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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just curious PP.. you would be willing to close your gvt funded magnet school and pour all of that money into learning disabled programs if "push comes to shove"?

Not all the money. But the point is that the pie is limited. So we need to find a way to divide the money fairly. Doing this requires knowing (a) the relative costs of educating gifted vs. LD kids, which I'm guessing none of us has a clue about, and then (b) deciding on a "fair" allocation, which is obviously subjective, but you know where I stand. We all want unlimited resources for are own kids, but these resources aren't there.

Let me ask you a question: your posts sound like you want money for gifted kids at the expense of disabled kids. Is this true?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree that gifted kids can stimulate themselves. A year or so ago I wrote about how I taught myself French verbs and Braille in elementary school - and got slammed for saying that gifted kids aren't as dependent on school services as disabled kids. I still believe this. In fact, I see the same things with my kids, in terms of curiosity and initiative, spending the summer learning a programming language, for example. Both are in magnets, for which I'm grateful. But if push comes to shove, and the county budget situation gets (even more) dire, I'm with the poster who said services to the learning disabled should be cut last.

That's great, but not all gifted children will have the independent wherewithal to do that, nor should they have to. It really doesn't matter what a child would be doing on his/her own--the point of education is precisely that children should be being educated by teachers, not left to their own devices.

The point is that many - most? - gifted children do have this ability. LD don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just curious PP.. you would be willing to close your gvt funded magnet school and pour all of that money into learning disabled programs if "push comes to shove"?

I think this argument misunderstands the costs of educating the gifted appropriately and the trade offs we might be called on to make as part of the budget.

In one sense I agree with the argument that, given a choice between educating the gifted properly and educating the disabled properly, we must choose the disabled (because we want all kids to achieve at least some minimum education that they need to be self-supporting/self-caring in the future and presumably gifted children will by themselves accomplish this minimum level). BUT, I don't think that this is a trade-off we face.

My child is in a gifted program, and I frankly don't see how it is costing the state MORE to educate my child in the magnet program than in a regular school. My child is in a classroom with ONE teacher and no aides. The curriculum is different, but not more expensive. Both the regular program and the "gifted" magnet have to spend money on books, workbooks, teaching materials, etc., but there is no evidence that what is spent educating the same child in a gifted "magnet" is any more than if they were in a regular program. If anything the "extra expenses" in running a gifted program are in 1) separate curriculum development, 2) transportation to the magnet and 3) publicizing the program and managing the selection process. These are marginal costs and some of them are one time costs. The 30 kids in my child's gifted magnet, if the magnet didn't exist, would all go home to their home district public school and have to be educated there, so cutting the magnet doesn't really save much.

So, the idea that there is some great cost savings by cutting gifted education is just a myth. And the idea that the only way to preserve adequate funds for special education is to get it from gifted is also incorrect. I for one would like to see the superintendent take fewer travel trips, see schools forgo artificial turf installation, etc. to find funds to maintain disabled programs in a budget reduction environment.

[Anonymous]

"The point is that many - most? - gifted children do have this ability. LD don't."

But that is irrelevant. Some "regular" kids also have this ability--do we also ignore them? Children deserve an education; they should not have to "educate" themselves. Period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just curious PP.. you would be willing to close your gvt funded magnet school and pour all of that money into learning disabled programs if "push comes to shove"?

Not all the money. But the point is that the pie is limited. So we need to find a way to divide the money fairly. Doing this requires knowing (a) the relative costs of educating gifted vs. LD kids, which I'm guessing none of us has a clue about, and then (b) deciding on a "fair" allocation, which is obviously subjective, but you know where I stand. We all want unlimited resources for are own kids, but these resources aren't there.

Let me ask you a question: your posts sound like you want money for gifted kids at the expense of disabled kids. Is this true?

I am not that poster you are asking, but I'll answer for me anyway: they both should have funding. If that is not possible, then both should be trimmed. It is wrong to eliminate gifted programming just so as not to have make any cuts at all to LD programs. In some districts, the LD budget is way out of proportion--LD programming is not a sacred cow that should never be cut.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am not that poster you are asking, but I'll answer for me anyway: they both should have funding. If that is not possible, then both should be trimmed. It is wrong to eliminate gifted programming just so as not to have make any cuts at all to LD programs. In some districts, the LD budget is way out of proportion--LD programming is not a sacred cow that should never be cut.

NP here. I am seeing a cow here, but it isn't sacred.

~Gifted mom of gifted kids who can't believe this thread.

PS - what do you do about kids who are gifted AND LD??? Should they get twice the funding in your view?

[Anonymous]

I'm the earlier poster who was upset about equating disabled kids with gifted kids. Of course I don't oppose magnate programs nor do I oppose a stimulating curriculum for ALL children. I don't consider magnate schools to be the same thing as programs for disabled kids. They are a great thing, but I wouldn't equate the two. To do so, to equate the "needs" of gifted kids or magnate programs with the needs of disabled kids minimizes the real challenges kids with disabilities face. My kids are in private schools but I know from other families that in Montgomery County, for example, where they have fabulous magnate programs, and great schools for bright kids, families have to fight tooth and nail for good IEPs for their disabled kids. The latter is far more expensive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Every child in a public school has a right to an individualized education plan (IEP) when the regular classroom is not meeting their educational needs. Gifted kids deserve and receive these just like developmentally disabled kids; it's how they come to be allowed to get grouped with other grades for math or reading or art, or to leave the classroom during the day for special analytic reasoning and problem-solving group activities with other children like them.

This is actually completely untrue. By law, to get an IEP, a child needs to 1) have a disability and 2) because of that disability needs special education and/or related services. Proving the "because of this disability needs special education" prong usually requires making some kind of showing that the disability has a significant negative impact on ability to learn. So, not every child has a right to an IEP, only those with "disabilities" that "impact learning" and "giftedness" has not been considered, under the law, a "disability" never mind that it's often hard to prove that giftedness has a negative impact on learning. (Many GT/LD parents can speak to the problem they experience -- that although the child has a LD disability that qualifies for an IEP, because the LD child is also gifted, he/she can compensate enough that his/her scores and assessments are "average," even though "average" is far below what would otherwise be expected absent the LD.) Gifted kids do NOT receive IEPs (at least not in DC, MD or VA).

The basis for grouping within or pullouts from class to accommodate gifted kids is NOT an IEP, which is a legal requirement after meeting eligibility under the IDEA law. The decision to use groupings or pull-outs is often made on a school-by-school basis by individual principals, sometimes encouraged or discouraged at a county or state level. The decision to use groupings or pull-outs is thus an educational policy decision and can be influenced by politics, budget, and public sentiment, but, as far as I'm aware there is no LAW that mandates these types of educational policies for gifted students in this area.

(Although I have read occasionally that PA treats giftedness with an IEP, but I don't know if that is true.)

[Anonymous]

PA did not use IEPs for gifted kids when I was in public school there, but that was a million years ago.

[Anonymous]

As with the above poster writing about it costing the same to educated her child in a gifted magnet as those not in the magnet: in many ways this was true for us as well, and in fact the gifted class had more children in part (it seemed to me) to manage against accusations of favoritism. On the other hand, kids were bused to the MS daily for math - a commitment to the county. I think they try to keep the costs about equivalent, at least in MC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think that one thing that always gets ignored is that reading is not an indicator of anything to do with intelligence. It does not matter when your kid starts to read. Signed mother of a child who didn't start reading until end of first grade and now reads a book with incredibly high comprehension in about two-three hours (hundreds of pages books) and another child who started reading before going into pre-K. It really doesn't matter at all.

Exactly. Early reading is a predictor of...nothing. Having gone through the admissions cycles for a couple of DCs, there are always parents standing up (out?) at the open houses, droning on about how disappointed they are in X school because their DC is already reading, yet the K class they just visited is, gasp, reviewing the alphabet. I've yet to see a school official flub that question, tactfully explaining the pedagogy of reading, etc.

If a kid is really that brilliant, then contact Davidson or Hopkins and ask for recs. They may also put the child through the paces where the parents will learn that the child really is brilliant or just another metro DC kid with a 99.9 WPPSI (not so rare in these parts). Regardless of the child's intellectual abilities, please don't skimp on development of their emotional and social intelligence. That is what will sustain and enhance the arc of one's life.

[SAM2]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that one thing that always gets ignored is that reading is not an indicator of anything to do with intelligence. It does not matter when your kid starts to read. Signed mother of a child who didn't start reading until end of first grade and now reads a book with incredibly high comprehension in about two-three hours (hundreds of pages books) and another child who started reading before going into pre-K. It really doesn't matter at all.

Exactly. Early reading is a predictor of...nothing....

This got me curious, so I did a little research on the relationship between early reading and later academic success. It actually appears the early reading is pretty well correlated with (and thus predictive of) later academic success: for example, http://fwd4.me/Enz , http://fwd4.me/EoC , and http://www.jstor.org/pss/1130343 .

I hesitate to put words in their mouths, but I think what the two PPs really mean is that early reading is not determinative -- a child who does not read early might later find substantial academic success, and a child who does read early might face regression to the mean. And I'd certainly agree with them on that point.

[Anonymous]

If a kid is really that brilliant, then contact Davidson or Hopkins and ask for recs.

So I'm curious. What do you think they are going to tell a parent? They can't invent schooling choices. The pool of schools available for them to recommend are still constrained by the offerings in your area and what the parents can afford. They will sometimes help a parent advocate with the school for more advanced differentiation or recommend testing to demonstrate mastery for a grade skip. And even then, a great "school" is only as good as the teacher your kid gets in an individual year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"
As far as I know, there are really only two options. Public school or private school. Is there some super secret third option - I don't know about.

Yes, it's called homeschooling and for a many parents of profoundly gifted kids, it's the way to go.

[Anonymous]

Gifted does not equal self-motivated. And while they can "stimulate themselves" at home, that doesn't make up for sitting for hours in a classroom where the work is something they already know. Put yourself in that position -- how bored and miserable would you be? And would you, even as an adult, have the self-discipline to remain polite, attentive and appropriately behaved?

Gifted kids have the right to access curricula that are appropriate to their needs and through which they can learn.

No, it's not the same as being learning disabled, although many kids who are GT are also LD.

I have one child who's a GT kid and was close to suicidal in his regular elementary school -- mercilessly teased and pathalogically bored. He moved to a MoCo GT center and I honestly believe that saved his life. (And yes, we did seek professional help when he began to talk about killing himself, as a third grader.)

I have another kid who's smart but struggles with dyslexia and attention issues. He certainly has a learning disability, one proven by outside testing (as is his IQ which is in the 99th percentile). I think he could be appropriately challenged outside of a magnet with the proper supports, but MoCo isn't set up to help him overcome his disability. He makes good grades and works at or above grade level, so they refuse to help him. As a result he's constantly frustrated, bored and distracted, and is becoming someone who hates school. His LD is not severe enough to qualify for one of the GTLD magnets.

I think that both of my children have "special needs." Neither one does well in a traditional classroom.