Anyone wanna talk about the conception of "gifted" status in children? - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 927 Old 07-28-2006, 02:07 PM - Thread Starter
 
thismama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Nursing the revolution
Posts: 14,356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I know this discussion is not considered appropriate for the "Parenting the Gifted Child" forum, but I'm hoping it's okay here, as there is a lot of interest in the subject.

I am uncomfortable with it, myself. I was labelled a "gifted" child, and there was a lot of pressure, and a lot of ego stroking also. I think the ego-stroking was good for me in some ways as I also had an abusive childhood, but I feel uneasy with the current labelling and treatment of "gifted" children.

I think IQ testing is problematic at best, and focusing on a particular brand of intellectual development is unwise.

I also think "gifted" labelling sets up a hierarchy among children, where "gifted" children can be made to feel like they are better than other children.

I think the labelling can lead to arrogance.

I think parents can become so invested in their children being intellectually "superior" that it becomes a badge of honour, and I think children can feel this, and it can prevent them from actualizing all the parts of who they are, or being comfortable with the ways in which they fall short of that "gifted" standard.

I think parents can become convinced that their children are an alien breed, that they are not competent to parent them, that their children have immense and unmatchable need for intellectual stimulation, and that all kinds of special treatments have to come into play, even during early childhood.

I believe it is not good for children to pick up on the energy of a parent's anxiety about being able to nurture them, on the parent's fear that the child is unknowable, that they are somehow "greater than" the parent.

I believe that all children, especially very young children, really need the same things, such as love, nurturance, freedom to play and develop at their own pace, acceptance that is not conditional, and a pressure-free environment in which to learn and grow.

Thoughts?
thismama is offline  
#2 of 927 Old 07-28-2006, 02:14 PM
 
Nora'sMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: a state of flux
Posts: 2,478
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
nak

Subbing. I have many of the same concerns.
Nora'sMama is offline  
#3 of 927 Old 07-28-2006, 02:16 PM
A&A
 
A&A's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,858
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
I prefer the term "accelerated" to "gifted." I don't know why; it just sounds better. I see your points, but, accelerated children do have special needs that are unique from those of your "average" child. Their special needs are no less valid than the special needs of other "special needs" kids.

That doesn't make them "alien" to their parents, nor are they "greater than" their parents. They can be extreme perfectionists. They can have difficulty relating to kids the same age. They can give teachers a different kind of trouble (such as when the kindergarten teacher told me that his most troublesome students were the ones who already knew how to read.) And we need a place to talk about all of those things. And what exactly constitutes "gifted" is on a continuum......we may not all agree on that demarcation. But parents who feel the need to post in the "gifted" forum should feel free to do so.

PS. The idea that we are "pressuring" our kids is a myth. My dd reads for hours on end, not because I make her, but because she wants to. She talks about going to M.I.T. because she wants to, not because I've put any sort of pressure on her to do so.

"Our task is not to see the future, but to enable it."
A&A is offline  
#4 of 927 Old 07-28-2006, 02:20 PM - Thread Starter
 
thismama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Nursing the revolution
Posts: 14,356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by A&A
I prefer the term "accelerated" to "gifted." I don't know why; it just sounds better. I see your points, but, accelerated children do have special needs that are unique from those of your "average" child. Their special needs are no less valid than the special needs of other "special needs" kids.
What child is average? I do not know of any child who is completely average, who has no special needs, nothing quirky or different about their personality.

Quote:
That doesn't make them "alien" to their parents.
I dont think it makes the child alien to the parents either, but I do sometimes see parents perceive it that way. The child gets the label of gifted, and suddenly the parent is consumed with anxiety about whether they have what it takes to parent the child, what should they be reading/learning/doing, etc. It is as though they now have an enormous responsibility resulting from the label to ensure the child gets all kinds of intervention and resources to develop their awesome and mysterious intellect, kwim?

Quote:
But parents who feel the need to post in the "gifted" forum should feel free to do so.
Just to be clear, I'm not challenging that.
thismama is offline  
#5 of 927 Old 07-28-2006, 02:23 PM
 
eloquence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: judgmental wench
Posts: 1,510
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by thismama
I know this discussion is not considered appropriate for the "Parenting the Gifted Child" forum, but I'm hoping it's okay here, as there is a lot of interest in the subject.

I am uncomfortable with it, myself. I was labelled a "gifted" child, and there was a lot of pressure, and a lot of ego stroking also. I think the ego-stroking was good for me in some ways as I also had an abusive childhood, but I feel uneasy with the current labelling and treatment of "gifted" children.

I think IQ testing is problematic at best, and focusing on a particular brand of intellectual development is unwise.

I also think "gifted" labelling sets up a hierarchy among children, where "gifted" children can be made to feel like they are better than other children.

I think the labelling can lead to arrogance.

I think parents can become so invested in their children being intellectually "superior" that it becomes a badge of honour, and I think children can feel this, and it can prevent them from actualizing all the parts of who they are, or being comfortable with the ways in which they fall short of that "gifted" standard.

I think parents can become convinced that their children are an alien breed, that they are not competent to parent them, that their children have immense and unmatchable need for intellectual stimulation, and that all kinds of special treatments have to come into play, even during early childhood.

I believe it is not good for children to pick up on the energy of a parent's anxiety about being able to nurture them, on the parent's fear that the child is unknowable, that they are somehow "greater than" the parent.

I believe that all children, especially very young children, really need the same things, such as love, nurturance, freedom to play and develop at their own pace, acceptance that is not conditional, and a pressure-free environment in which to learn and grow.

Thoughts?
I totally agree and have felt this way for years before I became a parent.
eloquence is offline  
#6 of 927 Old 07-28-2006, 02:26 PM - Thread Starter
 
thismama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Nursing the revolution
Posts: 14,356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I also feel that gifted school programs are great. Smaller class sizes, creative methods of learning, catering to students' individual needs. Wonderful. But how is it okay that we don't do that for ALL children? Any rationale for that that I can conceive of really disturbs me.
thismama is offline  
#7 of 927 Old 07-28-2006, 02:28 PM
A&A
 
A&A's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,858
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by thismama
What child is average? I do not know of any child who is completely average, who has no special needs, nothing quirky or different about their personality.


.
That's why I put "average" in quotation marks.

"Our task is not to see the future, but to enable it."
A&A is offline  
#8 of 927 Old 07-28-2006, 02:29 PM
 
eloquence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: judgmental wench
Posts: 1,510
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by thismama
I also feel that gifted school programs are great. Smaller class sizes, creative methods of learning, catering to students' individual needs. Wonderful. But how is it okay that we don't do that for ALL children? Any rationale for that that I can conceive of really disturbs me.
Me too, mama.
eloquence is offline  
#9 of 927 Old 07-28-2006, 02:29 PM
A&A
 
A&A's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,858
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by thismama
I also feel that gifted school programs are great. Smaller class sizes, creative methods of learning, catering to students' individual needs. Wonderful. But how is it okay that we don't do that for ALL children?
We should, really. And the disturbing thing is that "gifted programs" are often filled with kids who are from a higher socio-economic status than the median socio-economic status of that school district.

"Our task is not to see the future, but to enable it."
A&A is offline  
#10 of 927 Old 07-28-2006, 02:39 PM
 
jlpumkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Middle GA
Posts: 1,353
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
AMEN!! I too was labelled gifted at a young age. I was bussed to a special school for gifted children. Personally I think it's all over rated. We were placed in classes based upon IQ. I found that "gifted" kids were often filled with a sense of entitlement that surprisingly (or not) has carried over into adulthood. Many (sometimes me too!!!) have yet to gain basic social skills because we were exempt from having to get along with peers - we were too advanced to understand their behavior or fit in or whatever - Guess what - out in the real world social skills count A LOT!!
Honestly all of the gifted status and programs lately drive me crazy. Every parent thinks that their child is smart (myself included), why do we feel some need to have them labelled? Just keep reacting to your child's interests. That's all the stimulation necessary. Many truely gifted children are actually found in the special education classes.
I know this is a very hot button for me so I'll stop now. I guess that is partly why I never started a topic on my own. Sure does feel good to have like minded mamas around because I normally feel completely isolated in this area.

Librarian & mommy to my jog.gif(2002) & jammin.gif (2005) married to superhero.gifsince 1999
jlpumkin is offline  
#11 of 927 Old 07-28-2006, 02:43 PM
 
Charles Baudelaire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,052
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think it's not the label, it's how it's dealt with that makes a huge amount of difference. For some people, however, the label is the thing that finally, finally pulls together all the disparate, sometimes "weird" behavior, and general differences into a handy envelope in much the same way as the label "Aspergers" or "Down" does, and for many of the same reasons.

Naturally, it can be attached by status-conscious parents whose sense of inherent superiority leads their children to become arrogant, but I contend that this arrogance would have occurred without the "gifted" label. The label is a tool, nothing more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thismama
I think IQ testing is problematic at best, and focusing on a particular brand of intellectual development is unwise.
It's not just one "particular brand" of intellectual development. It's a difference in the way the brain processes and retains information. Gifted is not just "mathematical intelligence" or "phonemic intelligence."
Quote:

I also think "gifted" labelling sets up a hierarchy among children, where "gifted" children can be made to feel like they are better than other children.

I think the labelling can lead to arrogance.


I think parents can become so invested in their children being intellectually "superior" that it becomes a badge of honour, and I think children can feel this, and it can prevent them from actualizing all the parts of who they are, or being comfortable with the ways in which they fall short of that "gifted" standard.
I certainly think that this is true with many parents -- whether they label their children "gifted" or not. If you took away the label, they would find another reason why their children are better than yours. The problem isn't with the label or with the difference in brain function. It's the problem of arrogant, status-conscious people.

To be honest, I seriously wish that the label "gifted" would disappear and be replaced with some less lovely-sounding label, one that confers much less automatic prestige -- perhaps "asynchronous development."
Quote:
I believe that all children, especially very young children, really need the same things, such as love, nurturance, freedom to play and develop at their own pace, acceptance that is not conditional, and a pressure-free environment in which to learn and grow.

Thoughts?
I completely agree, particularly with the "develop at their own pace" idea. If a child is genuinely gifted (and the more gifted they are, the more this is true), the more the parent needs to understand that the child needs to develop at her or his own pace -- not the pace of the public school, or the pace of the developmental charts in What To Expect Your Toddler's First Year, or the pace at which you think they "should" go, but at the pace their intellect demands.
Charles Baudelaire is offline  
#12 of 927 Old 07-28-2006, 02:47 PM
Banned
 
boongirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: a place where freedom lives
Posts: 4,636
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Everyone is, of course, entitled to their own opinions on this matter. Mine, since you asked, is based on my personal experiences in a gifted program in elementary school and as a teacher of gifted kids for 10 years before my daughter was born. I also used to give the IQ tests in the schools where I worked and I was on a district committee once that researched the needs of gifted children in order to make appropriate changes to district policy in order that the children's needs be met.

I like the definition of gifted on Hoagies Gifted website. For me as a professional working with gifted children, this definition works well.

Quote:
Gifted and talented children are those identified by professionally qualified persons who by virtue of outstanding abilities are capable of high performance. These are children who require differentiated educational programs and/or services beyond those normally provided by the regular school program in order to realize their contribution to self and society.
Using this definition, most of the children tested as gifted in schools today are really academically advanced. They have a higher than average IQ but they are not in the astronomically high IQ range. In reality, the astronomically high IQ children are difficult to find as they are often so far removed from average that they get defined as special education or behavior disordered. In high school, truly gifted children, particularly boys, are at high risk of failure due to their tendency towards antisocial behavior. With a lack of counseling services and trained professionals in schools today, there is often no safety net for the truly gifted teen. As an example, the most highly intelligent person in my high school was a boy in my grade. I went to school with him for many years. By the time we were in 12th grade, he was abusing lsd and attending school rarely. When he did attend school, he always knew the answer to every question the teachers asked, regardless of subject. He was literally brilliant. After graduation, he continued to abuse lsd to the point where he had a mental breakdown and was instituationalized. I do not know what happened to him but this sad tale is not uncommon among the truly brilliant.

Parents of children who have been labelled gifted (or any of its synonyms) do often see it as a "badge of honor." Especially among upper middle class and upper class people, there is a drive to get their children labelled as gifted since it means, to them, that their children are superior. The irony is that truly gifted people are not easy to teach nor are they easy to be around. Labelling a truly gifted child as gifted can mean that their academic needs are finally going to be met. This child often has a history of distruptiveness in class and is very likely to have only a few friends and be difficult to deal with, both at home and in school. Labelling the academically advanced child as gifted is, at times, an ego boost for child and parent.

The truly gifted person or child is literally thinking differently than you or I. I am not truly gifted. I am just a smart person who did well in school and needed more advanced studies than average. The truly gifted person, regardless of their gift, is someone who percieves the world differently than you or I. Their brain is working differently. They are divergent thinkers, they think outside the box. They are often very focused on what interests them, be it dance, music, science, history, whatever. They often forgo basic needs in order to be involved in what interests them. They are difficult to talk with because they are thinking on a higher plane than most of us. If you were to meet them, you might find them strange or arrogant because they know so much more than you in their area of study that they are a bit obsessed with it.

Classic examples of truly gifted people are Pablo Picasso, Vincent Van Gogh, J D Salinger, and Silvia Plath. Plath and Van Gogh burned out like bright stars after leaving a startlingly gifted portfolio of work. Picasso was treated as a genius from the time he was a small boy and had his needs met to the point where he developed an ego appropriate for one so gifted. He was lucky. Salinger, of course, retreated from the public eye, a classic antisocial behavior of one so far removed from average. In movies, we've seen John Nash played by Russel Crow in A beautiful mind as a person who was extremely gifted and also having mental health problems. That is not uncommon in the truly gifted. Another movie example is the boy played by Matt Affleck in Good Will Hunting. He was incredibly antisocial and difficult to teach and work with. Yet, somehow his gifts shined through enough to catch the appropriate attention.





hoagies gifted website
boongirl is offline  
#13 of 927 Old 07-28-2006, 02:48 PM
 
LoveBeads's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,632
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think any special needs label has the potential to do more harm than good. But I also believe that in the majority of cases, it does more good than harm.
LoveBeads is offline  
#14 of 927 Old 07-28-2006, 02:49 PM
 
AngelBee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: New Brighton, MN
Posts: 20,762
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I do not like labels like that at all.

I think that we need to be VERY careful when choosing to put labels on developing children.

It is a lot of pressure. It can also be devistating to them.

Mama to 9 so far:Mother of Joey (20), Dominick (13), Abigail (11), Angelo (8), Mylee (6), Delainey (3), Colton (2) and Baby 8 and Baby 9 coming sometime in July 2013.   If evolution were true, mothers would have three arms!

AngelBee is offline  
#15 of 927 Old 07-28-2006, 02:49 PM
 
Charles Baudelaire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,052
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by thismama
What child is average? I do not know of any child who is completely average, who has no special needs, nothing quirky or different about their personality.
This kind of PC disingenuousness isn't helping the discussion, don't you think? I'm definitely sure you know that "average," like any designator, is a term describing a group of people who falls within a certain range of ability, a zone, if you will. If you want a visual analogy, think of a handful of salt thrown upon a table. Most of the salt will cluster in a given area. Some will be more on the perimeter. The salt in the central cluster is where we consider the "average" salt grain to be. Maybe no single grain of salt is precisely in the center of that given area, but in aggregate, most of the salt is there. That's the idea behind "average" (as I'm guessing you know already).
Charles Baudelaire is offline  
#16 of 927 Old 07-28-2006, 02:50 PM - Thread Starter
 
thismama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Nursing the revolution
Posts: 14,356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Baudelaire
For some people, however, the label is the thing that finally, finally pulls together all the disparate, sometimes "weird" behavior, and general differences into a handy envelope in much the same way as the label "Aspergers" or "Down" does, and for many of the same reasons.
Yes, I can see this, especially for a chid who is unexplicably "weird" and excels at IQ testing.

Quote:
Naturally, it can be attached by status-conscious parents whose sense of inherent superiority leads their children to become arrogant, but I contend that this arrogance would have occurred without the "gifted" label.
ITA. And this is where the gifted label divorces itself from the other types of "special needs."

I do think the gifted label contributes a lot to arrogance, because suddenly not only the parents, but teachers, other people are contributing. The label can officialize the arrogance.


Quote:
It's not just one "particular brand" of intellectual development. It's a difference in the way the brain processes and retains information. Gifted is not just "mathematical intelligence" or "phonemic intelligence."
Sorry, I mis-spoke. I was meaning to say that intellectual development, particularly in areas that are recognizeable thru testing, like logic, sometimes artistic ability, are recognized.

I really don't think focusing on intellect is useful in parenting. I think it is already overrated in this society. My own approach to parenting is about meeting my child's emotional needs as much as I am able. I feel that doing this will allow her to grow fully into herself, including intellectually.

I would much prefer this approach to be the norm, rather than daycares for example that really push their educational curriculum. I don't care if you will teach my child to say the letters of the alphabet. I care if she is crying, will you hold her.

And I think the desire of so many parents to have their children's fabulosity recognized as gifted contributes to a climate where pushing intellectual development at the expense of emotional needs is normalized.

Quote:
To be honest, I seriously wish that the label "gifted" would disappear and be replaced with some less lovely-sounding label, one that confers much less automatic prestige -- perhaps "asynchronous development."
Huh. I would find that much more palatable too.

ETA - Holy cross-postage batman!
thismama is offline  
#17 of 927 Old 07-28-2006, 02:52 PM
 
AngelBee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: New Brighton, MN
Posts: 20,762
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Also.....I believe that all children are gifted.

It is our job as parents and society to help them identify those areas and to encourage them.

Being gifted at academics is no better then being gifted musically.....or being gifted in woodworking.......or in dance......

Though for some reason society seems to equate academic achievement with happiness and success.

Mama to 9 so far:Mother of Joey (20), Dominick (13), Abigail (11), Angelo (8), Mylee (6), Delainey (3), Colton (2) and Baby 8 and Baby 9 coming sometime in July 2013.   If evolution were true, mothers would have three arms!

AngelBee is offline  
#18 of 927 Old 07-28-2006, 02:54 PM - Thread Starter
 
thismama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Nursing the revolution
Posts: 14,356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Baudelaire
This kind of PC disingenuousness isn't helping the discussion, don't you think?
I am not intending to be PC or disingenuous.

I feel like a lot of discussion of gifted children falls into the realm of plain old bragging. But when it is challenged, people run back to the idea that their children are special, that they have to deal with such unique and different things that parents of "average" children cannot possibly relate to, because those people never have to deal with unique challenges, kwim?
thismama is offline  
#19 of 927 Old 07-28-2006, 02:54 PM - Thread Starter
 
thismama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Nursing the revolution
Posts: 14,356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
ITA with your whole post, AngelBee, and I think this is especially important:

Quote:
Originally Posted by AngelBee
Though for some reason society seems to equate academic achievement with happiness and success.
thismama is offline  
#20 of 927 Old 07-28-2006, 03:00 PM
 
Charles Baudelaire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,052
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by thismama
I also feel that gifted school programs are great. Smaller class sizes, creative methods of learning, catering to students' individual needs. Wonderful. But how is it okay that we don't do that for ALL children? Any rationale for that that I can conceive of really disturbs me.
Maybe because I have a feeling you're not necessarily getting what gifted school programs do in practice.

For one, most of them are pull-out programs -- so basically, that's like being "gifted" for an hour a week or so. You mostly have to make up the work you "missed" in the regular class because for the most part, teachers regard gifted pullouts as a frippery, an indulgence, "fun." Imagine if we had the same mentality toward special ed, huh? Like, if you have Down syndrome and an I.Q. of 75, you get to be with other kids like yourself only an hour or two a week, and you have to make up all the regular classwork because being in the Down class is a privilege.

For another, in a good gifted class -- and I'll get to the difference in a sec -- there's a genuine difference in how the students are taught because giftedness is not just an issue of depth, but an issue of rate. In theory, a regular-ed child could not handle the complexity or the pace of a gifted class, even if they busted their hump trying to do so. It would be like me trying to be at NBA camp with the Chicago Bulls. Ain't gonna happen.

In a bad gifted class -- and I will argue that those are the majority, largely due to the limitations imposed on teachers because of the pullout issue -- it's a bunch of silly projects and logic games. A regular-ed child would probably have a fine time.

As far as dealing with individual differences in a small class? That would be great -- but outside of homeschooling, that's not going to happen. Money. Bottom line, we don't care about education and we vote with our wallets. We spend plenty of time yammering about how the children are the future, and how it's such a valuable profession, and how important it it, but when it comes down to passing a bond issue for a new school? Fugeddaboutit. That's why, IMHO, homeschooling tends to work for most committed homeschoolers, because it's precisely what you described: small class size, and individually-designed education.
Charles Baudelaire is offline  
#21 of 927 Old 07-28-2006, 03:02 PM - Thread Starter
 
thismama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Nursing the revolution
Posts: 14,356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I know exactly what gifted programs are like. As a child I attended both the pullout and the full-time type. I was given every indulgence and then some by my regular teachers when I attended the pullout program, and never had to make up work.
thismama is offline  
#22 of 927 Old 07-28-2006, 03:05 PM
 
Charles Baudelaire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,052
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by A&A
We should, really. And the disturbing thing is that "gifted programs" are often filled with kids who are from a higher socio-economic status than the median socio-economic status of that school district.
That's because of several factors:

1. Teacher bias.
By the way, I live in a lower SES area -- definitely lower middle-class, mostly Hispanic. The special ed. coordinator at the elementary school for which we're zoned told me, "We've never had [a gifted child] before."

Bull. They haven't been looking.

2. Intimidated parents who don't push for the accomodations their kids need and who believe teachers when they say "all children are gifted."

3. Parents who may not know themselves that their child is gifted -- they just know he's bored and acting out.
Charles Baudelaire is offline  
#23 of 927 Old 07-28-2006, 03:07 PM
 
AngelBee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: New Brighton, MN
Posts: 20,762
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by thismama
I know exactly what gifted programs are like. As a child I attended both the pullout and the full-time type. I was given every indulgence and then some by my regular teachers when I attended the pullout program, and never had to make up work.
I experienced the same thing through out elementry school.

Funny how quickly I was labeled "lazy and unmotivated" when homework increased in junior/senior high and I could not keep up.

Testing....still got all A's.
Homework.....usually not completed.

As a result I had poor self esteem and did not know what was wrong with me. I was kicked into the hall, assigned detention, told I needed to work up to my potential, and was denied learning disability testing.

Well......finally last summer I went to get tested on my own. I am in the 98% ADHD.

Mama to 9 so far:Mother of Joey (20), Dominick (13), Abigail (11), Angelo (8), Mylee (6), Delainey (3), Colton (2) and Baby 8 and Baby 9 coming sometime in July 2013.   If evolution were true, mothers would have three arms!

AngelBee is offline  
#24 of 927 Old 07-28-2006, 03:09 PM
Banned
 
boongirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: a place where freedom lives
Posts: 4,636
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by thismama
I think IQ testing is problematic at best, and focusing on a particular brand of intellectual development is unwise.

I also think "gifted" labelling sets up a hierarchy among children, where "gifted" children can be made to feel like they are better than other children.

I think the labelling can lead to arrogance.
Testing anyone for any kind of program is difficult. There is no one perfect test or set of tests that is going to make everyone happy. For special education children, there is both federal and often state and city money that school districts can use to offset the cost of testing children with appropriately trained professionals. If you were to pay to have your child tested for giftedness by a trained educational psychologist, that person would use a battery of tests. However, there is no extra money districts can use to test kids for giftedness. It has to be funded out of the general pot. This is why giftedness is often tested for using one test that gives an approximation of IQ - meaning that it is not truly an IQ test but a standardized test that translates roughly to IQ. This is a limited measure but it is the best schools can do. It does not test for any kind of creativity nor does it allow for language and culture differences. There is just no money to do this. Sometimes, districts do find the money to use more than one test but this is not common.

The label of giftedness sets up a hierarchy among children and occasionally arrogance among children and parents. But, it also serves to enable children to have their needs met. If done appropriately and sensitively, the labelling is kept to a minimum. However, in public schools, the children all know who is in special ed and who is in counseling and who is in the gifted program. It is just part of human nature to organize people into groups and to protect one's own self worth by labelling. There is no way around it. But, a good school staff will work hard at developing the gifts of all children.

That being said, I was not traumatized by being called a mentally gifted moron (I was in the mentantally gifted minor program in CA).
boongirl is offline  
#25 of 927 Old 07-28-2006, 03:13 PM
 
Oh the Irony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: grateful for truth
Posts: 3,880
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
i really like the multiple intelligences model.

http://www.ldpride.net/learningstyle...20Intelligence

all kids have areas of strengths and areas of challenge. if an area is a child's strength, i would consider that child "gifted" in that area. i look at gifted on an individual basis--not as a comparision to other children.

all types of intelligence are not equally respected and nourished in american society and i believe it is a huge disservice to kids.

that said, yes some kids have stronger strengths than others and they deserve to have their strengths and challenges nurtured in the way best suited to them. all kids do.
Oh the Irony is offline  
#26 of 927 Old 07-28-2006, 03:13 PM
 
Charles Baudelaire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,052
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngelBee
Also.....I believe that all children are gifted.

It is our job as parents and society to help them identify those areas and to encourage them.

Being gifted at academics is no better then being gifted musically.....or being gifted in woodworking.......or in dance......

Though for some reason society seems to equate academic achievement with happiness and success.
Sorry, but I have to disagree with your statement, and rather strongly.

I believe all children are unique and special if that is what you mean by "gifted."

I believe that all children have value and deserve to be treated with respect, if that is what you mean by "gifted."

I believe that many children have talents and those talents, when present, should be encouraged, if that is what you mean by "gifted."

However, I do not and cannot believe that all children are academically advanced, that their brains process information faster and retain it longer than the norm; that their ability to make connections between and among disparate objects and events is normal or universal, nor that it is normal or universal for a child's intellectual development to be far in excess of their age, if that is what you mean by "gifted."

Hope that helps clarify.
Charles Baudelaire is offline  
#27 of 927 Old 07-28-2006, 03:15 PM
 
Nora'sMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: a state of flux
Posts: 2,478
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
*sigh*

I keep typing out these long posts and erasing them.

This issue is a sore spot for me. I just want to say that I really agree with what thismama has said, and to me there is nothing PC or disingenuous about the statement that no child is average. Every person will fall at a different point in the distribution for different aptitudes and most people will have at least a few aptitudes in which they are significantly to the left or right of the curve. I do not think that the culturally-determined set of aptitudes measured by IQ scores should be privileged in the way that it is or seen as determinant of the quality of someone's mind or their ability to learn. In fact I think that people with very high IQs are often among the most reluctant to change their habits of thought, once established.

It is only my experience, but my experience tells me that IQ is a poor predictor of just about anything. I think it does all children a disservice to focus on identifying those with "special needs" (disabilities, giftedness, whatever) rather than providing non-hierarchical, open-ended opportunities to develop interests and aptitudes.

I will post this before it gets any longer and I delete it again!
Nora'sMama is offline  
#28 of 927 Old 07-28-2006, 03:17 PM
Banned
 
boongirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: a place where freedom lives
Posts: 4,636
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by thismama
I really don't think focusing on intellect is useful in parenting. I think it is already overrated in this society. My own approach to parenting is about meeting my child's emotional needs as much as I am able. I feel that doing this will allow her to grow fully into herself, including intellectually.

Of course this is true of parenting! But not of schools. It is the job of the school to be focused on intellect. Schools are primarily for teaching academics to children. Schools do not have the funds or the time to be focused on such a breadth of needs.
boongirl is offline  
#29 of 927 Old 07-28-2006, 03:18 PM - Thread Starter
 
thismama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Nursing the revolution
Posts: 14,356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
However, I do not and cannot believe that all children are academically advanced, that their brains process information faster and retain it longer than the norm; that their ability to make connections between and among disparate objects and events is normal or universal, nor that it is normal or universal for a child's intellectual development to be far in excess of their age, if that is what you mean by "gifted."
I'm confused, CB, coz I thought you didn't like the label gifted to describe those things?

When I talk about "all children are gifted" I mean these things:

Quote:
I believe all children are unique and special if that is what you mean by "gifted."

I believe that all children have value and deserve to be treated with respect, if that is what you mean by "gifted."

I believe that many children have talents and those talents, when present, should be encouraged, if that is what you mean by "gifted."
thismama is offline  
#30 of 927 Old 07-28-2006, 03:18 PM
 
AngelBee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: New Brighton, MN
Posts: 20,762
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Baudelaire
Sorry, but I have to disagree with your statement, and rather strongly.

I believe all children are unique and special if that is what you mean by "gifted."

I believe that all children have value and deserve to be treated with respect, if that is what you mean by "gifted."

I believe that many children have talents and those talents, when present, should be encouraged, if that is what you mean by "gifted."

However, I do not and cannot believe that all children are academically advanced, that their brains process information faster and retain it longer than the norm; that their ability to make connections between and among disparate objects and events is normal or universal, nor that it is normal or universal for a child's intellectual development to be far in excess of their age, if that is what you mean by "gifted."

Hope that helps clarify.
That is EXACTLY what I take issue with.

Only being academically gifted counts as being gifted.

That is BS.

Mama to 9 so far:Mother of Joey (20), Dominick (13), Abigail (11), Angelo (8), Mylee (6), Delainey (3), Colton (2) and Baby 8 and Baby 9 coming sometime in July 2013.   If evolution were true, mothers would have three arms!

AngelBee is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off