I'm nit the poster who said she was giving up, but I share her attitude towards the cut and paste.

The advocacy info came from a particular point of view espoused by that poster. It's a point of view that some of us disagree with, e.g that IQ is not just innate. I thought we had made some progress in agreeing that not all IQ is innate; IQ testing is imperfect; there is a risk creating a self-perpetuating club of families in gifted programs; there is not enough money to fund everything; and gifted kids are not necessarily the ones who will secure our country's future. Then we get another email blast that just goes back to the same entitled, self-congratulatory positions. No thanks.

Anonymous wrote:I give up. Interesting topic, but too much copy-and-paste text to allow for discussion for me.

What, the NAGC advocacy information made your head spin? Whatever. It's half as long as some of the opinions posted in this thread. Good copout.....

Anonymous wrote:9:55, HHI alone does not determine one's socioeconomic status. Are you and your DH college graduates? That is also germane to one's SES.

Hello,
OP Here.
No, we are not college graduates. I was in the military out of high school. Since I left, I married, had two children, and had to put school off and go to work! I was laid off a couple of years ago, and have been back in school since. My DH is a police officer, he has 2 semesters left to finish school as well. I know in some places an income of 50K is not bad, but not here in DC. The sad part about it is, I do not qualify for any public assistance, which boggles my mind!!! I fought for this country, and I can't get assistance with food, housing, childcare or anything. I thought public assistance programs were supposed to help people who need it. I guess if my DH didn't work, we would receive benefits then, huh? This is why so many people choose to be lazy, and live off of he gov't, but that's a whole other topic (and this forum is pretty long already) Cannot wait to finish school!

9:55, HHI alone does not determine one's socioeconomic status. Are you and your DH college graduates? That is also germane to one's SES.

I give up. Interesting topic, but too much copy-and-paste text to allow for discussion for me.

Anonymous wrote:socioeconomic status

socioeconomic status

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Really, I just don't agree. I've been working with lower achieving and special needs children for over 30 years and have been in all kinds of settings--rural, inner city, private, suburban. We're spending mind-boggling amounts of money (and I'm glad we are) trying to help the non-gifted low-SES children. While I do very much want them to succeed in school and enter the job market with the skills they need, we should not think that gifted students (both low and high-SES) will get it on their own. They deserve to have their skills and abilities nurtured. If anything, lower SES children who show potential and do well in school have to deal with some very difficult pressures--and even prejudices--from within their own communities.

I'm not sure what you think we agree or disagree on. I completely agree that non-gifted, low-SES children should get lots of support. Also, I completely agree that gifted low-SES children should get lots of support because they may face greater challenges (as a PP just pointed out, based on her own experience).

The argument I'm making is different. Let me try to restate it differently: if you make "giftedness" itself a criteria for allocating money, as somebody here argued, then you risk benefiting more high-SES children than low-SES gifted children. For all the reasons I and others have said: giftedness is correlated with an enriched, high-SES environment. We need to face the budget realities: it's a fact that the pot of education money is fairly fixed, because the tea-baggers aren't going to let Congress provide any more money for education. Therefore, from this limited pot of money, diverting money to gifted kids means that the education money is taken away from low-SES kids in order to benefit a group of gifted kids who are predominately (if not exclusively) high-SES.

I'm arguing the extreme here, just to get my point across. I actually think gifted kids should get support too, and an appropriate education that meets their needs.

But I have little patience for the melodramatic "it's a tragedy we don't support gifted kids" when supporting them means, in the current context of fixed budgets, that money gets taken away from low-SES kids of all IQ levels. I also agree with the poster who said that high IQ doesn't automatically translate to "tomorrow's future leaders" and, in fact, it's not clear what IQ tests measure.

I find it melodramatic that you are making the assumption that money must be taken away from low-SES children to support gifted programming in general.

As Edmond Burke said, "nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could only do a little".

Beginning a gifted program requires little more than an acknowledgement by district and community personnel that gifted students need something different, a commitment to provide appropriate curriculum and instruction, and teacher training in identification and gifted education strategies.

I wanted to add a bit more to this. One of the cheapest ways to support gifted students is to allow them greater flexibility in our public schools. If a 7 year old child is ready for Algebra then let them go to the local middle school to take the class. If a child is ready for college level courses don't penalize this child by not providing them the credits they need to graduate because they didn't spend enough man hours in the highschool building. If a 3 year old is already reading at a 2 grade level you should allow that child to begin kindergarten. These things don't cost much but can mean the world to a gifted child's education. You would be astonished to hear some of the stories from families trying to navigate the public school systems. They get knocked down at every turn.

We need to include a small amount of education for teachers and administrators on this population so that they can make informed decisions on how best to meet their children's needs in their current environment.

Adding to this, here are a few news stories about a local Montgomery Co. girl:

http://www.gazette.net/stories/08262009/montnew192202_32523.shtml

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/opinion/2009/08/update-no-back-school-gifted-10-year-old

Here is a compilation of local gifted issues in the news:
http://www.gtamc.org/Home/media

What does SES mean?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Really, I just don't agree. I've been working with lower achieving and special needs children for over 30 years and have been in all kinds of settings--rural, inner city, private, suburban. We're spending mind-boggling amounts of money (and I'm glad we are) trying to help the non-gifted low-SES children. While I do very much want them to succeed in school and enter the job market with the skills they need, we should not think that gifted students (both low and high-SES) will get it on their own. They deserve to have their skills and abilities nurtured. If anything, lower SES children who show potential and do well in school have to deal with some very difficult pressures--and even prejudices--from within their own communities.

I'm not sure what you think we agree or disagree on. I completely agree that non-gifted, low-SES children should get lots of support. Also, I completely agree that gifted low-SES children should get lots of support because they may face greater challenges (as a PP just pointed out, based on her own experience).

The argument I'm making is different. Let me try to restate it differently: if you make "giftedness" itself a criteria for allocating money, as somebody here argued, then you risk benefiting more high-SES children than low-SES gifted children. For all the reasons I and others have said: giftedness is correlated with an enriched, high-SES environment. We need to face the budget realities: it's a fact that the pot of education money is fairly fixed, because the tea-baggers aren't going to let Congress provide any more money for education. Therefore, from this limited pot of money, diverting money to gifted kids means that the education money is taken away from low-SES kids in order to benefit a group of gifted kids who are predominately (if not exclusively) high-SES.

I'm arguing the extreme here, just to get my point across. I actually think gifted kids should get support too, and an appropriate education that meets their needs.

But I have little patience for the melodramatic "it's a tragedy we don't support gifted kids" when supporting them means, in the current context of fixed budgets, that money gets taken away from low-SES kids of all IQ levels. I also agree with the poster who said that high IQ doesn't automatically translate to "tomorrow's future leaders" and, in fact, it's not clear what IQ tests measure.

I find it melodramatic that you are making the assumption that money must be taken away from low-SES children to support gifted programming in general.

As Edmond Burke said, "nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could only do a little".

Beginning a gifted program requires little more than an acknowledgement by district and community personnel that gifted students need something different, a commitment to provide appropriate curriculum and instruction, and teacher training in identification and gifted education strategies.

I wanted to add a bit more to this. One of the cheapest ways to support gifted students is to allow them greater flexibility in our public schools. If a 7 year old child is ready for Algebra then let them go to the local middle school to take the class. If a child is ready for college level courses don't penalize this child by not providing them the credits they need to graduate because they didn't spend enough man hours in the highschool building. If a 3 year old is already reading at a 2 grade level you should allow that child to begin kindergarten. These things don't cost much but can mean the world to a gifted child's education. You would be astonished to hear some of the stories from families trying to navigate the public school systems. They get knocked down at every turn.

We need to include a small amount of education for teachers and administrators on this population so that they can make informed decisions on how best to meet their children's needs in their current environment.

Gifted children are at risk if they do not receive appropriate instruction, and poor gifted children are at more risk. My dad grew up poor and fatherless in an inner-city slum, IQ 150+. His mother had a third-grade education (although she read a lot). He found school repetitive and dull, and spent a significant part of elementary school as a truant in a city park. Fortunately, a caring teacher got him to apply to the city gifted school (like Stuyvesant/Bronx Sci, but not in NYC). In high school he was a gang leader, because he knew enough chemistry to make bombs to intimidate rival gangs. Luckily, his gang never actually hurt anybody, and he made it to college and a highly successful career as a research scientist. My conclusion: spending on gifted children is a smart investment for society, so smart that it's ok if some of the funds don't exactly hit the mark.

This was taken from the NAGC website and it summarizes the issues well:

•Message #1—Our nation’s ability to compete tomorrow depends on how well schools challenge advanced students today.


•Message #2—When gifted students from disadvantaged backgrounds lose ground year after year, our nation leaves behind a national treasure.


•Message #3—Every child deserves to maximize his or her potential.


Let’s look at the NAGC advocacy messages and a few facts to support each of the messages.


Message #1—Our nation’s ability to compete tomorrow depends on how well schools challenge advanced students today.


Not challenging gifted children to reach their potential creates a “quiet crisis,” one that won’t be noticed for a few years. In National Excellence: A Case for Developing America’s Talent (1993), Richard Riley, former U.S. Secretary of Education, says it is a


“quiet crisis” that continues in how we educate top students. Youngsters with gifts and talents that range from mathematical to musical are still not challenged to work to their full potential. Our neglect of these students makes it impossible for Americans to compete in a global economy demanding their skills. (p. iii)


Fully aware of the world picture, two U.S. Senators requested that the National Academies identify actions that the U.S. must take in order to prosper in the global economy of the 21st century. Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Future (2007) explores those recommendations. Recommendation C, the third of four recommendations, reads: “Make the United States the most attractive setting in which to study, perform research, and retain the best and brightest students, scientists, and engineers from within the United States and throughout the world” (p. 9). The National Academies fully realize the critical role that academic challenge plays in our country’s future. The report argues:


This nation must prepare with great urgency to preserve its strategic and economic security. …the United States must compete by optimizing its knowledge-based resources, particularly in science and technology, and by sustaining the most fertile environment for new and revitalized industries and the well-paying jobs they bring. (p. 4)


The only way to optimize our knowledge-based resources is to make our children experience an academic sweat. Challenge is the key.


Message #2—When gifted students from disadvantaged backgrounds lose ground year after year, our nation leaves behind a national treasure.

“The talents of disadvantaged and minority children have been especially neglected” (Ross, 1993, p. 5). Authors of Achievementrap: How America is Failing Millions of High-Achieving Students From Lower-Income Families (2007) state, “As we strive to close the achievement gaps between racial and economic groups, we will not succeed if our highest performing students from lower-income families continue to slip through the cracks” (p. 7). The report found that “high-achieving, lower-income students mirror America both demographically and geographically,” but by the time they enter fifth grade, only 56% of them maintain their status as high achievers. Moreover, these same students have a high school dropout rate that doubles their high-achieving peers from higher economic levels. The trend continues in college. Only 59% will graduate from college while 77% of their peers will graduate. Advocating for all children of high ability pays off and creates more appropriate learning opportunities for children who may not have advocates to speak out for them.





Message #3—Every child deserves to maximize his or her potential.


Each child goes to school to learn, and each one deserves to gain at least a year of achievement growth for that year of instruction. Such a simple goal is getting lost in many schools as the focus on proficiency dims the goal of continuous progress for each child. High-Achieving Students in the Era of No Child Left Behind (2008) explains that “the narrowing of the gap during the NCLB era is largely due to a significant improvement in the performance of low achievers and smaller gains by high achievers” (p. 23). Certainly, it is both admirable and imperative for all children to make achievement gains; however, it is unacceptable that “while the nation’s lowest-achieving youngsters made rapid gains from 2000 to 2007, the performance of top students was languid” (p. 1). The founder of the Value-Added Research and Assessment Center, William Sanders (1998) argues that “statewide aggregated evidence suggests students at the highest levels of achievement show somewhat less academic growth from year to year than their lower-achieving peers” (p. 3). This means that students who are gifted and talented may not even make a year’s progress in a year’s time!


Each of these messages plus your own advocacy message must be communicated in a timely manner. For example, because the Fordham Institute’s High-Achieving Students in the Era of No Child Left Behind was just released, you could probably assume that your legislators and district decision-makers haven’t had a chance to become familiar with it and its important implications for high-achieving students. Take the opportunity to share its message (and you could even hand them a copy of the report: download it from http://www.edexcellence.net/detail/news.cfm?news_id=732&id=92). Timing is critical.


Children who are gifted and talented come from all backgrounds, all socioeconomic levels, and all racial and ethnic groups. They possess high ability in a variety of talent areas—overall intellectual ability; specific academic ability in math, science, social studies, or language arts; creativity; leadership; or the visual and performing arts. We must must convince decision-makers and others who influence them so they understand the imperative of developing the gifts and talents of our children. Individuals who believe the old myth that gifted children will make it on their own will feel no urgency to provide appropriate educational opportunities for gifted children.

Anonymous wrote:
OP here.
I guess you could say that my family falls into a low SES. We now only make a HHI of $50,000. I have gone back to school since my lay-off. I do not think that intelligence depends on SES. My entire extended family is fairly intelligent. Money can prove beneficial of course for developing skills with things like tutors, etc. Thank goodness for financial aid!

I could be wrong but I think that when people (and researchers) talk about lower SES they mean below poverty level. I know I do!

And I agree that intelligence isn't a function of SES. But IQ scores do reflect SES. Which is one reason why people think IQ tests are a biased/flawed measure of intelligence.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Really, I just don't agree. I've been working with lower achieving and special needs children for over 30 years and have been in all kinds of settings--rural, inner city, private, suburban. We're spending mind-boggling amounts of money (and I'm glad we are) trying to help the non-gifted low-SES children. While I do very much want them to succeed in school and enter the job market with the skills they need, we should not think that gifted students (both low and high-SES) will get it on their own. They deserve to have their skills and abilities nurtured. If anything, lower SES children who show potential and do well in school have to deal with some very difficult pressures--and even prejudices--from within their own communities.

I'm not sure what you think we agree or disagree on. I completely agree that non-gifted, low-SES children should get lots of support. Also, I completely agree that gifted low-SES children should get lots of support because they may face greater challenges (as a PP just pointed out, based on her own experience).

The argument I'm making is different. Let me try to restate it differently: if you make "giftedness" itself a criteria for allocating money, as somebody here argued, then you risk benefiting more high-SES children than low-SES gifted children. For all the reasons I and others have said: giftedness is correlated with an enriched, high-SES environment. We need to face the budget realities: it's a fact that the pot of education money is fairly fixed, because the tea-baggers aren't going to let Congress provide any more money for education. Therefore, from this limited pot of money, diverting money to gifted kids means that the education money is taken away from low-SES kids in order to benefit a group of gifted kids who are predominately (if not exclusively) high-SES.

I'm arguing the extreme here, just to get my point across. I actually think gifted kids should get support too, and an appropriate education that meets their needs.

But I have little patience for the melodramatic "it's a tragedy we don't support gifted kids" when supporting them means, in the current context of fixed budgets, that money gets taken away from low-SES kids of all IQ levels. I also agree with the poster who said that high IQ doesn't automatically translate to "tomorrow's future leaders" and, in fact, it's not clear what IQ tests measure.

I find it melodramatic that you are making the assumption that money must be taken away from low-SES children to support gifted programming in general.

As Edmond Burke said, "nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could only do a little".

Beginning a gifted program requires little more than an acknowledgement by district and community personnel that gifted students need something different, a commitment to provide appropriate curriculum and instruction, and teacher training in identification and gifted education strategies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

3. As a consequence, I'm uneasy about statements like one PP made, to paraphrase, that "it's a tragedy that we don't support gifted kids with lots of federal/state money, because they are our future leaders.". This sounds a bit like creating an entitlement for kids who already come from privileged backgrounds (given that everybody seems to agree there is a connection between IQ, SES and enriched environments). Some of you step up to this problem by saying we need to help the gifted at all SES levels, ie at inner city schools. But if you're coming from a position that IQ is innate, then you can justify diverting money away from that low-SES kid who at age 8 measured average, when in fact what you're measuring is the impact of that kid's environment on him.

Maybe I'm not understanding your comment, but there are certainly low-SES kids who show intelligence at a very early age--isn't that innate? I don't think making that assumption equates to a justification of diverting money away from low-SES children. As much as I believe that we should be helping all children reach their potential, I think we should also be supporting gifted kids from all "walks of life."

Yes, certainly there are low-SES kids who show high intelligence. But the problem is that, because of less "enriched" environments, there will be fewer of these kids. In other words, a lot of the discussion here has been about how it's not necessarily "innate" as you say (with the appropriate caveats that research hasn't yet shown how much is innate vs. how much is susceptible to environment, or whether an enriched environment can produce a genius, etc.). And this leads to the conclusion that supporting gifted kids from "all walks of life" may mean that we are supporting a smaller percentage of low-SES kids and a higher percentage of high-SES kids.

OP here.
I guess you could say that my family falls into a low SES. We now only make a HHI of $50,000. I have gone back to school since my lay-off. I do not think that intelligence depends on SES. My entire extended family is fairly intelligent. Money can prove beneficial of course for developing skills with things like tutors, etc. Thank goodness for financial aid!

Not 15:09 or NP, but I'll add one more thing.

The effect of bias isn't just that it steers more $$ to high SES kids. It's that it systematically writes off the "gifted" kids who are most likely to need the enrichment/identification/support -- the smart lower SES kids who don't do well on IQ tests and whose environment doesn't tell them they're smart and could accomplish great things.

It's not enough to say we devote lots of resources to poor kids who are at risk of failing as well as to affluent kids who could soar higher. That's not compensation or equity -- it's the reproduction of hierarchy.