The term "Gifted Student" should be replaced

The word "Gifted" refers to someone who is "special" because they have natural ability's in school. Kids who are "gifted" are basically lucky because they were born with good "school related" ability's other kids are not lucky enough to have and not because they work any harder. In my opinion labeling some kids with natural ability's "gifted" while everyone else doesn't get this complementary label is just strange. Even if it wasn't meant to, it makes all the other kids who may be working very hard to do well, feel like second class students. The term should be terminated and rephrased. Kids who are born with nature given ability's should just be called "naturally able" as they are no more potentially accomplished than any other kids. As someone said in another thread "all kids are gifted in one way or another." Perhaps just not in school related areas.

We discussed how often lousy students often end up being incredibly accomplished while sometimes "gifted" kids don't always do so well. If someones self esteem lies with being labeled "gifted" with no other accomplishments to go with it then it's a pretty empty label. That goes for kids who are sports stars as well. If it's natural ability it's nothing to be proud of. What you do with that natural ability is what any person should be complemented for.

I believe the term "gifted" comes from a religious perspective. People who were born with talents were seen as gifted from God. As Democrats I would think we would want to get away from elitism and thinking God smiles down upon some more than others. Thats not what this country was founded on.

It is the parents job to discover the gift in their child and help develop it. Unfortunately the only gift recognized in the schools is the ability to learn. Remember that Einstein was a slow learner.

Some are thinkers, some are mechanically inclined, some are orators, some are quiet but can draw or write, etc. As you stated, Einstein was a slow learner and he turned out ok.

seriously, where's mine?

and many people i know who do think they were born w. a gift are sad and angry people, because the world just doesn't have any use for that many writers, actors, musicians, comedians, and cartoonists!

really, unless you're the v. top of the top, just be glad you're not gifted, people who have a "gift" for story-telling, say, which would have made them the official story-teller for their village in the middle ages, are now miserable because they are never going to be anything but self-published hacks unless they are one of the 0.0001 percent who actually do get paid to publish their stories

all parents DO try to find some gift in their child and even if the child is completely w.out any perceptible talent, they latch onto something and force the child into a mold and it only leads to misery, in my case my mother was convinced aga. all the evidence that i was meant to be a musician and untold thousands of dollars and untold years of time were wasted on her dream which was never more than a dream

in reality i am prob. v. close to being tone deaf -- and i had enough issues w. hearing that at one point the school tested my hearing to see if i was deaf in one ear

but aga. all evidence my mother remains convinced to this day that the world lost a wonderful musician in me!

:eyes:

parents are the last people capable of making an honest assessment of their offspring's abilities

check out: http://www.thirteen.org/edonline/concept2class/mi/index.html

What is the theory of multiple intelligences (M.I.)?


An intelligence is the ability to solve problems, or to create products, that are valued within one or more cultural settings.

Howard Gardner claims that all human beings have multiple intelligences. These multiple intelligences can be nurtured and strengthened, or ignored and weakened. He believes each individual has nine intelligences:

1 Verbal-Linguistic Intelligence -- well-developed verbal skills and sensitivity to the sounds, meanings and rhythms of words

2 Mathematical-Logical Intelligence -- ability to think conceptually and abstractly, and capacity to discern logical or numerical patterns

3 Musical Intelligence -- ability to produce and appreciate rhythm, pitch and timber

4 Visual-Spatial Intelligence -- capacity to think in images and pictures, to visualize accurately and abstractly

5 Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence -- ability to control one's body movements and to handle objects skillfully

6 Interpersonal Intelligence -- capacity to detect and respond appropriately to the moods, motivations and desires of others.

7 Intrapersonal Intelligence -- capacity to be self-aware and in tune with inner feelings, values, beliefs and thinking processes

8 Naturalist Intelligence -- ability to recognize and categorize plants, animals and other objects in nature

9 Existential Intelligence -- sensitivity and capacity to tackle deep questions about human existence, such as the meaning of life, why do we die, and how did we get here.

but there are plenty of folks out there who don't have even ONE intelligence

exhibit a for my argument -- george dumbya bush

You crack me up! You are probably right however even the "dull" have at least something we should celebrate. I once heard of a Special Olympics race of "un-gifted" kids where one of the kids fell down. Instead of finishing the race the other kids stopped turned around and went back to make sure he was OK. They all finished the race together with their arms around one another. The crowd cheered and went crazy! What a beautiful inspiring experience!

They may not have any of those forms of intelligence but they were more inspiring and moving than 99.9% of the population!

If hard work results in inferior results then the person producing the inferior results shouldn't be seen as producing results equal to someone who is working less and producing better results at the same thing. The country was founded on inalienable rights and the principle of treating other people as human beings, that there's a minimal standard, an exalted minimum, that must be met for all people, no matter how learned or how ignorant.

The point is what you're gonna do with those results. If they exist purely to make people feel good about themselves, then by all means, value the effort profusely. But, there's a lot of things in life where results matter. There should be immense pride in working hard and achieving good results. WOrking hard and achieving bad results?... That's... harder to defend, as I see it. At some point no matter how you phrase it or slice it, schooling doesn't exist only for scoring points on a piece of paper.

Results in school don't always lead to good results in life however. Perhaps the reason some kids who struggled in school end up so successful is because they have something to prove while often "gifted kids" don't have anything to prove and thus sometimes don't live up to their potential. It's often more complex than just judging results during the school years. It's judging the results after someone has grown up that really counts.

As I pointed out in another thread. I went to collage with a number of "gifted" kids from Los Alamos, New Mexico. Many of them dropped out and became drug addicts while many kids who were poor students developing their people skills have done very well after collage.

and was sent to a school for such children. I spent the better part of my high school years trying to throw off the label after I was mainstreamed back in the public school system. I hated it.

Those who were average students felt jealous and not as good as you, and you felt like an outsider or a geek. Thats the problem with labeling people. It creates clicks and divides people.

However, if the "ex-gifted" want to go off by themselves into their own little club, let them.

Giftedness appears in pretty much even numbers in all social classes.

I grew up in a very low-income household and am now low-income myself, and am majoring in sociology with a major emphasis on class issues. I go out of my way to avoid classism and call out other people on it, and I can't see how giftedness is any more classist than is dyslexia.

Every conversation you get into with people in Dallas goes like this:

"Jim and I just got back from Paris last week. Jim was working on a major business deal. Did I mention that little Johnny is in the gifted program at school? That little Johnny is something else! All the other kids are so envious of his god given talents. We are already applying for his spot at YALE."

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

And yes, there were a lot of people there who were highly invested in being able to say their kids were superior to the others in at least one aspect (though of course, the more ways the better). I'm still glad that we left there before my kids started school!

I'm saying before you condemn me. Remember that class societies have evolved in homogenous societies. By homogenous I mean everyone is from the same gene pool with very little difference biologically. The biggest division is gender. The "gifted" men get to have their own warrior club because women are too busy being pregnant and raising kids to be able to join the warriors. The women are less gifted because of their lack of upper body strength and the fact that they can be pregnant a good part of their lives.

So let's try ancient Egypt. You definitely had a class society that evolved from the Old Kingdom and everyone was Egyptian. There would have been very little foreign infiltration at the time. Yet, you have castes arise almost immediately when the hunters and gatherers settle down to farming and domesticating the animals they once hunted.

You have nobles, scribes, priests and warriors who are "gifted". The rest of the populations settles into being the working, peasant class. They aren't so "gifted". So a class society arises, where everyone must marry into their own class.The king usually must marry a close relative even a sister to keep the blood line pure. Some of the gifted and very determined from lower classes can rise through the ranks, but most likely many won't, who are just as clever as those born into a higher class, because it's really hard to be better than anyone else in the class you are trying to break into.

So, my point is that even if everyone is the same except that some are more clever, or artistic than others and you separate them from the ordinary children or people, you have created a separate class of children or people who are deemed to be better than the rest. You have created a separate class of people. Of course that separate class will consider those who don't make the cut inferior to them. It doesn't matter what race or ethnicity they came from. This is very different than people getting together who have a common interest like quilting.

I hope I don't regret posting this.

Clearly there are risks of creating a separate group of people, and as evidenced by the fact there are some parents who are very invested in the idea of having a child they think is "superior", gifted programs themselves can present problems as well. I do truly see it as another form of special education, and the fact that my son thrived to the degree that he did once he moved from a mainstream class to a class where all the students were more like him only convinced me further of the need for such programs. I also know that some day he will have to assimilate more with people who aren't like him - I just want to help him get through school first and allow him at least that much time to feel relatively accepted. (He's not totally isolated from it - he still faces lots of bullying and rides the bus both ways with a variety of types of kids.)

Again, I do absolutely understand the risk of setting aside one group of people as somehow more "special". However, at least so far, society has not significantly rewarded those who received the gifted label. And IMO the ideal would be if everyone could be more accepting of those who are different, raise their kids accordingly, and have teachers who had the resources available to meet the needs of all students. With the schools such as they are, there's no way most teachers can simultaneously meet the needs of the "normal" children, the learning disabled, AND the gifted. But that doesn't mean that their needs have ceased to exist. I think the whole system could be fixed and gifted education might become unnecessary, but society as a whole would have to change a lot and fund its rearranged priorities accordingly.

I never had children so I don't know about that end of it. I only have my school experience to draw from and I too felt the agonizing boredom of being in class with those who didn't get it and the teacher who had to explain it over and over again to them. Back then there was no special education or children who were sorted out as gifted, except maybe the ones who got all the gold stars on their schoolwork. Usually, those kids got to skip a grade if they could catch up with the grade they were promoted to.

Of course going to college changed all that and learning became more challenging. However, it was my observation at a very young age in high school that maybe many of those kids didn't belong in the classes they didn't get. Wouldn't have vocation training been better? I don't have the answers but I'm amazed that educators, who have on hands experience, still don't.

When I was in school during the 60s, I was the only Spanish surnamed student in the Honors track in a school that predominately Hispanic. Yes we had tracking, which I hated, and I still fight against anytime I have the opportunity. I had a very good friend, also Hispanic, who is probably twice as intelligent as myself, who was tracked on level below me. I can only hope that other places beside where I live, are fighting tracking. It is inherently unequal.

I've been teaching for 30 years. I've seen a total transformation in the children who are in gifted classes. A teacher has to make a recommendation, then tests are given. Not just intelligent tests, and not all tests that rely on English Language skills. A lot depends on who is recommending/testing, that is if they are people who only see giftness in one certain racial background of student. A colleague of mine and I got lots of our kids from Mexico into our gifted science classe. It was pretty cool to see Mexicans shooting off rockets with their science class. :-) Our gifted class is made up of all sorts of kids. But of course that is my paticular school, in my paticular city, and there are those of us who have rattled the cages of the PTB in order to make these changes.

With that said, I personally believe that everyone has a gift. I think of child of another colleague of mine with Down Syndrome who is pure love and goodness. I'm told that is the norm for children with Down Syndrome. The gift this child has is pure goodness, and love. If these qualities aren't gifts, then there are no things such as giftedness. I also believe that if all children where taught as if they were gifted, they would all benefit. There were schools in San Francisco that set up their school so every class was a gifted class, and they had amazing success with all levels of students.

No one should be treated as inferior. I think most of us learn our limitations and our strengths early on, but to be shuffled into a class as inferior to others doesn't give anyone a good start in life. I'm reminded of the movie "Stand Up and Deliver" about the high school math teacher in East Los Angeles, who inspired his students, usually underacheivers and gang bangers to beat out all the schools in a math competition held every year. James Olmos played the teacher Jaime Escalante. This was based on a true story.

The operators of the contest didn't believe that the ELA students did it without cheating because they had pre-conceived assumptions about these students. So they had to do the work for the competition over again and they won again. It just shows what can be done.

Would you prefer "genius" or "exceedingly intelligent"? How about "excessively intelligent" or "superior brained"? It will not be easy to find a term that does not hurt the one who must wear the label.

The term "gifted" has become a recognizable term because one is needed. A term was needed in the 70s when parents and educators fought hard to obtain special education allowances for children who were falling through the cracks because of unmet needs.

Your dismissal of highly intelligent children as simply "lucky" because they perform well in school is uninformed and unfair. How one performs in school is just one aspect of one's life.

An exceedingly intelligent child has as much difficulty dealing with children of average intelligence as does one who is mentally retarded. I have observed this at quite close range.

People who are different in our society are often made into outcasts at an early age. This is unfair to gifted children, the majority of which I have observed are also above average in compassion and honesty.

:-)

:)

I do think schools need ways to deal with "gifted" students. When I got to kindergarten, I already knew how to read but my teacher at the time was a little old-fashioned and would not allow me to read (at recess for example). This led to extreme boredom on my part and some acting out as they say,including being sent home early for disciplinary reasons. But it was only because I was bored and hated that teacher that I did those things.

Smart kids are not just lucky. There are real challenges in keeping them engaged and prevent disciplinary problems that arise from sheer boredom.

more like I'm a victim because I'm gifted and nobody understands my plight.

some life experience that will resonate with you, or perhaps you might learn something useful, or perhaps you will find that your original assumption was correct. In any case you will know something that you don't now. :think:

It's just not that simple. If you look at the one post above it sounds like being labeled "gifted" caused him/her to be tortured though school. It makes the kids who are struggling feel jealous and it causes the "gifted" kids to be outcast where they try to get rid of the label.

Kids learn differently and sometimes school related ability's are not a good judge of how talented or how brilliant someone is. You seem to be suggesting that only "gifted" kids are the brilliant ones. Thats not the case at all. Most of the people I know who are the most accomplished actually did poorly in school. Many of the great thinkers through out time actually were very poor students.

I failed 2nd grade and struggled through school and was called "stupid" more than once. Most would have thought I wouldn't amount to anything yet I am a published photographer and soon to be published children's book author: http://www.herbleonhard.com/books/Billy's-Mountain.pdf

If you want it all in a neat little box because it makes you feel good great fine but perhaps by catagorizing too early we are missing many brilliant minds who were not in the "gifted" class.

when in school, the other kids know and are prone to taunt. There really isn't much difference between being called "gifted" and being called a "nerd" or not being called anything at all. Kids that are extremely bright may (not always) have issues with social adjustment. That's just a fact of life.

I just said something similar to that on the other thread, the long one started last night. The other kids do know, and you will get labeled ANYWAY--gifted or weird, take your pick!

I suggested we had to have a term and asked for alternatives to "gifted" since that one rubs some people the wrong way.

None of this discussion makes me "feel good." It makes me sad that there is so much lack of understanding about what a lot of kids (and adults) are going through. It is a wrong assumption that really bright kids have it made. Many of them cannot RELATE.

I know it can be difficult for them but as I said below, try being in my childhood shoes. I failed 2nd grade and was in remedial classes all through school. Society looks down much more harshly to kids who fail in school than those who are bright. I didn't get to be called nice fuzzy things like "gifted" and brilliant. Turns out I was Dyslexic however I had to hear "Oh, he is in the dumb class." way to many times! I thought I was stupid and basically lived in a shell all through school. I didn't start excelling until I got away from school and started teaching myself. School was a very scary unpleasant place for me. I am now a very accomplished writer and photographer. I endured years of depression, self doubt and pain because of my lack of natural ability in school.

So, when I hear kids who were in the "gifted" class complain they had it so hard I just think they should try to look more on the bright side than dwell on the negative. I want to put those painful years in my past and just get on with life and my accomplishments. I want to help kids who are struggling like I did. I am sure "Gifted" kids have a ton of pressure to excel and do great things but I would have taken their difficulties in a second over mine. Then again, it was my difficulties that made me who I am and I glad I went through them.

I don't doubt it's tough to be a "gifted" kid and I feel for them. I just hope the "gifted" kids can make an effort to understand how difficult it was not to be "gifted" and to feel the pain of failing 2nd grade or be called "stupid".

Don't criticize someone until you walk a mile in his shoes.

It sounds like you had a tough time but you have grown into a successful and caring person. I understand where you're coming from. I have one brother who is dyslexic (and still has great difficulty reading and writing) who was called dumb and lazy in school until he quit at age 16. He is the best wildlife artist I know and also an inventor. (As you no doubt know, people with dyslexia are generally superior or gifted and excel in the arts, athletics and more. My 14 year is also dyslexic.) I have another (the one with the strong intellect I keep defending here) who had a horrible time in school. His expereince might match yours in the level of pain inflicted. Friendless, the target of severe physical and mental abuse from peers and ostracized throughout elementary and high school. He still feels uncomfortable in many social situations. Fortunately, he was able to stay focused throughout college and advanced studies and has a good job now.

I think this country has the resources to help each child excel and develop their gifts, whatever they might be. Unfortunately, education is no longer a priority in this country.

Peace.

I have been avoiding posting in these threads, because they smack of sour grapes.

Reading these threads, I would have to conclude that NO ONE who was ever classified as gifted has ever made anything of their lives. Poor them.

And whenever a thread about IQ comes up, numerous people here dismiss that way of discovering ability, while at the same time claiming they have an IQ of over 140. Many of the same people make fun of Mensa, telling us loudly that they are too smart for anything like a club for smart people.

I raised three gifted kids. Two of them went to our state's math and science high school. I know how hard it was on my kids, being different. It was harder for my girls than it was for my son.

I am a Mensan. I go to Mensa meetings for many of the same reasons I come to DU. I want to socialize with people who are somewhat like me, and share my outlook on life. I have to put up with enough from fools and republicans all day long. Mensa, like DU, gives me a break from all that.

Flame me. Who fucking cares? God forbid that we should have diversity of opinion here at DU.

too often "gifted" children are those who have had many more advantages in life than the supposedly "non-gifted" children. It is not fair to place these labels on children

Just saying "Hi!" :)

referred to students at both ends of the spectrum. The program was intended to meet the special needs of the learning disabled and nerds, both groups with educational needs which fell significantly outside of the norm.

The scorn and derision so many seem to greet the label with suggests to me that there may actually be justification for a 'gifted' discussion group. Remember, this was generally a label applied to youngsters who didn't have much say in the matter. It often made them outcasts growing up. And, judging by some of the responses in this and related threads, they remain outcasts in a similar way.

What we seem to be discovering here is that the term "gifted" is a label that has kind of divided people and it still seems to be doing that here on DU. As one guy said, he spent most of his time in school trying to get rid of the label. It also makes the not so great students feel not so smart and jealous. By labeling a group of kids, clicks are established and people are divided.

I just think they need a term that doesn't sound so elitist so the "gifted" kids don't feel so different and the other kids don't feel threatened by the "gifted" kids.

Then again, I am tilting windmills if I think the term is going to change.

eons ago, or GOOD STUDENTS.

Here's the thing, though--if you want to find a way to make money off of something that is just a simple, obvious fact of life (some kids are smart, some kids are stupid; some kids are skilled at studying, others suck at it) then you give it a jazzy name, maybe write some books about this obvious phenomenon, develop programs that deal with it, and spread bullshit far and wide across the land!!!!!

Always out to make a buck. They should just tell kids to sit down and shut up if they're bored with their work because it's not at all intellectually stimulating.

If the teacher saw you were bored, you got extra work that matched your abilities.

For the kids that were a bit thick, they were kept after and helped with their schoolwork.

Who said anything about sitting down and shutting up....except you???

Giving kids who needed it the extra help they needed. I fail to see how that falls under:

Here's the thing, though--if you want to find a way to make money off of something that is just a simple, obvious fact of life (some kids are smart, some kids are stupid; some kids are skilled at studying, others suck at it) then you give it a jazzy name, maybe write some books about this obvious phenomenon, develop programs that deal with it, and spread bullshit far and wide across the land!!!!!

See, that's what my teachers did way before there was ever a thing called "gifted and talented."

Back in the dark ages, see, a teacher would look at a kid, figure out what they needed, and help them along in their educational development.


And they didn't need fancy labels and little 'scholar clubs' to do it, either.

But I guess calling a spade a spade is "elitist."

grade school kids who are ready for college physics classes. It's silly to give them more worksheets to fill out.

he was/IS smart as a whip, but he also had very good study skills, and a photographic memory like ME!!!
When I was is school, I took copious notes, and could mentally turn pages in my mind and just "read" my notes.. I don't know HOW I did it, but needless to say, I LOVED essay tests :evilgrin:

My son studied HARD, and would , on his own, tell his friends he would be out to play AFTER he did his homework.. If the teacher said "due Tuesday", he would have it done on Sunday, and spend Monday fine-tuning it.. He read ahead in his text books, so that class teaching was a "review for him..

His IQ tested at about 160-something, and the little brat could do calculus in his HEAD :grr:.. I need a calculator for anything past 1+1 :)

His two brothers, while equally "gifted" with high IQs, HATED school and refused to study.. We have two dropouts with 150+ IQ,s and a summa cum laude, merit scholar.. go figure

However, I agree with your basic point - I think the term "gifted" is bad, because it can imply a value judgement and therefore make proper application of the label difficult. No one would say that a cancer group is elitist; no one would say that an ethnic group is elitist; no one would think a comic book group is elitist. Somehow, a sub-population of DU with specific issues is deemed elitist for wanting to have a place where they can discuss group specific issues without being attacked.

I didn't make my point very well in the OP. What I am most concerned with is the potential in kids. Many of the greatest minds were not necessarily good students and they never would have been in the "gifted" class. I am afraid by categorizing kids and labeling them as "gifted" besides dividing kids and creating clicks, a lot of kids who have incredible potential but don't start off well in school are being overlooked and forgotten. I like to think of most kids as being potentially gifted and it's the schools responsibility to find that gift or those gifts and harness them.

For example, Albert Einstein would not have been in the gifted class yet he was most certainly brilliant. The schools need to get away from seeing what is obvious and look for brilliance that is hidden.

A good gifted program would have picked up Einstein. I think there's a bit of equivocation here, but I'm not sure. Here's the sentence I'm concerned about:

I like to think of most kids as being potentially gifted and it's the schools responsibility to find that gift or those gifts and harness them.

The concern of G/T programs is to take care of the educational needs of the students above the average. Defining the program so that it covers most of the students doesn't really help anything. Average students are generally already being helped, because they're the majority. It's the kids on both sides of the curve that need help.

Hell, maybe we could call both sides "special ed" ... or is that too elitist, because everyone's special.

I really don't think we are very far apart here. I agree with most of what you said however I just think that when a kid is naturally good at school the teachers just love them. Hell the are "gifted" they are special!!! They have shown that teachers have low expectations for kids who don't have natural school ability's. Kids who have hidden talents tend to slip through the cracks because they don't have a special label that draws attention to them. Teachers fail to see their potential and no one realizes that they just overlooked someone who was brilliant. Perhaps it's better than when I was in school but back in the 70's they missed one hell of a lot of smart kids because they basically thought they were not that bright. I just think teachers are prejudice against anyone who is not in the "gifted" program. They see them as average students. I just hate that label.

Teachers don't love kids who are "naturally good at school." On some of the other threads there are stories of people having the exact opposite experience. For instance:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1641211&mesg_id=1645968

My personal history is full of similar stories. I had one good teacher in elementary school that gave me extra stuff to keep me occupied; I was into astronomy at the time, so I learned a bunch about the planets in first grade. She was the exception, rather than the rule. I was quite a disruptive little brat in elementary school because I was bored out of my mind.

That, and gifted programs are generally designed to find the kids you're worried about, so while it is a concern, it's a concern about making sure the program is working correctly, rather than a concern about the program itself.

and in their early years didn't do so well. but as they got older they became high achievers. and of course, i have seen the opposite also.

especially since we are talking about young children here. many who just don't like doing class work and studying. they just want to play. they are too young to understand the importance of doing well and getting into college, getting a good job etc.

sometimes "gifted" students might just have parents who push them to do all of their work while others may not push them as much. but when these kids are equally pushed or not pushed, the results might be similar or different.

there are exceptions for those who are high achievers such as the kids under 10 who can do high school and college level work. in that case, they are i guess what you call a child prodigy. in the case of these children though, they would be such high achievers that they would not even be in the same classrooms as most kids.

i agree with you about the term "gifted". we need to do away with it.

when i was in grade school, they did separate the kids(in the same class and grade) into different levels of reading. i think this was better since it allowed those who were in lower levels to go up which did happen in some cases. it allowed for those who were a little better to do more challenging work while trying to make sure everyone at least learned what they should for that grade. they could do the same with math also.

the wrong way. It just reminds me of royalty and old money. People who were lucky to be born with good skills in school shouldn't also get this label as though God smiles down upon them then and "gifted" them! God loves them more and we should be in awe!

I just want to throw up when I hear parents brag about their kids and say: "Oh, our little Johnny is so brilliant, he is in the gifted class! We are already putting away money so Johnny can afford YALE! How come sally isn't in the gifted class?"

On the other hand when someone says: "Billy is an honor student this year, he really worked hard and hit the books. We are so proud of him."

Now that's totally cool. Good for Billy for working his ass off and being an over achiever! Billy deserves to be honored!

Maybe I am prejudice but their is just something bizarre about the term "Gifted Child".

honor student sounds more like it's based on achievement. it makes you think of a student that worked hard to get it rather than just having it. and something others could try to get also if they work hard.

which has been said over and over. if you want to propose another term that is accurate, go ahead. good student is not it. in a many cases, gifted kids are NOT good students. school does not fit for a lot of reasons. many good students are not that intellegent. 2 different things, see?
the point that a lot of the whiners here are missing is that there are a lot of traits that go with gt that are BAD. that make it hard to do well in schools, even schools for gifted. we know this. we have to cope with this. how other people see/treat us is only a part of it.
after some of the things posted in these threads, it is hard to believe this is a progressive place. amazing that people are supposedly advocating for equal treatment for everyone by bashing people who just want to get together and discuss their shared issues.

I think I understand it could be difficult. I also hope you can try to see things from our side and understand those of us who sucked at school and failed grades and went on to be very accomplished. We were envious and jealous of your natural ability's and we went through years of pain and depression and self doubt because society looked much more harshly on us then on you. We were not labeled nice words like "gifted" but instead had to hear "Oh, he is in the dumb class". Try to look at the bright side of what you had rather than focus on the negative side. You want to endure pain? Try failing 2nd grade and going to summer school! Try seeing what it's like to be thought of as stupid.

Most of my writing comes from the pain of failing school. Perhaps you might like to take a look at the message in my children's' book. You can see it here: http://www.herbleonhard.com/books/Billy's-Mountain.pdf

Haven't we had enough dumbing down, anti-intellectualism and haven't the "everyone's-a-winner-everyone-gets-a-prize" generation turned out with their own (inflated and shocked by Real Life) issues?


"If someones self esteem lies with being labeled "gifted" with no other accomplishments to go with it then it's a pretty empty label."

You didn't get it.

I especially like the comment about the OP obviously not being intelligent, because an intelligent person would have known a better way of presenting the information to not upset people (neglecting the fact that one of the issues that the OP was referring to was a feeling of social isolation and inability to relate to people).

Irony abounds.
:sarcasm:

You've got all the "sides" worked out. Your misinterpretation and misrepesentation of my post is completely off base:

"...the comment about the OP obviously not being intelligent, because an intelligent person would have known a better way of presenting the information to not upset people."

:wow: You must be rilly smart to have tole me whut I meant evun tho I din't say dat at all. :think: A good example of the twisted intelligence (maybe some of the "wounds" mopinko is looking to heal) and sharp elbows that make this concept (and various threads on it) just another opportunity for some DUers to bully and fight with others.

This ain't my dogfight.

I kept my comment short and simple, pointing out that the phrase I quoted from the OP shows the OP didn't get it-- IMHO that may be because so far, maybe the concept hasn't been explained in a way that MORE folks can relate to or understand.

Your snark attacks and assumptions are no help at all.

I don't know where you got that from.

I grew up in the liberal 70's, and will always hold onto the beliefs and thoughts i had then.

I graduated from high school at the age of 16. I had long hair, but was class president. I scored in the top 2% of those who took the college entrance tests, though I was 15 at the time.

I asked myself at the time, do I want to hear others tell me that I am smart yet have no common sense for the rest of my life, or do I want to figure out what the hell they are trying to say?

I chose to try and figure out what the hell they were trying to say, and am still doing so. It didn't diminish my mind.

No one should be labeled.

Dumbing down and anti-intellectualism is a sad thing, but doesn't have to be necessarily a true statement, in that it not only exists, but affects those individuals who are or may be not prone to it.

I continue to believe that there are many out there who don't succumb to the easy roads offered.

"I asked myself at the time, do I want to hear others tell me that I am smart yet have no common sense for the rest of my life, or do I want to figure out what the hell they are trying to say?"

That same phrase was repeated on the gynormous mopinko thread. Is/was that a common attitude? that being smart or "gifted" = "has no common sense"?

I didn't intend to suggest that "gifted" kids don't have common sense. I came from the other end of the class. I failed 2nd grade and struggled through school then went on to become a professional photographer and writer. Even though my reading and spelling skills were years behind in school I ended up as a published children's book author and published photographer. Those ability's were always inside me but I had to work at it. I saw a lot of "gifted" kids end up with average accomplishments after collage. All I am suggesting is that just because someone is "gifted" doesn't guarantee they will succeed in life. I would guess that most "gifted" kids go on to excel in life but those who struggled with school and ended up with many accomplishments weather it be something like helping the poor or running a business or whatever were always just as talented, it just didn't show up in the test scores in elementary school.

If "gifted" people want to form a group then have at it. I am sure they will have a lot to talk about and many experiences and feelings in common.

Perhaps there were some holes in the OP so let me try to explain myself better. Your post is a little confusing but I think what you are trying to say is that we need to get away from the "everyone's-a-winner-everyone-gets-a-prize" mentality. I agree with you 100% on that. I don't have a problem with terms like "honor student" or even saying she is smart. The term "Gifted" however has a different meaning. The term has an elitist God given arrogant meaning attached to it. By saying someone is Gifted is like saying God smiled down upon them and the other kids for some reason are not Gifted even though it's possible they are and perhaps their talent has not emerged yet. Maybe God didn't like them as much?

On the other hand, "honor student" is something a child has earned by getting good grades. Honor students can be kids who were not born with natural ability but simply worked hard and even perhaps became smarter on a subject by studying. Honor students can also be "gifted" kids and often are but at least we know they accomplished something to EARN the right to be called an honor student.

All those "gifted kids" from Los Alamos I went to collage with who became drug addicts and did nothing with their lives may have had natural talents but so what? The didn't use their talents to give anything of worth to the world. It's an empty label. Of course most "gifted" kids go on to do really well and contribute much to the world and they should be recognized for it.

Changing the "empty label" doesn't change the experience of people who were labeled over the past few decades. That horse has left the barn.

Your attitude seems to be seeing it from the outside."The didn't use their talents to give anything of worth to the world." If you don't relate or understand what those folks are talkin about, fine. Helping each other now seems more important to them than changing the label.

If you want to "change the label" maybe research why it was called that to begin with, rather than assuming it's religious. Maybe it is. And maybe these folks are "gifted" in some unknown way. That's part of what they're tryin to talk about also. No shame in that.

:hi:

:hi:

courses from 'basic, general, & advanced' to 'a, b, & c' in the name of political correctness, as if the kids wouldn't get it. as for 'gifted', i'm sure they'll find a nice new label for 'the smart kids'.

"Exceptional" runs the spectrum from profoundly disabled mentally, physically or both, to those with above average intelligence.

BTW, it doesn't all come naturally. Some kids could be average, but their parents model behaviors like reading, and encourage intellictualism just by the subjects they discuss in the home and their use of a large vocabulary. IOW, the same kid, raised in a different home, might not become a gifted/exceptional student.

Even "honor student" and "smart" are fine, but "Gifted" has a ring of elitism to it. Your book Huck Fin was a masterpiece! It's my favorate book!

This namby pamby BS is one of the only good reasons conservatives hate liberals. I suppose the next move would be to discourage wanton displays of intelligence, so stupid people don't feel bad. :puke:

Let's leave the PC euphemism back in the '80s where it belongs.

You must have missed this sentence:

"If someones self esteem lies with being labeled "gifted" with no other accomplishments to go with it then it's a pretty empty label."

This disagreement her is about being labeled something for nothing, not the other way around. As I said in a post above, the term "Honor Student" is absolutely fine as it suggests something was earned. The term "gifted" is nothing more than a feel good word for people with natural ability's who may or may not excel in life.

That's exactly what "gifted" means: a god-given, un-earned talent. I don't see how the word doesn't apply. Empty or not, the label fits. Kids who are gifted have the potential to become great scholars, but it's by no means a foregone conclusion. Many turn out to be unmotivated or disinterested in school, partially because their curricula are not challenging enough to engage them. That's why the label, and special programs for these kids, exist in the first place.

Your point is well taken. Still, you can't tell me you haven't met those arrogant types who brag about their latest trip to Europe and how their son or daughter is in the "Gifted class".

All the fuss here started when a few people decided to proclaim they were "gifted" and "Highly Intelligent" and wanted to start an exclusive group for smart people on DU. This kind of boasting over time has changed the meaning to something different from "un-earned" talent to something pretentious and elite. At least in the opinion of some.

Sometimes the term seem OK though. If I hear someone say "She is a gifted singer" it has a different more humble ring to it.

You make a good point though.

There should always be an Advanced Placement, Gifted and Talented or whatever you want to call it for the ones who are more advanced academically. There is no reason to punish those who are capable of more advanced and difficult work merely to spare the feelings of those who are not. Do we make the taller children wear some sort of handicapping device when playing basketball? Do we hobble the faster runners? Then why do that to the quicker minds?

The only point to having the group, AFAIAC is to allow people with a particular background to get together, compare notes, maybe support one another.

It seems it is difficult to find a way to identify that group without creating an uproar.

I'd say it is sad for anyone who felt put down for not being "gifted" or having a high IQ or whatever.

But why should that have to stop a group who struggled with BEING "gifted" or having a high IQ or whatever from getting together.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who could fit into any number of groups with experiences and characteristics that have made life challenging.

In combination with this particular characteristic, I can't tell you how many times I was told I was "too smart for" my own good. I'm one of the so-called underachievers. There are reasons for it, beyond the current discussion.

But I wish that people wouldn't begrudge having a group based on a characteristic that is often envied, often feared, often ridiculed, and often problematic in the life of those who have it.

Sheesh.

Why not pick on an artist's group or a writer's group for their "superior" talents, or any other group for being elitist in wanting to have one part of DU to gather together with people who share a characteristic or life experience or anything?

Whatever was done to anyone in the past wasn't done by those of us labeled by the world, which is most often the source of the problems. The label, the attitude of society.

The same society made people feel bad for not being like us.

I'm not saying "get over it," as I think that's one of the all time lame responses to a person who is upset. I am saying I don't think the intense negative reactions being directed at this group really belongs to the group.

Are we the culprits, really? I don't think so. We were too busy being called eggheads, too smart, no common sense, etc etc etc.

Honestly, who cares? Maybe 3 people on the planet?

There's much bigger fish to fry.

You seem to be quite passionate and persistent in wanting to make sure those that were labeled as such are knocked down a peg. No idea why.

And if a student felt like a second class student because they weren't in the G & T program, then they have some serious self esteem issues that their parents need to have addressed.

from the kids who only read a lot of books because they didn't have any friends?

I don't see why we should change the wording. ;-)

1) There's nothing more or less fair about calling children with a high IQ gifted than calling the best football player on the school team the star quarterback (assuming that's the position they play), but you don't seem to have a problem with that. People are naturally good at all kinds of things.

2) There is no self-esteem to be gained from being gifted. People like you have seen to that for longer than any of us have been alive. Smart isn't cool, and you won't stop ramming it down our throats. Ironically, it is the gifted-bashers who blame the smart people of "flaunting" their intelligence. Whatever.

3) Only people with personal issues think "gifted" equates to "successful" or "better than everyone else." Most gifted people don't think this about most people most of the time. That attitude comes before you know better as a kid and after you find out how fucking stupid most people who assume this attitude from smart people really are.

4) It has nothing to do with a religious perspective. That's a load of shit.


Why do so many people get their panties in a wad over IQ? I don't fucking get it and I don't get how so many people can be alright with this discrimination against intelligence when they would be all up in arms if it were about race, sex, handedness or any other inborn quality. It's a pity and a shame.

Locking at the author's request.