PP- Your child must be in a school in a high SES area to only have one hour of reading each day. My Title One school has a LA block lasting 2 hrs and math is an hour and a half. One special (resource) per day for 45 mins.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Something that always strikes me is the laser focus on math and reading when people talk about their gifted children being challenged. Those are only two classes in school.
I have a hard time believing that even the most gifted child still knows the entire science, social studies, art, music, PE, and guidance curriculum.
DS is in the top reading group in first grade and he's not really "challenged" with the vocabulary/sight words. But his writing assignments are very open ended, so his teacher and I encourage him to do more than just a sentence or two.
He also this year, in his regular run of the mill public school (Maryland, but not MoCo) has learned about migration patters of the monarch butterfly, the life cycle of stars, perspective in architecture and art, the bones of the body and how his muscles work together, how to read music notes, etc.
So sure, he's not challenged in reading. Big deal. And there are certainly some kids in his class that already knew the life cycle of stars (one in particular knows more about space than most NASA employees I think), but there is enough new stuff going on that kids are always learning SOMETHING.

So why the exclusive focus on math and reading levels? Why doesn't "challenge" count if a child has to work hard on making the painting perspective correct or learning how to read music?

Mom of the non-challenged but happy 5th grader here. This is exactly right. There is lots to school other than reading and math that children can still learn, even if it's not especially challenging for them to do so. I remember when my kids were younger I would read them children's science books and there was always quite a bit that I didn't know, or had learned at one point but forgotten.

Maybe because art and music is only two hours a week? They spend countless hours on reading and math. It could get boring fast if those are not challenging enough. If they allow those kids who are above grade level to do more in arts and music, I will be all for it.

I'm 11:31. And I didn't limit my discussion to art and music at all. Doesn't your school also have science, social studies, PE, computers, library, etc?

At DS's school, they have an hour of math a day (roughly) and an hour of reading a day (roughly).

They are in school for 6.5 hours a day. Take out another hour for lunch/recess/etc. That still leaves 3.5 hours per day of non math and reading instruction. I don't think it's a dire situation if your child is "only" challenged for more than half the day. And I also don't believe that most children - even those far ahead of grade level - aren't ever challenged in math or reading. Especially in reading, most of DS's assignments are very open ended and very easily adaptable to many different skill levels. Your kid is still learning about theme, or setting, or plot development even if the particular book being studied is below their grade level.

I absolutely think that all kids deserve to be in a class where they actually learn something new most days. I just don't understand why the only learning that "counts" for a lot of posters is math or reading.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Something that always strikes me is the laser focus on math and reading when people talk about their gifted children being challenged. Those are only two classes in school.
I have a hard time believing that even the most gifted child still knows the entire science, social studies, art, music, PE, and guidance curriculum.
DS is in the top reading group in first grade and he's not really "challenged" with the vocabulary/sight words. But his writing assignments are very open ended, so his teacher and I encourage him to do more than just a sentence or two.
He also this year, in his regular run of the mill public school (Maryland, but not MoCo) has learned about migration patters of the monarch butterfly, the life cycle of stars, perspective in architecture and art, the bones of the body and how his muscles work together, how to read music notes, etc.
So sure, he's not challenged in reading. Big deal. And there are certainly some kids in his class that already knew the life cycle of stars (one in particular knows more about space than most NASA employees I think), but there is enough new stuff going on that kids are always learning SOMETHING.

So why the exclusive focus on math and reading levels? Why doesn't "challenge" count if a child has to work hard on making the painting perspective correct or learning how to read music?

Mom of the non-challenged but happy 5th grader here. This is exactly right. There is lots to school other than reading and math that children can still learn, even if it's not especially challenging for them to do so. I remember when my kids were younger I would read them children's science books and there was always quite a bit that I didn't know, or had learned at one point but forgotten.

Maybe because art and music is only two hours a week? They spend countless hours on reading and math. It could get boring fast if those are not challenging enough. If they allow those kids who are above grade level to do more in arts and music, I will be all for it.

Anonymous wrote:Something that always strikes me is the laser focus on math and reading when people talk about their gifted children being challenged. Those are only two classes in school.
I have a hard time believing that even the most gifted child still knows the entire science, social studies, art, music, PE, and guidance curriculum.
DS is in the top reading group in first grade and he's not really "challenged" with the vocabulary/sight words. But his writing assignments are very open ended, so his teacher and I encourage him to do more than just a sentence or two.
He also this year, in his regular run of the mill public school (Maryland, but not MoCo) has learned about migration patters of the monarch butterfly, the life cycle of stars, perspective in architecture and art, the bones of the body and how his muscles work together, how to read music notes, etc.
So sure, he's not challenged in reading. Big deal. And there are certainly some kids in his class that already knew the life cycle of stars (one in particular knows more about space than most NASA employees I think), but there is enough new stuff going on that kids are always learning SOMETHING.

So why the exclusive focus on math and reading levels? Why doesn't "challenge" count if a child has to work hard on making the painting perspective correct or learning how to read music?

Mom of the non-challenged but happy 5th grader here. This is exactly right. There is lots to school other than reading and math that children can still learn, even if it's not especially challenging for them to do so. I remember when my kids were younger I would read them children's science books and there was always quite a bit that I didn't know, or had learned at one point but forgotten.

Anonymous wrote:Something that always strikes me is the laser focus on math and reading when people talk about their gifted children being challenged. Those are only two classes in school.
I have a hard time believing that even the most gifted child still knows the entire science, social studies, art, music, PE, and guidance curriculum.
DS is in the top reading group in first grade and he's not really "challenged" with the vocabulary/sight words. But his writing assignments are very open ended, so his teacher and I encourage him to do more than just a sentence or two.
He also this year, in his regular run of the mill public school (Maryland, but not MoCo) has learned about migration patters of the monarch butterfly, the life cycle of stars, perspective in architecture and art, the bones of the body and how his muscles work together, how to read music notes, etc.
So sure, he's not challenged in reading. Big deal. And there are certainly some kids in his class that already knew the life cycle of stars (one in particular knows more about space than most NASA employees I think), but there is enough new stuff going on that kids are always learning SOMETHING.

So why the exclusive focus on math and reading levels? Why doesn't "challenge" count if a child has to work hard on making the painting perspective correct or learning how to read music?

Agree so much. I want my kids to love learning for the sake of learning, and if there's something they are not so interested in, it's OK not to challenge them in that particular area. The point of growing up is you find your area to shine in, and really capitalize on it, right? Otherwise, all these lawyers on this board should challenge themselves and pick up a side CPA.

Of course they will have to get through certain required courses in life, and we want the skills so that they can effectively study and achieve in those areas even if it's not an area of passion. But then they get to move on and really throw themselves at what they are interested in, and learn for the rest of their lives, and love it.

Here's why. My son was never challenged in ES. He started reading at age 3 and read 4-5 levels above his grade level throughout school. He was always in the highest reading group but they were 1-2 grade levels above. He started middle school last year in a private school. 6th grade kicked his ass! He had never done any actual work in ES that was difficult. He coasted and 6 years of coasting causes laziness. Let's just say that he is still digging himself out of a bad grade hole.

Something that always strikes me is the laser focus on math and reading when people talk about their gifted children being challenged. Those are only two classes in school.
I have a hard time believing that even the most gifted child still knows the entire science, social studies, art, music, PE, and guidance curriculum.
DS is in the top reading group in first grade and he's not really "challenged" with the vocabulary/sight words. But his writing assignments are very open ended, so his teacher and I encourage him to do more than just a sentence or two.
He also this year, in his regular run of the mill public school (Maryland, but not MoCo) has learned about migration patters of the monarch butterfly, the life cycle of stars, perspective in architecture and art, the bones of the body and how his muscles work together, how to read music notes, etc.
So sure, he's not challenged in reading. Big deal. And there are certainly some kids in his class that already knew the life cycle of stars (one in particular knows more about space than most NASA employees I think), but there is enough new stuff going on that kids are always learning SOMETHING.

So why the exclusive focus on math and reading levels? Why doesn't "challenge" count if a child has to work hard on making the painting perspective correct or learning how to read music?

We want the prestige of being in AAP and the TJ car magnet.

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, I want my child to be challenged so that when he becomes an adult he will know the value of hard work. I want him to have a fun, delightful childhood full of wonder, but I also want to teach him how to be independent and successful in the future when he leaves the house. I am not expecting him to be a rocket scientist. I just want him to understand how to work for something.

Growing up, school was too easy for me. I never had homework because I was always the kid that finished it in class. I barely studied for tests. I wasn't a genius, I was just more advanced than the programs my rural school offered. When I got to college I was a bit shell shocked and unprepared for actually working for decent grades. It was a tough lesson to learn, and I think it caused a ripple effect into my future. Lower grades the first couple of semesters of college. Lower GPA resulted in less financial aid for grad school and less options as far as caliber of school goes. Some confidence issues after always feeling so "smart" and "successful" and then changing environments and all of a sudden being unprepared, feeling confused and a bit like a fraud, etc. It wasn't the best transition into adulthood and I just want to help my son avoid that.

So basically, like everything else we do, I want my child challenged to help prepare him to be an adult. That is my job. I hope I can make it fun while doing it, but the ultimate goal is to create a happy, successful functioning member of society.

There was a thread on Reddit where people who were labeled as gifted as children were sharing their experiences. Surprisingly, many of them didn't do well in college and life.
A reoccurring comment was that school was so easy for them that they never learned to work hard at overcoming difficulties; when they encountered difficult classes, problems later on in life they didn't handle them.

Honestly, I want my child to be challenged so that when he becomes an adult he will know the value of hard work. I want him to have a fun, delightful childhood full of wonder, but I also want to teach him how to be independent and successful in the future when he leaves the house. I am not expecting him to be a rocket scientist. I just want him to understand how to work for something.

Growing up, school was too easy for me. I never had homework because I was always the kid that finished it in class. I barely studied for tests. I wasn't a genius, I was just more advanced than the programs my rural school offered. When I got to college I was a bit shell shocked and unprepared for actually working for decent grades. It was a tough lesson to learn, and I think it caused a ripple effect into my future. Lower grades the first couple of semesters of college. Lower GPA resulted in less financial aid for grad school and less options as far as caliber of school goes. Some confidence issues after always feeling so "smart" and "successful" and then changing environments and all of a sudden being unprepared, feeling confused and a bit like a fraud, etc. It wasn't the best transition into adulthood and I just want to help my son avoid that.

So basically, like everything else we do, I want my child challenged to help prepare him to be an adult. That is my job. I hope I can make it fun while doing it, but the ultimate goal is to create a happy, successful functioning member of society.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I say "challenged" I mean teach my child something new. Stretch her mind. Ask her to consider something she hasn't before. it is the reason I send my daughter to school. To become an educated human being and I don't see how this occurs without being "challenged."

All the verbs you use are passive ones. They assume that your kid can only learn through what is spoon fed for her.

Kids learn so many different ways, through so many different types of activities. Being taught something specific by a teacher is just one small part of that.

Actually none of the verbs the PP used are passive verbs. They are all active verbs describing what the PP wants school to do.

And if school doesn't teach my child anything new, what's the point of school?

I'm smoking a joint wondering if you all all are serious.


-gifted parent of gifed children.

Pp here with another miscellaneous point:

Challenging does not mean depressing. For some reason once my child was put into gifted/honors/ap classes, most of the literature she's been given to read involves death. I acknowledge death is a significant part of the human condition and thus plays a significant role in literature, but couldn't they sometimes read happy stories?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Genuine question. I don't have school aged kids yet so maybe the answer will magically present itself to me when I do, but I've been thinking about it for a long time. Life is hard. There are a ton of challenges. Why are we so focused on our kids being challenged especially in elementary school? Why don't we just want them to play? Is it that people want to give their kids the best shot of succeeding-based on our own personal standards, not the ones that our children may eventually have?
Hoping for honest nonjudgemental conversation here. I am genuinely curious. I feel like I don't want my children to be bored, but I don't necessarily want them to feel challenged either--certainly not all the time. Some of the time, yes, of they will be intolerable adults, and I do think some level of challenge is necessary for growth. But I don't think I really want my young children to feel academically challenged. It seems like life offers up more than enough non academic challenges, perhaps especially for young children who have to learn to navigate a world that can be very confusing and overwhelming.
Very curious to hear other thoughts!

Great question OP. I wonder this too when I hear people lamenting that their kids aren't challenged. My daughter is in 5th grade and so far school has been a breeze for her. I'm so glad she's able to finish her homework in class and come home to be free to do what she wants. Oh and she's not "bored" in school either. She finishes her assignments quickly and then moves on to what she really wants to do - read, write, or draw. I'd be thrilled if it could stay this way through high school, but I'm sure things will become "challenging" soon enough.

Congratulations, it sounds like you've got a system that works for your daughter. I do get where you're coming from. School was a breeze for me in elementary too. After my work I would just read (I wasn't much for writing and I certainly can't draw.) There was enough new content to keep me challenged, but it was easy to learn and then I would read.

However, if there isn't enough new content, (and the school is responsible for setting the curriculum), then it becomes a problem. Imagine attending a week of training, mastering the material, and then going back the next week for the same course, and then the next, and then again a fourth time. Now imagine if it wasn't for a week but a year. After the fourth year of covering essentially the same material that she had learned the first time (actually she'd probably figured out most of it herself) she asked her teacher for the chance to learn something new because she already knew it (and was refused). Yes, it didn't take her long to do the work and she did like to read, but she also wanted to learn some math.

On the other hand I had another daughter who was complacent when selecting books to read. Although, she read at about a 10th grade level in 3rd grade, all she wanted to read were the young Nancy Drew books (a different series than the classics) and a series about fairies, both of which I would estimate were at a second grade level. They had no substance at all. Now, I read my share of fluff when reading for leisure, and I didn't object to her reading those books sometimes, but I didn't want her to limit herself. I will forever be grateful to the teacher who gave her something more challenging to read. It hooked her and opened up a whole new world. She started seeking out books with more depth. She may have still read the occasional fluff, but it was only part of a much broader selection.

A miscellaneous point:

Please don't require x minutes/day of reading. It turns something delightful into a chore. I can think of no faster way to turn children off reading. Require them to read certain books/stories if you like: a. You can set the level of reading so that they are challenged and b. They can resent the assignment that's keeping them from what they want to do, rather than resenting reading. I always fought the reading requirements but I feel in the long run my kids read more because they enjoyed it. Yes, sometimes they got busy and didn't read at all. On particularly glorious days I'd encourage them to go play outside. But there were also those days where they'd be hooked on a series and you couldn't pry them out of a book.

Anonymous wrote:If you know anything about child development, it is when a child is challenged that real learning occurs.

Vygotsky calls it the Zone of Proximal Development - that space between what a child can do independently and what a child can do with assistance. This is the area where challenge should occur.

Piaget has pointed out that children go through stages of development and in essence, learning occurs during periods of disequilibrium.

So, for children to learn, they need challenges. However, this does not mean that EVERYTHING must be a challenge.

My nephew who is now at an Ivy did not feel challenged until his junior year of high school. Does this mean he learned nothing in school until then?