I have an idea (uh-oh). I was wondering what you think could make it more socially acceptable and popular to recognize GT kids in school - to get coverage like sports, drama, etc. Seems to me that part of the issue is that there is not constant output (e.g., prizes, teams and contests). Sort of the problem the Olympic sports face in non-Olympic years - no coverage, everyone tends to forget about them, no coverage, no money. Also seems to me that while it may not be cool to be smart as kids, it's definitely cool and well-respected to be smart as adults. What has to happen to get that to trickle down to the kids? A public service campaign by Bill Gates? (only half-joking)

If I can come up with a concise issue, I have someone in mind who might be able to write about it.

And by no means am I bashing sports - I love sports, was a competitive athlete through college (and beyond, but unfortunately, not to infinity and beyond), and earn my living through sports. Also, I should remind everyone that student athletes live with negative stereotpyes, too - the "dumb jock," for one, and are under constant pressure to win, sometimes "at all costs." In other countries, that same pressure is applied to academics with the same resultant emotional trauma on the kids.

Anyway, I'm just wondering what the issue is and if there's a solution; if there are answers, not just complaints.

Speaking of Bill Gates, I just read an article on him this morning in Fortune magazine (July 7 issue, I think). He has retired from Microsoft and is spending 1 day a week there, 2 days a week at his foundation, and 2 days a week at an office where he can learn and think and solve problems. He's looking for ways to improve the world. Of course, he's looking at big problems (curing malaria, understanding immunizations, energy crisis) but, seriously, if we could get on his radar screen, we just might get some help from him in this area. Sounds farfetched, I know. But he's really trying to help the world. He might seriously be interested. So, if you (or anyone else) would like to work on a way to approach him, I'm in.

Seems like it might be something he'd be interested in. I mean, he's into education and concerned about the dumbing-down of America, so GT ed seems like it would be up his alley...It seems worth a try if someone has the gumption to do it!

What do you mean by "a concise issue," Questions? What exactly are you looking for? I'm happy to help, but not sure I understand what you're after.

Kids pick on anyone who is different. Furthermore, smart kids tend to hang by themselves when placed with age-peers so they are not part of a group and thus are not protected or welcomed by their relations with the kids' friends. Thus high achievement is associated with unpopular kids.

As for sports - a lot of kids play sports and watch it on TV so they can relate to what is going on. That makes it popular.

School and academics ( unlike most sports as they are taught ) requires discipline and attention for most kids. That is painful. Academics is not seen as play - and it is not. If sports were taught as academics - then kids would be at it 8 hours a day - many would not longer "play" at that level of commitment.

Sports were the only connection I felt with my age-peers and it allowed me to make friends with many people whom I otherwise would not have talked to. IMHO, GT kids should be in sports for this very reason.

Its not so cool to be smart as an adult, either. A friend, from China, has a PHD in Physics from MIT. He works as a programmer. he only lists his BS in Math from UT. Another friend has a perfect score on his industry certifications. He does not even list them nor his Masters. He also tones down his vocabulary and sentence detail in interview. Both men do this or they know they won't get hired. I keep my mouth shut at most of my job sites and just do the work they want. Its mostly useless to bring up higher-order issues because people either do not want to fix the real problems or they do not have the focus or horsepower to work through them, even when their current configuration is demonstrably costing them lots and lots of money. Even when you try to help people, they forget and go back to their old ways, and sometimes YOU get blamed for their mistakes.

As for Bill Gates, Microsoft has done more harm to the information age than they have helped it. Bill solved a business problem using a hack (DOS) rather than a full solution ( license VMS ) and it has caused untold misery ever since. Great marketing is all I can say!

But, my favorite joke I tell smart and not-so kids is:

"What do you call a nerd when he is 40?"

"BOSS!"

Hmmmm, well smart kids and adults are cool - to me!

Cool to me, too!!

I think this is an unfair stereotype. Some smart kids do this, just as some ND kids tend to hang by themselves. But many smart kids are highly social and quite well-liked, even by same-age peers. I was GT as a kid, and I had friends in virtually all social circles in my school. Were they all my bestest friends? No. But I could talk with anyone, and I was well-accepted by jocks, nerds, drama geeks, and even the student council socialites. I know I'm not the only one out there like this! I've seen kids who do great socially and are GT. I think it has more to do with personality and less to do with intelligence. I just don't think this stereotype holds water.

And I'd argue that smart adults tend to do pretty well in life, too. No guarantees, of course. There are lots of factors contributing to success. But it gets harder to get by on "popularity" (whatever that is) once you hit the real world, so actual skills and intelligence tend to make for a better chance of success in life.

I'm just not quite buying it...

I think smart adults and kids are cool too. We just need to convince the rest of the world as well.

Count me in for marching up to Bill, or any other big names that might be interested in gifted issues. It beats my half-finished Newsweek article for My Turn.

I'm not quite sure I do, either. I just know that we do a lot of complaining - well, complaining isn't the right word, but we do talk a lot about how delicately the children and adults have to tiptoe around the GT issue and advocacy efforts. I suppose it's really about changing the world we live in, and how to go about it.

And there have been plenty of articles about how perverse it is that the football coach gets more money than the Nobel laureate physics professor, but that brings the money into the school to pay the physics professor's (comparatively paltry) salary.

I guess I'm just thinking out loud - is there an issue here that can be publicized in some way to influence public opinion? I suppose that's what Davidson is trying to do with its pr department and article clipping service (e.g. the list of current GT articles of interest). Maybe the question is how to bring that campaign grassroots, how to describe it, and publicize it?

Okay, I'm just rambling... I'm already far afield of my original thought to get a national sportswriter to address the issue of academics vs. sports in the schools.

I'd love to approach Bill Gates, and rally for money for educational solutions. I'd think he'd be interested in hearing what we have to say, especially if we approach it from the educational plight of gifted kids in public education. It's a specific enough topic that he might actually be able to draw attention to it. He might also be in a position to able to invest money into a campaign that might be taken seriously.

Interesting thought, that ...

As for being "cool," I know all sorts of gifted kids, from very popular to well-liked to "alternative" to sporty to nerdy. Gifted kids run the whole gamit, just like ND kids. And quite honestly, I don't know how effective that sort of a campaign could be -- if you convince to teenagers (or any group) that something is cool, they're likely to run in the other direction just to spite you!

Ah, no. Not rambling. Thinking out loud, maybe. That's good.

I love the idea of getting a sportswriter to write the article. Great idea! Nice twist.

Shall I put on my old writing tutor's hat and ask you questions? That's my usual M.O. for this sort of project.

What is your goal here? What do you want to accomplish and why?

What's you're point? What do you want to say to the reader?

What connection/contrast are you trying to make between sports and academics? Why? How will that advance your argument?

I could go on, but maybe we should start there?

We can also move this to a PM if you'd prefer. Just let me know how I can help.

That is funny and so true what you said about a nerd at 40. My son and I recently had dinner with my husband and his new boss, a 36 year old woman, who I think has to be a former gifted kid or nerd. In addition to her job in management, she teaches violin and plays 4 or 5 other instruments, looks forward to attending the medieval fair every year, and loves to read and learn new things. She uses a higher level vocabulary in her speech than most people around here. I wanted to ask her about her school experiences because she is obviously very bright, if not gifted, but I didn't get the chance.

I want to be in on the conversation too! I'd like to hear what you have to say about it.

Okay, hopping over from the other thread... I think my comment is a bit tangential to your idea Questions, because I think your focus is on academic achievement, not necessary ability. I had alluded to perceived elitism as a barrier for special programs for gifted kids. I don't agree that it's not socially acceptable to be "smart". I think it's just the opposite. Perhaps there's a semantic difference here: I'm not talking nerdy, prodigious in an area, even high academic achievement - I'm talking overall raw intelligence. Smart as in: I'd like you to meet my friend Steve. He's really cute, considerate, and extremely *smart*. As in: My baby will watch this video and grow up to be a genius (smart). How do you get around the idea that some people see special programs for smart kids the same way as they might see special programs for good-looking kids? Of course I may be way off in my perception...

Like Mia, I'm really looking forward to this conversation; please don't hide it away in PMs if at all possible! With questions' intuitions and Kriston's questions, I think we could make some really good progress.

Let me take a crack at Kriston's first set of questions:


I can imagine two different types of goal. The first is to change the image of smart kids - or smartness in general. There is a long tradition of accusations of anti-intellectualism in American culture (Richard Hofstadter's book "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life" is a locus classicus), and whether these accusations are ultimately supportable or not there's certainly a reason they occur so regularly. What this anti-intellectualism is precisely, whether it takes a peculiar form in American culture, and what if anything should be done about it are all hard questions. But at any rate it seems clear that an analogous accusation of anti-athleticism in American culture would seem ludicrous on the face of it. Exploring this contrast might be interesting. The hope would be to begin a conversation that brings the stereotype of the smart kid under attack.

A second possible goal is more concrete. Get the Gates Foundation to lobby for federal legislative reforms that require public schools to treat gifted education on the model of special education. I assume that this is something that Davidson is already committed to, maybe even focused on, but the money and prestige of the Gates Foundation could bring a lot of attention to the issue. This goal is only tangential to the discussion of academics and sports, but if we are storming the Gates then it seems like a reasonable issue to focus on.

I'm just throwing ideas around here, in the spirit of brainstorming. But I think this is a truly exciting area to be thinking about.

BB

I don't have time at the moment to respond more than to say, I'm so happy to hear from someone named BaseballDad!

I'll figure out what I'm looking for as we go along.

BTW, my contacts are in the sports world, not Bill Gates, LOL! (which is not to say I'd be afraid to approach him...)

It's a big playing field. Plenty of room for all the heavy hitters!

(Could I come up with more lame sports metaphors? No, I'll stop for now...)

Thanks, Q. I really do think this is a terrific issue - thanks for bringing it up. As it happens I was a competitive athlete through college too, and I continue to have a pretty close personal connection with both college and professional athletics. But the baseball in BaseballDad belongs to my DS4!

BB

BB -- That's *exactly* what I was thinking, in regards to Bill Gates. I wonder if that's worth pursuing? Hmm ... interesting.

I'm honestly not sure what can be done about the anti-intellectualism -- but I'm happy to discuss and see what others think.

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.

Gifted kids need to be recognized a "high risk" group, but one with great potential, and the challenge is to get the general public to buy it. There is ample data on the relatively high drop-out rate of gifted kids but the lore is still that these kids will be just fine without any intervention needed. Maybe some stories could be told about the tragic side of high IQ.

delbows, I'm so glad you mentioned this:



I remembered last night after I posted that our local high school just received a million dollar gift of a turf field from parent boosters. That's how parents chose to make donations. So that brings me back to the pr angle again - why aren't parents with money making similar donations on a large scale to support the academic programs? Maybe b/c it's perceived as that's what the school is supposed to be doing? Maybe the large group of parents don't realize there is something that they could do? I guess the turf fields are perceived as extras, so there's no argument that that's what my tax dollars are supposed to do - there was no million dollar turf field in the school budget; it would never have passed.

I know on the local level many parents (and many here) are active doing just that in terms of (relatively) small purchases (e.g., software like Aleks for the classroom) and lots of volunteer time. But all those individuals would have to come together to change district practices.

Anyone old enough here to remember SRA reading? Our 4th or 5th grade class would have reading and each child would go up to the front of the room and grab their color-coded reading pamphlet, answer the comprehension questions and move on the next one and to the next level. Different levels in one room with one teacher. Hmmmm, maybe the answer is in the curriculum thing? Like the Aleks approach to math?

Yes, Jool, I'm in agreement about that. In fact, DS was a victim of just that - even after testing at DYS levels, we were told that he'll do fine wherever he is as long as he is supported for his writing. Turned out not to be true. I've had quite the education this year! That's partially why I'm thinking out loud here.

I wanted to clarify that that statement was made by one of the professionals we consulted - and I think the world of her. It just goes to show that the old GT perception remains. Our testing psych did say it will be hard no matter what where he goes - I just didn't understand what she meant. But all of this has been part of our learning process.

Oh, and let's not forget the emphasis in schools with NCLB of "lowering the academic achievement gap". (never heard that about sports achievement). If you are serving mainly high-income kids (which tend to be the ones who are identified due to higher parent involvement), it would be a barrier to federal goals. But I'm still hopeful that NCLB will become more gifted friendly And I think efforts like Question's could contribute to that end. We could use something to change America's reputation of being academically inferior to other countries.

I've been thinking about this. It seems obvious that none of us knows the answer or has the clout to do much about it, except in small doses for our own kids. Someone pointed out that the whole educational system needs to change. That's where someone like Bill Gates and his foundation might come in. I know it seems like a long shot, but it couldn't hurt to ask him something like "We see these issues in the current educational system, these effects on x group of kids, these effects on y group of kids etc. What we need is someone with ideas and money to find a better way to educate all kids. How would you be able to contribute to this project?". And, let him take an interest and take it on as a project (of course with all of our input, right!!). We could certainly do something like start our own group as a grass roots way to make changes. But, we'd need a big mind, a big name, and money to implement those changes. And very clear, specific goals on which to focus. Peronally, I'd love to change my school and school district but I don't have the time or the money.

I also think that none of these changes would come about soon enough to help our own children.

This is a good discussion, but we could discuss it from here until kingdom come and not be able to implement anything widescale. I am a firm believer, however, that it needs to come "from the people" and not from the government. Governement has already made a mess of things. That's also a hard part - making changes to a system so corrupted by government intervention. It is a systemic change and it has to take place on a societal level and it has to affect ALL children.

Or, we are going to have to unite as a group and start suing school districts like people did in the 70s for special education.

Just ideas. Everyone has something to contribute and we've had a lot of good ideas. Keep 'em coming.

I remember SRA and I really liked it. My teacher let me do SRA when I finished my work early and it was an incentive for me to finish early.

I was shocked to find out that in our school all the kids have to read the same books and do the same work regardless of their ability. Crayons are still on the school supply lists for 4th and 5th grade. I wonder if they are supposed to color when they finish their work early. This is one of many reasons we had to homeschool.

I agree with you Squirt. The government, by it's nature, is not going to make things better in terms of addressing individual gifted kids' needs. Legislation and common sense are too much at odds with each other. But NCLB exists, is likely here to stay, and it is a huge barrier to change as is. Districts ultimately gain government money by dumbing down the curriculum and teachers lose jobs for not teaching the bare minimum to the masses. Athletics don't (doesn't?) have these barriers that I'm aware of. I'm thinking suing as a group (and lobbying-$$) are some ways to address these barriers. I'm no attorney, but the fact that gifted kids learn *less* than other kids is educational inequity, no?

Okay, off to the beach...

I think that trying to change the whole school system is difficult, long range and usually top down doesn't work.

I mentioned that NYC is gifted crazy right now. But one by one, because of demand, schools are changing because parents are getting involved. Putting money and elbow grease to change schools, raising money. But in zones where parents are not involved, the schools are not changing.

When parents are not involved, you cannot change the whole school system. That is another kettle of fish.

Ren

I agree. I even heard this idea from a couple bright kids I knew who didn't get picked for the gifted program. They both said "I would really like to have gone to the Science museum. It's not fair." The perception was that the kids from the wealthy families got picked.

Alternatively, if acceleration was accessible to a larger chunk of students, people might start to see it as the norm. And if going on the special Science field trips was based on getting at least a B average in science class, then winning a spot could become a personal challenge.

See, I think a lot of the possibility for success here rests on getting rid of the elitist thing and turning acceleration into a personal challenge. Americans like to overcome obstacles and react negatively when something is perceived as given for reasons unrelated to achievement.

Obviously, I'm not trying to say we have a completely merit-based society. I'm trying to find ways to get a critical mass of parents on board, and this will only happen if they see themselves or their own kids in what's being discussed.

Val

This reminded me of a saying from a guy I used to work with, "Every village needs an idiot". He was content to do what was asked, and do it well, but would play the idiot instead of bringing up new ideas.

Anyway, I've skipped over most of the posts in this thread due to a lack of time. But the OP has an idea that I've toyed with for a while. We have band boosters and the sports booster clubs, why don't we form academic booster clubs? We could raise funds for academic competitions in the schools, don't limit participation to only the top kids unless there is a limit on how many can participate in any particular event. Then there could be try-outs to pick out who goes.

Now I've got to read the rest of this thread!

Yes, I enjoyed it. GS9's school uses AR, Accelerated Reading through Renaissance Learning. Same principle, but the comprehension tests are done on the computer. It's a fantastic program, imo. They also have an accelerated math program but the school considers it too costly.

Yes, I too remember the SRA reading, although I didn't remember the name until you described the color-coded readers. It was wonderful to be able to read at a level that was interesting and challenging. I would have hated school if I had been required to read "See spot run" all day.

My DS's school boast that they have differentiated reading groups that allow a child to read at their appropriate level. But I remember in first grade being absolutely stunned by what they considered appropriate reading material. Even though my son was testing on the computer-based Accelerated Reading (AR) program at a level of 3.4 (4th month into third grade), he was still given very simplistic books to read in class. They were not challenging at all, and were nowhere near as complex as what he read at home. The teacher just kind of shrugged and said that the books that she was assigning him were as advanced as she could get in first grade. So the school's differentiated reading groups meant that he was placed in the highest reading group that was reading on a level of 1.9 to 2.2. I would say that differentiation does not work for HG+ kids.

On a different note... I was wondering about getting someone like Bill Gates involved in speaking for gifted kids, and I had an idea. I know that when I started reading about gifted kids, their identifying characteristic, and their struggles in school, I recognized many of the concepts from my own childhood. I wonder if Bill Gates would become passionate about supporting gifted educational reform if he saw himself in some of the stories about gifted kids in books like "Genius Denied" (or other books). A letter might get lost in the shuffle... but who can resist picking up a book and leafing through it?

Maybe the co-authors of Genius Denied, Bob and Jan Davidson, as fellow self-made philanthropists, could send him a copy!

That was along the same lines as I was thinking, Debbie. Although for $24 (hardback), I wouldn't mind mailing a copy off to Bill myself.

It's the enticing letter to accompany it that I would struggle with. (and a mailing address that would actually reach the man and not a secretary, of course.)

I agree that the entire educational system needs to be revamped so all kids are accommodated at their own ability levels. Has anyone else been reading the No Child Left Behind Chatboard on teachers.net?

The only chance my son has at a good education is if I do it myself.

no lori can you provide a link?

You are all aware that Bill Gates passion/mission is more health related than education related? His foundation's main goal seems to be to work with health organizations to bring vaccines to third world countries. It would be great if someone could convince him to shift his focus, but at this point I don't think gifted education is in his radar.

Geography Bee and Mathcounts are two excellent examples of how an academic competition does not limit participation. And they both resemble regular athletic meets the most. They also tend to appeal to different group of kids.


My both kids disliked AR they were forced to do in early grades.The selection of books(and tests) was limited and the program kind of forces you to read what is on an AR list.

Really? There must be different purchase options for the quizzes.
For GS, I went out to AR quizzes and searched for the level, topic, fiction/nonfiction, etc., and got a list of books that met my specs. Then I looked for that book(online) at our library and checked it out. Then GS could read it & take the quiz.
His teacher also kept baskets of books, separated by level, in the classroom, although GS went through everything she had and exceeded the level available in the classroom. The school library also coded the books by AR level to help kids make their selections.
Anyway, there are tens of thousands of books/quizzes available. It does get limited to several thousand if you're searching for high level(middle school and up)/lower interest(middle school and down). It's also limited if you are searching for books not written in English.
I have heard of some teachers limiting the child to the selection of books within the classroom, is that what happened with your kids?

I think AR was good for my kids early-on (maybe until about 4th grade). It made them read or they didn't make their goals. After 3rd grade, their reading levels were too high, so that the books were either gigantic (and they'd forget a lot by the time they finished & tried to test), old-fashioned/difficult to read,inappropriate, etc. It took the joy out of reading. Then the goals became drudgery. One of the boys favorite thing about going to the charter middle school is that they DON'T have AR. The public schools here have AR through 8th grade.

Not entirely so! Here's the website:

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/default.htm

Note that the motto there is "Bringing innovations in health and learning to the global community."

They specifically focus on providing computers for schools and working with libraries. It looks like someone in the Pacific Northwest might have some luck getting help, too.

acs? That's your area, isn't it? Need anything?

Dottie, have you ever looked into why your schools have limited availability of the tests? GS has never been denied availability of any of the tests on the AR website. I generally don't look for new releases, but I'm pretty sure GS was able to take quizzes on all the Harry Potter books.

Cym, I found that to be a problem when selecting books at the top end of the reading level. But by searching for books at the desired level, but lower points, it gives results of books that are much shorter and quicker reads. So, GS would read 10 books at level 7 worth 1 point each instead of 1 book at level 7 worth 10 points. The result was same level, same total points. It got him through a spell where he would glance at a long book and whine, "It's too hard". Now he doesn't give a thought to the length.

I do admit that many of the books GS uses for AR come from the public library. Many of the higher reading levels are for middle school/high school interest level and they do not have them in the elementary school, but they still have the quiz available in the elementary school.
I have been pre-screening his books for the last year, except for Harry Potter. Those aren't my taste and his friend was reading them.

Sometimes I get a little perturbed about the lack of services for GT at our school, you just gave me some reasons to be thankful about what is available in our school! Some of these things seem to be dependent upon the teacher, I hope things keep going the way they did last school year.

http://teachers.net/mentors/NCLB/

Our school got computers from the Gates Foundation.