s/o - DC privates are not filled with gifted kids

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You would think that the country would be in a better place given how many "gifted" kids everyone has in this area! Maybe the testing is too easy. How nice it would be if everyone tested back down in the average range so we wouldn't feel that our children were so precious and underchallenged!

These kids are the ones who are growing up to be our computer scientists, physicists, neurobiologists, brain surgeons, astronomers, public intellectuals, university presidents, mathematicians, etc.

If everyone were average, we wouldn't be typing on this board, because no one would ever have invented the internet. There would be no google. Life expectancy would still be 40. We wouldn't have travelled into space. We wouldn't have most modern medicines. We wouldn't have MRIs or CT scans or helicopters. (We also wouldn't have had sub prime mortgages, but that's another thread altogether)

I think our country would be a better place if these gifted kids were allowed to thrive and challenge, instead of being told to sit still, be bored, pretend you aren't different.

[Anonymous]

Do you think that your child should NEVER be bored in class? I ask this will all seriousness. I think that so many helicopter parents think that their children must be catered to at all moments so that their desires will be met at every moment.

The thing about going to a school is that your child is part of a community of learners. That's right, a community. You go to class with a number of children, and you have to learn as part of a group. There will be times when your highly gifted child will be bored, and there will be times when she is challenged. Your child must learn how to be engaged with the material, to a certain extent, on her own.

I think you might be addressing me (13:45), who talked about her son being idle a lot in science and social studies (and math and foreign language, too, since we on the topic).

I agree with you! I agree so much that I am weirdly out of step with my parent peer group in that I insist DS have lots of unscheduled time after school / weekends. At his age, that's extremely unusual in my zip code. However I feel passionately that kids need time for the minds to wander (without a screen) and take them wherever.

That said, the ratio of idle mental time :: challenging engagement during SCHOOL hours is (way?) off for my DS. There's too much sitting around, or "choosing a book" or "going over your journal again" or sketching. I'm sorry, but that's the way I feel. The balance is off.

I agree with you, up to a point, about meshing with the 'community.' It's never bad to hone social skills and feel a part of something. However when that comes at the expense of reaching your potential day after day, month after month ... that's not cool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you think that your child should NEVER be bored in class? I ask this will all seriousness. I think that so many helicopter parents think that their children must be catered to at all moments so that their desires will be met at every moment.

The thing about going to a school is that your child is part of a community of learners. That's right, a community. You go to class with a number of children, and you have to learn as part of a group. There will be times when your highly gifted child will be bored, and there will be times when she is challenged. Your child must learn how to be engaged with the material, to a certain extent, on her own. She can learn to raise her hand and ask questions. Your child will also be learning, as part of a group, how some kids understand the material in different ways. I think that it is important that children, especially gifted ones, how to negotiate an environment with normal kids.

Have you never been to a meeting where you already know the information being presented, but have to sit there anyway? It's not completely a waste of time, despite what people say, it's part of being a community.

I get what you're saying. But, imagine if that meeting lasted all day and every day. You would likely seek employment elsewhere.

Also, as the PP of a post above suggested....it's the hard work, resilience, and persistence that are the most important life lessons for future success and happiness. These kids need to be challenged enough to develop these skills. Making straight As with little effort won't teach them anything useful and will likely be deterimental.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Rare is the child who is highly gifted in every single subject area. I seriously doubt a gifted child would be bored at our Big 3 all day, every day.

True, there is always recess and lunchtime.

[Anonymous]

To those who have said that IQ/WISPI scores do not tend to fall for highly gifted kids, can you explain more? Are you talking about kids in the 130 range? Same questions for the poster who said that "backslide is more likely to happen if kids aren't challenged appropriately in the early years." And for the poster who said "Rare is the child who is highly gifted in every single subject area."

I'm just learning that my 5 y.o. looks to be in the 130 range, and I haven't had time to get through the IQ chapter of Nurtureshock (if that even addresses these points). So I'm struggling to understand what this means for the next few years of school. (I don't know my own IQ, so I don't even know if his brain works much differently from mine.) But I can tell that he's several grades ahead in some areas, is also board in social studies, is a perfectionist who doesn't like to do things unless he can do them perfectly, but also struggles in a few areas.

[Anonymous]

I agree that a little boredom can be a good thing. I was bored in language class, so I taught myself the subjunctive. I posted this about a year ago, and some gifted advocates came down on me like a ton of bricks. But I see the same thing now with 13-year-old DS, who taught himself something even more impressive last year. Learning to teach yourself, not to be bound by school or work structures, is a good thing IMO.

At least, it's not perfect, but until we achieve the perfect education for every kid, it's not a total loss for kids who seize opportunities and explore on their own

I also agree with the PP who said that a math whiz is unlikely to already know all of US or European History, of the content of a high school psych or anthropology course. They may learn it faster, but they're still learning.

[Anonymous]

Independent school selection is a positive sum game - it all comes down to doing your homework and finding the best fit overall.

It's not a perfect system and every kid is different. The early years are highly developmental - interests and talents develop and learning challenges are identified. Some kids may need supplemental tutoring - and others may want supplemental enrichment. "Gifted" or not, if you want more than the school has to offer your child, then join the ranks of gymnastics, ballet, dance team, violin, hockey, tennis and (fill-in-the) blank parents that hire private instructors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I'm just learning that my 5 y.o. looks to be in the 130 range, and I haven't had time to get through the IQ chapter of Nurtureshock (if that even addresses these points). So I'm struggling to understand what this means for the next few years of school. (I don't know my own IQ, so I don't even know if his brain works much differently from mine.) But I can tell that he's several grades ahead in some areas, is also board in social studies, is a perfectionist who doesn't like to do things unless he can do them perfectly, but also struggles in a few areas.

What does "board in social studies" mean? Bored? A 5-year-old has social studies class? Sorry, I honestly don't understand what you're trying to say.

I don't think that an IQ in the 130 range is anything to even think twice about, sorry. Your child is bright, which is great, but you can move forward with no agenda whatsoever. My kids both scored 99+ percentile on those tests, so they're "up there" if you want to put stock in the results, and they are doing great with the ample and diverse opportunities that home, school, and living in the city provide. Just enjoy your kids, find a school that seems to suit them, encourage them to value hard work and diligence, do what any attentive parent tries to do (provide music lessons, sports opportunities, travel), and let them enjoy childhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm just learning that my 5 y.o. looks to be in the 130 range, and I haven't had time to get through the IQ chapter of Nurtureshock (if that even addresses these points). So I'm struggling to understand what this means for the next few years of school. (I don't know my own IQ, so I don't even know if his brain works much differently from mine.) But I can tell that he's several grades ahead in some areas, is also board in social studies, is a perfectionist who doesn't like to do things unless he can do them perfectly, but also struggles in a few areas.

What does "board in social studies" mean? Bored? A 5-year-old has social studies class? Sorry, I honestly don't understand what you're trying to say.

I don't think that an IQ in the 130 range is anything to even think twice about, sorry. Your child is bright, which is great, but you can move forward with no agenda whatsoever. My kids both scored 99+ percentile on those tests, so they're "up there" if you want to put stock in the results, and they are doing great with the ample and diverse opportunities that home, school, and living in the city provide. Just enjoy your kids, find a school that seems to suit them, encourage them to value hard work and diligence, do what any attentive parent tries to do (provide music lessons, sports opportunities, travel), and let them enjoy childhood.

Obviously she meant bored.

I think your advice is very misguided even if it comes from your own experience with your kids. It's great that your kids have been well served however.

Many kids with an IQ of 130+ are capable of working 2+ years ahead of grade level so being proactive with the schools is imperative to ensuring the child is challenged appropriately and able to learn those life skills we spoke about.

[Anonymous]

To the PP who asked, keep reading NurtureShock. Many children who test in the 130s at 5 will test lower at 8. It is only around that age that IQ tests become meaningful.

[Anonymous]

But is it really all about advancing as quickly as you can? If her kid is happy and not bored at school, and gets a good mix of challenges that sometimes cone from school (subjects he's not yet a master of) and also come from hone and extracurriculars, the I don't see much of a problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, thanks for spinning off this thread. I was one of the posters on the other thread - I've reprinted it at the very bottom of this post so that those who keep asking "What's the point" can perhaps understand better what we're discussing.

I'm interested to hear that your data about the IQ distributions in Lower Schools squares with what I heard from administrators at two other schools.

We love almost everything about our very good school, but they do very little to adequately challenge the top percentile kids we are talking about. It is particularly frustrating for us, since there are at least 3-4 of these kids in the grade and they are all bored with the slow pace of things. For us, the biggest worry is that these kids are not learning how to actually try. They coast through easily and therefore never learn the resilience that comes from picking yourself up and trying again after a failure. (I thought this weekend's Sunday NYT Magazine had a great article on this).

There is so much animosity and misunderstanding on this board on this topic, which makes me sad. I'm glad for the chance for a civilized discussion of where people agree and disagree.


My post from the other board:
These last few posts are helpful and moving the discussion forward. I've got a few points to toss in:

1. Most DC private schools are not selecting on academic ability in the lower schools. So the "top" privates are in fact widely varied in the children they serve, with kids ranging from the 70th (and even lower) percentile and up. The bulk of kids in the lower schools of these schools are clustered around the 80th percentile, from the data I have seen administrators share. (Please correct me if you have knowledge otherwise; I'd be genuinely interested). I am not measuring by WPSSI scores here, which can be unreliable and skew by parent coaching, but on Olsat/ERB/etc results.

2. By high school, these schools are selecting heavily on academic ability and are heavily tracked.

3. A curriculum that serves the 80th percentile well is way too easy and slow for kids with IQs of 130ish and up (98%+ percentile)

4. Thus in discussing "gifted" kids needs in the classroom, I think most parents are complaining about lower and early middle school, where teachers in all the big DC privates are asked to teach the same course to kids with a wide range of abilities.

5. I totally agree with the teacher who said that kids in these schools with IQs in the 95-99th percentile are not uncommon.

6. But I totally disagree with her/him that those children are currently adequately served by DCs private schools. They are, for the most part, seriously underchallenged until they hit high school. That's a lot of years of being bored at school.

They need to go to school and be challenged to learn to study and acquire proper work habits and study skills. All elementary schools should regroup for reading and math unless they run AAP or GT math classes like the pre-naglieri FCPS program.

[Anonymous]

Nuture Shock really isn't meant to address the issues discussed on this thread.

Here is a paper written by Dr. Charles Elkind who the president of NAEYC and also the author of the best selling book, The Hurried Child.

Acceleration
by Dr. David Elkind, president emeritus, National Association for the Education of Young Children

Originally published as "Our President: Acceleration," Young Children, volume 43 number 4, May 1988
Reprinted with permission of the author

Whenever Jean Piaget visited this country and described his stages of intellectual development he was always asked what he called the "American Question." Why, he was repeatedly asked, do we have to wait for our child to develop concrete operations (the new mental abilities that emerge around the age of 5 to 7 and that enable young children to engage in the kind of reasoning required by formal instruction)? Why can't we teach them these operations earlier? Piaget replied that many animals go through the early stages more rapidly than do infants, but they never go as far. In effect, achieving a certain level of intelligence early may preclude moving on to higher levels. With respect to intelligence, an early start can mean a lower finish.

Researchers, however, were reluctant to leave it at that. They undertook a whole series of investigations to determine whether a child's progress through the Piagetian stages could be accelerated by training. By and large the results were negative. In general, the effects of training vary with the child's developmental level. Although training has some positive effects at all age levels, older children make more progress with considerably less training than younger children. Most children who are living in a "normal expectable environment" receive sufficient stimulation to realize their intellectual potential.

Although this conception of intellectual development is generally accepted among researchers, it is still not fully appreciated by many parents and educators. Among the many arguments for early intellectual stimulation are those that come from research on intellectually gifted youngsters. On the surface, the research with these children seems to contradict the above conclusions about the effects of training on development. This is true because a number of studies have demonstrated that the acceleration of intellectually gifted is beneficial. Young people who have been academically accelerated are intellectually challenged, complete high school and college early, and in many cases go on to successful careers. Doesn't this contradict the developmental position that growth can't be accelerated? And, from my own standpoint, doesn't this fly in the face of all that I have written about the stressful effects of hurrying?

Not really. In fact, acceleration is really the wrong word here. If it were correct we would have to say that a child who was retained was "decelerated." When an intellectually gifted child is promoted one or several grades, what has been accelerated? Surely not the child's level of intellectual development - that, after all, is the reason for his or her promotion! What has been accelerated is the child's progress through the school curriculum. But this can be looked at a different way, not so much as acceleration as tailoring. What promotion does for intellectually gifted children is to make a better fit between the child's level of intellectual development and the curriculum.

Sound familiar? Promotion of intellectually gifted children is another way of attaining the goal we have been arguing for at the early childhood level, namely, developmentally appropriate curriculum. Promotion of intellectually gifted children is simply another way of attempting to match the curriculum to the child's abilities, not to accelerate those abilities. Accordingly, the promotion of intellectually gifted children in no way contradicts the accepted view of the limits of training on development, nor the negative effects of hurrying. Indeed, the positive effects of promoting intellectually gifted children provide additional evidence for the benefits of developmentally appropriate curricula

[Anonymous]

But again, we're not talking about acceleration for it's own sake. We're talking about acceleration to keep a kid challenged and learn good study skills, etc.

The alternative is broader and deeper. If a PP says her kid is challenged at home, in extracurriculars, and sometimes at school, then this is going "broad and deep" without skipping grades or accelerating within a grade. The kids in the MoCo middle school magnet aren't doing Calculus (most of them), instead they're using their set theory in new ways, like solving rubics cubes. Broader, and deeper.

[Anonymous]

NurtureShock does, however, address the concerns of the person with a 5 year old with an IQ of 130+. An IQ test result at that age is almost meaningless.