Hi folks, I would love your thoughts on this. One of my sons is starting at a school for exceptionally gifted kids which we are thrilled about. He definitely needs the stimulating environment.

What I've been struggling with though is he language that is being used (eg parent orientation). They continuously talk about how these kids are so special / have great emotional needs etc.

I understand our children are special but as a parent of 3 aren't all kids special? Don't all kids have needs? I do think gifted kids need different educational opportunities but it's the labeling of the behavior that bothers me (eg iq of 120? You're a jerk. Iq of 130? They're overexcitabilities).

I think every child of every iq level comes with challenges, gifts (kindness is a great one!) and has a responsibility to behave. I don't like the idea of excuses being made because of a child's iq.

Anyway just thought I'd throw that out there - your thoughts? In my son's last classroom, lots of kids had intensities and they were definitely not gifted.

I've wondered about this. There's a continuum (or several continuums) of abilities, and any arbitrary cutoff is arbitrary.

Some things are true about different educational needs, such as, more intellectually able kids need more advanced material (maybe 1 or more grades ahead of their age), faster coverage, less repetition, less practice, deeper coverage, more challenging problems, and so on. Again it's a continuum. These educational needs don't just switch on above a certain arbitrary cutoff.

But as an immigrant to the USA who wonders about this, it seems there's a lot of history and politics to this whole gifted thing. Many countries have "tracking" (or "streaming" or "ability grouping"), where students of different ability levels are put into different classrooms or different schools, so within any classroom students are at similar levels, and the teacher can teach at the right level for all students (except maybe those at extreme highs or lows). For various reasons the concept of tracking has met with viscious opposition in the USA. In the absence of tracking, parents and students try to figure how they can carve out some niche where they can get a more suitable education, but they may have to be careful to disguise it as something other than tracking, to evade attack. This gives the imperative to the idea that "gifted" students are in a "special needs" niche.

Do I think gifted kids are special?
In general, yes.
(Yeah, I know that every child is special in his own way and all that, but I think that, quite frequently, a gifted kid is especially special -- how 'bout that?)

Do I think giftedness should be used to excuse poor behavior?
Nope.

Do I think that improper accommodation of a gifted kid in school can sometimes offer an explanation for poor behavior?
Yes.

The term "special" is just so trite at this point. {sigh}

It's what "gifted" was about 1990, I think.

It's gradually become code for a style of parenting which is mostly about entitlement and recognition from outsiders of a child's exceptionality, with little actual regard for reality, come to that-- but, um-- only the positive aspects. Of course.


The real issues of being high-cognitive ability are a decidedly mixed bag, and there's not much that you can do about those facts of a child's state of being any more than you'd determinedly attempt to alter a child's PHYSICAL development. It would be considered barbaric. So even if your child is the tallest one in his/her class of agemates, or has some other attribute that s/he loathes and feels makes him/her "different" or "weird" then...

yes, "special," I suppose. Though that isn't what the term is generally accepted to mean these days.

Are kids (or people, really) who are in the 1st or 99th percentile "special"?

Yes, I believe that they are. Most human systems are best-suited to the middle third of the natural distribution of ANY human trait. Ask someone in the 99th percentile in height how well they like an airline seat or a random rental car, for example.

Why is it wrong to note that cognitive function operates along a normal distribution, as well?

THAT, it seems to me, is the real heart of the matter. We accept that a 100% "growth mindset" is probably delusional when it comes to other developmental traits, but refuse to admit it when it comes to academic ability and achievement. Yes, WORK is necessary to meet potential-- but let's just be honest and admit that not all potentials are identical. Hard work can move individuals into various states of meeting their individual potential, all right-- but just as four hours a day in my backyard or at the gym is not going to turn me into Serena Williams, no amount of after-school-tutoring is going to turn a bright, but neurotypical student into a person like my child, my self, or my spouse. We are "different" in that way from most people. Just like elite athletes are inherently somewhat different from me, with my mediocre athletic ability.


Parents who are genuinely parenting gifted children, I've found, tend to talk mostly about the challenges of not fitting the system the way it exists, and how to get needs met in a world that isn't intended to serve them or their kids. NOT about little Johnny or Suzie's latest adorable and extraordinary photo-op or point of awesomeness. We don't need anyone to tell us that our kids are special, we don't care about wearing a badge that says we're entitled to live vicariously through them, and honestly, we don't ASSUME their accomplishments as our own.

We, um, also don't tend to ATTRIBUTE our accomplishments to our children, which is something else that I have seen an awful lot of among the parents that seem to need the label for reasons that have little to do with their child's needs at all, and mostly to do with wanting a badge that says "Special Parent" with a few gold stars next to it.



As for the question in the thread title, it depends largely on how one defines "gifted." Numerically, some definitions imply that the top 3% of cognitive ability constitutes the "gifted" population. Well, is three persons per hundred "special?"

Okay, maybe it isn't. But at some point out there, moving to rarer and rarer innate cognitive ability, it does cross the line, right? I'm thinking that just where that line is probably is a subjective thing. I don't consider that MG persons are all that "special." That's merely my perspective, however-- they seem "bright" but not extraordinary. There's not a clear bright line that divides gifted from not-gifted, after all.

Now, relative to "bright" people, say, at the 90th percentile of ability, a profoundly gifted person IS extraordinary. They will perceive the world in terms that others don't grasp, don't understand, or see only far more slowly. That's all, though-- I dislike the mythology that there is some corresponding deficit to those who have extraordinary cognitive ability like that. PG people have higher cognitive ability. "Lower _______" isn't part of some universal package deal. That's as ridiculous as claiming that athletic ability comes solely with being an arrogant jerk, or being deficient in cognitive ability, which is also untrue.

What HowlerKarma said. :-)

Yes, yes they are.

Emotional needs of the gifted. Yes they are very different. And I fervently believe that they should be addressed.

A couple of years ago I went to my GP with symptoms of depression. A lot had happened in the 3 months leading to this appointment and I was overwhelmed. I completed a simple checklist, was prescribed a drug and given a referral to a counselor.

I took one dose of the drug. The side effects (of which I had been properly warned) were unbearable. I didn't take any more of the drug, but followed through with the counselor.

The counselor was not 100% on board with my not taking the drug, but agreed to see me, while I tried a regimen of cutting sugar and exercising regularly (I knew I'd been eating too much sugar and it has always negatively affected my mood).

So, months of coping strategies later (which helped greatly btw), I happened to mention that my oldest DS had been accepted into a GT program. My counselor went into a long diatribe about how I'll have to be very patient with DS because "he sees the world differently than you do." He gave me examples of how the gifted see the world with much more nuance and that how it's easy for them to become overwhelmed with anxiety or perfectionism because they are frustrated with the fact that the rest of the people in the world cannot see the detail they do, or appreciate the depth with which they interpret events in their lives.

I responded with my SAT and IQ test scores. To which he responded had he known this we could have saved a lot of time. And that sometimes the gifted appear to have anxiety or depression when in reality they are just coping with the disconnect they feel with their age peers. Bingo. End of therapy.

This is anecdotal, I know, but I can personally appreciate how the gifted, just by being ourselves, can appear to be suffering from any number of disorders, simply because we are intrinsically DIFFERENT from 99% of the population.

My mother is not gifted. She does not understand what I just wrote about, and she fears I'm a little crazy. She always will, I can't change her mind, because you see, she thinks she's really smart and can't fathom that I'm really that different from her. That is the danger of combining bright kids with gifted kids. The bright kids can't accept the fact that the gifted kids will always get there first. I'm continuously accused of cheating, sandbagging, holding back information because I'll spout something out that no one ever thought of before, and they can't fathom that yes, sometimes the gifted have flashes of brilliance. And sometimes we lose it emotionally because we are overwhelmed with the input wee are getting. And that's what it's all about.

So, if your child has the opportunity to learn in an atmosphere where educators actually appreciate and understand him/her and are willing to accommodate him/her, then that is one lucky child.

Then there are the statistics that say they're special in needs, such as suicide and depression statistics associated with GT children.

I have this very same issue!

Education isn't a basic human right, it IS, however, a basic human responsibility of a parent to educate their child and THAT is why you're advocating for your child. Unfortunately in the U.S. we all too often point fingers at other places than ourselves as parents when it comes to responsibility for our children.

I agree. From what I've seen so far, Dabrowski's theory appears to be based on anecdata, yet it's increasingly cited as gospel by various gifted experts.

Yes, gifted kids have serious educational needs. So do lots of other kids. And I agree with MON, it's ridiculous how hard it can be for a parent to work with school to get those needs met, and aggravating to see how many kids do not get them met.

Glad yours has what looks like a good school placement!

I think that pretty much everyone is special to someone (even criminals have fan clubs). Clearly, children are special to their families.

That said, people with any kind of gift are special in a different way because they can do something that most ohter people can't or can't do nearly as well. If they weren't special, we wouldn't use the term gift to refer to their talents.

With respect to kids with cognitive gifts, yes, they're special, just as gifted adults are. Very intelligent people can think in ways that other people can't. Giftedness is more than being able to learn quickly; it's also a increased capacity to make connections that most other people can't make. So IMO, people with very high cognitive abilities are special in a significant and important way. It's very frustrating for me to see that our schools generally ignore this fact.

Gifted is a big basket. Did anyone see Adrian Romoff on AGT? That is a "special" gifted kid, with extraordinary talent, drive and intelligence. I think it would be a little difficult in a regular classroom with peers and he is in school but highly accelerated. Now you get gifted classes with 98th percentile scores through to 99.9. For the last 3 years, DD was in a classroom of kids who were pretty much in the 99th percentile, most 99.5, guessing. Now she is in the 98th and up and she wonders why they are considered gifted. So I defined special as having special needs. I do not lump all gifted kids like that. You said EG school. I think accomodating accelerated subject matter, teaching a little differently but I wouldn't call that special but more differentiated.

We had this problem with the gifted class my son was in during elementary school. Many of the kids in that class seemed to feel that they were better than the kids in the regular classes. Many of them were just copying their parents & the teacher. It wasn't received well by the other kids on the playground and was one of the downsides to the class.

UNESCO would beg to differ with the section I bolded.

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/leading-the-international-agenda/right-to-education/

That said, I agree with the corollary that it is definitely also a parental responsibility, and that too many parents abdicate this important responsibility.

This kind of bothers me. Gifted kids tend to be far more sensitive than non-gifted children; they DO have "great emotional needs". All too often, I see people dismiss that as "all children are special" or "every child of every iq level comes with challenges" when, in fact, gifted kids have an OVERWHELMINGLY heightened sensitivity that is often dismissed by those around them.

This article explains the emotional intensity pretty well:
http://www.davidsongifted.org/db/Articles_id_10240.aspx

"Intellectual complexity goes hand in hand with emotional depth. Just as gifted children's thinking is more complex and has more depth than other children's, so too are their emotions more complex and more intense."

It isn't that they are being overly excitable or a jerk; it's that their world is intense and overwhelming and scary. They have to learn how to process and filter to a greater depth than non-gifted children.

It's not just sensory or emotions; it's also justice and morals.
http://www.sengifted.org/archives/a...ed-children-and-the-evolution-of-society
"Many parents (such as B’s mother above) have reported that their gifted children seemed to have an innate sense of right and wrong."

It's the fact that they can be four, speaking like a ten-year-old, reading high-school material, and still sucking their thumb. Adults forget that they are four because of their vocabulary and diction, and expect more of their behavior; they're still just four-year-olds sucking their thumb. Gifted children develop asynchronously and may be able to read college-level material while still writing in kindergarten handwriting (backward letters and all).

Gifted children have different needs and those needs very often go unmet by the world around them, particularly schools who refuse to acknowledge that some children have special NEEDS.

Exactly-- this is the overwhelming sense that one gets from our local GT services, as well; and they identify a full 30% of the kids in some schools. In that instance, I simply have to SCOFF that this is a "special" population by my use of the notion. That's the UPPER THIRD.

If "regular" education isn't serving those kids, then they need to fix that, not wring their hands and tell parents what a challenging problem this is. Because... it isn't. Not unless they are grossly incompetent as educators, I mean.

So that kind of rhetoric, used with THAT population, is pure entitlement and it. is. ODIOUS.

It's the sort of thinking that marginalizes truly "special" GT students (that is, those who are more like 1: 10,000 or so), those with 2e needs, etc. The kids that can't really FUNCTION in an undifferentiated setting, I mean.

Because the parents with kids at the 90th percentile are largely wanting to be told how Very Exceptionally ESPECIALLY SPECIAL their little snowflakes are, and look, X, Y, and Z... (basically, first-world-problems, ad nauseum-- the most challenging thing for many of them is whining that orchestra overlaps sports practices too many days of the week, that there is too much reading expected at home, and that the geometry teacher needs to accommodate track meets with less homework, or something like that)

In that instance the "Special" club can only have just so many seats, see, or it isn't exclusive any more. (Which feels faintly ridiculous anyway given that this already seems an awful lot like Lake Wobegon, given the bizarre, credulity-stretching statistics involved in this big picture, but whatever). Can't have the "wrong kind" of kids in here, either...

It also leads parents to feel that it is perfectly fine when their little darlings are insufferable gits-- to other adults, to teachers, or to their classmates.

I get that being out of sync with the world is hard. I live it too. But that does NOT NOT NOT excuse being cruel or downright NASTY and arrogant to less intellectually able people around you. EVER. It particularly doesn't excuse the behavior when you and the the other 30% of the school are all "special" like that. Not so exclusive that you ought to be using it as a badge of martyrdom to begin with, KWIM?

That's the kind of thing that gives real programs for students that have extraordinary needs a bad, bad name.

It also makes me enraged to listen to this kind of unmitigated whinging from upper middle class parents who have no concept of real educational, financial, or social problems of the kind of magnitude that the less fortunate kids in the district's classrooms face on a regular basis. Yes, I get that your kid being at the 90th percentile and not being able to fit football, basketball, martial arts, theater, AND two musical instruments in with the heavy homework load of AP classes must... really, really suck. Well, no. I don't, but I trust that it FEELS like adversity to you. But it doesn't excuse stepping on the kids that get lunch only because it's FREE, and can't afford any of your kid's extracurriculars because they are WORKING to help their families. Those kids don't have tutors to help them keep up the "special" banner, and nobody expects them to be nasty to others, either.

I fault administration for being cowed by over-entitled parents, myself. I was beyond appalled when getting the accommodations that College Board said my kid should have (for the SAT) meant demonstrating for the gatekeeping troll at the local school that my PG child was "worth it." Well, what if she weren't?? What if she was likely to just score a respectable 1700 and not a 2200+ on the day? It angers me, that attitude. NEEDING the accommodations should have been reason enough.



I realize this sounds rather bitter, but it's the kind of thinking that goes "Oh, we have a "special" group for the really Special Kids" which ultimately prevents authentic supports for kids who are truly exceptional in terms of educational needs.

When you offer "enrichment for all" that's a laudable goal. When the reality turns out to be "enrichment for the ideally advantaged in every way," that's just wrong. It adds insult to injury when that group treats everyone else as if they are subhuman via an air of entitlement.

Disenfranchisement may be part and parcel of being "special" (in the cognitive sense or in any other, I suspect), but feeling superior and put-upon certainly is NOT. I think that the OP's discomfort with the whiff of that kind of rhetoric would have made me feel a bit squicky as well.

What excuses are you referring to? Giftedness isn't a get-out-of-jail free card for misbehaviour, nor is it a guarantee of misbehaviour. It's a state of being that might elicit stronger-than-usual reactions to various stimuli because of heightened perception of various facets of the world.

Apologies for the tangent but this stuck a chord...


A friend of mine *used* to do recruiting for Carnegie-Mellon until the day that a kid that had stellar grades at school and a full-time job outside school ( he was the main breadwinner for the family) was rejected by the admissions office for not having any extra-curricula activities. Feeding his family was his EC for crying out loud! It was then that he realised that ECs are used as a covert proxy for SES by the admissions office at Carnegie-Mellon. This sickened him so much that after doing the recruiting for years he resigned from it.

I've seen similar. Egregious.

Thanks everyone for your thoughtful replies. I understand a cognitive gift is a gift that requires differentiation. But I would love to see research that supports the overexcitability theory. I do have a 99.9 child who is going into what seems to be an amazing program and he is so even keeled that I'm wondering has anybody truly researched the concept of overexcitabilities or is it just a theory that's gone mainstream? All 3 of our children are gifted but it seems the "least" gifted has the most "overexcitabilities" so I've never attributed them to his giftedness - just an amazing kid learning to manage/process his emotions (like half the kids in his classroom).

Anyway if anybody has links to actual research studies (versus anecdotal evidence) I would love to read them. Not trying to make an argument - just want to know if there is validity to the current one.

Personally, I subscribe to the theory (socially) which suggests that to whom much is given... much is also expected. That's the breaks.

So I hold my daughter to a HIGHER standard as a result of her higher order thinking. She is better able to understand when her behavior is selfish, hurtful, or thoughtless toward others. I consider it my duty as her parent to correct any behavior that crosses that line.


It's a burden to have a mind-mouth pair that can cut others to the quick in a moment of frustration. In order to be a decent human being, one really MUST learn extraordinary levels of control over that particular set of superpowers. IME, anyway-- it is sometimes a real struggle not to say the first thing that pops into my head when I'm irritated, and I have a serious gift for telling people things that haunt them for years and make them question their self-worth. DD has it, too, because she's a complete empath and generally knows what makes other people tick-- though she has less of a tendency to turn it on others than I did at her age. I had to find a spouse who can truly forgive and forget... because I still have that impulse only imperfectly reined in when I get seriously angry.

It's an awful thing to do to someone less verbally/intellectually able than yourself, quite frankly. And usually, my frustration is related to others not being able to see what I see, or go where I can go mentally, or at least not as fast as I can. I'm very good at apologizing, but it's just not enough. You can't un-say the words.

I don't consider high intellectual ability to be an EXCUSE so much as a possible reason. There can BE no excuse for cruelty like that. I don't care whether it is a "natural" part of being at a high LOG or not. The hurt that you can cause others is just as real to them, too-- and they're special to someone as well.

I can use my son as an example. In 6th grade he had really BAD behavior. And while giftedness didn't excuse his behavior it did help us understand the cause behind the behavior. Simply "punishing" him for behaving badly made things worse. Once we had a better understanding of his behavior we were able to treat the real issues and what coping strategies would help in the long run.

I think this post thoroughly explains how I felt. Good one!

Solution: Bring back tracking. Top to bottom, with 10, or at most 15 IQ points range (or whatever measure of ability is relevant to the class topic).

90th percentile students (IQ 120) should not have to share a classroom with 50th percentile students (IQ 100). They are just too different.

It is indefensible to believe that gifted students have a right to a separate class from the rest, without also believing that 90th percentile students (IQ 120) students have a right to a separate class from 50th percentile students (IQ 100).

There. I've said it.

They can beg all they want, education is a service, as is medical attention. Goods and services provided individuals aren't a right, they're an individual good / service. At least in the U.S. there is a Constitution and Bill of Rights, education isn't listed in either from my readings of them, if you find otherwise, please correct my error.

If you want to change the conversation to what is reasonable to expect of education as return on taxes intended to support public education, I'm happy to discuss that as a separate matter, however, education is most certainly not a right.

Other than Somalia, the United States is the only UN member country in the world that hasn't ratified the UN Convention on the rights of the child, which provides for education as a fundamental right. I think that preponderance of assent suggests the US position is incorrect.

It would be interesting, perhaps in another thread though, to look at gifted education in other countries, especially those that are becoming leaders in education. As far as I know, East Asian countries have "elite" schools or programs but entrance is all achievement based.

The whole problem with the mentality of goods and services being a "right" is that they use resources that aren't those of the one who is receiving the good / service.

No, I think the U.S. has it correct and the majority of the rest of the world has it wrong. Rights are not things that can be purchased, they're not things that cost money to acquire, rights are freedoms to pursue, not something that is a service that is owed another. I shudder to think of a future where people feel others owe them goods and services, this is why so many are struggling, the failure to face reality.

I haven't looked it up recently, but I seem to recall that on the whole, studies show that gifted people have about the same rates of depression, suicide, etc as the general population? Which would mean that no, gifted kids aren't that special in terms of socioemotional needs, on the whole. That's not to say that one's own gifted kid doesn't have special emotional needs, of course.

This is such an interesting and important topic! In sum, yes, gifted kids are special - in the sense that they have needs that are different from the majority of the population with regard to cognitive abilities and social and emotional needs.

I write as "the poster child for underachievement" as declared repeatedly by my PG DH. From where he sits, he sees me as "one of the most uneducated people" he knows who graduated from an Ivy with an undergraduate and 2 graduate degrees. I do agree with him. What is really nuts - to me - is that I didn't really get what he meant until I started to go through the wringer with my PG child at school.

None of my story is intended to be a 'woe is me' thing. It's just been fascinating to me to see the kind of educational damage that can be done by completely, "benigning" ignoring the needs of a gifted child. And I'm not even PG! I grew up thinking that school was for instantly sizing up a teacher, figuring out what made her/him tick and then to spend all of my time playing the game. It became a game for me to see how little I could do to achieve the highest grades. When I tell you that I read NOT ONE novel that was assigned for school - even through graduate school - I am dead serious. Not one. But I graduated at the top of my class. I never learned to work at anything until my first job in my second professional career - and only because I used to take on the most complex cases.

As far as the emotional needs of gifted children, I see where you are coming from OP. Understanding about the needs of gifted children doesn't excuse their behavior. It just makes it easier to help them to develop an understanding of their behavior and it gives the adults in their lives a good roadmap, or just some guidance, on how to best assist them. I had the benefit of not even knowing that my DS7 was PG until he was 6 years old. I didn't understand that he was that different with regard to cognitive/emotional needs because he was my first child and he reminds me of me when I was a kid. (Although I may not be of the same intellectual ability as my son, he and I are completely alike in the overexcitabilities/emotional intensity department.) This "not knowing" perspective was beneficial because I didn't spend my time measuring up my child to other children. I was just motoring along trying to let him reveal himself to me and trying to meet his needs as I could. (I find a lot of parents in my neck of the woods spend so much time comparing their children to others and so much time trying to find "enhancing" or "enriching" activities for their babies and toddlers that they don't even see or respond to what is right in front of them.) I continue to use the same parenting approach with my DS and other children but now I have the very awesome benefit of being educated on the needs of highly gifted + kids.

As I continue to learn about the emotional needs of gifted kids, I repeatedly have "a-ha!" days. Oh - I wasn't a crazy freak at 8 years old when I could REALLY empathize with a teacher's illness or when I made the school janitor, at 6 years old, a lovely going away card because I was always so deeply touched by the way he smiled and genuinely cared for the children in our school. I remember spending a lot of time watching this particular janitor - he was meticulous and was one of the warmest humans I knew at the school. He barely spoke English and had a very large family that he was supporting. I remember kids teased me mercilessly because of this rather subdued paternal affection I had for this janitor. It would have been a truly remarkable thing for me if someone had just NORMALIZED my intensities for me. I spent my entire childhood, adolescence and a good part of my young adulthood trying to figure out what was wrong with me when it was just plain and simple gifted sensitivities. (Of course, it is more than that. But I believe I wouldn't have had such a hard time growing up if I had some understanding about intensities and if some adult in my life could have oriented me - even just a little bit.)

I don't understand families who desperately want to have their children labeled as gifted. I recall when my DS7 was a toddler and he was delayed in some aspects of his development. I never spent a moment thinking, "I wish" he could do this or that. I just always tried to and currently try to see him as he is and meet him where he is at. Maybe that's the benefit of all the years of therapy I've had. Maybe I'm just a good mommy :-). But as others have noted, the eager beaver parents are ruining things for the kids who truly have special needs.

Finally, I do meet some self-hating gifties. To some extent, I used to be one of them. There was a point in my life, where I scoffed and bristled at the usage of the term "gifted". It's not a great term, sure. But because of the lack of understanding of what gifted really is and the unresponsive and distorted programs that exist, I believe that there are some gifted adults who have internalized some of the tiger parents' quiet and angry resentment. It's vitally important to protect and try to grow true gifted programs and services for gifted children.

When last I looked, (and admittedly, it's been a while) rates of affective disorder and particular schizoid disorders are, in fact elevated substantially at one end of the bell curve.

But in the big picture sense, no, mental health and socioemotional dysfunction is no more common among those who are HG+ than it is among those who are NT.

But it is somewhat different, based on a completely reasonable extrapolation of that information (which was from multiple studies, though none of them very high quality)-- so if you looked at the Terman data, for example, if you just look for "mental health" problems, no more common. If it's broken out further, though, some patterns emerge.

Existential depression seems quite common, for example, leading me to believe that some of those problems are likely genetic (and maybe linked to high IQ) and that others, particularly those in the anxiety and affective areas, might be situational.

Some of them are linked to task-avoidant/socially-prescribed perfectionism, for example-- that particular TYPE of perfectionism seems rare in those who are not HG+ in some domain.

That's not to say that disordered eating, procrastination, and existential depression can't be happening in someone who doesn't HAVE socially-prescribed perfectionism, but it is a wicked strong correlation in those who DO.

Again--the cure for this is internal and it's external. Sufficiently challenging and supportive circumstances are the cure for those who are HG. Underperformance in circumstances that require THAT of HG+ persons is an expressway to existential angst.

Start by re-reading the 9th.

I Googled a little--it looks like there's some evidence for higher rates of depression and suicide among gifted people whose gifts lie in the creative realms, specifically writing and visual arts (so--my DD). There may also be higher rates of eating disorders, although there we have some issues with controlling for the fact that wealthier, more educated families are more able to afford residential inpatient care for EDs. There's some interesting new stuff on EDs, btw--they're finding some evidence for genes playing a role.

I don't know if anyone's ever studied the "existential depression" thing with a for-real study. It comes up a lot. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, since I've seen it in both of my children.

I don't place much stock in the Terman data, myself. It's interesting, but it's just too old to be applicable to today's children.

I don't think there's really a lot out there on any of this. I personally think the GT community has strayed into fetishizing anecdata and that yes, there is a bit of creeping "specialism" at work. A lot of kids from all walks of life and all IQ bands have mental health concerns or are emotionally sensitive or have SPD or are anxious.

I do think there may be *particular* concerns or problems or social issues that are more common to gifted children, such as concern for justice, perfectionism, overcorrecting others, and underachievement in response to social pressure. It's useful to be aware of these common issues.

The Constitution clearly spells out both negative (those which require inaction to protect) and positive rights (those which require action, or in your terminology, services owed to the people). The 5th, 6th, 7th and 14th Amendments all describe positive rights.

I just did and I didn't see one word in there referring to education as a right. Your interpretation of the 9th must read a lot into it.

Yes, my interpretation DID read a lot into it, but that's by design. The framers (and Madison in particular) intentionally put that one in to say that just because the Constitution doesn't say you have a right guaranteed by law, doesn't mean you don't. It opens up the door to all sorts of unenumerated rights, like privacy and property.

Exactly-- any connection to mental health dysfunction is probably linked via mechanism to those common areas of poor fit (with respect to more typical educational or social settings).

But it's not easy to study that sort of thing.

The right to an education is written into state constitutions (Old Dad, remember that the federal government doesn't have the last word on rights). For example, the California Constitution is pretty specific:

Yes, but even at a federal level, a right to education can be established without amending the Constitution. All that's necessary is for sufficient legislation and public consciousness to decide that a right to an education is a thing.

AFAIK, the last time the Supreme Court directly addressed this question was 1973, in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez. Since that time, we've had significant Congressional legislation (ADA, IDEA, NCLB) which clearly establish access to an education as a protected right (hello, FAPE!).

*****************

I did do some additional research on the topic including reading through numerous articles. Any mention of education as a right I've not yet seen mentioned and the articles I've read agree with that mindset thus far.

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2013/08/why-there-isnt-a-constitutional-right-to-an-education/


http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/edu/ed370/federal.html

A state law can make something a right within that state, however, it's not a federal right.

Simply put, having a right that depends on the resources of others I simply can't recognize as being a right but rather a good / service.

Defining "education" as a right also opens a whole can of worms. Education can never be clearly defined as to what an appropriately supplied by the public / government and is even more complex to track and ensure as is evidenced by the fact that we all frequent this forum.

Defining education as a right granted by the government means ultimately that we as a people owe "you" (whoever you may be) an appropriate education out of our pocket. I don't owe you that, that's your responsibility, not mine. Obviously far too many don't have that mindset or we wouldn't have so many crying all over about their college loans and how the payments are so high, something they should have considered before signing on.

I haven't read all the replies. I actually don't like a "nurture gifted children because they will do great things approach" so in that way no they are no more special than kids at the other end of the curve. They do have different needs to be the best they can (as to kids at the other end). I just want my sons to have to be wretched and learn stuff. I want at least the same funding per student a kid on the 0.01 percentile would get (maybe amend that to 5th percentile to simplify as I suspect someone on the o.o1 percentile would need 24 hour care. Unfortunately funding for kids on the left hand side of the curve isn't enough either (1 hour a day aide for the kid who has several years delay, the deaf kid only gets an interpretor for 3 hours a day, parents of elautisic children have to constantly fight to keep assistance) which makes it harder to argue for equal rights without seeming insensitive.

Air and water are goods...public goods, both of which are prerequisites to life. Further, children are either born naturally or surgically, which are both services rendered to the child to facilitate life. No money exchanges hands in either transaction, but economic value and opportunity cost exist and are conferred to the individual by others. We could even go back a step and define conception as a service rendered by parents unto their progeny. Under your definition, the right to life could plausibly be denied.

We should start a new thread because we've hijacked this one. Apologies OP!

Look at the descriptions you find online describing gifted / highly gifted / profoundly gifted children.

If you are not experiencing anything extraordinary, then that is great too - it is just not a gifted or HG / PG profile.

It is genetic. You already would have an inkling that it runs in your family trees.

The years from 0-preschool are most amazing. 1. The gifted person does not remember those years, so when they witness it in their own child, it is astounding, shocking and unnerving.
2. It blows parents away because it shows that we are born this way and knowledge is very healthy and natural. For example, not everyone needs to be taught how to read. Some people teach themselves by age two years for example.

Due to the internet, people are sharing and accumulating their experiences, normally these people are dispersed. We are finding common experiences and abilities.

Every ten points of IQ probably does make a difference and you can see it when you study a larger population of high IQ people.

Mensa might say that every 1 out of 50 people can be gifted, but gifted people probably wish that were the case. It might be the case on the campus of Stanford University for example.

A non-gifted person would not be happy in a highly gifted environment. You'll be able to tell right away. The gifted people are true brains. Some people think baseball pitchers do amazing things. This is very similar but you can't really see what's happening because it is inside someone's mind, but it is amazing nonetheless - not physical per se, but mental achievement - not movie star hype, just old-fashioned genius, maybe along the lines of Edison, Franklin, Socrates, Plato, anyone that is known for true mental genius. You know it when you experience it. There's an energy to it. It's intense.

I'm enjoying this thread! When my DS7 was a toddler and preschooler, we didn't know he was "gifted," but he was a handful. I've come to realize now that "giftedness" is one lens through which I can understand his behavior. It doesn't make it an excuse or the "be all end all" explanation-- but knowing where he is intellectually does explain some things and enables us help him find better coping mechanisms.

As for being "special"-- he's in the 99.9 percentile for intellect and achievement for his age. While I have too have issues with the word "special" (especially if it implies that my kid is better or more deserving- he's not) in sheer math terms, make him different.

For example: DS was disengaged and unhappy in a regular, traditional classroom. The more both he and I tried to talk with the teacher, the more his situation was misunderstood. The teacher continually kept trying to convince me that DS had issues with comprehension even though their own testing demonstrated (emphatically) otherwise. I think it was because the "sheer math" was not on our side- DS is an outlier and it's easier and more understandable for a teacher to look for more obvious explanations when a kid is struggling.

Wesupportgifted - yes, I agree with what you've said BUT I caution putting a lot of stock into IQ as the motivator or engine. One might have a super high IQ but limited curiosity or much of a drive to create.

Then, there's the issue of 2e kids and that muddies the situation. If you're child is not in the 99.9% but ends up being Jamie Oliver (who's dyslexic, started working at 8 yrs old in his parents' restaurant, and probably wasn't identified as 'gifted' in school).

Traditional, mainstream classrooms are a one-size-fit-all, but we don't all fit that mold regardless of IQ or giftedness.

PG or exceptional kids or those who appear to be pg/eg usually have different needs from the mainstream or norm. A Jamie Oliver (who probably doesn't have a super IQ) is an outlier. He's unlikely to have his needs met by a traditional, mainstream classroom or possibly even a 'gifted' school. The reality is that a Jamie Oliver may need something very individualized and tailored for him to really thrive.

I've dealt with numerous kids either in foster care are on the edge, some gifted, some not. I bring this up because kids have all sorts of reasons for bad behavior, acting out, whatever you want to call it. Unless the child has some sort of social disability ( I don't know enough in that area to include them), it should NEVER be an excuse. Excusing bad behavior sets the child up to be an abuser of others. However, understanding what is driving bad behavior can help you to guide the child into better behavior. There is a balance. In general, I agree with Howler Karma...to whom much is given, much is required.

I tell my two gifted ones that they are gifted and brilliant, but who cares? It doesn't matter if you are brilliant. What are you going to do with it? Everybody has been given something and you can squander it away and do nothing with your life just like anybody else, but is that really the person you want to be.

I consider my job as a parent, whether in the realm of intelligence, spirituality, and talents is to train them and give them the opportunity to get the most out of what they have been given naturally and from our home environment. What they do with it as adults is on them.