Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums THINKING BIG About Gifted Education NAGC's "bold step"

Harvard and Yale applicants are overwhelmingly the children of affluent helicopter parents, regardless of actual intellectual levels. A wealthy parent can invest a lot of hours and dollars in the "right" schools at all levels, private tutors, etc. Then they can bully school officials into making unnecessary accommodations, changing grades, etc. All of this can force an ungifted child through a gifted education.

And, even for the truly gifted among this population, the workload and pressure are ridiculous, leaving children little or no experience in dealing with problems themselves, or for outside activities.

Contact the admissions departments for NYU or San Diego State, and I would expect them to have a different perspective on gifted children.

Quote:

This debate can be formulated in terms of at least two rival views of what gifted education should lead to: self-actualization versus eminence....
has focused on developing the cognitive abilities of children; from her point of view, gifted education should be concerned with �the growth of the individual as well as his/her responsi- ble membership in the world community� (p. 18). These ideas are reflected in the mission and philosophy of the school (see www.roeper.org/) Annamarie Roeper and her husband founded. The Roepers� primary concern about talent develop-
ment was not about contributions to science, philosophy, art; as Annamarie Roeper put it,
or
Is gifted education just effective teaching or does it involve strategies that work only for gifted learners.

These classes are not accelerated in that they are not being taught at the level of sophistication at which they would be offered in high school or college, although enrich- ment can lead to accelerated placement. �((about gifted enrichment pull-outs)).�


Response:
I'm not trying to say not to provide support services for 2e kids or not to try to help those kids who's parents won't. �I am saying there seems to be a lot of parents fighting for education for very trainable, highly able kids who are being told that the school "just can't do that" when all they want is their kids to be taught and not hindered or held back. �Yes, I'm still pouting that my kid couldn't enroll early in pre-k this year. �:p

In other words, sure, gifted education is just effective teaching (or great parenting!)�sarcasm that would work for anybody, but only if you let everyone progress at different rates. �Meanwhile why begrudge the tailor made gifted enrichment pull-outs that the other kids could join in except that there's only so much time in the day and they need remedy in basic skills. �What else should the advanced kids do with their whole school day, tutor other kids? �Look for trouble? �Read and doodle? �I'm going to send homework to school with my son and tell him I'll grade it when he gets home. �No, this isn't for eminence, fame, or fortune. �It's because everybody has decided that childhood is when you should get yer book lernin'. � So, there's a third option. �It's not self/actualization or eminence. �It's normalcy. �It's what the other kids get is a sufficient education during their childhood, so why shouldn't mine? �How does everybody call that greedy? �Why should a bright kid get�MORE education Than EVERybody else? Because anyone who wants more should have it. �What a stupid thing to fight over. �Mom! �He's hogging the schoolwork!

�And I like the prosaic musings about creativity vs. expertise p.14.

Quote:
Simonton (2000a) distinguished between the expertise necessary to give consistently similar, outstanding technical performances and the creativity necessary to generate high-quality, original work. �Mere repetition of previous work is necessarily dis- qualified as creative� (Simonton, 2000a, p. 286) even though the work may be outstanding or meet world-class standards in some fields. Alternatively, having deep expertise does not limit one to facile, stereotypical, and superficial approaches to complex problems that ultimately thwart creativity. Flexible thinking, or the ability to apply information from a different area to a new problem when needed, may be the key to cre- ative productivity in general and to being creative in multiple domains (Plucker & Beghetto, 2004). It is also possible that technical precision, skill automaticity, and large stores of knowledge are more important at certain stages of talent devel- opment than at others (Dai, 2010).

Good quote.

Kuhn said:


I would add this from a noted Aspie:



Read the whole thing:

http://www.goalsys.com/books/documents/DESTRUCTION_AND_CREATION.pdf

Someone stuck inside a given mental model which was spoon-fed and cemented with endless repetition will not be capable of abandoning one mental model for a new one they develop. During times of little change this person will do fine, but during times of rapid change or difficulty, they will fail.

Those who are Eminent are of the latter. They cope with disorder and bring disorder, but they also resolve disorder.

So, then, beginning with the end goal in mind, how do you create this vision in the mind of a child and then sustain it to adulthood? Its one thing to say what it is, but another to speak to what should be.

There are at least two reasons bright kids should get more education:
(1) They are are more educable. As Charles Murray discusses in "Real Education", it probably takes an IQ of 115 to really study at the college level. If true, that means about 5/6 of the population is not college-educable, although of course colleges can reduce standards and pass out diplomas -- which they have done.

I'd guess that an IQ of 100 is needed to produce a high school graduate who can (for example) master Algebra II and write a persuasive essay citing sources. Lots of people don't belong in high school, but they are stamped as "drop-outs" if they don't do their time.

(2) Smart people tend to enjoy education more. People like what they are good at.

The most talented tennis players should get more and better tennis coaching, the most talented pianists the most piano instruction, and the most intelligent the most academic instruction from the brightest teachers.

I also disagree that just because you have an high IQ, you are an out of the box thinker. More people, brilliant or not, are in the herd not running ahead of the herd, or taking the path less taken.

I already have problems with my kids being so far out of the box, I don't need the box to get bigger, that's my 2 cents. I don't disagree with talent development, but I think kids who's talents like in music or athletics or easily measurable academics get plenty of support. And the kids at the other end get their needs supported.

I just had the Education Specialist (Resource, OT/Speech, etc) person tell me today that it is STILL not likely we can get OT for Butter, even WITH the independent psychologists testing and reccomendation) because she already tests above grade level. But, at the same time, at the old school they were saying it was all her attitude with writing and unwilling to consider another cause.

I don't need a position that is more inclusive (not that I have a problem with that, but it should be a different group), I need one that looks more at my child as an individual.

Quote you:
�I think kids who's talents like in music or athletics or easily measurable academics get plenty of support. And the kids at the other end get their needs supported.

Quote me:
What else should the advanced kids do with their whole school day, tutor other kids? �Look for trouble? �Read and doodle? �I'm going to send homework to school with my son and tell him I'll grade it when he gets home.

So obviously I disagree. �I offered to Get the easily measurable academics proof of talent (ie IQ testing) and was told by the GT person that the public school would probably never be able meet the needs of a kid who's too talented. �I'm sure they're wrong because what does my kid really need anyway? �But "they" (globally) �most certainly do not provide plenty of support to kids who are gifted in �easily measured academics. �Please don't feel attacked. �I'm not being argumentative. �

I do like how this article condensed and distilled all the widely circulated research and most current popular beliefs about gifted issues. �I think they did narrow it down to this:
This debate can be formulated in terms of at least two rival views of what gifted education should lead to: self-actualization versus eminence....

I think personally I would like to see an effort made to give gifted individuals and gifted families more of a free reign self-determined IEP, but, within the system. � I see why they don't. �Unchallenged academically gifted kids are more likely to lift the averages, but those that don't tend to leave the system. �Allowing gifted familys to try their own things might cause failures among the ones who sparkle up the graded curve. �Rumor has it they'd mess up the budget by costing local schools some funding if they fail too. �

So, Cathy A. �I agree that the eminence focus minimizes the gifted child's personhood. �But I also think it's a bunch of words and wonder how the semantics will play out in real world policies. �

Anyway, it seems to me that the article was trying to plant the seeds of public opinion that we need to get policies in place that allow academically talented kids to receive a free and appropriate education in public schools. �In other words �they called it developing talent into eminence so that the public would not be scared and hesitant to offer a drastically different education to a "more child" (reference a blogger that pointed out that intense gifted kids are normal, they're just more of everything normal. �They often lack moderation in everything by nature.) �The public doesn't understand that an academically talented kid wants more on a different scale. �At the same time, they're normal kids. �They need parenting and teaching and coaching and pushing and guiding.

La Tex-I don't feel attacked, not at all...actually, maybe "easily measurable academics" wasn't accurate. What I mean there is the +1SD, hardworking, easy going, likeable kid. The one who DOES shine a little more than the "average" and DOES seem to benefit from some enrichment (which is really what the equivalent of our GATE programs are). My kid is not officially 2e, she might not be, but she has some issues that go beyond what I have seen as the public opinion idea of what a gifted kid is. She doesn't fit what is already offered...and even at our new home study program, I feel like I'm getting some push back, but that's OT...she is absolutely NOT a work producer, so, therefore difficult to measure (at least as far as teacher and report card go). And if we were in one of those places where kids are DISqualified from GT program due to "bad attitudes", we would be THAT family. Even though its obvious, from testing the district does, that she would NEED a program like that. My concern is that this change of focus will mean that more PG and 2e kids get excluded from the "talent development". Most GT programs don't seem to be worth much to those kids. I fear that educators and administrators will be even MORE likely to exclude the difficult kids in favor of the "better" ones...

Really, it's fine...we haven't found "our place" yet, so it's not like I was invested in what they were doing anyway. I already understand that most people don't "get" my kid...I'm not even fully into the advocacy for her phase...

I also don't give a hoot about eminence. I just finished reading "Cradles of Eminence". It was great and I feel better about my kid, but I don't NEED that for her. What I want for my DD is for her to be HAPPY, to feel good about herself and satisfied with her life. I don't want her to be a person who has to put her passions aside during the week for a job she hates...I guess that puts me in the self actualization camp? And my kid would have NEVER done any extra work, she wasn't even doing what the teacher asked. But it wouldn't have mattered because the teacher wouldn't even just let her read under her desk, so DD wound up really acting out at times...our last school was like ANTI diferentiation, no matter what baloney they put on their website...

Update: From the NAGC

http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=8990