Gifted Bulletin Board

Welcome to the Gifted Issues Discussion Forum.

We invite you to share your experiences and to post information about advocacy, research and other gifted education issues on this free public discussion forum.
CLICK HERE to Log In. Click here for the Board Rules.

Links


Learn about Davidson Academy Online - for profoundly gifted students living anywhere in the U.S. & Canada.

The Davidson Institute is a national nonprofit dedicated to supporting profoundly gifted students through the following programs:

  • Fellows Scholarship
  • Young Scholars
  • Davidson Academy
  • THINK Summer Institute

  • Subscribe to the Davidson Institute's eNews-Update Newsletter >

    Free Gifted Resources & Guides >

    Who's Online Now
    0 members (), 167 guests, and 10 robots.
    Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
    Newest Members
    parentologyco, Smartlady60, petercgeelan, eterpstra, Valib90
    11,410 Registered Users
    March
    S M T W T F S
    1 2
    3 4 5 6 7 8 9
    10 11 12 13 14 15 16
    17 18 19 20 21 22 23
    24 25 26 27 28 29 30
    31
    Previous Thread
    Next Thread
    Print Thread
    Page 1 of 3 1 2 3
    #117036 11/27/11 03:45 PM
    Joined: May 2007
    Posts: 1,783
    Cathy A Offline OP
    Member
    OP Offline
    Member
    Joined: May 2007
    Posts: 1,783
    Have any of you been following the discussion around the NAGC's proposed new focus on talent development?

    I am very concerned that the NAGC will no longer be representing the interests of gifted students with this new focus and definition of giftedness.

    What are your thoughts?

    Quote
    I suggest that we take a bold step and consider making talent development, rather than giftedness, the major unifying concept of our field and most importantly, the basis for our practice.
    http://newsmanager.commpartners.com/nagc/issues/2011-11-15.html#0


    http://www.psychologicalscience.org...ing-giftedness-and-gifted-education.html

    White paper on the topic:

    Quote
    Giftedness is the manifestation of performance or production that is clearly at the upper end of the distribution in a talent domain even relative to that of other high-functioning individuals in that domain. Further, giftedness can be viewed as developmental, in that in the beginning stages, potential is the key variable; in later stages, achievement is the measure of giftedness; and in fully developed talents, eminence is the basis on which this label is granted. Psychosocial variables play an essential role in the manifestation of giftedness at every developmental stage. Both cognitive and psychosocial variables are malleable and need to be deliberately cultivated.

    Quote
    Finally, outstanding achievement or eminence ought to be the chief goal of gifted education.
    http://psi.sagepub.com/content/12/1/3.full.pdf+html


    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 35
    G
    Junior Member
    Offline
    Junior Member
    G
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 35
    the sage article has some interesting lines in the abstract. I havent read the article yet. it looks pretty dense and will take me a while that i dont have right now.

    "In spite of concerns for the future of innovation
    in the United States, the education research and policy
    communities have been generally resistant to addressing academic
    giftedness in research, policy, and practice. The resistance
    is derived from the assumption that academically gifted
    children will be successful no matter what educational environment they are placed in, and because their families are
    believed to be more highly educated and hold above-average
    access to human capital wealth. These arguments run counter
    to psychological science indicating the need for all students to
    be challenged in their schoolwork and that effort and appropriate
    educational programing, training and support are
    required to develop a student�s talents and abilities. In fact high-ability students in the United States are not faring well on
    international comparisons. The scores of advanced students in
    the United States with at least one college-educated parent
    were lower than the scores of students in 16 other developed
    countries regardless of parental education level."

    some of this i have seen expressed on this board. gifted kids dont just all turn out ok without proper interventions. and we are falling behind in supporting our brightest. it think they are talking about academic talent development and coming up with better ways to define gifted and then how to create environments in which the gifted and talented can excell.

    cathy can you say more about what your concerns are? On first perusal this sounds good to me. i am afraid i am missing something.

    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 2,172
    C
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    C
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 2,172
    Originally Posted by g2mom
    cathy can you say more about what your concerns are? On first perusal this sounds good to me. i am afraid i am missing something.
    I'm not Cathy, but when I first saw something about this change in NAGC's approach, my concern was that they are changing their definition of giftedness to fit in more with the way many schools define gifted: not necessarily high IQ, high ability, different brain wiring, etc. but more average to bright kids who work hard and achieve highly.

    Joined: May 2007
    Posts: 1,783
    Cathy A Offline OP
    Member
    OP Offline
    Member
    Joined: May 2007
    Posts: 1,783
    First of all, I think the NAGC is trying to broaden its appeal by promoting talent development for all instead of supporting gifted students in particular. I have nothing against talent development per se, but I see that as a radical change in the NAGC's mission, and I'm afraid that in promoting this achievement focus, gifted kids (especially 2e kids) will fall through the cracks unless they are high achievers.

    I don't think the achievement focus is healthy... I don't think the goal of gifted education should be "eminence". In this new paradigm, the goals are focused on the "talents" not the kids who manifest them. How many gifted kids will become eminent? A small percentage. If we make that the goal, that will mean that most of them will have failed to meet that goal. Instead of trying to support gifted kids as whole people, NAGC wants to focus on them as "high-potential" learners. Those who don't produce up to that "potential" will not be considered gifted. The achievement focus places an unfair burden of expectations on gifted kids--which I think they struggle under enough already!

    Joined: May 2007
    Posts: 1,783
    Cathy A Offline OP
    Member
    OP Offline
    Member
    Joined: May 2007
    Posts: 1,783
    I encourage people to send feedback to the NAGC president. She said in her post:

    Quote
    I welcome your thoughts. Email: p-olszewski-kubilius@northwestern.edu

    http://parentingforhighpotential.com/2011/11/18/from-the-nagc-president-paula-olszewski-kubilius/

    Joined: Jan 2008
    Posts: 1,689
    W
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    W
    Joined: Jan 2008
    Posts: 1,689
    Perhaps you would get more support if you explain your position more, because I think it is a good thing. Just because a kid is gifted, doesn't mean he should all kinds of resources if he doesn't have any motivation. If a child with a lower IQ is more motivated, willing to do the work, why not provide them with opportunities and resources? They could be the one that attains great things for this country.

    Just because you have a really high IQ means you will achieve anything. You might just be lazy for a variety of reasons.


    Wren #117055 11/28/11 07:04 AM
    Joined: Oct 2011
    Posts: 2,856
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Oct 2011
    Posts: 2,856
    Originally Posted by Wren
    Perhaps you would get more support if you explain your position more, because I think it is a good thing. Just because a kid is gifted, doesn't mean he should all kinds of resources if he doesn't have any motivation. If a child with a lower IQ is more motivated, willing to do the work, why not provide them with opportunities and resources? They could be the one that attains great things for this country.

    Just because you have a really high IQ means you will achieve anything. You might just be lazy for a variety of reasons.

    And foremost among the reasons for a gifted student to appear or become lazy is because the material is unchallenging and unrewarding. But it's so much easier to blame the child when the school's one-size-fits-all solution doesn't fit.

    Isn't that why we're all here?

    Dude #117058 11/28/11 07:22 AM
    Joined: Oct 2011
    Posts: 30
    R
    Junior Member
    Offline
    Junior Member
    R
    Joined: Oct 2011
    Posts: 30
    Originally Posted by Dude
    And foremost among the reasons for a gifted student to appear or become lazy is because the material is unchallenging and unrewarding. But it's so much easier to blame the child when the school's one-size-fits-all solution doesn't fit.

    Isn't that why we're all here?


    I completely agree. My child was the typical gifted underachiever. He shut down in school after 2 years of begging me and his teachers for something more. We finally had someone take his PG-level IQ seriously, despite the lack of work to show for it (we had switched schools). He was grade-skipped and subject accelerated 3+ years on top of the skip.

    Within 2 weeks he went from doing *nothing* to being one the top workers in his class. Fast forward a year later and he is thriving: organized, happy, learning a ton, and growing socially as well. He has gained confidence as well.

    BTW, as long as we had stayed in the public school, he would not have been eligible for any kind of acceleration, and probably not even a gifted pull-out, because he was not a high achiever and there were plenty of those.

    Now, who knows what he will do with his life -- but at least he's got a chance to do something -- where before it seemed like he was on a road to nowhere. He used to come home crying. Now he comes home smiling.

    I would be sad if even the gifted organizations, who gave us so much support along the way, came to withdraw their support from children like mine. I hope that is not the direction that NAGC is headed.

    Joined: Jan 2008
    Posts: 1,689
    W
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    W
    Joined: Jan 2008
    Posts: 1,689
    I actually blame the parents....

    When I first joined this forum, all I wanted was for my kid to get a spot at Hunter. Then she told them in the interview she didn't want to go there and I felt suckerpunched for about 2 days.

    I am writing this for newcomers. And then trying for the accelerated gifted school but being held up by lottery numbers that wouldn't get her in. And all the time needing to compensate by having her in programs like the science one at the Museum of Natural History or doing CTY.

    I know, that I would have become more complacent if she had gotten into Hunter or Anderson. And just like those Terman kids, she probably never get that "eminence" since it has eluded Hunter kids for 30+ years. It is the kid that is excluded, that struggles against the odds that gets the Nobel prize. The Terman rejects are the ones with eminence.

    And that is why I play devil's advocate. I do have to supplement. My kid is whizzing in the math. Hunter would have kept her at one year ahead. I teach her more about options and working for them, much more than if I thought her "gifted" school was taking care of things.

    I am of the strong belief that the IQ at 5 is not the IQ at 12 or 18. And if you only test once and you don't offer the options for more kids, then you leave a lot behind that may amaze us.

    Sonia Sotomayor only became fluent in English at 9, was living in the projects, didn't attend gifted programs but her mother bought her an encyclopedia. She never got picked for gifted programs. Now Elena Kagan did attend Hunter (her mother worked there) and is the first, as I understand, to achieve eminence from a Hunter elementary alumni. Who got there first?

    I know someone who is applying to MIT and was a little surprised since I knew she wasn't a science person. MIT has the top undergrad business program in the country. First on the admissions requirements, write about something you have done. A lot of IQ kids going through gifted programs may have nothing to say but high grades. At least that is what Yale admissions is saying about applicants these days.

    Wren #117070 11/28/11 09:07 AM
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 2,172
    C
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    C
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 2,172
    Originally Posted by Wren
    A lot of IQ kids going through gifted programs may have nothing to say but high grades. At least that is what Yale admissions is saying about applicants these days.
    I'd agree with you statement that IQ scores at five are likely to change over time. I don't think that IQ is set in stone nor do I think that it is a precise or perfect measurement of who is gifted. I do think that it is probably the best measure we have right now, though, b/c it doesn't just look for convergent fast answers the way multiple choice group tests do. IQ tests are also less subject to hothousing of scores b/c the actual questions are a bit better protected than are group test questions which, as I've mentioned, are often taught to by some teachers and some parents and given repeatedly until the requisite score are obtained (at least in some of my local schools).

    That said, I disagree with the notion that what Yale admissions is seeing is large numbers of truly gifted/high IQ kids who have nothing to offer but high grades. I think that what they are seeing is exactly what I fear NAGC is now going to cater to: high achieving, in the box thinking, not truly gifted kids who are called gifted, tracked into GT programming, and come out of it with nothing to offer but high grades and convergent thoughts. That's pretty much what the preponderance of the kids in our local GT programs look like already and it isn't where I think GT needs to stray further.

    I am not seeking narrowing the definition of gifted b/c I want to be elitist but b/c, the further a child strays from the norm, the more his needs are less likely to be met in a grouping that includes 10, 15, 20% or more of the population. Honestly, in programs that include numbers like this, what I've seen is that probably 40-50% of the population could easily be in this "gifted" grouping with appropriate circumstances. It doesn't take above average intelligence; what it takes is a combo of average or slightly above intelligence, parental involvement, and motivation on the behalf of the teachers and the students.

    Gifted isn't a special need when you define it this way and that makes it all that much more elitist b/c it is subject to parental pride, pressure, and arrogance moreso than a qualitative difference in wiring that had little to do with what a great parent I am and how much better my child is.

    Page 1 of 3 1 2 3

    Moderated by  M-Moderator 

    Link Copied to Clipboard
    Recent Posts
    Testing with accommodations
    by aeh - 03/27/24 01:58 PM
    Quotations that resonate with gifted people
    by indigo - 03/27/24 12:38 PM
    For those interested in astronomy, eclipses...
    by indigo - 03/23/24 06:11 PM
    California Tries to Close the Gap in Math
    by thx1138 - 03/22/24 03:43 AM
    Gifted kids in Illinois. Recommendations?
    by indigo - 03/20/24 05:41 AM
    Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5