What do you think about "Gifted Education ?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gifted_education

I am of the firm belief that intellectually gifted children should receive services due to the fact that their interest in education is stifled by the current system.

:popcorn:

Examples include GATE, AP courses in high school and the ability to participate in Resident Honors Programs in which they complete their senior year of high school and freshman year of college simultaneously.

I am in education and was a student in the GATE and AP courses.

There's a huge gulf of a difference between being merely smart and being highly intelligent. My ACT score in the 5th grade beat out every single one of my classmates through their senior years of high school, regardless of whether they attended AP classes or not.

There are quite a few highly intelligent children who fall through the cracks because they give up on education after having no motivation to succeed in classes designed for average children. Instead, they get sent to the counselor to try to uncover why the children are not engaged in the glacially slow curriculum being taught by a marginally intelligent teacher. Oh, the afternoons spent playing some kind of stupid fucking board game with 3 classmates and the counselor to treat our "depression."

I was fortunate enough to grow up close to major universities. Retired professors would sometimes teach a few years at the local high schools for the AP courses. This was my experience. Because of the rigor and excellence my teachers required from us, I scored well enough on the AP Test to be awarded quite a few college credits before graduating.

The only ACT score I am aware of is one that a student can take alongside the SAT, so I'm curious how you'd have a 5th grade score on that. Is the ACT a state mandated test where you attended school? If it is, then reading the scores isn't as simple as comparing scores. There is actually a skew to the numbers and a reading interpretation that even those in education often have trouble interpreting. If a test came back with the statement "12 grade reading level" it doesn't actually mean that the 5th grade student has the capacity to read and comprehend at a 12 grade level, but rather the overall comparison of correct responses to a given question on a multiple choice test. It shows the targeted ability, but not an actual reality.

Yes, students fall through the cracks all the time. The OP was about thinking there should be a Gifted Program, and there already is one. Your final sentence: Oh, the afternoons spent playing some kind of stupid fucking board game with 3 classmates and the counselor to treat our "depression." Clearly, you were someone who fell through the cracks. It would seem to me you'd want to find ways of preventing others from that same fate, rather than generalize against a program that allows high school students to complete college General Education requirements prior to attending college.

:hi:

Our educational system should be able to accommodate the needs of ALL children, rather than try and cram all of them into an assembly line.

Although I think the word "gifted" creates an unnecessary stigma against those who are not enrolled in a "Gifted Program."

Maybe, instead of "Gifted," it should be called, "Academically Demanding."

But then again, maybe kids who get beaten-up for being nerds and geeks deserve to have that kind of ammunition to throw-back in the face of their oppressors once in a while :)

The problem with the "gifted" label is that creates resentment among parents whose kids are not gifted (except in Lake Woebegone where all the children are above average).

Years ago I attended a school board meeting where the big subject was gifted education (though the term being used was "high achievers") and it became apparent whose kids did not qualify for the program and the hostility level was unbelievable. Earlier in the evening there had been some discussion on a "special ed" program that didn't cause so many problems. I suppose because the parents who are fortunate enough to have kids who don't need those programs can feel sorry for those who do.

Though, the interesting thing was that the parents of kids in what we normally call special ed and the parents of the kids in high achievers stuck together. I suppose even though their kids tended to be at opposite ends of the spectrum, both groups understood that not all kids fit in the same box.

I thought there was way too much emphasis on preparing for and competing in academic competitions like quiz bowls and math competitions. I didn't think he benefitted much except for being able to spend time with other gifted children. He dropped out of the program in high school because he was missing too much class time and doing too much "make-up" work. (Gifted students aren't supposed to have to make up every assignment, but some teachers would require it anyhow.)

The usual practice is to include gifted students with the regular learners in order to "lift" everyone. The opposite is true: the slower learners bring the level of instruction down. That was our experience in rural public schools at least.

Only once, mind you, but it was Something Else.

I was in high school - public school, grades 10 through 12 - taking a tenth grade ancient and classical history course. About thirty of us were in the room, your usual variety of levels from slacker actively-being-a-loser students to a couple of the smartest people I knew or know by a large margin. There was also a fairly seriously disabled student in the room; I don't recall exactly what her disability was, but it was pretty clear even then that she'd be hard-pressed to operate at a fifth or sixth grade level, never mind much more than that. I was probably somewhere in the middle of the upper third or so of the class, for comparison.

Anyway, this teacher? I dunno how he did it, but he managed to simultaneously reach everyone in the room (who cared enough tow ant to be reached; he had little patience for dug-in-heels slackers) at his or her level. Those of us who were blowing through the material? He'd toss out questions or hand us assignments/readings to get us further down the path of whatever we were interested in. Someone who was struggling with things? He'd backtrack and re-explain, or get them to look at it another way, or put them on the spot now and then until they started thinking a bit quicker and better about the material. While he was doing this, he was also somehow managing to run through an individual curriculum with the disabled girl that was not only on topic for the course, but seemed to be at a level that was challenging without discouraging or frustrating her, and which had her seeming rather happy with the whole semester.

None of us, in the entire room, ever felt like we were being ignored or singled out for more than our share of attention. Not a hint of condescension or anything directed at anyone regardless of ability or lack thereof, or of their ignorance of a given subject (not necessarily class-related) or lack thereof. Easily the best teacher I've ever been in the same room with.

Anyway, it's only sort of on topic with the subject at hand - I think, anyway - but your last paragraph just reminded me of him. Generally speaking I agere with what you said there (and I sadly encountered it in an MA program last year, so it's not just a K-12 thing), but it was really nice to run smack into a counterexample when I was in school.

a teacher who has the vision, experience and ability to reach everyone who is capable of learning the material at whatever level.

I was in Gifted classes in junior high and high school and I always wondered whether kids who tested at a lower level and were not placed into those classes, could well have been able to succeed there. Maybe all students deserve some of that opportunity. But at the same time, I'm not sure it's fair to keep the instruction only at the average level for students who are capable of more. It's a difficult question.

It was a joke; the teacher was a bad instructor and that's even before getting into the fact that she was actually trying to pull the You're Better Than Those Lesser Students In The Main Classes schtick on us. Managed to kill my love for math just as the teacher I mentioned in the other post reversed my disdain for history. There were a couple of other courses that had advanced levels like that, and they tended to turn out the same way.

Of course, that was twelve years ago now; I'm told things have actually been improving since, and I'm excited about the idea of half the current provincial government being educators.

Of course, even the lousy math class was better than the trend in my elementary classes, where above-average performance was actively discouraged.

it's called "clustering," and it benefits both the gifted and non-gifted populations.

Clustering (done correctly) does not isolate gifted students away from each other, as often happens without deliberately placing them in the same classes together. Neither does it put them in a class without other non-gifted students, as that is a disservice, as well.

Making sure that the gifted population is "clustered" into a few classes, so that they have other gifted students to interact with, AS WELL as non-gifted students, ensures that all students benefit.

Non-gifted students ARE "lifted" by listening to what the gifted students offer in whole-class or small group discussion, and by experiencing first-hand the way they think. Gifted students are most comfortable working with others who "get" the way they think, with others that don't hold them back, so they need each other.

They also need the non-gifted, who tend, generally, to have the social development that gifted students often lack. Asynchronous development is a consistent characteristic of intellectually gifted people.

If your student was missing class time, he wasn't appropriately served. Pulling gifted students out for "enrichment" opportunities is a common practice, but it's not appropriate service. Common, because it's easier than what should be happening. By law, and based on research, the appropriate way to serve the gifted population is to differentiate learning for them WITHIN the regular class.

The schools I attended as a kid, though, really enjoyed the lawnmower approach to elementary education, though.

might, just might be benefitted from these children. The biggest problem is that they are children, but they have an unique gift. So moving them to advanced grades and onto college doesn't fill the child needs like friends and playground experiences. But leaving them behind quickly bores them; and they don't get what they need.

All children need to learn at their own pace. The educational assembly line really doesn't know what to do with a unit that is more than two standard deviations ahead or behind the prescribed pace. The situation of late is a little better, but the "individualized plans" are little more than forms for bureaucrats to fill out.

Gifted children need to be asked "what do you want to learn" and then they should be supplied with those resources and let loose. The last thing that needs to be done is to bore them with some standard curriculum designed around the median for their age.

:)

at the risk of starting a flame war, but . . . this statement right here: "Gifted children need to be asked "what do you want to learn" and then they should be supplied with those resources and let loose."

is EXACTLY what homeschoolers do with their kids. (No, not all homeschoolers, but most of the ones I know. And I know A LOT!)

That used to be the way that bright kids learned. Before the days of compulsory education (with its compulsory, age-appropriate curriculum), the average kid didn't learn much, just how to be a serf or peasant. The kids who showed any smarts were tutored by adults who could see their potential. In the days before law schools, someone wanting to learn law would read the law with a lawyer and be his apprentice until he knew enough to pass the bar exam.

given the right facilitator. Do some of these home schoolers you know lack the education to be educators?

(I finally finished my B.A.s in ESE and Elementary Ed, BTW) :woohoo:

I know a lot of people don't want to hear this, but in some ways, it really doesn't matter. (Hell, my dad never finished 3rd grade, but when he retired, he had people with Masters and PhD's reporting to him. :shrug: ) Even if the parent lacks the "education" - if they have the drive and desire, they can still provide their kids with all the opportunity they need to learn - whatever it is they need to know.

There are so many resources available - especially with the internet. You can find out just about anything! In addition to online information and courses, there are textbooks and co-ops and videos (The Teaching Company is great resource) and camps and mini-courses - and for older kids the local community colleges and universities, and of course there are always tutors. Some people - a lot of people - used "curriculums" - but a whole damn lot of them don't, and of the ones that do, they don't do it for long because they usually find it too restrictive. Others, of course, enjoy and need the structure provided by a canned program. My opinion, though, is that no child is on "a" grade level. They're all over the place -- advanced in this, behind in that, on "grade-level" with something else. They may learn "auditorily" or visually. They may be kinesthetic. They may have learning differences that is difficult to tease out without a LOT of attention and effort, and then it's nearly impossible to accommodate it in a classroom setting.

When you have a one-on-one or one-on-(say even)-three or four - you can tailor the learning experience for the kid.

The TECHNIQUES of teaching are more important, I think, when you're in a classroom full of kids.

For most hs'ers it's a not even a matter of "how much you of topic "X" you learn" - it's more a matter of instilling a love of learning in their children. Teaching them HOW to learn. How to figure out what it is they don't know and where they need to go to figure it out and then how to apply that information. It offers an opportunity for more "trial and error" for the kid to experiment on their own because you have so much more TIME.


Again, congrats on finishing your degree.

:toast:

...best situation for some kids. Then they can decide what their interests are and go as deep as they want.

And, I need to bring up the fact that no Special Education program provides 100% of what the child needs. The parents pick up the slack.

I would like to see something like an IEP for "gifted" (I actually really hate that term as it inspires this elitist parent attitude that their kids is somehow better than everyone elses) kids.

Where does parental involvement and the school responsibility meet?

I pay for lots of stuff out of pocket for my kid with an IEP.

Shouldn't a "gifted" parent be required to do the same?

that if a child is a "gifted athlete" or a "gifted musician" or dancer or gymnast - that it's PERFECTLY OKAY to use the term "gifted" to describe that person.

It's only frowned upon when we use it in terms of intelligence. The truth is, though, that some childre ARE "gifted intelligent". Why should they have their "gifts" denied because little Johnny next door, ISN"T.

One had studied calculus in 6th grade and was running out of things to do to keep him busy. I helped his parents keep him supplied with intellectual challenges until they could find a school to send him to where he wouldn't be bored out of his gourd.

Intelligence is much more intimidating than being a "gifted" athlete or musician. People can lose a game or a talent competition, but losing an intellectual fight is a put-down that can be long lasting.

treated as "lesser" because it might hurt the feelings of someone who IS less intelligent?

People frequently tell me my 10 yo is a "gifted athlete" (and he is . . . ) -- he's also pds (pretty damn smart) and is ahead of 95% of the other kids in his classroom in just about every subject. Yet, when I said something about him being in the "smart kids" group - I was totally slammed!

Why is that? He's made to "feel bad" about being SMART, but it's okay to be praised about being "athletic" and "better" than the others.

I don't get it.

Physical prowess is out in the open for everyone to see. Mental prowess is "hidden" away, and if they say nothing, no one is wise to that fact. If they speak up and their mental ability starts to shine, it makes all the dim bulbs feel bad, ergo, they should have stayed quiet. :crazy:

wanted everyone to know. I relished being a "nerd" and always had my hand up to answer all the questions...

:rofl:

"Why is that? He's made to "feel bad" about being SMART, but it's okay to be praised about being "athletic" and "better" than the others."

Look, this country was founded by men who were indeed brainier than most. Considering the genius of the Constitution and our Amendments, they had to have been. Somehow having a large brain is something to be ashamed of. Don't listen to them okay, they're going to be snotty about it because their little neanderthals in training are not going to do as well. Sports is about socialization and our schools are becoming country clubs that rely more on connections than skill or the resume.

For some reason socialization is becoming more about being a glad handling pos than it is about mastering etiquette and being self disciplined.

All children, all people are gifted in different ways.

If we were just talking about that top 1% or so of students, I can totally understand. They need to be challenged and the best place for that to happen may be out of the traditional classroom setting.

But, unfortunately when you attach this "gifted" term in an academic setting, many parents think it is cache and just means really smart which, of course, their little darling is.

We had people pushing for a gifted program in my school district recently and they were defining it as almost 25-30% of the students. That is not a gifted program but more accelerated programs which I don't have a problem with really as long as it doesn't start too young.

So, in my opinion, do we get hung up on semantic in this issue?

Definitely.

that's what they do in the public charter Montessori school my younger used to attend. Each child had their OWN lesson plan designed to challenge them enough to they could grow but not so much that they would be completely frustrated.

Yet, when I told an "IEP" committee that for one of my foster boys, the principal said it was completely "unrealistic" to expect a teacher to design an individualized lesson plan for each child in their room.

My wife has five classes with 25-30 kids each. Please explain to me how she's supposed to find the time to 1) create lesson plans, 2) grade homework and tests, 3) write out IEPs and 4) find time to do something other than work.

Unless, of course, you think teachers deserve no life outside of the classroom whatsoever.

And your wife needs to be paid more.

I've seen in down in a larger classroom, though. My son's Montessori room had about 27 kids in it. The Montessori method is MUCH different, however, so maybe it was easier to accomplish.

I was doing a little bit of work designing part of the social studies curriculum in a school board in my neck of the woods a few years ago; we were working on something for twelfth graders. A few of the people involved in the project were very adamant that all the writing and assignments be aimed at the seventh grade level so as not to stress out anyone who, by twelfth grade, can't handle multiple sentences in a row or something.

There were a couple of, ah, heated meetings over that demand...

:wtf:

we got perfect scores on a certain number of quizzes in a row. We had a minimum requirement, but it meant that we didn't have to sit around waiting for the kids who couldn't deal with long division. I left the school midyear, but a couple of my friends finished the sixth grade textbook and made it part way into the seventh grade book.

When I taught Japanese, there were students who were really interested and students who were just putting in time for their language requirements. After a couple of years, I let the really interested and capable students learn kanji at their own pace and separated the spoken and written grades. They worked through a textbook and took tests at their own pace. I had several tests for each chapter, and students could move on when they passed one of those tests at 90%. The best students really loved that system, although some of the worst tried to pass five or six tests at the last minute.

advanced into the next grade- it's not a big deal. (this is kind of a progressive private school, though)

but they should still have at least some inclusion with "typical" students. Once they get out of school, they are not always going to be accommodated. They need to know how to interact with "average" achievers.

not necessarily in all of them. In those cases, there should be the option of accelerated and "regular" classes as appropriate.

I may have misused the term "curriculum" - I did not mean their whole day. I meant some curriculum with advanced students, and some with typical students. More flexibility is better.

that seemed to be a healthy balance.

I was more shocked by people's lack of respect for professors at college and lack of interest in learning as much as they could (considering they were paying for it), than I ever was by anything that happened in high school. I'm not sure I agree that Gifted kids won't be accommodated later on - I think many of em will go straight to elite colleges and graduate programs, where all their peers are on the same level (not that they shouldn't have to be able to work with a wide variety of folks.)


I never felt "superior" to anyone in high school despite being "Gifted" - that may have been because of the way my parents raised me....

"My child is in the Gifted Program"

from the public Payette, Idaho school system and enroll her in a public Charter school. She is so much happier and healthier.
In the public school their idea of T.A.G (Talented and Gifted) was learning to play chess, which she knew by the time she was 4 yrs. old.
She was moved up a grade, (They wanted to move her up more) and she gets to play Cello, Guitar, and Piano. They actually study astronomy, chemistry,Biology etc. stuff we used to get when I was in school but now a days they don't get here in rural Idaho. I happily support our small town's school system, however, I had to do right by my daughter.

I have read repeatedly here and other places, the pro's and con's, of traditional and charter schools and I have never responded until now.
I have tried working with the school here for three years with no progress and so I found a school that really paid attention to her needs, and I could not be more thrilled with the outcome.

I even got a job at the school (as a janitor) so I could encourage her when she felt abandoned at the public school, it was too crowded, too dramatic, (the kids were already, in the 3rd grade, experienced in sexual activities, I saw it with my own eyes) and it literally scared my daughter. The sacrifice I have to make is driving 90 miles a day for her education, it's worth it.
I was even told, by her T.A.G teacher of all people, that she (the teacher) thought that public schools should not be in existence! After some threatening phone calls from the other students, and the Principal herself, telling me that 4th grade was an achievement and at least one half of the student body would not graduate high school, I pulled her out, that was it, no more!

There was some kind of pride on how early the kids could have children.
One of my daughter's school mates had a child in the 6th grade, that was the confirmation I needed.

This is a VERY red county in a VERY red state, so there you go. I wish I knew then what I know now, because I never would have moved here and bought our first home, which we can't sell and get the "F" out of here!

sage

edited for spelling oops!

Sorry the first school was so bad; glad it's better now.

are part of the reason we need, not charter schools, but real structural reform for the entire public education system.

I'm sorry you didn't have people qualified to adequately serve TAG students at that school. :(

And, anyone who tells another parent they have done the wrong thing is full of shit.

It's federal law.

States and local districts determine how they are served.

They aren't served because their interest in education is stifled by the current system. The current authoritarian test-driven system stifles everyone's passion for learning.

They are served because they are statistically an at-risk group; at risk of dropping out, at risk of under-performing, of never reaching their academic potential, of social dysfunction, throughout their lives.

I have a 4-inch binder full of case studies documenting why they are considered an "at risk" population on a shelf at work.

That said, the services that they receive are generally inadequate. That's due to under-funding, lack of education about their needs and how to serve them, and, again, the test-driven system currently choking us.

that's an interesting perspective - one I am not familiar with since I usually work with kids who are at the other end of the continuum. I'll have to do some reading.

;)

Otherwise, a University Library might be the place to start. The stuff I've got came from my then-professor at UCSD.

if I can fit it in for my CEU credits, I just might.

Thanks!

Go for it, if you can!

:hi:

"gifted" kids are so totally

bored
mocked
frustrated
ignored (by the teacher)
pandered to
shunned (by other students)

they learn quickly to shut down and tune out because the majority of the time they probably could teach whatever lecture the teacher is giving (for the 12th time to the same room). They finish their class work in 1/10 the time allotted and sit there with nothing to do. If they're lucky, they can read. But as my older son said in 2nd grade - "Mom, I LIKE to read, but I want to LEARN SOMETHING!" He spent most of his time (when he was in his "grade level classroom") sitting by himself reading or staring out the window because he was done with the "lesson" assigned.

Gifted kids frequently drop out because what's the f'ing point of sitting in a room in which EVERYONE in the room (and I do mean EVERY one) is on a different wavelength from them.

extra work to do, or the SRA program where I could read ahead to the level I was able to. Plus I would just get out a book when I was done with the work or move on to other work. (in high school, and in junior high). Even the most boring history class I took (the teacher read from his college notes, or so it seemed), I always found ways to make the little bit of work required into a bigger project that interested me. I had accelerated math and science classes, so I guess I was never really bored (except for our advanced math teachers droning voice!):)

My teachers were always cool - they used to refer to me as the "little girl with the big brain" (seems silly now, I don't know that I was really that much smarter than anyone else, just more focused, read all the time, and asked a lot of questions) and I always got a lot of positive attention from both teachers and kids (who would ask me for help with work they didn't understand.)


I am sorry your son had that experience- it's a shame. I would think most teachers would be thrilled to find a kid so engaged and eager to learn, and find projects for him to do. :hug:

It was sortof funny, we had a computer lab in my school that around 4th grade started trying to teach me algebra and geometry (it adjusted to my level) meanwhile I was "learning" multiplication in my math class. Then when you add in the -,check,o,+ system, and the fact that I never could have improved so I always got the o (the teachers also hated me... which added to the frustration), it was just hell. Coincidently after my freshman year of college I KNEW I was done with math clases forever.

I was always more of a language arts and humanities person, so I took one Calc for social science class in college and then never took anymore math, despite having had trig and calculus my senior year. (liked em, too)



I think that reading class I had was just a standard class - but that was in the 70s. I think things/schools have become infinitely more complicated and bureaucratic since then.


The interesting thing is that now younger kids are exposed to more complex math concepts and process learning early, as opposed to the rote memorization and tracking that occurred when I was in school.

I was skipped ahead in 3rd and 4th grade in math... but only one grade, and it lead to me basically being held back in 5th grade (imagine retaking a class after you aced it). The problem was my level in math was far beyond that of my classmates... like 4 or 5 years beyond. Coincidently in reading I was probably 2 or 3 years ahead... but there I didn't mind so much because reading can be interesting even if its easy (coincidently I still ready young adult books almost exclusively... being a 23 year old in the young adult section of the library can be weird... oh well lol). We did this one gifted thing that I barely remember but that only lasted like 2 weeks a year so it didn't add much. Then in middle school I was skipped ahead to algebra (after my mom fought hard for it... we moved that summer so the school that I ended up going to didn't test me themselves and basically had to add a seat) in 8th grade, but keep in mind that I was starting to learn algebra in 4th grade... so it was still boring. Then I kept staying a year ahead and finally in pre-calc it got hard again, but by then I cared less and less.

The thing about gifted classes is, like a mom who ended up homeschooling her child told me, its like a normal student spending 6 and a half hours every day in the special education classroom then getting to spend a half hour with his true peers... it can really hurt development.

to the next grade (I think he was about a year or more advanced in most areas, so it made sense) We have a very small school, so no problem finding plenty to challenge him, and he's now at a very academically- oriented high school. (only issue, he was quite inattentive for a long time - now better with medication)

I was probably a year or two ahead in math and several years ahead in reading - but everyone in my home read all the time and my sister was reading in Kindergarten, so it really wasn't that big of a deal. I still remember teachers being surprised at the things I wanted to read in grade school- reading The Yearling caused a stir- I don't remember what year that was or why it was a big deal-and the next thing I kewn I was having IQ testing! :rofl: I also loved Academic Games when I was in jr. high and high school - people I met there did seem to understand each other better than most of the other people we knew in high school.


I think there is a distinction between Advanced, Gifted and "Genius"- those kids who are doing Calculus in 3-4th grade or reading Euclid in Grade 2, etc, and probably need a separate school. I also loved Academic Games when I was in jr. high and high school - people I met there did seem to understand each other better than most of the other people we knew in high school.

Gifted to me means that your 1 or 2 years ahead, genius to me means that you are 9 to 10 years ahead. I was 4 or 5 years ahead (at least in math) so where am I?

Part of my problem was I was twice exceptional, so while I was quite gifted academically and would have handled the struggle easily, in other ways they couldn't have advanced me so easily (not to mention I couldn't spell at all, still can't). Montessori probably would have worked well but my mom could have never afforded it and my dad never would have tried, sooo that never would work. Which left so few options, and with a poor school they probably never even considered busing me over to the middle school, not to mention I would have been the only one. I did Math Olympaids and Math Counts in middle school, but by then I was fairly normal on the gifted side of things. Both of my middle schools I was the 2nd best, there is no way I would have ever been 2nd best in elementary school. Its just a hard situation to be in being gifted.

my husband was just telling me that in his poor school district he was unable to have any advanced classes despite his high achievement scores and reading years above grade level. I always thought my school district was pretty average until he talked about his..

It's unfortunate, all kids should be able to love school and benefit from it!

"Gifted kids frequently drop out because what's the f'ing point of sitting in a room in which EVERYONE in the room (and I do mean EVERY one) is on a different wavelength from them."

People forget that gifted kids are wired way differently. They prefer to get to the fundamentals and 'cut the fat' out. Gifted kids prefer to be in school to learn, not pick p socialization skills and concentrate on learning. A lot can be goofballs too because they pick up on stuff, solve it, and then move on easier.

Kind of like a worker who works hard, gets done sooner, and then without being assigned anything they goof off or relax. Then their slower working peers hate them. Then the gifted worker gets labeled a goof off by the manager who thinks they aren't working hard enough.

I'd love to take a look at some of that; it's something I'd always thought to be the case, but that's just my opinion and seeing someone's actual research-with-resources behind it would be great.

They were provided by my professor from UCSD, when I was getting extra certification in gifted education.

I don't know if you'd find anything online; you might be able to pull some stuff up from a University Library.

n/t

to the "piano teacher" who plays at your church?

he needed much more. Kind of like that film with Jodie Foster about the gifted boy, what was that called?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Man_Tate

I found this after doing some googling.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

because some (most?) children from "well-off" backgrounds are just average. But they do get the benefit of their upbringing which MAXIMIZES their POTENTIAL intelligence. They also receive services sooner for any LD's1

You are correct in that children from "well-off" backgrounds have an advantage - of nutrition, environment, learning opportunity, exposure to more diverse types of knowledge. . . not to mention the prejudice from well-meaning teachers (some of it is quite unrealized - they don't even know they're doing it, it's so ingrained) against minorities and/or low socio-economic kids. Kids from low-income settings often do NOT realize their potential intelligence level because of previously stated issues, including not having their LD's attended to and being labeled as ADD or BEH or just plain old "ill-behaved".

for behavioral issues, whereas often their academics are fine. It's a dilemma and likely reflects cultural bias. However, the American Pediatric Assn. studies from a few years back did indicate that ADD was not over-diagnosed.

A kid with a normal IQ level spending 6 and a half hours every day in the special education class then getting to spend 30 minutes with his true peers 2 or 3 times a week. In other words, a joke.

Or is this another anecdotal thing?

Not that I am in complete disagreement.

All students who fall outside the norms in some way are under-served in a factory model.

Still, some districts are stronger than others when it comes to serving the gifted population.

I've worked to develop staff in-services and trainings for 2 districts on that very thing, since I hold extra certification from UCSD in gifted ed, and have taught gifted students, and done parent ed for parents of gifted students.

It is a special disservice, though, to put gifted students in separate schools, charter or not. While they need each other, they need the general population as well. It's that asynchronous development characteristic of the intellectually gifted; they don't get the social/emotional development they need isolated from their non-gifted peers.

That's why clustering them in heterogeneous classrooms with teachers who know how to differentiate curriculum and instruction is the best way to serve them. According to research.

Again, I want to see public education leave the factory model behind.

They sortof lead the country in TAG education you know. Chances are you read some books by them to get your certification I would imagine. A Nation Deceived was especcially enlightening in this catergory. In pretty much everyone of my classes my college level classmates explained the same issues I did. We were from several different states, all under the age of 25 or so, yet every one of us who was gifted (which was most of us) had the same experiences of being constantly held back.

While I believe it can be harmful to put them in seperate schools, I think its more harmful to either skip them ahead, homeschool them, or hold them back; which is most of what I have seen happen in this system. Skiping them ahead puts them with kids that might be at the same level academically but are advanced in other ways (especcially if the gifted kid is more then a couple years ahead of his peers like I was). Holding them back leaves them dependant on a teacher who might still have to teach him seperately, even with clustering. I was always clustered in math, I was still by and far the smartest kid in math in the school, one of the top 2 in my middle school but still way smarter then the other 598 (or so) kids, of course by high school I had been hammered enough to level off but still took calculus by my senior year and was one of the 5 or so smartest in it (only got Bs in it but thats because I didn't care, it was clear in class that there were only a few smarter then me). And homeschooling denies them all classmates thoughout their education... not very good either but at least then they are being taught to their level.

So what other options are there? What do you do for that 1 or 2 kids that are so far beyond their peers that they learned what their peers are covering 3 or 4 years ago? What do you do when you don't know how to teach the subjects that those kids are ready for (elementary school teachers are very rarely taught how to teach geometry, and many people hate geometry even when they took it 20 years ago.) Its a hard decision to make.

Skipping grades is not helpful.

I know. I skipped first grade myself.

Research does not support retention for the vast majority of students.

There are a lot of ways to serve those students who are well ahead of their peers. Compacting, accelerating, tiered instruction...those are SOME ways to differentiate for them. Not the only ways. For me, it's always depended on the particular needs of the specific student, and the make-up of the class those particular students were placed in. While I have a large tool box full of different ways to differentiate, I'm not always able to explain exactly what it is I'm doing. Much of is was intuitive, and I tend to shift and change on the fly as I see a need appear. I know it's effective, though. The feedback I get from parents, students, colleagues, and the community tell me that.

My classroom was a demonstration classroom in my school and district for about 6 years, before I moved out of state. I had a fully heterogeneous class that included a cluster of gifted students. Teachers from my school, district, and around the state stopped by to observe differentiation in action. So did principals, superintendents, and board members. I also had a lot of teachers drop in to observe after school meetings with parents to develop the required plans detailing services.

I like to think we were serving everyone well; our students, our colleagues, and the system. My new district, in a new state, is behind the curve. When I got here, there was a legal procedure in place to write plans, but students weren't really being served. We're working to turn that around, using some of the same trainings I did for teachers elsewhere, and some new things, too. Our service is improving every year.

Holding them back in this case happens just by keeping them in the grade with their age group when they are far smarter then their age group. Even being in a class with kids learning things that you have learned years ago is frustrating. Though let me ask you, how many times have you taught 4th graders algebra (and I mean really taught them it, not just gave them assignments and a little guidence but teach it just like an algebra teacher would teacher it (though maybe a bit quicker). Because that is what I, and many gifted kids out there, have been /are ready for. Compacting, acceleration, tiered education, etc. aren't enough (and yes I know what they mean) not when you are that far ahead. Beyond that in my experience most of those lead to less education in what you love, not more. So until you suggest to me how you can teach a class that most elementary teachers aren't qualified to teach in most elementary schools, I will continue to suggest that the public school system is failing.

things different than you are doesn't "hold you back." :eyes:

Perhaps a better question might be, "How many 2nd and 3rd graders have you taught algebra?"

Not too many. It's a very tiny percentage of the population, even of the gifted, who are ready for algebra at that age. Few enough that I can list them without having to rummage to far through my memory: 11.

"Really taught?" Are you an expert on "real teaching?" I hope you are not suggesting that "real teaching" is a one-size-fits-all description. Yes, I "really taught" them. The proof is in the pudding: they "really learned" algebra.

Your statement: "...I will continue to suggest that the public school system is failing" says enough for me. It doesn't really matter what the reality is, or what evidence might be produced. You have a point of view to defend, and you aren't ever going to be a supporter of public education. You have the right-wing propaganda attacking public education down verbatim.

Which is a damned shame for the millions of students out there depending on us to educate them.

That is my experience when you are trying to learn something that everyone else isn't learning. Most of the classs time goes to teaching them, 5 minutes goes to teaching you... if your lucky. To me really teaching them, means giving them that 40 minutes of instruction, just like they will get when they reach 8th or 9th grade.


And why do you get to define reality, as opposed to Belin-Blank Center at the University of Iowa (some of the leaders in gifted and talented education) and the 100s of classmates I have had at courses there. Why can't they define reality, because they say that the public education system is failing 100,000s of kids.

You see any schools outside the norm as being bad and evil... not really much of a suprise considering you at least used to live in the one state that banned homeschooling. I don't want kids like me to go to a school that will either cut their math instruction or continue to teach them what they already know... and therefore I must be in favor of right wing properganda. Ever think that maybe I would just like better schools for us? Why do better schools for us have to hurt you?

you need to think again.

I don't see schools outside the norm as bad or evil; I like them better than "standardized" schools. I want all of our public schools to be able to work outside that "norm" in various ways; I want them all to enjoy flexibility, offer families abundant choice, within a democratic, regulated system.

I thought you "got" that.

Would be nice to get instruction from someone qualifed to teach what she is instructing. I can't imagine what you do with 7th graders ready to learn calculus, seeing as how I doubt anyone in the middle school is really qualified to teach it (that would be the same general pace I went at had I actually been allowed to get a leg up btw). Though your right, direct instruction isn't best all the time, but then again doing your own little thing while the rest of the class is doing something else with you generally worrying about the rest of the class isn't that good either.

And you have told me time and time again that schools designed to serve specific populations are evil... thats what I would like. Though to tell you the honest truth, it sounds like you care more about teachers unions and regulations then about children... thats sad.

P.S. What would you say to any number of my friends who decided to homeschool there kids and use virtual charter schools to do it (by neccessity, law, or desire).

I'm certified to teach mathematics K-8th grades.

Did someone indicate that "gifted education," is somehow exclusive to high school?

I had algebra in jr. high, myself.

California includes algebra as a strand in elementary school, and mandates Algebra I in 8th grade.

My 6th - 8th graders are getting some algebra, right now, in the first month of the school year. 6th gets less than 7th, but they are getting it.

But if I had learned algebra in 4th grade when I was ready (for sure ready by then) what would I have been up to by 7th grade? Trig, calculus? You qualified to teach that?

Though just curious, what is the antiderivative of 2x + 2 (an easy one, just have to use the power rule here)

It means I'm qualified to teach math....ANY and ALL math, to K-8 students.

Why are you curious, if you consider it an "easy one?"

It would be hard to explain it to someone else if you don't know how to do it by yourself. But that was about the easiest problem imaginable in calculus. Though do you really know how to do noneuclidean (sp?) geometry?

X squared plus 2X plus a constant. A far easier question would have been what is the derivative of X cubed plus 48.

both were pretty easy questions, but lets see is she can answer the second one.

Explain how the Taylor series expansion of the hyperbolic tangent is calculated? I'd be fairly surprised to see if most people could even define the hyperbolic tangent let alone know what a taylor series expansion is.

How about we just make her show us Gabriel's Horn (infinite surface area, finite volume) and prove it, you should know that to teach calculus I think.

I was going to use that, but thought it might be too easy. It is one of my favorite things. It literally typed it in and erased it.

And every calculus teacher should know it. And its one of the hardest things to do in basic calculus, a lot of different things required for it.

of understanding that in 7th and 8th grade. That was by any standard a quite easy problem. So you feel K-8 teachers are capable of teaching Calculus classes? I don't mean that in a snarky way, I have no idea what is required to teach middle school math.

I was ready for that in middle school.

I feel that in order to be certified to teach any mathematical subject, that I've had to prove subject matter competency already...before getting the license.

I've had 2 gifted students out of many over the course of my career who were ready to move beyond algebra and geometry by 7th and 8th grades.

I felt capable of teaching it. I also, though, wanted trig and calculus on their high school transcripts when they applied to college. So...I made arrangements for them to take those classes at the local high school, and receive credit. They met with me to discuss what they were learning and get extra help when necessary.

sorry, all the bumper stickers about what a great kid, grandchild etc. So what is the dumb kid suppose to feel, god didn't love him/her enough to give them brains. I don't see Barack going around talking or acting like his intelligence is so special - he just is bright - people see that - the gifted title in grade school to me sucks for those who aren't in the gifted category as defined by some authoritarian body

It sucks.

Despite all evidence that shows that they tend to do worse and drop out at higher rates? All to make sure little Billy who isn't as smart doesn't feel bad about himself? Honestly, about the only thing that seems to be driving your posts on this is pure bitterness.

Best movie about giftedness ever.

...when I hear about gifted musicians and athletes. No one disputes their exceptional talent, or suggests that anyone could reach the same level, given the opportunity.

Why should someone feel bad because there's a small population with superstar academic ability?

then why is it "taboo" to talk about children who are academically gifted, but it's perfectly acceptable to discuss their musical or athletic talent?!?

Putting children in slow classes makes them losers. How would fat children feel about special overweight gym classes? How would short children feel about special short basketball teams? That would make them feel like losers, like they were not good enough for the other classes. It is easy to watch someone being good at something as long as they are not beating you.

Even if the children don't see it that way, the parents do.

why we should not encourage those students who are clearly gifted just because we don't want to make poor Johnny's parents jealous. I guess we could just completely dumb down education so that everyone gets an A, and then everybody is special and wonderful! Yay! :eyes:

"Why should someone feel bad because there's a small population with superstar academic ability?"

I was saying, that is why people feel bad about it. Not that it was what we should do. What parents think their children are in the bottom 20% to need slower classes? What parent isn't going to cause a huge fight to get their little Johnny out of the slow class? It is going to be a huge problem, not that we shouldn't do it anyway.

The bulk of the students are mouth breathing idiots. This has caused me to have nothing but trouble with public education. I really feel that public education has done nothing but a disservice to me. I was so unmotivated I would sleep through class everyday. I taught myself everything out of the book in 1/10th the time, why bother listening to them when I already know it. Then they would try to penalize me for not doing homework, sleeping, and skipping class. I'm already going to get the highest test scores in the class what are they going to do give me an AA+++. In college I had this discussion with a professor. He wanted to know why I never showed up and I said what are you going to do give me two A's. He told me when the next test was and we laughed, it was great. I tried to have the same discussion about why I didn't take notes in class during high school. The teacher basically said no matter what grade I would have gotten that he won't let me get above a C if I didn't take notes.

The stupid children need idiot level classes too. What a disservice we do when we try to pretend like one education system is satisfactory for everyone. The smart children don't ever bring the dumb ones up, they are dragged down. It doesn't average out it goes to the lowest common denominator.


I went from almost being kicked out of high school to deans list in college. Tell me that doesn't prove our system is fucked.

Sadly I wasn't quite as lucky as you. I am mildly dyslexic so I needed some instruction but the instruction was soooooooooooooo dang slow I got bored with class and daydreamed through it (never slept). I paid attention the first 3 minutes or so of class, then daydreamed through the rest of it as the teachers started giving a million examples. I couldn't read and comprehend well enough to get everything. So Bs were a normal for me, instead of the As I was capable of (and yes most of my history shows that I was capable of As). Not quite sure how this compares... but it seems like it should lol.

One idiot drops the whole class to their level. Of course you day dreamed, the class moved at the pace of the stupidest child in the room.


I'm sure they only gave you B's because you weren't paying attention. Which is not your fault, how can a child be expected to pay attention to material presented at the lowest common denominator. Then teachers take it out on you because they sure can't take it out on the idiot causing all the problems. Every class I have ever been in would have only taken half a semester if 2-3 kids who are just stupid were kicked out.


Too bad the parents of these knuckle draggers would pitch a bitch if their children went into the low level class they deserved.

I was able to get most of it, but with me daydreaming and being unable to read to pick up what I missed I missed just enough to take me down to that B level.

Did they not teach you the difference in college?

I had a GATE program back in elementary school (4th-6th grades). Really mind-opening. In middle school GATE was in the form of accelerated science classes. High school had no formal GATE program, but I did take Honors and AP classes though. I've been reading stories here about how gifted kids can get bored to death in some classes. In my experience in Honors and AP classes, there was hardly any time to kill with all the busywork and complexity.

Your message about gifted services flew over Bush's head when he and those other senators were drafting No Child Left Behind obviously.

LOL sorry had too.

Wikipedia notes:



Additionally, the article suggests that NCLB is straight-up biased against the gifted & talented students:



Footnote 37 is the Time magazine article from July 2007, "Are We Failing Our Geniuses?" by John Cloud.

But I was failed back during the Clinton years, my mom during the Carter years, my dad during the Nixon years, etc. The same students have had a hard time for as long as anyone can remember. NCLB hurt those people more, but the population was already being ignored. Hence why I like school choice, an unpopular position on this site to be sure.

While it sounds good in theory, in practice it ends up being good schools get filled up competitively and quickly while bad schools are left to rot with the feebleminded (is that a "politically incorrect" word round here?) so that ends up creating a HUGER achievement gap between good and bad districts than there is right now. Reform and improvement are a lot more improvement. Choice is the lazier solution. However, NCLB does offer school choice for eligible, high-performing students in failing schools.

I would have prefered a shot at a voucher or a charter with a lottery then sticking in my school. Though maybe thats just me.