Am I the only parent with a high IQ child who does not care to scramble for the best schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I look at HG adults who have been successful, many of them were in regular classes for much of their schooling. They rarely complain thta schoolwas a bore. there does not always have to be an academic challenge to keep jids interested. I am not challenged much in my job, but it is always interesting. I am also around TONS of people who are clueless, but I can still speak to them.

I agree with this. I was one of them. HG kids will find ways to keep themselves amused, from teaching themselves braille during 6th grade Social Studies (me), studying foreign language grammar on the side (me), to teaching everybody else origami (a kid in DD's class). Also it's possible to go deeper into classes, even on your own without the teacher helping you.

Of course, but that is not the point. Why should a highly gifted child be expected to fend for him/herself in doing all these things, rather than being appropriately taught and challenged in school?

Actually, it is the point that PP was making, and that I was trying to underscore. Not being challenged is not the end of the world, unless you make it so yourself. You seem a bit defensive, that we're implying that you weren't up to creating your own challenges, but believe me that wasn't my (and other PP's?) intention. Perhaps it depends on the kid, as one example maybe it has more to do with risk-taking or something else that is totally unrelated to giftedness. But lots of HG kids survive middle-of-the-road education.

Of course it isn't "the end of the world" and these kids will "survive." You are missing the point. Why is "not being the end of the world" and "surviving" the standard??? The point is that every child should have access to an appropriate education. Would you say that children who learn at a slower pace shouldn't be accommodated? Children who learn faster also should be taught appropriately and accommodated.

Sorry, I let myself get carried away by your rude tone (which is still there, by the way) in my response. Yes, we'd all like the schools to cater to every individual kid's individual needs, but the public money is just not there. If your kid is in a regular class and you can't afford private or moving to Chevy Chase, MD, your kid will, indeed, survive. That was my only point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I look at HG adults who have been successful, many of them were in regular classes for much of their schooling. They rarely complain thta schoolwas a bore. there does not always have to be an academic challenge to keep jids interested. I am not challenged much in my job, but it is always interesting. I am also around TONS of people who are clueless, but I can still speak to them.

I agree with this. I was one of them. HG kids will find ways to keep themselves amused, from teaching themselves braille during 6th grade Social Studies (me), studying foreign language grammar on the side (me), to teaching everybody else origami (a kid in DD's class). Also it's possible to go deeper into classes, even on your own without the teacher helping you.

Of course, but that is not the point. Why should a highly gifted child be expected to fend for him/herself in doing all these things, rather than being appropriately taught and challenged in school?

Actually, it is the point that PP was making, and that I was trying to underscore. Not being challenged is not the end of the world, unless you make it so yourself. You seem a bit defensive, that we're implying that you weren't up to creating your own challenges, but believe me that wasn't my (and other PP's?) intention. Perhaps it depends on the kid, as one example maybe it has more to do with risk-taking or something else that is totally unrelated to giftedness. But lots of HG kids survive middle-of-the-road education.

Of course it isn't "the end of the world" and these kids will "survive." You are missing the point. Why is "not being the end of the world" and "surviving" the standard??? The point is that every child should have access to an appropriate education. Would you say that children who learn at a slower pace shouldn't be accommodated? Children who learn faster also should be taught appropriately and accommodated.

Sorry, I let myself get carried away by your rude tone (which is still there, by the way) in my response. Yes, we'd all like the schools to cater to every individual kid's individual needs, but the public money is just not there. If your kid is in a regular class and you can't afford private or moving to Chevy Chase, MD, your kid will, indeed, survive. That was my only point.

Not the PP you are talking to, but I too am dismayed by your rather cavalier dismissal of the need to teach each child appropriately with the sneering "Yes, we'd all like the schools to cater to every individual kid's individual needs." I agree with PP that if school are required to appropriately teach the slower kids (as they are required to do by law), then they should have to do likewise with gifted children as well. (and as it happens, moving to Chevy Chase MD has nothing to do with it, as I have many friends in that area whose gifted children aren't being appropriately taught.) I agree with PP that I doubt you would be so cavalier and sneering and dismissive as to say to a child with special needs, "hey, your child will survive, no biggie, sure we'd love it if your child could be well taught but the money just isn't there..."

[Anonymous]

Is it really "cavalier" to talk about the reality that we all face? I don't get it your tone (which is really nasty, by the way, shame on you) or the logic behind your position.

Many schools don't have money for special programs. All the wishing, and all the whinging, in the world won't make it so.

All I am trying to say, if you would re-read my post, is that many HG kids can overcome this by using their own inventiveness. This is a pro-active response to the reality we face.

I am in no way trying to make policy about who gets special programs and who doesn't -- why are you reading my post this way????

And my kids are HG, by the way.

[Anonymous]

17:10 here again. The more I think about your response, the more I want to ask you to please stop misinterpreting (willfully? or because of careless reading?) what I say.

I would actually support more, way more, money for schools to have the type of programs you apparently also support. Yet the political process has not produced this money. We can all try to change this, but until and unless we are successful, here's the painful reality: we are stuck with the schools we have.

So why blame me for offering constructive approaches for HG kids?????? All I said was that these kids can try to find other challenges within the parameters of what their schools offer.

Yet somehow you've twisted my posts into a supposed political statement about which kids deserve special educational opportunities. How in the world did you arrive at this interpretation?????? And calling me "cavalier, sneering and dismissive" for simply pointing this out is immature and rude.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is it really "cavalier" to talk about the reality that we all face? I don't get it your tone (which is really nasty, by the way, shame on you) or the logic behind your position.

Many schools don't have money for special programs. All the wishing, and all the whinging, in the world won't make it so.

All I am trying to say, if you would re-read my post, is that many HG kids can overcome this by using their own inventiveness. This is a pro-active response to the reality we face.

I am in no way trying to make policy about who gets special programs and who doesn't -- why are you reading my post this way????

And my kids are HG, by the way.

I am not the PP to which you respond, but of the two of you, I actually find YOUR tone to be the nasty one. It doesn't help your position to begin it by criticizing what you perceive (in a flat medium) to be your opponent's "tone."

[Anonymous]

Would you please help me out here: I'm pretty sure that calling me "sneering" and "cavalier" and "dismissive" conveys a pretty negative tone, but for some reason you claim not to see it. Could you please help me understand why?

This is ridiculous. I'm done with this board. Apparently there's no premium here on fare debating tactics. Instead it's open season for twisting someone's arguments around (accusing me of making political statements I never made about which kids should get what programs) and calling people names. This is a complete waste of time.

Good bye. I know you won't miss me, but frankly I won't miss these sleazy debating tactics, either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I am not the PP to which you respond, but of the two of you, I actually find YOUR tone to be the nasty one. It doesn't help your position to begin it by criticizing what you perceive (in a flat medium) to be your opponent's "tone."

Huh, you can criticize her tone but she can't criticize anybody else's tone? I agree, the debate on this board has sunk to extreme lows.

[Anonymous]

If the schools are tight on funds, they have to put the money into the special needs kids. It just makes sense, the long run cost to society will in the end be lower if special needs kids get the attention they need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Not the PP you are talking to, but I too am dismayed by your rather cavalier dismissal of the need to teach each child appropriately with the sneering "Yes, we'd all like the schools to cater to every individual kid's individual needs." I agree with PP that if school are required to appropriately teach the slower kids (as they are required to do by law), then they should have to do likewise with gifted children as well. (and as it happens, moving to Chevy Chase MD has nothing to do with it, as I have many friends in that area whose gifted children aren't being appropriately taught.) I agree with PP that I doubt you would be so cavalier and sneering and dismissive as to say to a child with special needs, "hey, your child will survive, no biggie, sure we'd love it if your child could be well taught but the money just isn't there..."

What on earth happened here? Never underestimate the ability of two catty women to gang up on a third woman based on a completely fabricated offense.

Have a good weekend, everybody.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the schools are tight on funds, they have to put the money into the special needs kids. It just makes sense, the long run cost to society will in the end be lower if special needs kids get the attention they need.

I agree with this. It's unfortunate that DC can't offer more tailored classes to different kids, but presumably something like this calculation went into their decision about what to focus on.

Trying to work this in with OP's original point -- she has a gifted kid and but also apparently wants him to "have fun" and just "learn the basics". I don't see anything to criticize there, and it's certainly a good attitude in the face of limited public school programs.

[Anonymous]

I have been following this thread with interest. FWIW (which may be very little, LOL), I think it's apparent that people who aren't sincerely interested in how schools will actually teach/educate/challenge their HG/EG/PG children probably don't really have HG/EG/PG children--they may think they do, but they probably don't. They should read a different thread about levels of giftedness; it would help clarify. My guess is that they likely have bright, moderately gifted kids. This would help explain why they think their kids will be fine in regular classes, and it also would explain why so many people on this thread have been at loggerheads: the parents of actual HG/EG/PG kids (who really do *need* a much higher level of challenge and education than they typically get) vs. the parents of MG kids, who will indeed probably do well in a typical classroom.

[Anonymous]

ITTA with 21:47.

Here is the link to the thread to which that poster was referring:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/35004.page#228330

Again, just fwiw - which might not be much

[Anonymous]

I'm the parent who said that HG kids are creative enough to help themselves. I said I'd leave, but I couldn't resist coming back.

Now I find that besides defending myself, I also have to defend my kid. Although this most recent PP seems to mean well, as opposed to the other crazed PP who keeps willfully misinterpeting my posts (that, or she did really badly on the critical reading part of the SATs -- sorry, but if she can call me "cavalier" and "sneering" and "dismissive" in what appears to be a mean girl's willful misreading of my posts, a single insult from me seems only fair.)

My kid had to take an IQ test in 3rd grade to get into private school and scored in the 140s. Before that he was in MoCo GT programs, however he never tried out for the MoCo HG program which starts in 4th grade, instead he went to private.

All I said -- really, ALL I said -- was that HG kids have the creativity and inventiveness to help themselves when there are no HG options. Please -- PLEASE -- note that this is NOT a value statement about who should get HG programs and who should not.

[Anonymous]

Oh, and I should mention that kid #2 is in 5th grade in MoCo, but taking Algebra with the 7th graders. This kid didn't try out for the HG program either because he was in immersion.

[Anonymous]

This forum is disgusting. Reading these posts makes me sick. What a bunch of mean girls -- and that person only made an innocent suggestion.