or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Parenting the Gifted Child › Gifted starting kindergarten early..?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Gifted starting kindergarten early..? - Page 3

post #41 of 93
:LOL Well, I was going to put it a little more nicely, but I actually am curious if there is a way to ascertain the average IQ for a given district or state. I have never seen any lists of that sort. I would be curious to know where our state/district falls. Given my interactions with some of the people around here, I'd almost venture to guess that we are below the national average (don't tell my neighbors!).
post #42 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by TiredX2
Wow, how do you know the average IQ of kids in your school district? I know virtually no children who have taken an IQ test, much less enough to get a district average (though based on education of parents you could assume it would be higher than 100 in our area). I am *not* saying you don't--- your school district just sounds *so* different than any I have ever been exposed to.
ALL second graders in my school district take the OLSAT (Otis Lennin something or other) which is supposed to generate scores comparable to IQ scores. For the record, the average at my (public) school this year was something like 112...and I live in...CONNECTICUT!

Total coincidence, obviously!
post #43 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristaN
:LOL Well, I was going to put it a little more nicely, but I actually am curious if there is a way to ascertain the average IQ for a given district or state.
Do you mean that I did not ask nicely?

If that is the way it was percieved, I am very sorry. I was interested very much in a school district that actually does IQ testing on all their pupils. It is so very expensive, I was really intrigued.

Then I was a bit thrown by the 113 number, one that has been declared a hoax so I wanted clarification.

I was not trying to be rude. I honestly thought I *was* "putting it nicely"
post #44 of 93
I don't accept this reasoning because high school works like that -- we have one music teacher, one art teacher, et cetera, and two different lunch periods.

A simple solution:

Have students rotate from class to class.
Have teachers teach core subjects at different grade levels.
Let the students go where they need to go.

For example, Teachma, let's say that instead of teaching "first grade," where you teach first-grade science, first-grade math, and so on, you taught first- through third-grade reading (if reading is your forte) or perhaps first-through third-grade reading and math (if reading and math are your forte) Your personal schedule might be...

1st period - First grade reading
2nd period - Second grade math
3rd period - First grade math
4th period - Second grade reading...and so on.

The kids would have a rotating schedule based on personal need, especially in the core subjects. Let's say Jennifer X, a six-year-old student, might have the following schedule:

1st period - Teachma for first grade reading
2nd period - Charles Baudelaire for third grade math
3rd period - Teacher X for PE
4th period - First lunch

Why is that so impossible? Yeah, you'd need a bunch of teachers and monitors those first two weeks so everyone doesn't go batty trying to find their respective rooms, but it can be done.

Quote:
Originally Posted by teachma
Your answer in one word: SCHEDULING!! If, for instance, the school serves grades K-5 (as mine does) and has one music teacher, one art teacher, one PE teacher and one cafeteria, then lunch blocks go something like this-
11:00-11:30 K eats lunch
11:30-12:00 1st grade eats lunch
12:00-12:30 2nd grade eats lunch
etc.
So, while your child's kindergarten class is doing Math, 2nd grade might be a lunch, and 1st grade might be at specials (art, music and so on). It is near impossible to coordinate so that all classes of the same grade are doing the same subject simultaneously, never mind the whole school.
post #45 of 93
When I was in school, the older grades (5th and up) would go to different levels in the subjects. The entire 5th grade would have math at, say, 2PM, and each 5th grade teacher would have a certain math level to teach. For example the math whiz kids when to Mrs. Smith and the ones who were still working on basic skills went to Mr. Jones, and the rest went to Ms. Miller and Mr. Scott. It worked out great! I remember one friend went to sit in with 6th grade math because she was advanced. And then there was the kid who took classes at the community college in the evenings because he was exceptional.

I believe they still have the different levels for subjects, but they don't do it in the younger grades at all. Won't even consider it.
post #46 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by maya44
The fallacy you are engaging in on this one is assuming that child with the 140 IQ is attending a classroom where the average classroom IQ is not above 100.
It is not a fallacy, but a statistical norm.
Quote:
If that were true you'd be right. But the truth is that the vast majority of kids with an IQ of 140 attend schools with much much higher average IQ's. In our school district the average is 119. Thus the child with a 140 IQ is no more "out of place" than a child with a 101 IQ.
Based on only the example of your school district, am I supposed to conclude that this is universally true? Moreover, if the average IQ is 119, that means that a child with an IQ of 140 would still feel out of place, though not as dramatically as she would if the average IQ were 100, as is the statistical norm.

Also, what happens to those high-IQ kids where the district IQ average is lower than 100? For one limited (and not universal) example, the school for which we are zoned has been on the AYP watch list for three years now and has never, never scored even close to the national average. One possible reason (among many possibilities) for the low scores is low IQ. In short, though there are districts where the average IQ is higher, there are districts where the IQs are lower. Overall, considered as a nation, they round out to about 100. I fail to see your ultimate point. What is it? That gifted kids don't deserve services because they're not gifted enough according to the average in a particular district? That would be akin to saying that a retarded child didn't deserve services in a low-IQ district because they weren't retarded enough.

Quote:
And bty, in our school district both the child with the 140 IQ and the 101 IQ (and I am just using IQ here very loosley) tend to get pulled into learning groups at various points during the day where they are closely matched with others abilities.
And that's better than nothing, but research demonstrates that cluster grouping (what you're talking about) works better than no grouping at all, but research also demonstrates that especially for highly and profoundly gifted children, complete separation works best. See Susan Winebrenner's book on the gifted child in the regular classroom and Dr. Karen Rogers on the same subject.
post #47 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by maya44
What i said is that the majority of kids with IQ's of 140 attend school with average IQ's above 100! Not just my school district.
Would you mind sharing the source of your information?
post #48 of 93
Hey now. There is no way a state with so many NY Yankees fans has an average IQ of 113. Sorry but it's just not possible.

Hehehe... just kiddin'. Sort of.

Anyway, I agree with the others, Maya, that you should count yourself lucky to live in a school district so accommodating of gifted children. I'm just a short drive to the north of you here in Western Mass, where the "average IQ" must be pretty darn low, because the school psychologist (and she's the only one for grades 1-12 in our district) had never tested a gifted child before my son. The schools in our rural, spread-out district have no ability tracking and certainly do not make any accommodations for gifted children, nor do they seek to identify them. The curriculum is not differentiated until HS, where there are a few AP courses.

I have a friend who lives in an upper middle class area of Southern California, and she too doesn't seem to "get" that most of the school districts in the country lack the time, money, and/or inclination to set up real and decent gifted programs. If schools were so awesome for gifted students, there wouldn't be so many people pulling their highly and profoundly gifted kids out to homeschool or send other places.
post #49 of 93
Thread Starter 
He needs time to just BE. Just play, just create, just be smart and be himself and not be pushed and encouraged into academics.
=Yep I think I have come to the reasoning that I can help him be happier in his world by keeping him home next year and if he's ready to skip a year he will always pretty much be. I can provide a better life by getting a museum, zoo, science centre memberships and creating a programme for him.

Just because he is "gifted" doesn't mean you need to push him into places that kids his age don't belong. I'd consider that a punishment for his gifts, personally.
=lol well gradeschool was punishment for me, but I think that gifted doesnt' mean pushed where he doesn't belong due to age. I think that and I am sure some lower IQ parents might agree that the school structure based on age alone leaves alot to be desired. I've heard that boys sometimes need longer to learn to read - and some are kept back (more in my day) because of that in grade1/2. It is too bad we can't truly have integrated classes.

Mind you I may never have gotten out of remedial music class
LOL Tone deaf with no beat...

At this age, I feel that children's learning and structure should be somewhat child-led. Ya know, copying and helping with every day chores, helping with the baby, playing pretend, running outside, getting his body into the basic rhythm of a calm, creative life. Kindergarten, in my experience, does not promote this.
=I agree and although my dh might have liked saying his son started K early, really I would miss him and I think the best place is at home, feeling a part of his community, his family, cooking, learning about the world instead of colouring outlines of goats for a half hour....

And he doesn't need any labels yet. LOL what's up with that lately? It seems before you may have ONE label, now its like royalty = title after title!

Plenty of time for my kid to get discouraged by the system.

Homeschooling gifted kids?
Point me in the right direction.
Should I look for another mom homeschooling a kid his age?
post #50 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by TiredX2
Do you mean that I did not ask nicely?

If that is the way it was percieved, I am very sorry. I was interested very much in a school district that actually does IQ testing on all their pupils. It is so very expensive, I was really intrigued.

Then I was a bit thrown by the 113 number, one that has been declared a hoax so I wanted clarification.

I was not trying to be rude. I honestly thought I *was* "putting it nicely"
I'm sorry. I was not meaning to be accusatory. I read your post after maya's and laughed b/c it was exactly what I was thinking. I guess that the "wow" start of it came across a little stronger than I was planning to form my response, but sorry if I misinterpreted. I didn't mean to state that you were a terrible, sarcastic meanie.
post #51 of 93
Have you considered a Montessori school for him? He would be in a 3-6 year old classroom so there's no real "pre-K" vs "K" dichotomy. Plus, he could work at his own level.

Well, theoretically. Mine starts in a little over a month & I have high hopes based on what I've read.
post #52 of 93
there are lots of resources for homeschooling gifted kids at www.hoagiesgifted.com
post #53 of 93
Thread Starter 
Have you considered a Montessori school for him? He would be in a 3-6 year old classroom so there's no real "pre-K" vs "K" dichotomy. Plus, he could work at his own level.
=LOVE Montessori however its the money issue. It would cost so much, and sigh, I am only on Mat leave for another 4 months and if I don't go back it will be tight....

I hate that

My dd went through montessori and I loved it.
post #54 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristaN
I'm sorry. I was not meaning to be accusatory. I read your post after maya's and laughed b/c it was exactly what I was thinking. I guess that the "wow" start of it came across a little stronger than I was planning to form my response, but sorry if I misinterpreted. I didn't mean to state that you were a terrible, sarcastic meanie.
: It's something I'm a bit sensative, lol. People are always telling me how "direct" I am and relating how I just out and said something which *I* thought was very appropraite and they seem to think took ovaries, so...

Thanks, though
post #55 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by teachma
ALL second graders in my school district take the OLSAT (Otis Lennin something or other) which is supposed to generate scores comparable to IQ scores. For the record, the average at my (public) school this year was something like 112...and I live in...CONNECTICUT!

Total coincidence, obviously!

Thanks for the info! I did a little digging and the OLSAT gives scores that are close to IQ, but not quite. It seemed like a common comparison was 130 OLSAT = 125 standard IQ test.

I also found information saying that the CoGAT is the same type of test as the OLSAT. If anyone has info on converting a CoGAT score, I would be interested.
post #56 of 93
Here's a fairly infomative link that might clear up the difference between OLSAT scores and IQ scores(among other things):

http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/why_test.htm

The short version is that OLSAT is not IQ, and for gifted kids there can even be a negative correlation between the two. (ie, the *lower* the OLSAT, the higher the IQ)
post #57 of 93
Having grown up labeled "highly gifted" I would like to take issue with the idea that gifted kids are always better off with their exact "peers" in terms of intelligence level - as well as with the idea that only those who are our equals in intelligence are "peers" with whom we can enjoy meaningful social relationships. I was tested in grade 3 and from 4th through 12th grade I attended programs reserved for those with IQs of 150 or higher. (There was also a separate track for those with IQs 120-150.) In kindergarten through grade 3 I attended my neighborhood school and was very happy socially. I did notice the lack of challenge but my parents more than supplemented at home since they also have very high intelligence and voracious reading, museums, classical music etc. have always been a natural part of our family's life.

When I was sent to the gifted school I had a very difficult time socially. Some highly intelligent children have an unbelievable capacity for cruelty - because they are more perceptive, they can zero right in on others' weaknesses and craft very creative insults. Thanks to my experience I didn't know whether to laugh or cry at the PP's assertion that gifted children are typically advanced in moral development as well. I never got such poor treatment from regular-school kids, even when I was grossly outperforming them. I think the idea that intelligence level is primarily determinative of personal identity and worth - as implicitly expressed by reserving the label "peer" to those of similar intelligence - was implicitly communicated to me and my schoolmates in many ways (including just the fact that we were all going to a school whose IQ requirement was publicly known) and was a major contributing factor to their social cruelty. Performance lapses, academic athletic or otherwise, were punished mercilessly with verbal abuse from the "peer" group. One year they tried to have us ride a school bus with the kids from the 120 IQ group. An experiment that soon ended due to complaints from those kids' parents about the way we treated them. After all, they weren't our "peers."

Obviously there was some adult imprudence operating in that situation - I could go into a lot more detail about that but I won't - and I'm sure there have been advances in the social aspect of gifted education in the intervening 20 years. But by the nature of the case you cannot conceal information about tracking, etc., from gifted children as easily as you can from other children. They figure it out.

Therefore I'm inclined to think that skipping of grades, whether wholesale or going to advanced classes for part of the day, might be better than special gifted classes or schools. Some of my nicest social times during the hell of gifted elementary school took place waiting for the school bus with a bunch of average high schoolers. The constant gasping and giggling at my advanced vocabulary choices made me a bit self-conscious, but they were fundamentally good-natured and I would rather have a million iterations of "wow, where did you learn that word?" than my intelligence "peers" playing vocab one-upmanship, snarkily demanding dictionary definitions every time I experimented with the usage of a new word, etc. Although I have not experienced grade-skipping firsthand I think, given that the child is going to end up in a non-standard situation in any case, that it is wiser and more compassionate to all involved to tell children that they are doing very good work and need to go learn with older kids for all or part of the day than to tell them (explicitly or otherwise) that they are a fundamentally different kind of human being and need not regard those with lesser abilities as their peers (which is just a fancy way of saying "equals"). If they keep leaping ahead, send them to college early (as commuters of course). A number of the people in my gifted high school had to do that anyway!
post #58 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Baudelaire

Have students rotate from class to class.
Have teachers teach core subjects at different grade levels.
Let the students go where they need to go.

Why is that so impossible? Yeah, you'd need a bunch of teachers and monitors those first two weeks so everyone doesn't go batty trying to find their respective rooms, but it can be done.
So, you're calling for a complete restructuring of the system, then? I was trying to fit your request into the current system, the way it exists in most public elementary schools. (Which is not to say that I feel it is flawless.) I guess I'm not so quick to think outside the box! I think that, understanding typical first and second graders quite well, your idea would not work for the majority of students who are six and seven years old. Most students of this age, even gifted ones, do not have an easy time shifting from one activity to the next even when it doesn't involve relocation. When I ask my students to put away their independent reading books and come up to the front of the room to hear a story, I can expect it to take up to 3 minutes (estimate, of course) for all of the kids to get situated and another one or two before they are mentally prepared to make the shift from independent reading to active listening. By making them move to another classroom, this would add so much time to the transition that I think they would lose whatever benefit would otherwwise be gained by individualizing their programin such a detailed way. Everything takes soooo long in the average public school classroom. I can't imagine adding in traveling time for young kids.

As a teacher, though I sure would love the concept of teaching a core subject (as long as I wasn't chosen for MATH!) and I'd also enjoy getting to know lots of different children, not just the same 20 in my room all day.
post #59 of 93
>>Obviously there was some adult imprudence operating in that situation <<

Bingo.

Just because someone beats you over the head with a hammer doesn't mean it's an inherently evil tool.

Just because someone ran a really lousy GT program doesn't mean it's an inherently bad idea.

And I'm with you on the GT moral development issue. I dated a genius sociopath once.
Man, was he good at hurting and manipulating people... and making them blame *each other* rather than him for the trauma. <shudder>

But going back to the generalizations, yes, higher IQs are positively correlated with advanced (compared to age peers) ethical development. That does not mean that *Every* genius is a friendly one, and it doesn't mean that people with average IQs are in any way lesser beings, it's just a trend.

FWIW, I suffered a lousy GT program, too, and was abused every which way (yes, including that way) by my genius-mother. I felt much as you do about the irrelevance of IQ in peer-ship. Then I met some nice people who could think as fast asn as well as I can, and well....

it changed my mind.

A lot.

It makes a huge difference.

And I've seen my kids' eyes light up when they talk about their step-cousins, who they've only met once, who are the first and only GT age-mates they've ever met.

"They're like *me*, mama! They *notice* things and ask questions that make the grownups look funny, and they get into all the childproof stuff, and *everything*!"

It makes a big difference.

That's not to say that you can't have a perfectly happy childhood (or life)surrounded by nice non-GTs, and it's not to say that you have to have IQ X to have value as a human being, *but* yes, we are fundamentally different in many ways, and being able to share our common experience with others like us is a major drive which if left unmet, can fester horribly.

I seriously thought I must be from outer space until I went to college. The only people I knew who could think like me were my parents, and they were *mean*.
When I got to college (GT program, funnily enough, and it was a really *lousy* GT program, too) I met lots of age-mates (and some who were far younger than I) who could (and wanted to) think on a level that made me stretch to keep up.

Instead of being bored out of my ever loving mind by most social interactoins, I was suddently *interested* in other people because we actually had something in common.

Instead of manipulating people to do what I wanted them to (since they'd never in a million years understand my point if I tried to actually explain it) I had to learn how to actually get along with others. It was hellish, but thrilling.

Had I never met true peers, and by that, yes I *do* mean intellectual equals and superiors (also vital to learn firsthand that you're not the *smartest* cookie in the box) I would have remained a larcenous, manipulative, bored basket case.
I would never have been properly socialized, in other words, had I only associated with my age-peers.

So while I don't expect that *every* GT kid who gets put into a GT program is going to have a great time, and I don't expect that *every* kid who is mainstreamed is going to be miserable, there is a fairly large and well-respectd body of literature out there that backs up the assertion that any particular GT kids odds of doing and feeling well are vastly increased by being identified and given *appropriate* educational and social opportunities.

Go read at hoagies if you doubt this ;->
post #60 of 93
Thread Starter 
When I was sent to the gifted school I had a very difficult time socially. Some highly intelligent children have an unbelievable capacity for cruelty -
=so true, and some are very competative or do not appreciate 'other' gifted kids who aren't intellectually gifted.

because they are more perceptive, they can zero right in on others' weaknesses and craft very creative insults. Thanks to my experience I didn't know whether to laugh or cry at the PP's assertion that gifted children are typically advanced in moral development as well. I never got such poor treatment from regular-school kids, even when I was grossly outperforming them.
=I still think gifted kids are more moral, but I do think that when they fight with words - they can come up with really cutting things as they can see a person's weak spots....and expliot them if they want to. Something I watch in myself to this day, I can see things about people that they really don't want others to pick up on - not that I would be cruel but.....

The 'label' for some people does make kids feel like they constantly have to prove they are gifted (especially in kids that may not actually be....there is a difference between high achiever and gifted I found the most cruel to me were the smart high achieving boys but not necessarily highly gifted....usually teacher's kids - I am one too - but that got their kids into programmes that may not really be 'for them' if you are doing well, even the top of your class it doesn't make you gifted. Consequently failing miserably in some areas, having learning disabilities etc doesn't make you not gifted...)

Therefore I'm inclined to think that skipping of grades, whether wholesale or going to advanced classes for part of the day, might be better than special gifted classes or schools.
=See thats part of my thinking, I hated the competition aspect of gifted school/classes, I hated the fact I was expected to 'prove' how smart I was.....I just wanted to be me.


Restructuring a school is often difficult as there are not always enough teachers with skills in certain areas - aka math, music so one teacher may do the bulk in one school.

But going back to the generalizations, yes, higher IQs are positively correlated with advanced (compared to age peers) ethical development. That does not mean that *Every* genius is a friendly one, and it doesn't mean that people with average IQs are in any way lesser beings, it's just a trend.
=I agree, however I think the treatment of gifted kids can cause them to disengage from social moral issues in favor of bigger ones - nuclear arms etc.
When as a child you see the world, adults as very different from other people, adults are not always kind to smart children.....even teachers....sigh.
When you can become a target for things you really can't control, and judged for just being 'you'....it does make social behavior weirder as gifted kids sometimes relate better peer wise to older people rather than their own age peers that are gifted.

FWIW, I suffered a lousy GT program, too, and was abused every which way (yes, including that way) by my genius-mother.
= it still amazes me how people think women/mothers are not as evil as men can be.....we have experienced female abuse of that kind in my family and people really underestimate how devistating it is. It amazes me how people think women can all be trusted......sigh......

And I think parenting the gifted child is so easy to mess up I was the 'smart' one, my sister the 'pretty one'. She made a point of graduating university with an honours degree, with academic honours on time...me I chased buff cute guys and 7 years is not too long for a three year degree i was learning so much else....lol.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Parenting the Gifted Child
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Parenting the Gifted Child › Gifted starting kindergarten early..?