Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Parenting and Advocacy gifted program picture in the yearbook

If you can overlook all of my typos! I think that I've gotten them corrected now ;-).

Cricket2, I see your points, but I still disagree.


Many kids and their parents go to extremes to get a spot on varsity teams. Yet we don't question the appropriateness of team yearbook photos.

If the curly- or red-haired kids had formed a club that operated at school, it would be correct to take a photo for the yearbook. But in that case, they might not be celebrating something they were born with, and that's okay.

My point is that there is nothing wrong with celebrating (or simply acknowledging) that some people are born a certain way. It is okay to be who you are, and you shouldn't have to hide things about yourself that are normal and healthy. IMO, "diversity" means that there is a huge range of human variation, both on the outside and on the inside. Mistreating kids in school based on cognitive ability is the same fundamental wrong as mistreating people based on sex or race or any other arbitrary difference (obviously, there are differences in degree, but the foundation is the same).

Sure, some parents get way too invested in Little Johnny being gifted and get resentful and envious when they meet someone smarter. But this doesn't mean we have to allow bad behavior of others to drive or keep cognitive giftedness in the closet.

A lot depends on the overall context and school culture, certainly.

I think that Cricket and I have both been burned so badly by "gifted-as-status" within our own local communities that we tend to shy away from things that we just know lead down that path.

I think that most of us would find it HIGHLY offensive to take a yearbook photo of kids with household incomes over-- well, over some particular value. Why would that be objectionable? It's just an innate difference, and yet it would serve as precisely the same sort of social lightning rod.

Interesting and probably true but I do wish that we'd be honest at least and not call them gifted programs if they are about high achievement, which really is the case where I live too. Part of what bugs me is that our schools widely state that the GT programs are about meeting the needs of gifted kids to have peers socially and write goals on things like the accelerated learning plans that include stuff like helping the child understand what being gifted means in regard to their overall socio-affective functioning. This is totally bogus IMHO when we're not talking about giftedness but rather high academic achievement.

In regard to what admission standards would be, I'd require an IQ score (98th?) on an individual test and not the types of things that our schools use that are much more about in the box thinkers and teacher pleasing. Our school district specifically states in their identification guidelines that high IQ doesn't necessarily mean that a child is gifted no matter how high and high IQ isn't necessary to be gifted. Requiring IQ scores would at least be a starting point for ensuring that there is some similarity in students' intelligence level although I do realize how diverse the gifted population itself is. Cost on that is also a factor I realize and I'd not want to require families to come up with money or have their kids excluded.

In terms of what the programming would look like, I've never seen a GT program with IQ entry requirements and how they work, but I'd imagine trying to see what programs like the Ricks Center and Davidson Academy do as well as programs geared toward 2e kids and see what could be done. I guess that I'd like to see differentiation within the program, deeper individual projects which allow for greater abstract thinking and exploration of passion areas or lateral instruction rather than more of the same faster, etc.

Hmm...well, family income isn't innate. Unlike IQ (barring head injuries, some accidents, and some diseases), it's subject to change, and a high income it doesn't affect a child's learning needs in the way a high IQ does.

I agree about the lightning rod effect, but the same could be said of the LGBT crowd and the civil rights crowd and the women's voting rights crowd. All these issues have been or are lightning rods (and to a much greater degree than just having a high IQ). IMO, the problems we face won't go away until people start coming out of the closet a bit more.

OK. What about a pretty people class then? Since squishy drew that parallel for physical beauty?

Where the school would be setting policies for admission, and attendees would be selected based on whatever mix they settle on -- whichever kids the teacher think are cutest, plus some kind of semi-scientific evaluation based on how symmetric their faces are plus their BMI? And the same subset of slightly deranged parents would invest in make up, hairdressers, and even (for the looniest ones that make headlines) surgery?

Based on the OP I assumed that GATE group worked the way it does at our school -- a semi-secret after-school program run by parent volunteers with a minor grant from the PTA and no school involvement beyond initial identification (and there are hilarious stories about *that* part). In that case, have them in the yearbook!

Having kids singled out in the yearbook based on an innate trait I would be much, much less happy about.

What about the maths club, chess club, or cheerleaders? Because, let's face it, those groups are pretty much based on innate brains or beauty. What about a volunteer group? Those kids are innately caring and compassionate. Sports clubs? Innately athletic.

I think most clubs have members that have innate abilities, hence why a club was created in the first place- for the kids that have a natural inclination towards a,b,c.

If kids can't celebrate their natural ability because it is unfair to the others that don't have a natural ability, then that is a very sad world, indeed. Unlike the red haired or curly haired club, because of those gifted club members, society has a lot to be thankful for.

Graduating high school classes often vote for the best-looking seniors and put their photos in the yearbook.

Modeling agencies do precisely what you outlined and the parents and their kids definitely go to extremes. But it all starts with an innate quality.

[sigh] I guess what's striking me is that we have two constant contradictions running through not only this thread, but the forum as a whole:

• Gifted kids have special educational needs that are not being met. This practice can be very damaging and it's extremely frustrating when schools deny that giftedness exists and when they base GATE programs largely on achievement: giftedness is innate and not necessarily tied to achievement.
• Saying that kids are gifted, especially in even a semi-public way is a very, very bad thing. We must hide cognitive giftedness because it's innate. Rather, we must celebrate achievement. But mentioning other innate things like athletic giftedness and beauty is okay.

Respectfully, the first point won't happen in a systemwide way until people are comfortable with the idea that some people are smarter than almost everyone else and that this is okay. Everyone knows it. No one wants to admit it.

I remember how the special ed. movement got rolling in the 80s. The parents of these children got angry and started pushing the schools to meet their kids' needs. The ADA didn't happen just because politicians thought it was a good idea.

A huge part of that movement was the destigmatization of being a slower learner. It's the same exact thing with gifties.

Sure. But let's not forget the fact that a school's primary mission is to educate and develop the minds of our citizenry. I would argue that disclosures that undermine the ability of schools to carry out that mission are problematic, as I would argue is true in this instance. I would argue that, for all students, intrinsic motivation to study and expend effort in meaningful academic pursuits is damanged by the disclosure. Here's why:

CASE 1: GT students accurately labeled as GT

(Val, I would particularly draw attention to the cons for case 1.)

Pros:
-External validation
-Enhanced sense of community membership
- (potentially) enhanced social status based on an alignment of personal attributes and the community's expressed values

Cons:
-Internalizing the message that ability trumps effort (increasing the likelihood of future perfectionism, imposter syndrome, underachievement, reduced classroom participation, etc)
-Feeling that your value is out of your control
-Heightened competition for GT-specific academic services, which are necessary for your psychological well-being
-Dilution of GT standards from increased flow of "coached" students into GT
-Reduced intrinsic motivation to achieve academically because an extrinsic reward has been provided

CASE 2: Unidentified true GT students

Pros:
-(for some) Anonymity
-Fitting in

Cons:
-Undermining student self-efficacy, which creates a vicious loop between self-efficacy and future achievement
-Disenfranchisement with the educational system
-(potentially) Typical GT withdrawal/backlash symptoms

CASE 3: Non-GTs falsely ID'd as GT

Pros:
-(Debatable) Access to curricular enrichment beyond one's innate needs
-External validation may spur self-efficacy in borderline-GT cases

Cons:
-Creates an unreasonable and unsubstantiated self-image which risks creating an overly external locus of control in future endeavours
-For self-aware students, undermines self-esteem and self-efficacy
-Disenfranchisement and feeling that you can "con" the system
-Creates unreasonable academic expectations for students where actual GT programming exists to meet GT needs
-Higher likelihood of burnout or compensatory switching from extra-curricular/social/family activities to school work to keep pace
-Imposter syndrome/inferiority complex

CASE 4: Non-GT students correctly identified as non-GT

Pros:
-Students not grouped beyond their ability
-Students see that the school SAYS it values innate ability (message will be undermined if dissonance between talk and actual programming)

Cons:
-Students are subtly taught that the GT students' achievements don't matter and infer this is true in their case
-Students' self-efficacy is lowered, which reduces motivation and achievement
-Reduced inter-group understanding because GT students have purportedly been singled out on the basis of something beyond anyone's control

So why get gifted kids assessed at all, then? If a gifted label is the cause of all these problems...Or is it just when society judges them to be gifted that it all turns bad? I, too, am confused by the contradiction: it is bad to be gifted unless you achieve something. So keep your giftedness a secret until you can back it up with proof.