Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Parenting and Advocacy What do you think?

Some parents of gifted kids do things that are just dead stupid, and do have a negative impact. But overall I would say gifted kids are much more likely to get positive, or at least non-damaging influences at home, and influences that hurt their creativity and intellectual development in school.

Zhian, you could also say that of a child with ADHD or on the autism spectrum.

Yeah, but what should the schools do differently for everybody? �Would you refine the core standards or do you mean the inevitable contentious teacher here and there? �Or is there a psychology class teachers could take before earning a teachers degree that would make them be better with children? I agree, most parents are the best supporters of their own children.

Many parents do not understand gifted children (or even education). I was recently speaking to a parent about his gifted child and his response was to put his son in wrestling so he could become a professional wrestler.

Parents on this forum are very different than most parents.

Sounds like a fun crowd!

These seem like classic reactions to giftedness (some of those folks might even be gifted but just not recognize it) and your self-doubt, classic, right? I mean who among us hasn't said, well maybe I am just crazy/pushy? Then you get some testing back or your 4 year old is really holding their own in adult conversation and you are thrown back on the other side of things. Fun fun fun.

As to the question, I really like/hope that Grinity's answer is about right....my ds10 expressed that he was depressed about social things very early on, but now he is doing ok happy-wise...hopefully his ability to express himself has lead to better early intervention and therefore a good outcome (of course time will REALLY tell on that one)...

Fingers crossed.

It's the core standards, and the insistence of higher-ups that said standards are more important than the kids' happiness and psychological and academic well-being, that create the problem in the first place. Teachers make it worse (and I'd challenge you on the phrase "here and there"!) by buying into the notion that keeping all their students at the same point on the same path at the same time is the goal. Assembly-line education doesn't work perfectly for anyone, doesn't even work well for the majority in my opinion (I say this as a teacher), and certainly doesn't work for the vast majority of gifted and creative kids. I'm something of a heretic in my field and generally believe the whole system has to be completely overthrown, in favor of something that realizes it's better not just for the individuals concerned but for society as a whole if we allow kids to learn in their own way, at their own speed, and according to their own strengths and passions.

I've read it said that maybe we should work the bugs out of Montessori and it would be a fitting replacement for free universal public schools. �What do you say? �The big complaint I've read is that Montessori wants you to master activity A before you begin activity B. �And that Montessori schools often only go through elementary. �
I went to a self-paced private highschool for awhile with the ACE cirriculum, which was shallow and weak, IIRC. �But at least it was self-paced. �So there's two programs with a working history that are at least successfully non lock-step timewise. �Then there's the quiestion of how to level the lessons. �There's even a discussion about how far to follow a kid's interest out of order knowing that a little time going over the basics first will deter a lot of getting sidetracked later. (link 1). And a discussion about computer classes being the most realistic way to differentiate education for all (link 2). �But the ace thing I used that time used booklets, self-paced booklets. �And the montessori uses that shelf full of manipulatives. �So computer's not the only way. �I don't know if linear progression is or isn't the only way. �I think I hear you saying it's not. �The davidson academy is doing something with the kid's that's much more individualized. �But, in all three of those cases the student teacher ratio is smaller, to start with. And the students in all three cases come from families that are more involved in their children's daily education as well. �But let's talk about how we can make it universal. �I'm not saying the system should stay, I'm asking what you would replace it with? �Oh I wish teachers weren't contentious. �I wish they all loved everybody and loved learning and loved ideas and loved conversations in the classroom. �Is there a psychology class that teaches that so all the teachers would be the good one's?
http://giftedissues.davidsongifted...._I_buy_curriculum_two_gra.html#Post90935
http://giftedissues.davidsongifted.org/BB/ubbthreads.php/topics/80647/8.html
Oh, sorry daytripper. That's way off from your original thought in this thread. But I still want to know.

One off-the wall suggestion that I kind of like is to nationally allow kids after sixth grade to choose vocational training or higher education based on their interest and aptitude. I don't really like it because I've heard that in communist countries this is mandatory and I think i would not like to see it ever become manditory. I've read theories that in the old one-room schoolhouses where no one but the college bound made it past eighth grade, they supposedly studied fewer subjects deeper while they were there. The after school job market is yet another whole different conversation. And it involves the changed labor needs of a new technology society. Education reform is just such a big thought. There's just so many details. And which way should we go with them?

I think everyone should get a solid grounding in math, science, arts, and humanities. As long as they get that, I don't have an opposition to a focus on vocational skills.

To add to the mix:
http://giftedissues.davidsongifted....0320/Anyone_had_experience_with_DI_.html

I don't think that a lecture format is necessarily a terrible thing, as long as it's done well. The main problem would be IMHO that you need to make sure the pace is appropriate for everyone in the class, and the obvious tension is that for money and resource reasons the tendency is always to squeeze some kids where the fit isn't very good at all.

I like a lot of things about Montessori, including their autodidactic approach which is at the heart of it, but I haven't fallen in love so much with their actual math autodidactic tools that I've seen. That would fit under the category "Working Out the Bugs".

I don't that it's a good idea to just let kids stagnate in certain areas because they didn't pick to work on them for extended periods, so some mechanism should make sure they're well-rounded, implying that they are actually forced (gently) to work on their less-favored and weak areas sometimes. As long as they don't fall behind, though, I am generally all for letting kids go at their own pace, and increasing that ability however possible, through manipulatives or computers or whatever else.

Yeah, lucounu. I sure embarrassed myself in that thread. Insulting someone who's kid has downsyndrome. Sure didn't mean it that way. I'm still quite embarrassed. I do like studying how we learn things. And a solid foundation, step by step, at any age or level is the most convincing promise I've heard yet.

I'm thrilled with that new post they made today. Gifted kids really just need tools, techniques, and training. And let em go.

Zhian, I wanted to show you something. But I'm going to put it in Poppa Rex's thread under "Thinking Big". Check it out.