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

[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.

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.

Actually it wasn't but since this thread has become a bad episode of the Simpsons, I'll just back out slowly.

[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?

This conversation has become embarrassing. You need to get over yourself.

At least the fact that you end up (even if you didn't begin) by phrasing it as a question shows some hope. In other words, none of us, including you, know to what extent it makes sense to segregate smart kids from their "dumber" peers.

That doesn't seem to prevent you from arguing for it, however. In the middle of your paragraph, you sound like you're talking about creating a new social tier, of smart kids who will go to school together and then work together as adults. And, apparently, never interact as adults with the mechanic or landlord or mortgage lender. Not to mention how this evokes some scary new ruling class.

My kids are highly gifted (and I abhor the boasting here, but I need to say it to get street cred in this discussion). And yes, my kids have spent some of their school years attending non-gifted programs in private and public, as have I (also in private in public, in my case). They got easy A's, and taught themselves tons of stuff on the side, both in class and at home. And they have friends in elite privates, second-tier privates, magnets, and non-magnet schools. And I wouldn't have it any other way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

This conversation has become embarrassing. You need to get over yourself.

At least the fact that you end up (even if you didn't begin) by phrasing it as a question shows some hope. In other words, none of us, including you, know to what extent it makes sense to segregate smart kids from their "dumber" peers.

That doesn't seem to prevent you from arguing for it, however. In the middle of your paragraph, you sound like you're talking about creating a new social tier, of smart kids who will go to school together and then work together as adults. And, apparently, never interact as adults with the mechanic or landlord or mortgage lender. Not to mention how this evokes some scary new ruling class.

My kids are highly gifted (and I abhor the boasting here, but I need to say it to get street cred in this discussion). And yes, my kids have spent some of their school years attending non-gifted programs in private and public, as have I (also in private in public, in my case). They got easy A's, and taught themselves tons of stuff on the side, both in class and at home. And they have friends in elite privates, second-tier privates, magnets, and non-magnet schools. And I wouldn't have it any other way.

PP that you quoted above. I am really asking questions and I really do think it is ok to ask these questions, I don't think I need to get over myself. I would like to have an honest intellectual conversation about this topic and I have not said anything about my kids or their test scores. I am interested in this as a social scientist (but not someone whose field is education). I am wondering if it is correct to come at this idea of how to deal with smart kids in school by assuming that they can only get the social skills they need by hanging out in school with 'ordinary' kids or whatever phrase one wants to use. I am really not talking about creating a new social tier or anything like that - it was more an observation that the really super smart do end up working together - think NASA, or top law firms, or think tanks where staff all have PhDs, computer programmers at microsoft, etc. This is happening anyway. These folks spend the 90% of their lives interacting with people that are as smart as they are... and some have good social skills and some do not. Those that do not often have an issue because they cannot handle not being the smartest person in the room. Do these smart kids really need to spend time in elementary school feeling socially awkward, in order to be able to interact well with the mechanic (to use your example - i know some smart mechanics!) later in life? Can they not also be taught respect and good manners while in a school for the highly gifted? Again I am just asking questions and would like to have an open debate? I would like to understand if the intellectually smart will do better socially and emotionally if they grow up surrounded by kids that are more like them rather than growing up feeling different. I would imagine that some grow up feeling superior to others because they always got the highest score on the test or whatever, will that equip them better to deal appropriately with the mechanic as an adult? The role of the family, I'm sure comes into play here but some profoundly gifted kids come from families where no one else is profoundly gifted.

[Anonymous]

My DH was highly gifted, quite advanced academically, and his parents were given the option of accelerating him in school. Like PP's old BF's parents, they declined because they didn't want him isolated with older kids, they wanted him to grow up with same age peers, they were concerned about his social development. As the wife of this guy, I am eternally grateful that they made this call. He is very successful, but he's also a great guy and gets along with everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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? ?

That's not the trade-off. What my DC gets for $30K a year is an educational environment that isn't about getting as many answers right as quickly as possible but about thinking in a complex, nuanced, and original way about meaningful questions and learning to communicate with and learn from others whose POVs and talents may be quite different from your own.

[Anonymous]

Hey, you know what? I am a former PG kid. That's right -- perfect score on the SAT verbal. IQ way up there. etc etc

I live in the real world and I have a normal job. I am not a NASA scientist or a medical researcher or whatever.

And people tell me I talk funny and use big words all the time. Other than that, I interact with everyone else in the same way that you do.

PG doesn't mean highly ambitious. A PG person can have other reasons for not rising to the top of academia or what have you. Those human interaction issues are still there.

[Anonymous]

16:05, your post is riddled with many contradictions. I don't think the problem is that these smart kids don't do well working with other smart adults because they never encountered someone smarter, but, more likely, they were raised to believe that being the smartest person in the room was the ONLY thing that mattered. And when they've lost that, well, what else do they have?

And to turn the tables on you: what happens when the profoundly gifted give birth to ordinary kids? I know two cases: one where the parents have taken it completely in stride and the other where one parent is completely unable to interact with the kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:16:05, your post is riddled with many contradictions. I don't think the problem is that these smart kids don't do well working with other smart adults because they never encountered someone smarter, but, more likely, they were raised to believe that being the smartest person in the room was the ONLY thing that mattered. And when they've lost that, well, what else do they have?

And to turn the tables on you: what happens when the profoundly gifted give birth to ordinary kids? I know two cases: one where the parents have taken it completely in stride and the other where one parent is completely unable to interact with the kid.

16.05 here. I am asking questions. I am trying to understand. I am not claiming to have answers and am not putting forward any thesis that needs to be attacked. I am questioning the assumption of other posters that profoundly gifted kids do better socially in the regular classroom. Is that not a legitimate question? and yes your questions are legitimate too. But the underlying assumption of many of the posters on this thread is that smart kids won't get social skills if their academic needs are catered to. Is that underlying assumption correct?

I am trying to have a discussion: I can see social benefits to both environments for profoundly gifted kids but is there one environment that is clearly better? I can see social costs to both environments. Is normal better for kids that are by some definitions in some dimensions not normal? In a way the response to my question comes back to the OPs original question - how can parents of profoundly gifted kids get answers without getting slammed?

[Anonymous]

I think this mis-frames much of the debate. No one is saying we are willing to leave our kids' academic needs unmet in order to help them gain social skills.

One group claims gifted kids have special needs and will be ostracized/traumatized/badly harmed unless they are segregated from other kids in school settings.

Another group sees the best education for gifted kids as being one where there's a more diverse community of learners and where the emphasis is less on speed/mastery of facts than on problem-solving, communication, learning to see the world through different points of view.

So, actually, each sees the best education as being the one that also provides that most beneficial social environment.

The first group seems to be disproportionately parents who prefer magnet programs in MoCo public schools. The second group seems to be disproportionately people whose gifted kids have been happy in private schools.

[Anonymous]

We did both public and private. Our kids are now in MoCo magnets, having done private school for ES. Both were not particularly challenged in private school and are much more challenged in the magnets. They did fine in the private school, however, from both the academic and social standpoints. They just challenged themselves outside of school, doing their own projects at home, and then lots of extracurriculars. And they still have friends from their private school days. So I'm happy with the results from private school, even if it wasn't magnet-level.

The MoCo magnets are not completely "segregated", by the way. In middle school your kid takes a number of non-magnet classes (social studies, gym, electives, languages, and either math/science or english depending on which MoCo MS magnet they're in) with the rest of the school.

16:05, I think people here are assuming that you're the the mom with the sense of entitlement about her gifted kid, who seems to be trying to take money away from the LD kids. That's why you're not getting a lot of sympathy here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We did both public and private. Our kids are now in MoCo magnets, having done private school for ES. Both were not particularly challenged in private school and are much more challenged in the magnets. They did fine in the private school, however, from both the academic and social standpoints. They just challenged themselves outside of school, doing their own projects at home, and then lots of extracurriculars. And they still have friends from their private school days. So I'm happy with the results from private school, even if it wasn't magnet-level.

The MoCo magnets are not completely "segregated", by the way. In middle school your kid takes a number of non-magnet classes (social studies, gym, electives, languages, and either math/science or english depending on which MoCo MS magnet they're in) with the rest of the school.

16:05, I think people here are assuming that you're the the mom with the sense of entitlement about her gifted kid, who seems to be trying to take money away from the LD kids. That's why you're not getting a lot of sympathy here.

16.05 here. No, I'm not "the mom with the sense of entitlement" - I just started posting in this thread late today...... I am definitely not trying to take anything away from anyone, just trying to understand/gain some perspective about what will work best for the highly gifted kids.....

[Anonymous]

Depends on the kid -- IQ doesn't determine personality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Depends on the kid -- IQ doesn't determine personality.

But I sincerely believe that high-IQ kids have a need to challenge themselves. I've seen it in my own kids, and in myself. So they will find a way to be challenged.

[Anonymous]

I'm the PP you quoted. And I was (and my DC is) the kind of high-IQ kid you describe. I'll go a step further and add that if I hadn't seen this trait in my DC, I would have worked hard to foster it. (Seemed to come naturally, LOL, but with genes and environment on my side, it's hard to tell what made the difference!) And, like you, I find it hard to imagine being very smart and not setting my own challenges.

That said, I see other high-IQ kids who just aren't like this. I tend to attribute that to nurture, but at a certain point, regardless of why, there are certainly gifted kids who don't feel the need to challenge themselves. And my guess is that even within this group, different external stimuli/motivations/environments work for different kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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? ?

That's not the trade-off. What my DC gets for $30K a year is an educational environment that isn't about getting as many answers right as quickly as possible but about thinking in a complex, nuanced, and original way about meaningful questions and learning to communicate with and learn from others whose POVs and talents may be quite different from your own.

Indeed