing, even if they know it, and if they finish early have to sit there quietly in their seats, not even allowed to read a book. We had along term sub one year (maternity leave) and I had to go in convince the sub it was OK to let my DD read a book when she had 15 minutes to spare after she completed her math work. She was going nuts because the sub told her she had to just sit there quietly. Doing a project would have been unthinkable.

Generally I think posters are probably right that most top tier privates are going to do a pretty good job. But not everyone can afford a top tier private oand not everyone gets accepted to a top tier school. And the original post that this thread is in response to was actually asking about public vs private schools.

Both types of kids need some sort of therapy, and to learn coping mechanisms, in order to become productive and happy adults.

Absolutely. Where do they learn these things? Where do these get reinforced? At home AND at school. Which is why if the school is not a good fit for your child's needs, it can cause real harm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Say more about why social capital has bad connotations for you. When I think of social capital, I think in the vein of "Bowling Alone" and how strong social ties can be integral to a happy, healthy life.

When I think of EQ, I also think of it in the sense of having the capacity to understand and empathize with others.

Because I first heard "social capital" in discussions of Marx and Bourdieu rather than Putnam, that term makes me think about status hierarchies and profit-generation -- e.g. using your education/taste/networks to improve or maintain social position and/or wealth. Which, of course, is an orientation you see a lot in the DC private school world. So it resonates in a bad way for me.

I agree with you re the importance of relationships/a feeling of connectedness to a healthy, happy life. But for me that's more about friends and family than institutional life (bowling leagues, labor unions, small towns).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My HS BF was *brilliant* but his parents believed that development of his social/emotional capital was as critical as that of his intelligence.

I don't understand your point? Of course it's important. What I find frustrating is people who can't seem to get that providing an appropriate academic environment can be an important element to children finding social and emotional success.

As adults, when we are in a group that does not challenge us intellectually or need to do tasks we find boring, we are able to compensate. We can leave, take breaks, change the topic, multi-task, etc. We have choices. Children in school often do not have these chocies/resources available to them. If your school allows children these resources, then they are accommodating them. But some schools do not. Many posters seem to think there are a plethora of school out there where gifted/academically advanced children will find engaging teachers and schools who challenge them while also nurturing their emotional and social growth. And even if there are a plethora, how do I find out what they are without ASKING the question?

His parents believed he needed to remain in school with his age peers. In the early years they supplemented his work. When he was finally able to drive he took maths and science classes at the local university and took literature and humanities classes at our high school. While he had little interest in phys ed, he took tennis lessons and even played on the tennis team. They never tolerated him speaking poorly of kids who were not as bright as him or accepted him saying that he was bored. FWIW, he had a full-ride to MIT then on to med school and distinguished dual career as doctor and writer.

Bottom line, they did not want to focus on his intellect at the expense of his social development. They did not want him starting college at 16, yet not having a true friend in the world. And he learned all this as a child. If he finished an assignment early, he worked on math problems or mulled over whatever else was of interest to him. Yes, some of his teachers were better about this than others. But that is life. Not every school year is going to be great. And I think that is good. Life can throw some real curve balls and the sooner children learn to field them, then the better.

Oh man, his parents were my parents. And I'm eternally grateful for that orientation. Worked well for me; is working well for my DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

My highly gifted kids are great at entertaining themselves, and at doing little extra projects in class with or without accommodation from the teacher.

I think it's great that your kids are able to do that in the classroom. But not all schools/teachers allow or encourage this. Some teachers literally do make the kids sit and work on what all the other kids are doing, even if they know it, and if they finish early have to sit there quietly in their seats, not even allowed to read a book. We had along term sub one year (maternity leave) and I had to go in convince the sub it was OK to let my DD read a book when she had 15 minutes to spare after she completed her math work. She was going nuts because the sub told her she had to just sit there quietly. Doing a project would have been unthinkable.

I think we're talking about different things now. We're talking about accommodation (can a kid read for 15 minutes if she finishes the math homework early) versus paying $30+K for private school. I think everybody here is on board with the idea that accommodation is a good thing, and the kid who needs more, not less, time should also be accommodated.

The question is, is it worth it to pay $30K for private, so your kid can read instead of learning to sit still for 15 minutes? And does going private actually guarantee that your kid will actually get this 15 minutes of reading time?

Frankly, to me, this doesn't seem to be an emergency that requires either the creation of a new magnet program, or the expenditure of 30K, but YMMV.

[Anonymous]

Why are people so certain that a highly gifted child has to grow up surrounded by 'ordinary' kids in order to have social skills? Once a child has been assessed as highly gifted, you are being told that they are essentially not 'normal'. Ask many people who are truly exceptional that grew up attending non-gifted and talent programs and I think you will find that they were lonely as children, made their only best best friend at a program like Hopkins gifted and talented, etc. Why is it so important that a child struggle socially in order to learn to interact well with people of average intelligence when in all likelihood they will spend their working lives somewhere that all their colleagues are as smart as they are? Should they not be learning how to make friends with people of equal intelligence? I guess I am asking would smart kids do better socially and develop more social and emotional intelligence in an environment where they are less different from other kids in their class?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Say more about why social capital has bad connotations for you. When I think of social capital, I think in the vein of "Bowling Alone" and how strong social ties can be integral to a happy, healthy life.

When I think of EQ, I also think of it in the sense of having the capacity to understand and empathize with others.

Because I first heard "social capital" in discussions of Marx and Bourdieu rather than Putnam, that term makes me think about status hierarchies and profit-generation -- e.g. using your education/taste/networks to improve or maintain social position and/or wealth. Which, of course, is an orientation you see a lot in the DC private school world. So it resonates in a bad way for me.

I agree with you re the importance of relationships/a feeling of connectedness to a healthy, happy life. But for me that's more about friends and family than institutional life (bowling leagues, labor unions, small towns).

Uuuuh, yes, I had not thought about the Marxian social capital definition. I do think social capital's richest vein is from family and friends, but I think benefits can also adhere from institutional memberships (loosely defined).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are people so certain that a highly gifted child has to grow up surrounded by 'ordinary' kids in order to have social skills? Once a child has been assessed as highly gifted, you are being told that they are essentially not 'normal'. Ask many people who are truly exceptional that grew up attending non-gifted and talent programs and I think you will find that they were lonely as children, made their only best best friend at a program like Hopkins gifted and talented, etc. Why is it so important that a child struggle socially in order to learn to interact well with people of average intelligence when in all likelihood they will spend their working lives somewhere that all their colleagues are as smart as they are? Should they not be learning how to make friends with people of equal intelligence? I guess I am asking would smart kids do better socially and develop more social and emotional intelligence in an environment where they are less different from other kids in their class?

Because people of all abilities deserve respect. I get your first part on the loneliness, but not the middle bit in that smart folks should not learn to interact with a range of folks because they will probably spend their working lives with folks as smart as them. And your last part could be inferred in so many other ways, including some which are quite harmful.