Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It sounds like these parents of children in special programs want to go around believing everyone is "jealous" of them.
Why would you say that?
It seems more likely that the folks who complain about smart kids, whine about the parents of smart kids, fret about the labels used to identify smart kids, and moan about the programs for smart kids might actually be a little jealous.
This highlights a major issue with regard to the education of gifted kids. Oftentimes, especially in sub-par educational environments, a gifted child never has to learn how to work hard. They are told they are gifted and the schoolwork comes easily to them - until that point when less gifted kids catch up to them. That can be college, grad school, or even beyond, but the point is, the "need" for hard work is often substantially delayed. By the time they need to work hard, they often find they have no idea how to expend that effort. I see teenagers and young adults all the time that have been told they are "smart" from the dawn of time, but discover later in life that they never developed any sense of work ethic - they simply never had to. At worst, this can foster an attitude of entitlement and shirking of responsibility. Which is tragic, given that had they simply learned how to work, they could have been a real service to the world.
This is not to say that all gifted kids are slackers - just that the potential to coast is real without parents/schools/teachers encouraging the idea that work is as, if not more, important than talent. FWIW, this applies to sports and the arts as well - though coaches seem to be extended more license to ride kids about effort than many other authority figures (and can kick a kid off the team if they don't work - whereas teachers, at least in public education, can't kick kids out of school.)
It has been a long time since I was in high school, which was way before AP courses were available, but those of us at the academic top of the class worked. The same with my sons. By the time my kids came along there was much more scholarship money to compete for, too.
I just do not buy the argument that the gifted kids are just coasting through, totally unmotivated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
And, to the average high end kid, these technical definitions are, in the long run, somewhat irrelevant. Not long before I retired, I had one particular 8th grader who received my "Principal's Award" at the end of the year. He had never qualified for GT. And yet, there was something special about him. He was just a natural learner and a hard worker. He graduated from college with honors. He keeps up with me on Facebook. And now he's enrolled at Johns Hopkins getting his medical degree. I just hope he doesn't become the next Ben Carson!
It sounds to me as if the student you are describing should have been in the GT program if he graduated with honors from college and managed to get accepted to medical school. What kept him out? Did he take AP courses in high school? How did he do with them if he did?
Since Dr. Carson is a gifted neurosurgeon, if a less than spectacular politician, a medical student might do well to emulate him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonesg
He was a bit slow, started to speak at a later age.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nana053
That's another bit of internet trivia that is untrue.
Sounds like my FIL. He started talking late, but it was in complete sentences when he did. He waited until he knew exactly what he wanted to say. Ultimately he was valedictorian of his Ivy League law school class.
Did Einstein skip a grade or two in school? Were his gifts evident at an early age? I haven't heard that. It would be interesting to find out.
I've heard that he was so far ahead of other kids in school that he was bored and not very well behaved. The story that he was thought to be unintelligent is, as far as I know, incorrect.
Snark can go both ways. I've observed plenty of snide remarks and attitudes toward nerds, geeks and bookish kids. Heck, reading the reviews of the high school my oldest's middle school funnels into centers around the "smart kids" dominating the school, and how it lacks the usual high school vibe and social dynamics because it's an academic school. It would be so much more fun if it weren't for the IB program. My second daughter gets teased for being nerdy and geeky and told it isn't cool, though she's quite athletic.
Yes, snark can go both ways. That was my point, partially, at least. Kids get teased for lots of things. It's kind of the nature of the beast in middle/high school.
All schools like to define themselves as somehow "different".
Quote:
There's still a stigma associated with being a high achiever or nerd/geek in many circles.
Not in the high schools my spouse and I went to in the 1960s, 1000 miles apart, nor the school our kids went to another 500 miles to the west of DH's. When you talk to people from pretty much anywhere the high achievers are usually respected.
Quote:
I'm not sure what "evidence" you're referring to when this entire discussion is centers on individual observations, which vary from region/area, social circles, learning environments, etc.
Of course, you may have a different perception based on a multitude of factors and variables.
Yes, I do.
Quote:
From my perspective, I see far more of the opposite even on these boards. I can name the usual posters who don't champion STEM above all others, but for every five that challenge these tired myths about humanities grads, there are 10+ more that are unwavering in their convictions/biases and continue to perpetuate these assumptions and myths. There are a few active threads in the college sub-forum addressing the value/merit of humanities, or the point of college if it doesn't guarantee graduates a professional career/job, basically. Two of the threads have 300+ comments, and they definitely aren't mostly glowing praise for lib arts/humanities majors/grads.
Perhaps you're seeing something I'm not.
Yes, I am seeing something you're not. I can't name posters like that, sorry, I don't keep track. My beef with the ed forum, particularly the higher ed forum is that there are so many threads about "college is not necessary" rather than any particular major. STEM is over-emphasized for sure.
Quote:
Who said we haven't?
She's not interested in being a veterinarian/medicine. (I asked and my MIL brought it up in the past) We have regular conversations about her genuine interests and academic strengths. Biology is a subject we've discussed on several occasions, and combine that with her passion for animals, it gives us wildlife biology.
You seemed to say that. "Professional fields do not interest her."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clevelander17
Should we hold other programs (ELL, SpEd, music, art) in public schools to the same standard, or just gifted programs? Gifted programs are like others, if they're implemented well they can add great opportunities and value to students' lives, even if these students do not go on to cure cancer or design novel means for space travel.
I think all programs should have an educational purpose. I'm willing to bet the programs you named have a stated purpose. I was questioning the purpose of the gifted programs if they're not supposed to encourage academic achievement, following yet another post about how academic achievement is not the be all/end all of education, which was soundly seconded.
I think all programs should have an educational purpose. I'm willing to bet the programs you named have a stated purpose. I was questioning the purpose of the gifted programs if they're not supposed to encourage academic achievement, following yet another post about how academic achievement is not the be all/end all of education, which was soundly seconded.
Where do gifted programs exist that do not have a stated educational purpose and/or do not encourage academic achievement? What you're proposing is that, even with such a clear mission, these programs be judged on a higher, undefined standard of "big time results." Why?
Of course not every child in a gifted program will go on to do great things, but that's not generally why we have these programs (although as a society, it should be a concern that we identify and nourish children with high potential). A more important reason for gifted programs is to ensure that students who need a greater challenge than that provided by traditional curriculum and instruction are receiving that challenge. Gifted education serves as a special education program, first and foremost, though it is not often regarded as such, particularly by those who do not work in the field.
When did "gifted" classes start? My hubby and I grew up in the same town and went to the same high school in the 60's. We never heard the word gifted. If we excelled in a subject, which we did, we were put in a star * or double star ** classes. The double star was harder.
My kids went to school in the 80's-90's and one did have advanced classes, but not called gifted.
Where do gifted programs exist that do not have a stated educational purpose and/or do not encourage academic achievement? What you're proposing is that, even with such a clear mission, these programs be judged on a higher, undefined standard of "big time results." Why?
Of course not every child in a gifted program will go on to do great things, but that's not generally why we have these programs (although as a society, it should be a concern that we identify and nourish children with high potential). A more important reason for gifted programs is to ensure that students who need a greater challenge than that provided by traditional curriculum and instruction are receiving that challenge. Gifted education serves as a special education program, first and foremost, though it is not often regarded as such, particularly by those who do not work in the field.
To answer your questions in order:
1. I don't know.
2. I don't think they should have a higher standard than others, and have not said that! do think they should be able to show some results. The question is more, what results should occur from these programs? What are people wanting from these programs? If you talk about more kids going to and completing college, you get some of the same people saying in the next breath, "College isn't for everyone". So you get people talking "out of both sides of their mouths" essentially, ie, a) We want these gifted programs for these high achievers, and b) We don't care what they do with this extra programming. There certainly should be some measurable outcome, e.g. more kids going to college.
Now, to paragraph 2: Tell me why these kids need a greater challenge if the point is NOT to prepare them for some type of further education?
I've heard that he was so far ahead of other kids in school that he was bored and not very well behaved. The story that he was thought to be unintelligent is, as far as I know, incorrect.
While he did well and got good grades, the misbehavior was because he could not abide the authoritarian way of teaching and the amount of sheer unchallenging work.
To answer your questions in order:
1. I don't know.
2. I don't think they should have a higher standard than others, and have not said that! do think they should be able to show some results. The question is more, what results should occur from these programs? What are people wanting from these programs? If you talk about more kids going to and completing college, you get some of the same people saying in the next breath, "College isn't for everyone". So you get people talking "out of both sides of their mouths" essentially, ie, a) We want these gifted programs for these high achievers, and b) We don't care what they do with this extra programming. There certainly should be some measurable outcome, e.g. more kids going to college.
Now, to paragraph 2: Tell me why these kids need a greater challenge if the point is NOT to prepare them for some type of further education?
All students need challenges at their level. See the comparison below with gifted athletes - the truly gifted athlete does routines that are at a higher level of difficulty than the average athlete.
Good teaching for gifted learners happens at a higher "degree of difficulty" than for many students their age. In the Olympics, the most accomplished divers perform dives that have a higher "degree of difficulty" than those performed by divers whose talents are not as advanced. A greater degree of difficulty calls on more skills-more refined skills-applied at a higher plane of sophistication. A high "degree of difficulty" for gifted learners in their talent areas implies that their content, processes and products should be more complex, more abstract, more open-ended, more multifaceted than would be appropriate for many peers. They should work with fuzzier problems, will often need less teacher-imposed structure, and (in comparison to the norm) should have to make greater leaps of insight and transfer than would be appropriate for many their age. Gifted learners may also (but not always) be able to function with a greater degree of independence than their peers.
Quote:
Instruction for gifted learners is inappropriate when it asks them to do "more of the same stuff faster." Reading more books that are too easy and doing more math problems that have ceased being a challenge are killers of motivation and interest.
When did "gifted" classes start? My hubby and I grew up in the same town and went to the same high school in the 60's. We never heard the word gifted. If we excelled in a subject, which we did, we were put in a star * or double star ** classes. The double star was harder.
My kids went to school in the 80's-90's and one did have advanced classes, but not called gifted.
It is all the same thing. 'Gifted' is just the name they use for it today. It is all a form of streaming or tracking kids by ability. Nothing more, nothing less.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
- just that the potential to coast is real without parents/schools/teachers encouraging the idea that work is as, if not more, important than talent. FWIW, this applies to sports and the arts as well - though coaches seem to be extended more license to ride kids about effort than many other authority figures (and can kick a kid off the team if they don't work - whereas teachers, at least in public education, can't kick kids out of school.)
