Parents of children with super high IQ scores - where are your children in school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I went to middle school in the 70's and was at a center program, where the selection was supposedly based solely on IQ score. Although it was a racially diverse area, all my classmates were white, a fact that was not lost on me. I think it's a good thing that there are fewer special programs like that (which still tend to underrepresent certain types of students even today) and that more efforts are made to increase all students' access to challenging instruction.

There are any number of reasons why you encountered all white children in a GT program in racially diverse area. One possibility is advocacy: The white parents might have recognized their child's giftedness more often and pushed for testing.

You should know, though, that dismantling gifted programs hurts the poor much more than the wealthy. For many gifted children of the poor, the gifted program is essential to upward mobility:

"22. Giftedness is not elitist. It cuts across all socio-economic, ethnic and national groups (Dickinson, 1970). In every culture, there are developmentally advanced children who have greater abstract reasoning and develop at a faster rate than their age peers. Though the percentage of gifted students among the upper classes may be higher, a much greater number of gifted children come from the lower classes, because the poor far outnumber the rich (Zigler & Farber, 1985). Therefore, when provisions are denied to the gifted on the basis that they are "elitist," it is the poor who suffer the most. The rich have other options."

(Taken from http://www.gifteddevelopment.com/What_is_Gifted/learned.htm)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of the privates, including some names that would surprise you, don't offer advanced math. This was a turnoff for us.

Could you please explain what you mean by "advanced math"? I searched the DCUM archives but found no clear definition. Do you mean the math curriculum does not extend beyond calculus at the higher grades? Or do you mean that individual children cannot study advanced concepts through differentiated instruction? Or are you talking about Everyday Math and other similar conceptual approaches to teaching math? Or something different entirely?

Also, I really want to avoid taking this interesting thread off-topic. So could you please not use your answer as a vehicle to slam/promote any particular schools or open a discussion of how children should be taught math? I know those are important topics that get people excited, but I don't want to litter this thread with much side discussion. I hesitate to even ask this question, because I don't want to distract from the thread, but I just don't understand what you mean, and if I post a new thread, I'm not sure the question will get answered. Also, to be clear, I am not suggesting that you are the type of person who would take a thread off-track or attack another school -- I just see that often on DCUM, so I want to try to avoid it with this disclaimer.

I was the poster who wrote this, and perhaps I should have been more specific. I meant that they didn't differentiate math levels in 7th grade, which is where DC was looking to enter. So DC would have had to repeat a year of math at two very selective schools we looked at.

PS, I'm in awe of your careful treading on this board. All I meant to suggest is that private school is not necessarily a panacea, although there may be some privates that do better than others.

[Anonymous]

PP while I agree that giftedness in and of itself is not elitist, your post totally ignores the long and sordid racial inequities that exist in public schools - and during the time period the PPP talks about, we were barely out of segregation. What the PPP describes has played out for years at schools across the country.

IMHO you shouldn't need to establish gifted programs in schools - teachers should be able to teach all students and ensure they excel. I may sound like a pollyanna, but shouldn't that be the goal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
While I'll agree that GT is often underfunded (as are many worthy public school programs), I would argue that the kids who are REALLY being under served in public schools (at the elementary level) are the kids in the IQ range of 122 - 135. They do not have the numbers for center based GT, but are also not challenged by a straight classroom.

Absolutely agree! In Fairfax County, many of these "can't quite make the GT cut" kids are being served in the Local Level 4 services classrooms at the base schools, and then the GT kids that stay at their local school do not get challenged enough. This is very apparent at the base schools that have over 2/3 of the class filled with "can't quite make the cut" kids. Sure, differentiated instruction is great in theory. But to expect a teacher to differentiate over four or even five grade levels with increasing class sizes is just unrealistic.

I totally agree with this post! The kids who have it the worst are not the super IQ kids who get to go to "Centers for Highly Gifted" or the magnets here in MoCo. They are the above-average kids who get left behind at the home schools. Often in schools which need to focus on the kids on the cusp in order to pass NCLB tests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP while I agree that giftedness in and of itself is not elitist, your post totally ignores the long and sordid racial inequities that exist in public schools - and during the time period the PPP talks about, we were barely out of segregation. What the PPP describes has played out for years at schools across the country.

IMHO you shouldn't need to establish gifted programs in schools - teachers should be able to teach all students and ensure they excel. I may sound like a pollyanna, but shouldn't that be the goal?

OP here - it might be a good idea to start another thread if you want to address the issue from a conceptual perspective - especially with regard the abuses of some gifted and talented public programs as a form of racial and economic segregation by another name (which is a very important issue).

Prior to the thread going off on a bit of a tangent, I was receiving a lot of very helpful information that will help me plan for my child's future. So, I'd really appreciate it if we can keep this thread to the question asked as much as possible

Fwiw, I can tell you that I, like my dc, tested as being on the far, far right of the bell curve distribution. Prior to being tested, I was placed in general education programs, and my experiences from about 2nd grade on were actually horrific. Not because of other children - but rather because of hostility and scapegoating from teachers who simply did not know how to handle the situation and appeared to feel threatened by a child who - for example - regularly found errors in the answer key sections of the text books and workbooks and who, even in elementary school, frequently knew more than the teacher (without having a mature social awareness to realize that this was an issue or might make someone uncomfortable in any way).

Keep in mind that the distribution of intelligence - like other human characteristics - has long tails on either end. What that means is that, speaking about the gifted end of the intelligence distribution, a child who tests in the 99.0% has a rarity of being one in one hundred children. These children can often be well-accommodated in general educational settings.

But a child who tests in the 99.7% is one in about 450 children, and a child who tests in the 99.9% is one child out of anywhere from one in 1,200 (for 99.90%) to one in 10,000 and so on. At the level I tested (at 12 years old), I was one in every 130,000 children. It's simply not realistic to expect every educational environment to meet needs that are so disparate. Hence the specificity of my original post and question. Teachers and school environments who are welcoming and supportive of education for highly/profoundly/whatever-you-want-to-call-it gifted children are a very particular and sometimes rare thing.

Thanks to all who have provided very helpful information and to those who do so in the future.

[Anonymous]

I don't need to create another thread just reponding to a post on this thread - I support any parent looking for the right fit for their child.

[Anonymous]

99.9%. Wyngate, then the Barnsley center, then Takoma Park Middle School. After next year, hopefully Blair.

Very happy with this possibility in MoCo - an important reason for us to stay in the county.

[Anonymous]

Teachers and school environments who are welcoming and supportive of education for highly/profoundly/whatever-you-want-to-call-it gifted children are a very particular and sometimes rare thing.

OP - I think you ought to let go of that thinking, it's based on your unfortunate experience, and embrace the possibility that things will be much, much better for your daughter. Look at all the posts from parents of children with IQs as high -- and higher -- as your daughter's. Students are doing well in public TAG and private schools, a range of them, not just one or two. Also, parents supplement: Hopkins and Duke have programs.
http://cty.jhu.edu/
http://www.tip.duke.edu/
I bet your daughter would thrive at National Cathedral or Holton Arms. Lots of super gifted, motivated, high IQ girls there. In the meantime, your daughter will probably be easier to handle when she becomes an independent reader. That changed my life with my high IQ guy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP while I agree that giftedness in and of itself is not elitist, your post totally ignores the long and sordid racial inequities that exist in public schools - and during the time period the PPP talks about, we were barely out of segregation. What the PPP describes has played out for years at schools across the country.

IMHO you shouldn't need to establish gifted programs in schools - teachers should be able to teach all students and ensure they excel. I may sound like a pollyanna, but shouldn't that be the goal?

OP here - it might be a good idea to start another thread if you want to address the issue from a conceptual perspective - especially with regard the abuses of some gifted and talented public programs as a form of racial and economic segregation by another name (which is a very important issue).

Prior to the thread going off on a bit of a tangent, I was receiving a lot of very helpful information that will help me plan for my child's future. So, I'd really appreciate it if we can keep this thread to the question asked as much as possible

Fwiw, I can tell you that I, like my dc, tested as being on the far, far right of the bell curve distribution. Prior to being tested, I was placed in general education programs, and my experiences from about 2nd grade on were actually horrific. Not because of other children - but rather because of hostility and scapegoating from teachers who simply did not know how to handle the situation and appeared to feel threatened by a child who - for example - regularly found errors in the answer key sections of the text books and workbooks and who, even in elementary school, frequently knew more than the teacher (without having a mature social awareness to realize that this was an issue or might make someone uncomfortable in any way).

Keep in mind that the distribution of intelligence - like other human characteristics - has long tails on either end. What that means is that, speaking about the gifted end of the intelligence distribution, a child who tests in the 99.0% has a rarity of being one in one hundred children. These children can often be well-accommodated in general educational settings.

But a child who tests in the 99.7% is one in about 450 children, and a child who tests in the 99.9% is one child out of anywhere from one in 1,200 (for 99.90%) to one in 10,000 and so on. At the level I tested (at 12 years old), I was one in every 130,000 children. It's simply not realistic to expect every educational environment to meet needs that are so disparate. Hence the specificity of my original post and question. Teachers and school environments who are welcoming and supportive of education for highly/profoundly/whatever-you-want-to-call-it gifted children are a very particular and sometimes rare thing.

Thanks to all who have provided very helpful information and to those who do so in the future.

OP, don't assume that all highly gifted students are "into" school. Many are not. There is one in my family who just scrapes by the academics (refused to complete an IQ test years ago). Keeps a low profile in class, says nothing to the teachers. Gets A's. This is NOT due to boredom, no ADHD, not at all. The behavior is the same in an advanced college level class. It is due to a lack of interest. That individual is interested in music, only music. BTW, he is not musically gifted, but it is what he likes. However, we are not going to run all over DC finding the right fit. We have 3 other kids to raise, who have needs too. He will be fine.

[Anonymous]

OP, your post took me back to the culture shock I experienced the first week of first grade when I was sent to the principal for such transgressions as reading (I couldn't possibly know how and must be lying if I claimed otherwise) and pointing out that the teacher had mis-stated the commutative principle. Luckily, the principal cracked up and told me I'd be out of that teacher's class ASAP. I was ultimately fine in public school, but probably benefited from being in a small town and open classroom style school that attracted the young hippie type teachers back in the late 60s/early 70. And when we moved it was to a college town, so I had a peer group with similar values (as well as easy access to a university). Although, come to think of it, I had the same rough first weeks at the new school (Cs on all my social studies homework because I didn't copy exactly what the book said), until one teacher stepped in and said "test her for gifted."

At any rate, even though I found ways to make public schools work, I agree that it makes all the difference in the world to find a school that is comfortable with kids like us/ours and knows what to do with them (which can often be not get in their way). Personally, I think I would have been miserable at NCS or Holton. Both NCS grads I know (who are, as a PP indicates, smart, talented, highly motivated women) say they got a great education but that there's not a chance in hell they'd send their daughters there. Too strict/rigid.

In general, environments where the focus is on getting it right (aka not making a mistake) are not the ones that bring out the best in me academically. Especially when "right" is often defined in fairly limited ways (back to your example about errors in the answer key). So I gravitate toward academic environments where the goal is to think your way through complex problems and find useful/interesting/intelligent/original ways to approach them, while recognizing that your odds of success are pretty limited if you don't start with a clear understanding/mastery of what we already know (or think we know) about them.

So there's still rigor, but it's in the service of creativity rather than an end in itself. (Creativity without rigor often just strikes me as BS.) From an early age, I like to see kids treated as scientists, writers, artists, composers, researchers, teachers, etc. and not just as people who must learn about the work of scientists, writers, etc. In other words, I like to see kids treated as sources as well as recipients of knowledge.

That's what I looked for in a school -- not how hard or how fast they pushed kids or how many APs they offered. I also paid a lot of attention to the faculty. How much control over what they teach do they have? How do they use that control? How long do they stay? Are they people I respect intellectually? Does the school treat them as a selling point (e.g. do you hear from them in the admissions process)? Basically, would the kind of person who will "get" my kid and who will be able to react productively to unexpected comments want to work here?

[Anonymous]

PP, Send me your kids!

rigor, but it's in the service of creativity rather than an end in itself. (Creativity without rigor often just strikes me as BS.) From an early age, I like to see kids treated as scientists, writers, artists, composers, researchers, teachers, etc. and not just as people who must learn about the work of scientists, writers, etc. In other words, I like to see kids treated as sources as well as recipients of knowledge.

So few parents seem to get this.
-A Teacher

[Anonymous]

Okay, PP of the 10am post, can you please tell me what you found when you looked for those qualities and where you found it?

[Anonymous]

10:00 am here. GDS.

Walked onto campus for the first time and a bunch of kids (maybe 3rd graders) were sprawled out on the sidewalk taking measurements of shadows. One looked at his clipboard (comparing earlier measurements) and turned to me and blurted out whatever it was he had just figured out. Were they plants, LOL?!; I'll never know. But it was a great first impression.

Department heads spoke at the open house and three things struck me: (a) they were smart and sensible and down-to-earth, (b) they were clearly engaged in an ongoing and collaborative process of re-evaluating what was working and what wasn't and what could be done better and making changes accordingly (then assessing whether the change had been for the better!), and (c) at that point, the average teacher had been there 12 years and the ones who were speaking to us clearly loved their jobs. I've seen lots of teacher burnout, so having the sense that people stayed put out of happiness rather than inertia was important.

Elsewhere, I saw facilities more than teachers, and heard administrators say things like the lower school was all about fun and personal exploration and that academic rigor didn't kick in in middle school. Not my kind of dichotomy.

Obviously, I know less about other schools because I didn't send DC to them. So I'm not claiming that GDS is unique. But that's what I looked for and found. Over subsequent years, I've gotten to know lots of other GDS faculty members who share the qualities that attracted us to the school in the first place. Yeah, there are things here and there I'd change, and there have been better and worse years, but, overall, I feel like we got what we were looking for and that this is an environment in which DC is thriving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, your post took me back to the culture shock I experienced the first week of first grade when I was sent to the principal for such transgressions as reading (I couldn't possibly know how and must be lying if I claimed otherwise) and pointing out that the teacher had mis-stated the commutative principle. Luckily, the principal cracked up and told me I'd be out of that teacher's class ASAP. I was ultimately fine in public school, but probably benefited from being in a small town and open classroom style school that attracted the young hippie type teachers back in the late 60s/early 70. And when we moved it was to a college town, so I had a peer group with similar values (as well as easy access to a university). Although, come to think of it, I had the same rough first weeks at the new school (Cs on all my social studies homework because I didn't copy exactly what the book said), until one teacher stepped in and said "test her for gifted."

At any rate, even though I found ways to make public schools work, I agree that it makes all the difference in the world to find a school that is comfortable with kids like us/ours and knows what to do with them (which can often be not get in their way). Personally, I think I would have been miserable at NCS or Holton. Both NCS grads I know (who are, as a PP indicates, smart, talented, highly motivated women) say they got a great education but that there's not a chance in hell they'd send their daughters there. Too strict/rigid.

In general, environments where the focus is on getting it right (aka not making a mistake) are not the ones that bring out the best in me academically. Especially when "right" is often defined in fairly limited ways (back to your example about errors in the answer key). So I gravitate toward academic environments where the goal is to think your way through complex problems and find useful/interesting/intelligent/original ways to approach them, while recognizing that your odds of success are pretty limited if you don't start with a clear understanding/mastery of what we already know (or think we know) about them.

So there's still rigor, but it's in the service of creativity rather than an end in itself. (Creativity without rigor often just strikes me as BS.) From an early age, I like to see kids treated as scientists, writers, artists, composers, researchers, teachers, etc. and not just as people who must learn about the work of scientists, writers, etc. In other words, I like to see kids treated as sources as well as recipients of knowledge.

That's what I looked for in a school -- not how hard or how fast they pushed kids or how many APs they offered. I also paid a lot of attention to the faculty. How much control over what they teach do they have? How do they use that control? How long do they stay? Are they people I respect intellectually? Does the school treat them as a selling point (e.g. do you hear from them in the admissions process)? Basically, would the kind of person who will "get" my kid and who will be able to react productively to unexpected comments want to work here?

Regarding AP, as a parent I was originally enthusiastically drinking the AP kool aid. Both my high IQ child and my "bright" child who have always been enthusiastic and diligent students abhor AP. At first I was blowing off their comments, but after talking to other parents of gifted children (many who are far more gifted than my own) who have told me that their kids have also not found AP to be at all intellectually stimulating. These kids have labeled the classes to be the ULTIMATE in "teaching to the test" classroom scenario. Consequently, I would advise other parents NOT to use AP availability as a primary indicator in labeling a good school.

And I so agree with PP regarding asking oneself if the teachers and administrators are people I respect intellectually. I also firmly believe that the best learning environment is where education is not seen as a means to an end, that education itself is a worthy and fulfilling activity. And I find that this philosophy is nonexistent in my public school system and very hard to find in even a private school.

[Anonymous]

I went to a private elementary and the teacher wouldn't believe me in second grade when I told her I had just finished Little Women. So I think things vary greatly in both public and private.