Norwood for student working several grade-leves ahead?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:21:14 Nobody in this thread has said that "it's impossible of a pg kid to do well anywhere but in homeschooling."

On page 3 of this thread, 1/6 21:26: "However, anybody with extensive experience with hg+ kids will tell you that your child's experience is unquestionably not typical, especially for the most gifted kids. They need to be accelerated or home schooled."

And at about pages 6-8 of this thread you will find the following exchange:

"I would agree with this, and add that the ability to make connections, through experience, between traditional academic and non-academic pursuits (seeing the geometry of soccer or sailing, or the patterns in music) is building analytic skills which can be the building blocks of success."

"This strikes a vision of ole lady Pythagorus setting sail on the high seas and ultimately dying of starvation while playing her violin because she didn't know how to catch any fish to cook and eat."

In fact the argument that there may be different solutions for different kids, versus the (your?) black-and-white/homeschooling vs. nothing approach, took up much of the discussion from about page 3 to about page 9 of this thread (about page 9 you redefined discussion by moving it from HG to PG).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:@ 19:29 - just curious whether any school other than publics that has said they would accommodate k-3 kids by moving them to a higher grade class for a subject? It seemed to me that Norwood's breakdown into 5 groups was more than other schools and that at some progressives there was an option for some personalized stretch work - but none that accelerated much. I got the sense that even our local public would not accelerate a K kid who arrived doing 2nd-3rd grade math.

Acceleration in MoCo is generally one year ahead until about 3rd grade when acceleration by two years is available to some kids. (I say "about 3rd grade" because this was a few years ago for us and I may be forgetting, also policies may have changed.) The teachers may or may not be able to make special accommodations for individual kids. It depends on the teacher's ability to multitask--I've seen some who can do it and others who are overwhelmed by the normal demands of a classroom.

In the TPMS magnet program the kids are accelerated 2 years relative to the normal MoCo schedule, so that they do Algebra I in 7th grade and geometry in 8th grade. But only a handful of kids accelerate beyond that. Most of the magnet kids go deeper into the subject matter, and explore additional topics within the subject matter, rather than doing Geometry or higher in 7th grade and Algebra II in 8th grade.

[Anonymous]

8:50 I hope you realize that you are quoting more than one poster, at least three.

You didn't read the posts carefully if you think anybody said that all pg kids needing to anything. Most is not the same thing as all.

[Anonymous]

8:59 Nice explanation of what happens at TPMS, thanks.

Do the TPMS kids follow a model more consistent with the one Richard Rusczyk's advocates for, more discrete math, less Calculus, etc.?

You mention that a handful of kids accelerate beyond Geom in 8th, and I think it's worth mentioning that a few, truly eg/pg ones have been accelerated way beyond that, if you take multiple full grade skips (not just math acceleraiton) into account.

I don't know of a private in the area that has ever grade skipped a child.

I guess by MoCo schedule, most advanced kids at Norwood are accelerated by two years. All Norwood kids do Algebra in 8th, some do Geometry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
It's not about doing well by your standards. It's about what is well by the kid's standards. Your standard may fall short for the kid though more than admirable for you.

OMG, do you ever listen to yourself? Please, re-read your post and see if you don't think it's ludicrous.

Translation: Your standards are relatively low and you think all kids therefore should be fine and satisfied when your low bar is attained. If it satifies you, why isn't it satisfactory for these bright kids?

I apologise for your misunderstanding of the original post that would definitely require higher order critical thinking -- not your forte.

[Anonymous]

8:50 I hope you realize that you are quoting more than one poster, at least three.

You didn't read the posts carefully if you think anybody said that all pg kids needing to anything. Most is not the same thing as all.

Not at all. The woman is clueless. She "speaks with forked tongue".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It's not about doing well by your standards. It's about what is well by the kid's standards. Your standard may fall short for the kid though more than admirable for you.

OMG, do you ever listen to yourself? Please, re-read your post and see if you don't think it's ludicrous.

Translation: Your standards are relatively low and you think all kids therefore should be fine and satisfied when your low bar is attained. If it satifies you, why isn't it satisfactory for these bright kids?

I apologise for your misunderstanding of the original post that would definitely require higher order critical thinking -- not your forte.

You are being criticized for telling people that they are dumber than PG kids, in a very patronizing tone to boot.

It's your condescending and self-righteous tone, like a previous poster said, that drives people nuts. Seriously, if you want people to sympathize, you have to get off your high horse and do a little work yourself to see others' points of view. Don't just insult people - it will get you insulted back without advancing your cause.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It's not about doing well by your standards. It's about what is well by the kid's standards. Your standard may fall short for the kid though more than admirable for you.

OMG, do you ever listen to yourself? Please, re-read your post and see if you don't think it's ludicrous.

Translation: Your standards are relatively low and you think all kids therefore should be fine and satisfied when your low bar is attained. If it satifies you, why isn't it satisfactory for these bright kids?

I apologise for your misunderstanding of the original post that would definitely require higher order critical thinking -- not your forte.

Ahem. I posted that, and I am 150s-160s myself. I have posted previously about teaching myself braille in social studies, and the subjunctive in french class while everybody else was doing passe compose.

You have repeatedly failed to acknowledge my experience as being valid. Why? Why can there be no grey areas, and no differences among kids, in your world? Frankly, it requires a "higher order of critical thinking" to see nuance, and you're apparently incapable of nuance.

Your stance is apparently limited to denying every other point of view, and calling people "stupid" when they fail to agree with you. Not so smart....

[Anonymous]

10:17 again. And oh yeah, I posted the explanation of TPMS. Yes, besides being smart myself, I have smart kids and have seen lots of smart kids.

Sorry if I need to shout, but you just don't get it:

THERE ARE GREY AREAS, AND DIFFERENCES AMONG KIDS.

YOUR EXPERIENCE IS NOT THE ONLY EXPERIENCE OUT THERE. GET OFF YOUR HIGH HORSE.

YOU ARE ONLY A VICTIM BECAUSE YOU ARE MAKING YOURSELF A VICTIM. IF YOU WOULD STOP INSULTING OTHER POSTERS (YOUR 10:01 AND 10:05 ARE, FRANKLY, DISGUSTING) THEN PEOPLE WOULDN'T INSULT YOU BACK.

UNLESS, I'M BEGINNING TO SUSPECT, YOU LIKE BEING A MARTYR IN SERVICE OF YOUR CHILD.

[Anonymous]

Ahem. I posted that, and I am 150s-160s myself. I have posted previously about teaching myself braille in social studies, and the subjunctive in french class while everybody else was doing passe compose.

You have repeatedly failed to acknowledge my experience as being valid. Why? Why can there be no grey areas, and no differences among kids, in your world? Frankly, it requires a "higher order of critical thinking" to see nuance, and you're apparently incapable of nuance.

Your stance is apparently limited to denying every other point of view, and calling people "stupid" when they fail to agree with you. Not so smart....

Yeah. and I'm Albert Einstein.

[Anonymous]

Ahem. I posted that, and I am 150s-160s myself.

I have posted previously about teaching myself braille in social studies, and the subjunctive in french class while everybody else was doing passe compose.

You have repeatedly failed to acknowledge my experience as being valid. Why? Why can there be no grey areas, and no differences among kids, in your world? Frankly, it requires a "higher order of critical thinking" to see nuance, and you're apparently incapable of nuance.

Your stance is apparently limited to denying every other point of view, and calling people "stupid" when they fail to agree with you. Not so smart....

I am only 34 years of age myself.

[Anonymous]

10:17 again. And oh yeah, I posted the explanation of TPMS. Yes, besides being smart myself, I have smart kids and have seen lots of smart kids.

Sorry if I need to shout, but you just don't get it:

THERE ARE GREY AREAS, AND DIFFERENCES AMONG KIDS.

YOUR EXPERIENCE IS NOT THE ONLY EXPERIENCE OUT THERE. GET OFF YOUR HIGH HORSE.

YOU ARE ONLY A VICTIM BECAUSE YOU ARE MAKING YOURSELF A VICTIM. IF YOU WOULD STOP INSULTING OTHER POSTERS (YOUR 10:01 AND 10:05 ARE, FRANKLY, DISGUSTING) THEN PEOPLE WOULDN'T INSULT YOU BACK.

UNLESS, I'M BEGINNING TO SUSPECT, YOU LIKE BEING A MARTYR IN SERVICE OF YOUR CHILD.

I've read several enlightening posts about Takoma Park. Which one are you laying claim to smartie pants?

[Anonymous]

I don't see anyone riding a horse. Are you hallucinating again?

[Anonymous]

Folks, please don't assume that you know who is posting. There is a lot hostility flying around, which seems unnecessary, but it's especially disconcerting when it gets hurled at you for something somebody else said. If you were insulted, it might have been by somebody who popped in, made a single post, and left.

We must all care about the needs of bright kids, or we wouldn't be posting on this thread. Could we all agree that some advanced kids do well in private schools, some in public, some when radically accelerated, and some when homeschooled?

Let's agree to disagree about the numbers. Some people here think all kids, regardless of how advanced they are, can thrive in a regular classroom. At the other extreme, some people think that a high percentage of very advanced kids won't thrive in a regular classroom and that few of the most advanced kids will thrive in a regular classroom. I think we can all live with this.

Terms like "advanced," "hg+", and "pg" have been used, but we haven't defined these terms for the purpose of our discussion. Both hg and pg are defined differently by different people. For example, some people follow Davidson's lead and define pg as 145+. Others use the term to describe kids with deviation IQs that correspond to the old ratio IQ of 180. Still others are referring to deviation IQs of 180 and above. Hoagies offers other definitions. Some people, like D Ruf, think pg is better described qualitatively than quantitatively.
Maybe we're arguing apples and oranges..

I don't think any poster on this thread has a pov that is radically different from the next poster. So maybe we could put the machetes away?

[Anonymous]

Folks, please don't assume that you know who is posting. There is a lot hostility flying around, which seems unnecessary, but it's especially disconcerting when it gets hurled at you for something somebody else said. If you were insulted, it might have been by somebody who popped in, made a single post, and left.

We must all care about the needs of bright kids, or we wouldn't be posting on this thread. Could we all agree that some advanced kids do well in private schools, some in public, some when radically accelerated, and some when homeschooled?

Let's agree to disagree about the numbers. Some people here think all kids, regardless of how advanced they are, can thrive in a regular classroom. At the other extreme, some people think that a high percentage of very advanced kids won't thrive in a regular classroom and that few of the most advanced kids will thrive in a regular classroom. I think we can all live with this.

Terms like "advanced," "hg+", and "pg" have been used, but we haven't defined these terms for the purpose of our discussion. Both hg and pg are defined differently by different people. For example, some people follow Davidson's lead and define pg as 145+. Others use the term to describe kids with deviation IQs that correspond to the old ratio IQ of 180. Still others are referring to deviation IQs of 180 and above. Hoagies offers other definitions. Some people, like D Ruf, think pg is better described qualitatively than quantitatively.
Maybe we're arguing apples and oranges..

I don't think any poster on this thread has a pov that is radically different from the next poster. So maybe we could put the machetes away? [/quote

I do not quite understand the rant here and beg thee to allow me to agree that we graciously disagree. Thanks.