|
0 members (),
429
guests, and
36
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,777
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,777 |
If I did you'd probably just tell me I'm not really hothousing since I'm not pushing anywhere near even the beginning of his potential, but that's my problem with the hothousing theory. �They keep redefing it to whatever suits the whim of the conversation. � I feel unsupported by the tone of the online gifted parenting community in this issue because of the overshadowing need to push the issue that giftedness is "developed naturally" in young children. �I understand the desire to be believed that they just learned stuff without you systematically teaching them. �Cool. �It happens. �How does that negate a pro-active parenting approach, trying to stay one step ahead, as a valid and beneficial life choice? �The intellectual development is his doing. �The education is my doing. This clipped multi-quote, stolen from another thread, illustrates how prevalent it must be in the online gifted discussion community for this many people to interpret the quote as belonging to this line of rhetoric.� To me the quotation implies that the speaker of the quotation has assumed the right to judge whether other people have really gifted kids, or are putting tap shoes on elephants. In my reading, it doesn't say "I'm not hothousing"-- it says "stop hothousing YOUR kid, because you're being ridiculous, you'll never make them gifted."�
Which may or may not be true. But in my view, judging other people's parenting is pretty much fraught with peril, and the condescension of the quotation is perhaps unnecessarily provocative.
DeeDee I think the reader would have to view the statement through the polarized lens of their own insecurities to come to the conclusion that they had been judged with disapproval. Yeah, that.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,777
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,777 |
�I planned since pregnancy to cultivate his academic development in time with his natural intellectual development if he was smart. �If he was normal I wouldn't have so he could have a normal childhood. �That's different than "following his lead child-led learning.". because I'm inserting academics where it was only his intellect that was developing naturally. �That's different than "train up a child in the way they should go and they will not depart from it".. because I'm following his natural intellectual development and enriching it with supplemental academic skills and behavioral expectations, but it's not with a pre-determined "way he should go" goal. �I think I have the goal of cultivating "however he wants to turn out" but healthier and with less frustration.
Youth lives by personality, age lives by calculation. -- Aristotle on a calendar
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,777
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,777 |
The MAJOR drawback to teaching is that it makes them fit the school's planned lessons even less, but that's less of a deciding factor if the parent knows the school's lessons never had a chance of keeping up anyWay.
Youth lives by personality, age lives by calculation. -- Aristotle on a calendar
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 741
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 741 |
I think I became sensitive to the whole "hothousing" subject, and the supposition that most/many "so-called gifted" are nothing more than spoon-fed automatons, when I read the book Hothouse Kids: The Dilemma of the Gifted Child . I was very offended by that book. Do I provide materials for my son? Yes. Do I force him on to the next level? No. Does he ask questions pertaining to the next level? Yes. Do I answer those questions in detail? Yes! What parent doesn't? Maybe one who couldn't care less about their child's curiosity.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,777
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,777 |
Here's two cut and paste's from the previous long hothouse discussion: http://giftedissues.davidsongifted.org/BB/ubbthreads.php/topics/5728/1.htmlMaybe as part of the definition for hothousing, we could consider whether you are trying to keep up with your child and provide some guidance, versus trying to drag your child along (like with the sight words). � � This is my working definition, in a nutshell.
Youth lives by personality, age lives by calculation. -- Aristotle on a calendar
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,777
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,777 |
I even made up a story in my mind that his giftedness was like a pair of huge invisable wings, that some teachers couldn't see. �All they could detect was the way those invisible wings knocked things over and made DS wobble when he walked. �Obviously there was almost no place to actually fly during the school day. �Even his parents were mostly concerned that he hold his wings politely in and not knock over the other children. �The wings would take care of themselves until the wonderful day when he could use them, right?
Well - things didn't turn out that way, and we got quite an education. �
We definitly need a word for 'gifted blindness' that is quite normal in this culture, perhaps that for another thread?
Smiles,
Trinity
Youth lives by personality, age lives by calculation. -- Aristotle on a calendar
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,777
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,777 |
I feel unsupported by the tone of the online gifted parenting community in this issue because of the overshadowing need to push the issue that giftedness is "developed naturally" in young children. In reflection this sentence makes me cringe because it's not true that I feel unsupported. �I feel that gifted pop-psychology online (that's all I've got) hasn't provided with as many examples as i'd like or ...upon even more reflection this thread was probably not necessary. �I just posted in response to this post that I made in another thread:
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,777
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,777 |
P.S. I'm being extra sensitive about hot-housing and modern ideas about appropriate early academics because my late birthday boy (by 1 measly little month) can't go to preschool this year because Texas state law has drawn a hard line at 4 by Sept. for pre-k, even though the local principle looked at his worksheets and said she's happy to let him in if it's do-able. �In my search for info I talked to a regional gt person and explained my son a little bit and she said the public school probably will never do a good job meeting his educational needs. �I said, well I knew that but I know about ALEKS and EPGY and the Davidson Gifted public forum. �I think I can find ways to help his educational growth, just school would be nice too. �This would be a good year for him to do pre-k because he wants to and would like it and would fit. �Not once has the issue or the word hothousing came up but giftedness did and that's what they called it. �I just think the discussions about "early giftedness is by osmosis and not education" is obviously a necessary conversation because that's apparently what some people are going through. �It's also a vocal movement and a counter-productive sentiment to my current situation. �Not that your nerds are less valid than mine. �Lol at the tiny iPhone screen typo. I meant not that your needs are less valid than mine. �LMAO
Youth lives by personality, age lives by calculation. -- Aristotle on a calendar
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 687
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 687 |
�I understand the desire to be believed that they just learned stuff without you systematically teaching them. �Cool. �It happens. �How does that negate a pro-active parenting approach, trying to stay one step ahead, as a valid and beneficial life choice? �The intellectual development is his doing. �The education is my doing. Parenting and education involve many diverse opinions. Of course as a parent you make the choices you feel are best. I, personally, do not embrace or support structured adult led academics for toddlers and preschoolers. It isn't something I value or find to be particularly good for kids. I don't think though it is fair to expect that all people will share your opinions about the role of structured academics for toddlers and preschoolers. To say that other people, particularly people online, need to agree that your choices are valid and beneficial seems to be a pretty impossible standard. To me extreme precocious spontaneous academic development is a solid sign a child is gifted. If a preschool child has had structured academic activities and they are responding a couple of years ahead of age norms, I think it can be harder to tell. That's not at all to suggest that kids who are taught aren't gifted, just that it can be harder to tell. I have seen many examples of kids who had a lot of structured academics as preschoolers who were indeed gifted and their rate of development continued at a fast pace. I've also seen quite a few kids who over time did "even out" with other kids. I think it is okay to be honest about that, isn't it?
Last edited by passthepotatoes; 08/24/11 05:34 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 687
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 687 |
If he's been doing preK academics for sometime it seems like that wouldn't be any more of a fit for him this year than it would be the following year, would it? Maybe I'm missing something. Some kids really look forward to school are disappointed because they didn't really imagine what it would actually be like.
If what is appealing to him is being around other kids is there any possibility he could go to a playgroup, preschool, or homeschool type of activity?
|
|
|
|
|
