Why there's no such thing as a Gifted child?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, and my sister is one of these high IQ people. Nobody in my Eastern European school paid it much attention. We were all in the same class, "smartest to stupidest," still are back there. No parents ever paid it any attention. My parents never spoke about her "genius." Nor did any other parents, she was just a kid, like any other kid. No parents ever commented on the kids that struggled, never. I think this is changing there, and has been changing in the last 15 years. So, she went to math competitions and to Vienna for some kids in science thing. This is a very U.S. thing to me. I don't get the fixation, I don't get the gifted class before HS, and even then. We had HS that you compete to get into, everyone knew what is a grammar school and what is a trade high school. It is the worst stupidity in my mind. Kids that learn stand out, no matter what.

On the one hand you are saying nothing was different for your gifted sister, but on the other hand she (and not you) was given the opportunity to go "to math competitions and to Vienna for some kids in science thing" and you had competitive entry high schools and trade schools.

Yes, I guess. But, she was never called gifted, or a genius, and all the way through 8th grade she was in the same class with the same kids from grade 1. The only things they would do is recommend to parents to have her skip a grade, she also started a year early 1st grade. I competed in other things, Museum art competitions, piano recitals, etc.. Other kids competed in sports, nobody classified it. There were opportunities there for the taking, but no classification in school was given and no different curriculum. Until HS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gifted programs in elementary school are not about finding the next Einstein. They're about meeting kids who need it, at that time, with some challenge or engagement. Whether with a pull out or push in, once a week or full time, program.

If the "gifted" student ends up working at a grocery store or high school teacher or university professor or Nobel prize winner, does that mean that the gifted program in elementary school has succeeded? Or failed? Or is that missing the point?

Need what? What do these kids need? What challenge?

Need something. Many of the gifted programs in the US were started by principals who wanted to get the "bright" kids out of the teachers' hair. They were disruptive, unengaged, driving everyone nuts. A gifted program, whether an hour a week or a day or full time, solved the problem for some/many of them.

Nah, kids that are into it, doesn't matter into what, will find a way, they will always find a way. No need to push them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe that's why Fairfax has an "advanced academic" program, not "gifted." Surely you acknowledge some kids are academically advanced.
That said, I'm pretty sure Mozart was gifted.

I do not see any need for such a program in public school. I believe they are all just a waste of money. It makes little difference in the long run if one kid or 100 kids are doing "advanced math." What do they gain by doing math ahead of dumb kids? They all end up in the same pot eventually. Perhaps US curriculum is dumbed down?

We can argue over definitions of gifted and who should be in it, but I think it's worthwhile to have such programs.

My school didn't have a gifted program and didn't differentiate until 8th grade, and even then just for math, science, and language. Being in class with kids who have no interest and are disruptive, when one works hard and is reasonably bright, is not fun. I was so, so bored in my English classes, despite the great books we read, because classroom discussion was at such a low level. Even my foreign language classes (French and Latin) were not that interesting because the pace, even in the advanced classes, was too slow. I used to memorize vocabulary at a glance and drank up the grammar. There were a couple other kids who did the same, and then a bunch of others who got Bs so they were put in the advanced class, but they weren't advanced. I was never disruptive and I worked hard and excelled, but I was so excited when I got to college and there were other people there who were interested in learning. And I am by no means a genius, by the way. I was challenged by the work in my high school classes except in languages and English. It was the learning environment that was lacking because of the lack of differentiation.

[Anonymous]

Disruptive kids are a whole other issue. This was not common back when I was in school. If a teacher called your parents to tell them you were disruptive, you'd get the shit beaten out of you. Parents beat first, and did not ask questions later! I am not saying this was ok, but today parents are more likely to "beat" the teacher and excuse their kids. Go back to basics, you don't need special programs because kids are gifted, you are saying you need them because kids are disruptive. Parenting fail, we need to go back to basics. Why not have a class for kids who behave and want to learn regardless of their perceived "gifted" status which is utterly arbitrary?

[Anonymous]

This problem and I believe it is one - of lack of differentiation in class and it could be solved but would take radically revamping our education system.

Oh what a glorious thing it would have been for me and my siblings as well as my own kids to have been able to move at our own pace. We could have graduated early or moved on to college level work while in high school in subject matters we excelled at - wouldn't that be great if everyone could move on with the subject matter as it was mastered. Some of us learn it deeply and retain it the first time it is experienced/taught to us.

[Anonymous]

I think the moment you label children as 'gifted', they (possibly) decide they don't need to put in the effort. Children not labeled gifted (possibly) decide that no amount of hard work would make any difference. Lose - lose both ways right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Western culture, and Western science is obsessed with their western empirical experiments. Everything has to be measured, and there has to be a control. It is Euro Western centric way to think. And the idiotic Individual builds his own destiny rhetoric that has never been true. Accepting narrow minded approach to learning in the U.S. has stifled any intellectual growth. If you can't measure it it is not real attitude. It is nothing but BS.

whatchu talkembout Willis?

This is why. You are uneducated and rules by proving you are not stupid. Sadly..... you prove yourself....

No. You sound like someone who is frequently wrong but rarely in doubt.

[Anonymous]

Some kids are way smarter than the norm. But getting a high IQ score doesn’t make you smarter. Gifted is as gifted does. I couldn’t care less about Johnny having a 145 IQ. I care more about Sally writing an amazing novel or George taking calculus 3. Show me gifted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some kids are way smarter than the norm. But getting a high IQ score doesn’t make you smarter. Gifted is as gifted does. I couldn’t care less about Johnny having a 145 IQ. I care more about Sally writing an amazing novel or George taking calculus 3. Show me gifted.

We can talk about prodigies. But when a school is talking about students, it is talking about the students who learn when they hear something once rather than needing it repeated 8 times.

I know you don't care about Johnny. But do you care if the school cares about Johnny? Or are you going to get upset about it and insist that Jonna gets to be in the gifted class too, regardless of test scores or writing or math ability or aptitude?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some kids are way smarter than the norm. But getting a high IQ score doesn’t make you smarter. Gifted is as gifted does. I couldn’t care less about Johnny having a 145 IQ. I care more about Sally writing an amazing novel or George taking calculus 3. Show me gifted.

We can talk about prodigies. But when a school is talking about students, it is talking about the students who learn when they hear something once rather than needing it repeated 8 times.

I know you don't care about Johnny. But do you care if the school cares about Johnny? Or are you going to get upset about it and insist that Jonna gets to be in the gifted class too, regardless of test scores or writing or math ability or aptitude?

I’m not talking about prodigies. I’m simply saying a 1 in a 1000 kid should look like a 1 in a 1000 kid. (A 1/100 kid is only marginally gifted and I think most people would agree he can be served by a gen ed classroom) Im saying a 145 IQ means nothing unless it’s backed up by the achievement. I hold very little stock in IQ scores alone as evidence of giftedness. I’m more impressed by the achievement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the moment you label children as 'gifted', they (possibly) decide they don't need to put in the effort. Children not labeled gifted (possibly) decide that no amount of hard work would make any difference. Lose - lose both ways right?

If so, then this would mean that the AAP system is fundamentally flawed, not because it segregates 'smarter' kids from 'not-smarter' kids, but because it labels them as such. If the separation was interest based (stem / humanities / sports), that might be a better, less destructive way to operate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, and my sister is one of these high IQ people. Nobody in my Eastern European school paid it much attention. We were all in the same class, "smartest to stupidest," still are back there. No parents ever paid it any attention. My parents never spoke about her "genius." Nor did any other parents, she was just a kid, like any other kid. No parents ever commented on the kids that struggled, never. I think this is changing there, and has been changing in the last 15 years. So, she went to math competitions and to Vienna for some kids in science thing. This is a very U.S. thing to me. I don't get the fixation, I don't get the gifted class before HS, and even then. We had HS that you compete to get into, everyone knew what is a grammar school and what is a trade high school. It is the worst stupidity in my mind. Kids that learn stand out, no matter what.

On the one hand you are saying nothing was different for your gifted sister, but on the other hand she (and not you) was given the opportunity to go "to math competitions and to Vienna for some kids in science thing" and you had competitive entry high schools and trade schools.

Yes, I guess. But, she was never called gifted, or a genius, and all the way through 8th grade she was in the same class with the same kids from grade 1. The only things they would do is recommend to parents to have her skip a grade, she also started a year early 1st grade. I competed in other things, Museum art competitions, piano recitals, etc.. Other kids competed in sports, nobody classified it. There were opportunities there for the taking, but no classification in school was given and no different curriculum. Until HS.

You just liked being the smartest kid. Here in the US we have many smart kids and try to meet their needs instead of just continually putting a crown on one students head.

[Anonymous]

Eastern Europe is a paragon of education worldwide. Haha.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I’m not talking about prodigies. I’m simply saying a 1 in a 1000 kid should look like a 1 in a 1000 kid. (A 1/100 kid is only marginally gifted and I think most people would agree he can be served by a gen ed classroom) Im saying a 145 IQ means nothing unless it’s backed up by the achievement. I hold very little stock in IQ scores alone as evidence of giftedness. I’m more impressed by the achievement.

A 1 in 100 kid could be taught in a regular classroom, providing that there's appropriate differentiation and extensions. Sadly, teachers are overburdened, and reaching up to challenge the top kids is one of the lowest priorities in a classroom. While a marginally gifted kid theoretically can be served by in-class differentiation, in reality, that child can't be served because the in-class differentiation won't be offered. The overwhelming majority of kids in AAP ought to be able to be served in a regular classroom. But, with FCPS pouring all of their efforts into the bottom kids, the reality is that those non gifted or marginally gifted AAP kids would be ignored in gen ed.

Any single IQ test is meaningless. If a kid has both the IQ and achievement to suggest giftedness, there should be appropriate programs to let that kid move at the proper pace. If multiple tests show a gifted IQ, but the achievement isn't there, then those kids also need some sort of a program or some additional investigations to see what is happening. You might view such a kid as not really gifted. The reality is that the kid probably is gifted but has an undiagnosed LD, ADHD, Autism, depression, or something else that should be treated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This problem and I believe it is one - of lack of differentiation in class and it could be solved but would take radically revamping our education system.

Oh what a glorious thing it would have been for me and my siblings as well as my own kids to have been able to move at our own pace. We could have graduated early or moved on to college level work while in high school in subject matters we excelled at - wouldn't that be great if everyone could move on with the subject matter as it was mastered. Some of us learn it deeply and retain it the first time it is experienced/taught to us.

Your Post made me flinch. I had a friend who taught in a class with a program that let students move on to the next unit when they were ready. It was hell for her. She was constantly teaching multiple units. Hectic doesn’t begin to describe it. She quit. Sounds great on paper, but it was terrible in practice.