Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Parenting and Advocacy Sports vs. Academics

As for sports and academics, those who do well at either are pretty focused and will work on it 8+ hours a day.

That internal drive to work hard to the exclusion of so many other things is the unifying theme. Most Americans recongnize and admire hard-work.

Just another angle to think of.

I think it's very important to include all bright kids when trying to change the system.

The thing is that lobbying on behalf of, say, 2% of the population will be an uphill struggle with possible/likely labels of elitism.

But if you lobby on behalf of everyone who's at least one standard deviation above average (~IQ 115) then you include 16% of the population, and your target group increases to the tens of millions.

If the school system is forced to recognize that a large percentage of its students aren't being served, the changes it will have to make will scale to the brightest ones. In other words, what's good for the ones with an IQ of 115 will also benefit the ones with IQs of 130, 145, 160, etc.

I fully realize that the learning abilities of gifted and very gifted kids are different from most others. But I also realize that perceptions are extremely important, and I have my doubts about the sellability of an approach that excludes almost everyone by focusing on 130+ or 145+.

Whereas if you include 16% of the population ---well, a lot of people will see themselves or their kids in what's being said. And anyway, why shouldn't a kid with an IQ of 120 be allowed to move faster if she can --- which she certainly can???

I guess I think a good way to spin this is to argue that a lot of kids can move faster and should be allowed to do so in any relevant subjects.

Val

Looks like I'll be moving away from the book/article angle to the grassroots angle/philosophical discussion angle. With everyone's ideas floating out there, no writer will be willing to touch it for fear of claims, LOL. But, I'm still thinking!

The IEP movement for disabled kids started when the parents started acting as a group. Result: they got what they wanted.

If the parents of the bright kids do the same thing, they'll (we'll) probably also get what we want.

And like Kriston and others have said, we represent the inexpensive side of IEPs, because for the most part, our kids just need to go to class in an upper grade.

Obviously, there is a small minority that will need greater assistance at some point. This issue can probably be solved through the special ed. teachers by giving them gifted ed training or by substituting in one gifted ed teacher who can teach middle school subjects in standalone primary schools. It wouldn't surprise me if some of the special ed teachers would welcome a new aspect in their work.

And there is always the possibility of moving the brightest ones to the next school up for math class. I've seen this done.

Val

The offer to go PM is still on the table though, Questions, if that would solve the problem of too many public fingerprints on the project...

Yes, Jool, sort of. I was saying that smart doesn't matter b/c the output can't be seen. Most people say my kid is smart or so and so's kid is smart - but not so smart that they need something different. And adults may say, this is so and so and he's really smart. But it's still a generic smart. There isn't the LOG distinction, the way there are club teams, jv teams and varsity teams, and then everyone else who plays sports on their own time to "be like Mike."

Parents want the different levels of teams so that their children have the opportunity to be a part of a team, no matter their level of sports abilities. But sports are extracurricular, and most people don't object to the fact that a team only has 20 spots on varsity or whatever. Schoolday actitivies are different, however, and I don't blame parents for coveting what others may be getting in "special" classes (not that we have access to any at this point, LOL).

So after going around in circles, I'd say in answer to:



The problem is that those parents don't see the distinction - why do those kids need something more than my kids are getting? Those kids look just like my kids and your kids (oops, not in this audience, but, in the generic sense), they're in class doing the same work, and they're making mistakes and learning along with everyone else. Because there's no output (like weekly games with media coverage) that can be seen (no eyeballs as they say in the tv business), their plight is unknown. Sort of like what I see in my son's taekowndo class. When they run their laps around the gym, they line up by belt, with the most advanced belt in front down to the lowest in back. They are not allowed to pass. You can see the real runners jogging in place, wanting to move forward, but being held back by their place in line. They only have to run a few laps. But if it was all day long, it would be much too frustrating.

And I'd say that the reason parents see it as elitist is because their kids aren't being taken care of well enough and there is not enough public knowledge about what these kids need. As for good-looking kids - well, I suppose if those traits are relevant, there are special programs for them, too (e.g., modeling, acting, cheerleading?).

I guess it's all about the marketing and educating the public. But in the end, it's all about the money - if the schools had the funds and every child was accommodated, I don't think the special programs would be begrudged.

And speaking about educational tragedies - there are those big time college sports programs...

Yes, BaseballDad, this is what I was trying to get at. I think that will help with point 2. The toughest thing for the public schools is the budget, and it's very hard to make the choices as to where to spend the money in the shrinking budget.

I am not sure what you think will be accomplished with more marketing. There have been programs where smart kids compete in games shows, for their schools. Just like an athletic event, but they haven't been as popular as college football. Even college jeopardy.

The problem is the end game. Providing a better educational path for a smart kid means he will probably make more money than the not as smart kid. How is that ever going to be popular with the average person? Having a Michael Jordan for kid is very rare. And inspires awe because it is generally far removed. Helping create a path for an HG kid to get to Harvard or MIT, eliminating a playing field for the lesser smart kid is never going to be popular.

And remember, Tiger Woods father started training him very young, yes he had the DNA, but his father created the path. Just like we are expected to create the path to ensure our children's success. And they can go on college jeopardy for 15 minutes of fame.

Right now GT is very popular in NYC. Everyone wants gifted kids. "Hot housing" is popular, high scores on intelligence tests are sought after, placement in G&T programs are aggressively pursued. Because the end game is to get into a top school, makes lots of money because it takes lots of money to live well in NYC and high schools don't have football. Athletics mean Yankees or Mets not school level sports. So gifted is big, but it is also within the family unit that success is cherished and cheered on. Having a child not as talented in baseball is one thing, having a child not as smart as my BFF is really hard. I don't know why the psychology of that is, but it is.

Ren

No, I definitely was not talking about creating competitions - just explaining that the fact that these kids are out of the limelight helps hide them from view. And I'm not saying they should be in the limelight either. Just using the sports analogy.

And your point about NYC hot housing is so true. And I believe that's the trickle down effect of what's happened with college admissions, although that segment of NYC has pretty much always been like that.

Frankly, I think it is elitist to focus only on gifted kids - I think the entire educational system needs to be revamped so all kids are accommodated at their own ability levels. Of course, it's very hard trying to allocate limited funds, so I don't have the answers. But the first step is to set priorities.

This is a great discussion. Thanks for initiating the conversation, Questions.

I am in agreement with Val about including kids with IQs of 115 and above to petition for subject acceleration whenever required. This angle will attract many supporters and could also help break down some of the resentments and accusations of elitism as LOG needs are differentiated.

I suspect that some resentment is elicited because parents recognize correctly that their own children could do more difficult work in a particular subject. If it were a more prevalent practice and many kids were subject accelerated, our ds may have benefited also by having an opportunity to progress several years ahead in math and science by now.

In our area, it has more to do with attitude than money. Our two districts each have multi-millions in money market accounts (which they don�t touch) and raise our property taxes each year to support the latest project. The high school has been pretty consistent in spending a large portion of their income on multi-million dollar sports complexes and domes.